Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Co-directional replication–transcription conflicts lead to replication restart


Head-on encounters between the replication and transcription machineries on the lagging DNA strand can lead to replication fork arrest and genomic instability1,2. To avoid head-on encounters, most genes, especially essential and highly transcribed genes, are encoded on the leading strand such that transcription and replication are co-directional. Virtually all bacteria have the highly expressed ribosomal RNA genes co-directional with replication3. In bacteria, co-directional encounters seem inevitable because the rate of replication is about 10–20-fold greater than the rate of transcription. However, these encounters are generally thought to be benign2,4,5,6,7,8,9. Biochemical analyses indicate that head-on encounters10 are more deleterious than co-directional encounters8 and that in both situations, replication resumes without the need for any auxiliary restart proteins, at least in vitro. Here we show that in vivo, co-directional transcription can disrupt replication, leading to the involvement of replication restart proteins. We found that highly transcribed rRNA genes are hotspots for co-directional conflicts between replication and transcription in rapidly growing Bacillus subtilis cells. We observed a transcription-dependent increase in association of the replicative helicase and replication restart proteins where head-on and co-directional conflicts occur. Our results indicate that there are co-directional conflicts between replication and transcription in vivo. Furthermore, in contrast to the findings in vitro, the replication restart machinery is involved in vivo in resolving potentially deleterious encounters due to head-on and co-directional conflicts. These conflicts probably occur in many organisms and at many chromosomal locations and help to explain the presence of important auxiliary proteins involved in replication restart and in helping to clear a path along the DNA for the replisome.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Head-on conflicts between transcription and replication cause increased association of helicase loader protein DnaB.
Figure 2: ChIP-chip analysis of DnaB.
Figure 3: Association of helicase loader proteins DnaD and DnaB with rrn loci depends on transcription and the replication restart protein priA.
Figure 4: Association of the replicative helicase with rrn loci depends on transcription and is independent of dnaA.


  1. Mirkin, E. V. & Mirkin, S. M. Replication fork stalling at natural impediments. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 71, 13–35 (2007)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pomerantz, R. T. & O’Donnell, M. What happens when replication and transcription complexes collide? Cell Cycle 9, 2535–2541 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rocha, E. P. The replication-related organization of bacterial genomes. Microbiology 150, 1609–1627 (2004)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. French, S. Consequences of replication fork movement through transcription units in vivo. Science 258, 1362–1365 (1992)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Olavarrieta, L., Hernandez, P., Krimer, D. B. & Schvartzman, J. B. DNA knotting caused by head-on collision of transcription and replication. J. Mol. Biol. 322, 1–6 (2002)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mirkin, E. V. & Mirkin, S. M. Mechanisms of transcription-replication collisions in bacteria. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 888–895 (2005)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mirkin, E. V., Castro Roa, D., Nudler, E. & Mirkin, S. M. Transcription regulatory elements are punctuation marks for DNA replication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 7276–7281 (2006)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pomerantz, R. T. & O’Donnell, M. The replisome uses mRNA as a primer after colliding with RNA polymerase. Nature 456, 762–766 (2008)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Srivatsan, A., Tehranchi, A., MacAlpine, D. M. & Wang, J. D. Co-orientation of replication and transcription preserves genome integrity. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000810 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pomerantz, R. T. & O’Donnell, M. Direct restart of a replication fork stalled by a head-on RNA polymerase. Science 327, 590–592 (2010)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rudolph, C. J., Dhillon, P., Moore, T. & Lloyd, R. G. Avoiding and resolving conflicts between DNA replication and transcription. DNA Repair 6, 981–993 (2007)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang, J. D., Berkmen, M. B. & Grossman, A. D. Genome-wide coorientation of replication and transcription reduces adverse effects on replication in Bacillus subtilis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5608–5613 (2007)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tehranchi, A. K. et al. The transcription factor DksA prevents conflicts between DNA replication and transcription machinery. Cell 141, 595–605 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boubakri, H., de Septenville, A. L., Viguera, E. & Michel, B. The helicases DinG, Rep and UvrD cooperate to promote replication across transcription units in vivo. EMBO J. 29, 145–157 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Heller, R. C. & Marians, K. J. Replisome assembly and the direct restart of stalled replication forks. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7, 932–943 (2006)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bruand, C., Farache, M., McGovern, S., Ehrlich, S. D. & Polard, P. DnaB, DnaD and DnaI proteins are components of the Bacillus subtilis replication restart primosome. Mol. Microbiol. 42, 245–256 (2001)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marsin, S., McGovern, S., Ehrlich, S. D., Bruand, C. & Polard, P. Early steps of Bacillus subtilis primosome assembly. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 45818–45825 (2001)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rokop, M. E., Auchtung, J. M. & Grossman, A. D. Control of DNA replication initiation by recruitment of an essential initiation protein to the membrane of Bacillus subtilis. Mol. Microbiol. 52, 1757–1767 (2004)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bruand, C. et al. Functional interplay between the Bacillus subtilis DnaD and DnaB proteins essential for initiation and re-initiation of DNA replication. Mol. Microbiol. 55, 1138–1150 (2005)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smits, W. K., Goranov, A. I. & Grossman, A. D. Ordered association of helicase loader proteins with the Bacillus subtilis origin of replication in vivo. Mol. Microbiol. 75, 452–461 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Imai, Y. et al. Subcellular localization of Dna-initiation proteins of Bacillus subtilis: evidence that chromosome replication begins at either edge of the nucleoids. Mol. Microbiol. 36, 1037–1048 (2000)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meile, J. C., Wu, L. J., Ehrlich, S. D., Errington, J. & Noirot, P. Systematic localisation of proteins fused to the green fluorescent protein in Bacillus subtilis: identification of new proteins at the DNA replication factory. Proteomics 6, 2135–2146 (2006)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kunst, F. et al. The complete genome sequence of the gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Nature 390, 249–256 (1997)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. McGlynn, P., Al-Deib, A. A., Liu, J., Marians, K. J. & Lloyd, R. G. The DNA replication protein PriA and the recombination protein RecG bind D-loops. J. Mol. Biol. 270, 212–221 (1997)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Polard, P. et al. Restart of DNA replication in Gram-positive bacteria: functional characterisation of the Bacillus subtilis PriA initiator. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 1593–1605 (2002)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gabbai, C. B. & Marians, K. J. Recruitment to stalled replication forks of the PriA DNA helicase and replisome-loading activities is essential for survival. DNA Repair 9, 202–209 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Trautinger, B. W., Jaktaji, R. P., Rusakova, E. & Lloyd, R. G. RNA polymerase modulators and DNA repair activities resolve conflicts between DNA replication and transcription. Mol. Cell 19, 247–258 (2005)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mahdi, A. A., Buckman, C., Harris, L. & Lloyd, R. G. Rep and PriA helicase activities prevent RecA from provoking unnecessary recombination during replication fork repair. Genes Dev. 20, 2135–2147 (2006)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Guy, C. P. et al. Rep provides a second motor at the replisome to promote duplication of protein-bound DNA. Mol. Cell 36, 654–666 (2009)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nurse, P., Zavitz, K. H. & Marians, K. J. Inactivation of the Escherichia coli priA DNA replication protein induces the SOS response. J. Bacteriol. 173, 6686–6693 (1991)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Harwood, C. R. & Cutting, S. M. Molecular Biological Methods for Bacillus (John Wiley & Sons, 1990)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Griffith, K. L. & Grossman, A. D. Inducible protein degradation in Bacillus subtilis using heterologous peptide tags and adaptor proteins to target substrates to the protease ClpXP. Mol. Microbiol. 70, 1012–1025 (2008)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. LeMaster, D. M. & Richards, F. M. 1H-15N heteronuclear NMR studies of Escherichia coli thioredoxin in samples isotopically labeled by residue type. Biochemistry 24, 7263–7268 (1985)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Grainger, W. H., Machon, C., Scott, D. J. & Soultanas, P. DnaB proteolysis in vivo regulates oligomerization and its localization at oriC in Bacillus subtilis. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 2851–2864 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank D. Grainger, C. Lee, T. Baker, and W. K. Smits for discussions, W. K. Smits for constructing the priA-ssrA* mutant, and C. Lee, C. Bonilla, S. P. Bell, and J. D. Wang for comments on the manuscript. Work in the P.S. laboratory was supported by Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council grant BB/E006450/1 and a Wellcome Trust grant 091968/Z/10/Z. Work in the A.D.G. laboratory was supported by NIH grant GM41934 and H.M. was supported in part by NIH postdoctoral fellowship GM093408. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Royal Society provided funds for a sabbatical visit of P.S. in the A.D.G. laboratory.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



H.M., C.M., W.H.G., A.D.G. and P.S. designed the research and analysed the results; H.M., C.M. and W.H.G. performed the experiments; H.M., A.D.G. and P.S. wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alan D. Grossman or Panos Soultanas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The file contains Supplementary Figures 1-5 with legends, a Supplementary Table, a Supplementary Discussion and additional references. (PDF 1164 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Merrikh, H., Machón, C., Grainger, W. et al. Co-directional replication–transcription conflicts lead to replication restart. Nature 470, 554–557 (2011).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing