![Comparative analysis of the Caulobacter SOS response under mitomycin-C damage. Top left: Schematic summarizing the RNA-sequencing experiment. Caulobacter cells were treated with 0.25 μg/ml mitomycin-C for 20 and 40 min (Created in BioRender). Samples were collected for transcriptomic analysis before (0 min, control), and at 20 and 40 min post damage induction. Top right: Venn diagram representing the genes that meet the listed criteria: 1. Genes induced in wild type cells under MMC damage at 40 min (white circle). 2. Genes induced in ΔlexA in the absence of damage (blue circle). 3. Genes not induced in ΔrecA background under MMC damage at 40 min (gray circle). Genes fulfilling all three criteria are in the gray circle. Number of genes in each category is indicated. Bottom left: Bar graph indicating whether promoters of the shortlisted genes exhibit binding by the LexA protein as assessed from ChIP-seq analysis [10]. Bottom right: LexA ChIP-seq profile for genes belonging to the SOS response. Normalized reads (in rpm) are represented for 500 bp upstream and downstream of the gene CDS.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5522ztebtekoor5efelihqhb/bafkreig4wxavnxgfhqwdfe6cmadfvf7vztq37gqkrxcquafapvhc63qhay)
Comparative analysis of the Caulobacter SOS response under mitomycin-C damage. Top left: Schematic summarizing the RNA-sequencing experiment. Caulobacter cells were treated with 0.25 μg/ml mitomycin-C for 20 and 40 min (Created in BioRender). Samples were collected for transcriptomic analysis before (0 min, control), and at 20 and 40 min post damage induction. Top right: Venn diagram representing the genes that meet the listed criteria: 1. Genes induced in wild type cells under MMC damage at 40 min (white circle). 2. Genes induced in ΔlexA in the absence of damage (blue circle). 3. Genes not induced in ΔrecA background under MMC damage at 40 min (gray circle). Genes fulfilling all three criteria are in the gray circle. Number of genes in each category is indicated. Bottom left: Bar graph indicating whether promoters of the shortlisted genes exhibit binding by the LexA protein as assessed from ChIP-seq analysis [10]. Bottom right: LexA ChIP-seq profile for genes belonging to the SOS response. Normalized reads (in rpm) are represented for 500 bp upstream and downstream of the gene CDS.
The bacterial #SOSresponse unfolds in a defined temporal order, but how does this arise? @adityakamat.bsky.social @anjbadri.bsky.social &co show that intrinsic #promoter strength, modulated by #SigmaFactor usage, governs timing of SOS gene activation in Caulobacter @plosbiology.org 🧪 plos.io/4oAKf0Q
![Comparative analysis of the Caulobacter SOS response under mitomycin-C damage. Top left: Schematic summarizing the RNA-sequencing experiment. Caulobacter cells were treated with 0.25 μg/ml mitomycin-C for 20 and 40 min (Created in BioRender). Samples were collected for transcriptomic analysis before (0 min, control), and at 20 and 40 min post damage induction. Top right: Venn diagram representing the genes that meet the listed criteria: 1. Genes induced in wild type cells under MMC damage at 40 min (white circle). 2. Genes induced in ΔlexA in the absence of damage (blue circle). 3. Genes not induced in ΔrecA background under MMC damage at 40 min (gray circle). Genes fulfilling all three criteria are in the gray circle. Number of genes in each category is indicated. Bottom left: Bar graph indicating whether promoters of the shortlisted genes exhibit binding by the LexA protein as assessed from ChIP-seq analysis [10]. Bottom right: LexA ChIP-seq profile for genes belonging to the SOS response. Normalized reads (in rpm) are represented for 500 bp upstream and downstream of the gene CDS.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5522ztebtekoor5efelihqhb/bafkreigerw7qsbl4br367qyqg3mouvx3va6s7f3pcqugpf2m24adc3wa6y)