metallidurans[31]. This indicates that sigF is obviously not strongly auto-regulated under heavy metal stress conditions. Although the experimentally determined promoter sequences of sigF and CC3254 are highly similar to each other, promoter activity analyses supported our observation that CC3254 is solely regulated by σF, while the sigF operon is transcribed under the control of σF and a still unknown transcriptional regulator. Interestingly, both σF and the additional

regulator depend on sequences located from −37 to +37 relative to the transcriptional start site (+1) of sigF. An apparent CRT0066101 competition between these proteins might be the reason why sigF promoter activity is less responsive to high levels of σF when compared to the CC3254 promoter, which is solely controlled by σF. The existence of a second regulator of the sigF operon would be important to maintain a Apoptosis inhibitor certain basal level of σF and consequently to allow a rapid response when cells experience environments contaminated with heavy metals. In the literature, one can find various examples of ECF sigma factor genes dependent on a second ECF sigma factor [32, 33]. In the present study, we could exclude Caulobacter rpoE and sigT as possible regulators of σF, since no difference in sigF expression was observed in the absence of either one of these ECF sigma factor genes. In most cases, the activity of ECF sigma factors is modulated by a cognate anti-sigma factor [34–36]. Here, we showed that

the second gene (CC3252) in the sigF Temsirolimus molecular weight operon acts as a negative regulator of σF function, as overexpression of the putative membrane protein encoded by CC3252 abolishes the transcriptional activation of sigF and its regulon under dichromate stress. Thus, CC3252 was here denominated nrsF. An interesting question about the nature of σF inhibition came from the observation that most of the protein encoded by nrsF is predicted to lie in the inner membrane of the bacterium: six transmembrane helices separated by five linkers ranging from 6 to 19 amino acid residues and an N-terminal segment of 25 residues. Usually, anti-sigma factors bind their

cognate sigma factor through an extensive surface interaction, in which a domain of the first protein is sandwiched between domains σ2 and σ4 of the sigma P-type ATPase factor [37]. It is possible that several of the linkers of NrsF contact σF, resulting in a more stable interaction surface. However, we cannot discard the presence of a third component in this system able to directly bind both σF and NrsF and transduce the signal leading to activation of the sigma factor, to compensate this apparent lack of sufficient cytoplasmic segments in NrsF to contact σF. Attempts to obtain soluble recombinant full-length NrsF failed, probably because the protein cannot correctly fold in the absence of the hydrophobic environment found in the membrane compartment of bacterial cells. Therefore, it was not possible to test whether the recombinant protein encoded by nrsF directly binds σF.