When Escherichia coli cells enter stationary phase due to carbon starvation the synthesis of ribosomal proteins is rapidly repressed. In a ⌬relA ⌬spoT mutant, defective in the production of the alarmone guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp), this regulation of the levels of the protein synthesizing system is abolished. Using a proteomic approach we demonstrate that the production of the vast majority of detected E. coli proteins are decontrolled during carbon starvation in the ⌬relA ⌬spoT strain and that the starved cells behave as if they were growing exponentially. In addition we show that the inhibition of ribosome synthesis by the stringent response can be qualitatively mimicked by artificially lowering the levels of the housekeeping factor, 70 . In other words, genes encoding the protein-synthesizing system are especially sensitive to reduced availability of 70 programmed RNA polymerase. This effect is not dependent on ppGpp since lowering the levels of 70 gives a similar but less pronounced effect in a ppGpp 0 strain. The data is discussed in view of the models advocating for a passive control of gene expression during stringency based on alterations in RNA polymerase availability.The alarmone guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp) 1 of the stringent response network in Escherichia coli affects ribosome production by specifically lowering the transcription of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) (1) and some of the genes encoding ribosomal proteins (2-4). The production of ribosomal proteins is also post-transcriptionally feedback-regulated to match the rRNA production (reviewed in 5). Two different ppGpp synthetases (PS) exist in E. coli, the ribosome-associated PS I, encoded by relA, and the cytoplasmic PS II (6), encoded by spoT (7,8). The protein PS II is also responsible for ppGpp hydrolysis (1).Increased levels of ppGpp not only down-regulate ribosome production but also induce transcription from several promoters (9 -14). As suggested by Schreiber et al. (9), the E. coli promoters can be divided into three groups depending on their response to ppGpp: promoters specifically induced or repressed by the stringent response and promoters that are unaffected by the rise in ppGpp levels. Promoters dependent on the housekeeping factor, 70 , exist in at least two of these groups; one group is positively regulated by ppGpp, e.g. PuspA (11) and Phis (8), whereas the other group is repressed during stringency, e.g. rrnP1. Attempts to explain this dual effect of ppGpp have involved considerations of RNAP (RNA polymerase) availability and intrinsic differences in the kinetic properties of the promoters affected (15). Several lines of evidence suggest that the availability of transcriptional and/or translational machinery play a role in global gene regulation in concert with classical activators and repressors (13-17). One well known example of this type of regulation, where the level of RNAP is involved, is factor competition in both Bacillus subtilis (18) and E. coli (19,20).Whether or not RNAP availability is involved in the actual m...