Operons are a major feature of all prokaryotic genomes, but how and why operon structures vary is not well understood. To elucidate the life-cycle of operons, we compared gene order between Escherichia coli K12 and its relatives and identified the recently formed and destroyed operons in E. coli. This allowed us to determine how operons form, how they become closely spaced, and how they die. Our findings suggest that operon evolution is driven by selection on gene expression patterns. First, both operon creation and operon destruction lead to large changes in gene expression patterns. For example, the removal of lysA and ruvA from ancestral operons that contained essential genes allowed their expression to respond to lysine levels and DNA damage, respectively. Second, some operons have undergone accelerated evolution, with multiple new genes being added during a brief period. Third, although most operons are closely spaced because of a neutral bias towards deletion and because of selection against large overlaps, highly expressed operons tend to be widely spaced because of regulatory fine-tuning by intervening sequences. Although operon evolution seems to be adaptive, it need not be optimal: new operons often comprise functionally unrelated genes that were already in proximity before the operon formed.

Background-Differentially expressed genes are typically identified by analyzing the variation between replicate measurements. These procedures implicitly assume that there are no systematic errors in the data even though several sources of systematic error are known. Results-OpWise estimates the amount of systematic error in bacterial microarray data by assuming that genes in the same operon have matching expression patterns. OpWise then performs a Bayesian analysis of a linear model to estimate significance. In simulations, OpWise corrects for systematic error and is robust to deviations from its assumptions. In several bacterial data sets, significant amounts of systematic error are present, and replicate-based approaches overstate the confidence of the changers dramatically, while OpWise does not. Finally, OpWise can identify additional changers by assigning genes higher confidence if they are consistent with other genes in the same operon. Conclusioni-Although microarray data can conta in large amounts of systematic error, operons provide an external standard and allow for reasonable estimates of significance. OpWise is available at http://microbesonline.org/OpWise.

Operons are a major feature of all prokaryotic genomes, but how and why operon structures vary is not well understood. To elucidate the life-cycle of operons, we compared gene order between Escherichia coli K12 and its relatives and identified the recently formed and destroyed operons in E. coli. This allowed us to determine how operons form, how they become closely spaced, and how they die. Our findings suggest that operon evolution may be driven by selection on gene expression patterns. First, both operon creation and operon destruction lead to large changes in gene expression patterns. For example, the removal of lysA and ruvA from ancestral operons that contained essential genes allowed their expression to respond to lysine levels and DNA damage, respectively. Second, some operons have undergone accelerated evolution, with multiple new genes being added during a brief period. Third, although genes within operons are usually closely spaced because of a neutral bias toward deletion and because of selection against large overlaps, genes in highly expressed operons tend to be widely spaced because of regulatory fine-tuning by intervening sequences. Although operon evolution may be adaptive, it need not be optimal: new operons often comprise functionally unrelated genes that were already in proximity before the operon formed.

Bacterial response to nitric oxide (NO) is of major importance since NO is an obligatory intermediate of the nitrogen cycle. Transcriptional regulation of the dissimilatory nitric oxides metabolism in bacteria is diverse and involves FNR-like transcription factors HcpR, DNR and NnrR, two-component systems NarXL and NarQP, NO-responsive activator NorR, and nitrite sensitive repressor NsrR. Using comparative genomics approaches we predict DNA-binding signals for these transcriptional factors and describe corresponding regulons in available bacterial genomes. Within the FNR family of regulators, we observed a correlation of two specificity-determining amino acids and contacting bases in corresponding DNA signal. Highly conserved regulon HcpR for the hybrid cluster protein and some other redox enzymes is present in diverse anaerobic bacteria including Clostridia, Thermotogales and delta-proteobacteria. NnrR and DNR control denitrification in alpha- and beta-proteobacteria, respectively. Sigma-54-dependent NorR regulon found in some gamma- and beta-proteobacteria contains various enzymes involved in the NO detoxification. Repressor NsrR, which was previously known to control only nitrite reductase operon in Nitrosomonas spp., appears to be the master regulator of the nitric oxides metabolism not only in most gamma- and beta-proteobacteria (including well-studied species like Escherichia coli), but also in Gram-positive Bacillus and Streptomyces species. Positional analysis and comparison of regulatory regions of NO detoxification genes allows us to propose the candidate NsrR-binding signal. The most conserved member of the predicted NsrR regulon is the NO-detoxifying flavohemoglobin Hmp. In enterobacteria, the regulon includes also two nitrite-responsive loci, nipAB (hcp-hcr) and nipC (dnrN), thus confirming the identity of the effector, i.e., nitrite. The proposed NsrR regulons in Neisseria and some other species are extended to include denitrification genes. As the result, we demonstrate considerable interconnection between various nitrogen-oxides-responsive regulatory systems for the denitrification and NO detoxification genes and evolutionary plasticity of this transcriptional network.

We combine comparative genomic measures and the distance separating adjacent genes to predict operons in 124 completely sequenced prokaryotic genomes. Our method automatically tailors itself to each genome using sequence information alone, and thus can be applied to any prokaryote. For Escherichia coli K12 and Bacillus subtilis, our method is 85 and 83 percent accurate, respectively, which is similar to the accuracy of methods that use the same features but are trained on experimentally characterized transcripts. In Halobacterium NRC-1 and in Helicobacter pylori, our method correctly infers that genes in operons are separated by shorter distances than they are in E.coli, and its predictions using distance alone are more accurate than distance-only predictions trained on a database of E.coli transcripts. We use microarray data from six phylogenetically diverse prokaryotes to show that combining intergenic distance with comparative genomic measures further improves accuracy and that our method is broadly effective. Finally, we survey operon structure across 124 genomes, and find several surprises: H.pylori has many operons, contrary to previous reports; Bacillus anthracis has an unusual number of pseudogenes within conserved operons; and Synechocystis PCC 6803 has many operons even though it has unusually wide spacings between conserved adjacent genes.

Although operons are often subject to horizontal gene transfer (HGT), non-HGT genes are particularly likely to be in operons. To resolve this apparent discrepancy and to determine whether HGT is involved in operon formation, we examined the evolutionary history of the genes and operons in Escherichia coli K12. We show that genes that have homologs in distantly related bacteria but not in close relatives of E. coli (indicating HGTi) form new operons at about the same rates as native genes. Furthermore, genes in new operons are no more likely than other genes to have phylogenetic trees that are inconsistent with the species tree. In contrast, essential genes and ubiquitous geneswithout paralogs (genes believed to undergo HGT rarely) often form new operons. We conclude that HGT is not associated with operon formation, but instead promotes the prevalence of pre-existing operons. To explain operon formation, we propose that new operons reduce the amount of regulatory information required to specify optimal expression patterns. Consistent with this hypothesis, operons have greater amounts of conserved regulatory sequences than do individually transcribed genes.