Abstract
Induction of cat‐86 translation results from the stalling of a ribosome at a discrete location in the leader region of the transcript. Stalling destabilizes an adjacent region of secondary structure that sequesters the cat‐86 ribosome binding site, thereby activating cat‐86 translation. Two well characterized antibiotics, chloramphenicol and erythromycin, induce cat‐86 by stalling a ribosome at the appropriate leader site. Here we demonstrate differences between the two antibiotics with respect to induction. First, induction by chloramphenicol is dependent on nucleotides in the leader sequence that are different from those necessary for erythromycin induction. Second, variants of Bacillus subtilis that are chloramphenicol resistant because of chromosome mutations permit cat‐86 induction by chloramphenicol, whereas erythromycin‐resistance host mutations block or greatly reduce cat‐86 induction by erythromycin. Third, selected strains of B. subtilis bearing alterations in proteins of the 50S ribosomal subunit interfere with cat‐86 induction by chloramphenicol, yet these strains are chloramphenicol sensitive. Lastly, induction by chloramphenicol is not reversed by removal of the antibiotic whereas erythromycin induction is reversible. The data indicate that chloramphenicol induction results from an effect of the drug that is not identical to its role as a general inhibitor of ribosome elongation. Induction by erythromycin, on the other hand, could not be distinguished from its antibiotic activity.