The fundamental details of how nutritional stress leads to elevating (p)ppGpp are questionable. By common usage, the meaning of the stringent response has evolved from the specific response to (p)ppGpp provoked by amino acid starvation to all responses caused by elevating (p)ppGpp by any means. Different responses have similar as well as dissimilar positive and negative effects on gene expression and metabolism. The different ways that different bacteria seem to exploit their capacities to form and respond to (p)ppGpp are already impressive despite an early stage of discovery. Apparently, (p)ppGpp can contribute to regulation of many aspects of microbial cell biology that are sensitive to changing nutrient availability: growth, adaptation, secondary metabolism, survival, persistence, cell division, motility, biofilms, development, competence, and virulence. Many basic questions still exist. This review tries to focus on some issues that linger even for the most widely characterized bacterial strains.

Summary: It is widely accepted that the DNA, RNA and protein content of Enterobacteriaceae is regulated as a function of exponential growth rates; macromolecular content increases with faster growth regardless of specific composition of the growth medium. This phenomenon, called growth rate control, primarily involves regulation of ribosomal RNA and ribosomal protein synthesis. However, it was uncertain whether the global regulator ppGpp is the major determinant for growth rate control. Therefore, here we re‐evaluate the effect of ppGpp on macromolecular content for different balanced growth rates in defined media. We find that when ppGpp is absent, RNA/protein and RNA/DNA ratios are equivalent in fast and slow growing cells. Moreover, slow growing ppGpp‐deficient cells with increased RNA content, display a normal ribosomal subunit composition although polysome content is reduced when compared with fast growing wild‐type cells. From this we conclude that growth rate control does not occur in the absence of ppGpp. Also, artificial elevation of ppGpp or introduction of stringent RNA polymerase mutants in ppGpp‐deficient cells restores this control. We believe these findings strongly argue in favour of ppGpp and against redundant regulation of growth rate control by other factors in Escherichia coli and other enteric bacteria.

Both ppGpp and pppGpp are thought to function collectively as second messengers for many complex cellular responses to nutritional stress throughout biology. There are few indications that their regulatory effects might be different; however, this question has been largely unexplored for lack of an ability to experimentally manipulate the relative abundance of ppGpp and pppGpp. Here, we achieve preferential accumulation of either ppGpp or pppGpp with Escherichia coli strains through induction of different Streptococcal (p)ppGpp synthetase fragments. In addition, expression of E. coli GppA, a pppGpp 5′-gamma phosphate hydrolase that converts pppGpp to ppGpp, is manipulated to fine tune differential accumulation of ppGpp and pppGpp. In vivo and in vitro experiments show that pppGpp is less potent than ppGpp with respect to regulation of growth rate, RNA/DNA ratios, ribosomal RNA P1 promoter transcription inhibition, threonine operon promoter activation and RpoS induction. To provide further insights into regulation by (p)ppGpp, we have also determined crystal structures of E. coli RNA polymerase-σ⁷⁰ holoenzyme with ppGpp and pppGpp. We find that both nucleotides bind to a site at the interface between β′ and ω subunits.

Summary: CsrA protein regulates important cellular processes by binding to target mRNAs and altering their translation and/or stability. In Escherichia coli, CsrA binds to sRNAs, CsrB and CsrC, which sequester CsrA and antagonize its activity. Here, mRNAs for relA, spoT and dksA of the stringent response system were found among 721 different transcripts that copurified with CsrA. Many of the transcripts that copurified with CsrA were previously determined to respond to ppGpp and/or DksA. We examined multiple regulatory interactions between the Csr and stringent response systems. Most importantly, DksA and ppGpp robustly activated csrB/C transcription (10‐fold), while they modestly activated csrA expression. We propose that CsrA‐mediated regulation is relieved during the stringent response. Gel shift assays confirmed high affinity binding of CsrA to relA mRNA leader and weaker interactions with dksA and spoT. Reporter fusions, qRT‐PCR and immunoblotting showed that CsrA repressed relA expression, and (p)ppGpp accumulation during stringent response was enhanced in a csrA mutant. CsrA had modest to negligible effects on dksA and spoT expression. Transcription of dksA was negatively autoregulated via a feedback loop that tended to mask CsrA effects. We propose that the Csr system fine‐tunes the stringent response and discuss biological implications of the composite circuitry.

The bacterial stringent response (SR) is a conserved stress tolerance mechanism that orchestrates physiological alterations to enhance cell survival. This response is mediated by the intracellular accumulation of the alarmones pppGpp and ppGpp, collectively called (p)ppGpp. In Enterococcus faecalis , (p)ppGpp metabolism is carried out by the bifunctional synthetase/hydrolase E. faecalis Rel (Rel _Ef ) and the small alarmone synthetase (SAS) RelQ _Ef . Although Rel is the main enzyme responsible for SR activation in Firmicutes , there is emerging evidence that SASs can make important contributions to bacterial homeostasis. Here, we showed that RelQ _Ef synthesizes ppGpp more efficiently than pppGpp without the need for ribosomes, tRNA, or mRNA. In addition to (p)ppGpp synthesis from GDP and GTP, RelQ _Ef also efficiently utilized GMP to form GMP 3′-diphosphate (pGpp). Based on this observation, we sought to determine if pGpp exerts regulatory effects on cellular processes affected by (p)ppGpp. We found that pGpp, like (p)ppGpp, strongly inhibits the activity of E. faecalis enzymes involved in GTP biosynthesis and, to a lesser extent, transcription of rrnB by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase. Activation of E. coli RelA synthetase activity was observed in the presence of both pGpp and ppGpp, while RelQ _Ef was activated only by ppGpp. Furthermore, enzymatic activity of RelQ _Ef is insensitive to relacin, a (p)ppGpp analog developed as an inhibitor of “long” RelA/SpoT homolog (RSH) enzymes. We conclude that pGpp can likely function as a bacterial alarmone with target-specific regulatory effects that are similar to what has been observed for (p)ppGpp. IMPORTANCE Accumulation of the nucleotide second messengers (p)ppGpp in bacteria is an important signal regulating genetic and physiological networks contributing to stress tolerance, antibiotic persistence, and virulence. Understanding the function and regulation of the enzymes involved in (p)ppGpp turnover is therefore critical for designing strategies to eliminate the protective effects of this molecule. While characterizing the (p)ppGpp synthetase RelQ of Enterococcus faecalis (RelQ _Ef ), we found that, in addition to (p)ppGpp, RelQ _Ef is an efficient producer of pGpp (GMP 3′-diphosphate). In vitro analysis revealed that pGpp exerts complex, target-specific effects on processes known to be modulated by (p)ppGpp. These findings provide a new regulatory feature of RelQ _Ef and suggest that pGpp may represent a new member of the (pp)pGpp family of alarmones.

It is well known that ppGpp and DksA interact with bacterial RNA polymerase (RNAP) to alter promoter activity. This study suggests that GreA plays a major role and GreB plays a minor role in the ppGpp-DksA regulatory network. We present evidence that DksA and GreA/GreB are redundant and/or share similar functions: (i) on minimal medium GreA overproduction suppresses the growth defects of a dksA mutant; (ii) GreA and DksA overexpression partially suppresses the auxotrophy of a ppGpp-deficient strain; (iii) microarrays show that many genes are regulated similarly by GreA and DksA. We also find instances where GreA and DksA seem to act in opposition: (i) complete suppression of auxotrophy occurs by overexpression of GreA or DksA only in the absence of the other protein; (ii) P gadA and P gadE promoter fusions, along with many other genes, are dramatically affected in vivo by GreA overproduction only when DksA is absent; (iii) GreA and DksA show opposite regulation of a subset of genes. Mutations in key acidic residues of GreA and DksA suggest that properties seen here probably are not explained by known biochemical activities of these proteins. Our results indicate that the general pattern of gene expression and, in turn, the ability of Escherichia coli to grow under a defined condition are the result of a complex interplay between GreA, GreB, and DksA that also involves mutual control of their gene expression, competition for RNA polymerase binding, and similar or opposite action on RNA polymerase activity.