Results in Fig. 4b show that in the absence of a plasmid encoding MalI, as expected, these insertions have but small effects on MelR-dependent repression of the melR promoter. However, with plasmid pACYC-malI, which encodes MalI, there is a clear small significant relief of repression with the TB334I-1 and TB334I-2 IWR-1 solubility dmso fragments carrying one or two MalI operator elements, but no relief with the control TB31, TB33 or TB334 fragments. The expression of many transcription repressors is autoregulated by repression (Browning & Busby, 2004). Kahramanoglou et al. (2006) proposed a two-state model for MelR in which, in the absence of its ligand, melibiose, MelR acts as an autorepressor of

its own production by repressing the melR promoter. Samarasinghe et al. (2008) showed that this repression was due to the formation of a nucleoprotein complex involving four MelR subunits. Here, we report that it is possible to construct simpler derivatives of the melR promoter where only two MelR targets are needed for efficient repression (Fig. 1), and there are clear parallels between this and AraC-dependent repression at the araC–araBAD intergenic region, where repression is dependent on interaction between two AraC subunits bound to targets separated by 210 base

pairs (Schleif, 2010). An explanation for the observed repression with the TB33 fragment is that MelR subunits bound at the upstream and downstream DNA targets interact and result in loop formation, as for AraC. However, there appears to be more flexibility in how the selleck two DNA sites for MelR Aprepitant can be juxtaposed, compared to AraC. Hence, AraC-dependent repression is disrupted by +5 base pair insertions (Lee & Schleif, 1989), whilst MelR-dependent repression is not (Fig. 2). The simplest explanation for this would be that the linker joining the N- and C-terminal domains is more flexible in MelR than in AraC. This flexibility is underscored by the experiment in Fig. 4 where MalI binding failed to completely disrupt repression. This experiment also argues that the mechanism of MelR-dependent repression with TB33 is different to the mechanism operating at the more complex

wild type melibiose operon regulatory region in TB22 (Fig. 1), where repression depends on the formation of a nucleoprotein complex. In the new constructs described here, efficient repression of the melR promoter by MelR requires interaction between MelR bound immediately adjacent to the transcript start and upstream-bound MelR, and this can be subverted by the insertion of a supplementary DNA site for MelR (Fig. 3). Hence, efficient repression results from two, but not from three, DNA sites for MelR. Our experiments underline the diversity of protein–DNA architectures that can be responsible for transcription repression. This work was supported by the UK BBSRC with a project grant to S.J.W.B. and a summer studentship to D.D.