In bacteria, the restart of stalled DNA replication forks requires the DNA helicase PriA. PriA can recognize and remodel abandoned DNA replication forks, unwind DNA in the 3′-to-5′ direction, and facilitate the loading of the helicase DnaB onto the DNA to restart replication. Single-stranded DNA–binding protein (SSB) is typically present at the abandoned forks, but it is unclear how SSB and PriA interact, although it has been shown that the two proteins interact both physically and functionally. Here, we used atomic force microscopy to visualize the interaction of PriA with DNA substrates with or without SSB. These experiments were done in the absence of ATP to delineate the substrate recognition pattern of PriA before its ATP-catalyzed DNA-unwinding reaction. These analyses revealed that in the absence of SSB, PriA binds preferentially to a fork substrate with a gap in the leading strand. Such a preference has not been observed for 5′- and 3′-tailed duplexes, suggesting that it is the fork structure that plays an essential role in PriA's selection of DNA substrates. Furthermore, we found that in the absence of SSB, PriA binds exclusively to the fork regions of the DNA substrates. In contrast, fork-bound SSB loads PriA onto the duplex DNA arms of forks, suggesting a remodeling of PriA by SSB. We also demonstrate that the remodeling of PriA requires a functional C-terminal domain of SSB. In summary, our atomic force microscopy analyses reveal key details in the interactions between PriA and stalled DNA replication forks with or without SSB.

The RecG DNA helicase plays a crucial role in stalled replication fork rescue as the guardian of the bacterial genome. We have recently demonstrated that single-strand DNA binding protein (SSB) promotes binding of RecG to the stalled replication fork by remodeling RecG, enabling the helicase to translocate ahead of the fork. We also hypothesized that mispairing of DNA could limit such translocation of RecG, which plays the role of roadblocks for the fork movement. Here, we used atomic force microscopy (AFM) to directly test this hypothesis and investigate how sensitive RecG translocation is to different types of mispairing. We found that a C-C mismatch at a distance of 30 bp away from the fork position prevents translocation of RecG over this mispairing. A G-bulge placed at the same distance also has a similar roadblock efficiency. However, a C-C mismatch 10 bp away from the fork does not prevent RecG translocation, as 10 bp from fork is within the distance of footprint of RecG on fork DNA. Our findings suggest that retardation of RecG translocation ahead of the replication fork can be a mechanism for the base pairing control for DNA replication machinery.