SOS genes are rapidly induced while translesion synthesis polymerase activity is temporally regulated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The DNA damage inducible SOS response in bacteria serves to increase survival of the species at the cost of mutagenesis. The SOS response first initiates error-free repair followed by error-prone repair. Here, we have employed a multi-omics approach to elucidate the temporal coordination of the SOS response. Escherichia coli was grown in batch cultivation in bioreactors to ensure highly controlled conditions, and a low dose of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin was used to activate the SOS response while avoiding extensive cell death. Our results show that expression of genes involved in error-free and error-prone repair were both induced shortly after DNA damage, thus, challenging the established perception that the expression of error-prone repair genes is delayed. By combining transcriptomics and a sub-proteomics approach termed signalomics, we found that the temporal segregation of error-free and error-prone repair is primarily regulated after transcription, supporting the current literature. Furthermore, the heterology index (i.e., the binding affinity of LexA to the SOS box) was correlated to the maximum increase in gene expression and not to the time of induction of SOS genes. Finally, quantification of metabolites revealed increasing pyrimidine pools as a late feature of the SOS response. Our results elucidate how the SOS response is coordinated, showing a rapid transcriptional response and temporal regulation of mutagenesis on the protein and metabolite levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".