ライフサイエンスコーパス: SOS response

1 ents results in the induction of the global 'SOS response'.

2 coli, DNA damage elicits the well regulated 'SOS response'.

3 the DNA-damage response in Escherichia coli (SOS response).

4 an regulate diverse aspects of the bacterial SOS response.

5 DSBs) than wild type, they do not induce the SOS response.

6 NA repair through induction of the bacterial SOS response.

7 se cells produce DSBs that do not induce the SOS response.

8 ar to be a potent inducer of the V. cholerae SOS response.

9 nicity of V. cholerae does not depend on its SOS response.

10 onally toxic substrate vector and induce the SOS response.

11 t that is regulated by LexA cleavage and the SOS response.

12 population of proteins or amounts during the SOS response.

13 nes following stimulation of the V. cholerae SOS response.

14 s activated when PrtR is degraded during the SOS response.

15 , and V) are regulated as part of the global SOS response.

16 , or repair exhibit a partially constitutive SOS response.

17 enes, both of which are involved in the host SOS response.

18 I in the regulation of recombination and the SOS response.

19 mage via its multiple roles in the bacterial SOS response.

20 maged cells and to constitutively induce the SOS response.

21 ed cell size-both also characteristic of the SOS response.

22 rnal DNA-damaging agents known to induce the SOS response.

23 response, and the cellular repressor of the SOS response.

24 the populations in strains with an inducible SOS response.

25 amage and is dependent on the damage-induced SOS response.

26 d with recombinational DNA repair during the SOS response.

27 aquat, X rays, or conditions that induce the SOS response.

28 lication-blocking DNA lesions as part of the SOS response.

29 uC, MucB, and other proteins involved in the SOS response.

30 ile psiB inhibits induction of the bacterial SOS response.

31 induced following DNA damage as part of the SOS response.

32 on inhibitor SulA (SfiA), a component of the SOS response.

33 lular responses to DNA damage, including the SOS response.

34 of a set of genes known collectively as the SOS response.

35 cation does not result from induction of the SOS response.

36 ormation of a RecA-ssDNA filament during the SOS response.

37 -like proteins undergo as part of the global SOS response.

38 uses degradation of DNA and induction of the SOS response.

39 xA-controlled division inhibition during the SOS response.

40 uces lytic development through the bacterial SOS response.

41 sed fluoroquinolones are known to induce the SOS response.

42 ally delayed with respect to the peak of the SOS response.

43 directly or indirectly, which activates the SOS response.

44 increased membrane permeability and provoked SOS response.

45 estart, or activation of the transcriptional SOS response.

46 as instigator for this enigmatic HP-induced SOS response.

47 t bundles and plays an important role in the SOS response.

48 esion synthesis as a primary function of the SOS response.

49 A0906, coordinate the Pseudomonas aeruginosa SOS response.

50 quinolones, antibiotics that elicit a strong SOS response.

51 ge tail-like particles upon induction of the SOS response.

52 repair, recombination, and induction of the SOS response.

53 n more complex role of DinI in the bacterial SOS response.

54 te the division blockage associated with the SOS response.

55 r of division that is induced as part of the SOS response.

56 subunits and is up-regulated as part of the SOS response.

57 recA4142 (F217Y) constitutively express the SOS response.

58 a protein-based TA system upregulated by the SOS response.

59 teracts with the LexA repressor inducing the SOS response.

60 DNA damage by a mechanism independent of the SOS response.

61 k, oxidative stress, nitrogen limitation and SOS responses.

62 the known recA-dependent global DNA damage (SOS) response.

63 Upon induction of the SOS response, a 20-fold increase in mutation frequency o

64 Induction of the SOS response, a cellular system triggered by DNA damage

65 w that adaptive mutation is regulated by the SOS response, a complex, graded response to DNA damage t

66 dly evolve resistance to antibiotics via the SOS response, a state of high-activity DNA repair and mu

67 amage DNA in persisters and that the ensuing SOS response accelerates the development of antibiotic r

68 Upon bacterial SOS response activation, the CI repressor undergoes auto

69 cells lacking aPLs fail to initiate a robust SOS response after DNA damage, indicating that the membr

70 are Rec(+), UV(R) and are able to induce the SOS response after UV treatment like wild-type.

71 nally have a moderate defect in inducing the SOS response after UV treatment.

72 The SOS response aids bacterial propagation by inhibiting ce

73 f colicin E1 is known to be regulated by the SOS response, anaerobiosis, and catabolite repression.

74 with this increase being independent of the SOS response, anaerobiosis, catabolite repression, and i

75 inducible, albeit reduced, activation of the SOS response and a diminished ability to promote cellula

76 This network is known as the SOS response and aids in bacterial survival by regulatin

77 ions in priA are chronically induced for the SOS response and are defective in homologous recombinati

78 ion occurs by RepA-mediated induction of the SOS response and can be reversed by over-expression of t

79 ggest that L. pneumophila lacks a prototypic SOS response and competence development in response to g

80 ng PT, including induction of bacteriophage, SOS response and DNA repair-related genes.

81 playing distinct gene expression patterns of SOS response and metabolic pathways in E. coli populatio

82 Similar inductions of the SOS response and PBSX were observed in cells depleted of

83 oved mutant chromosomes due to the mutagenic SOS response and possible recombination of the new allel

84 em with a novel inhibitor could suppress the SOS response and potentially reduce the occurrence of AM

85 Major components of repair, SOS response and recombination were identified, includin

86 iveness of different antibiotics in blocking SOS response and Stx1/2 production, we constructed a rep

87 and R are important for the induction of the SOS response and the formation of RecA*-dependent recomb

88 The RecA-dependent SOS response and the RapI-PhrI cell sensory system activ

89 of Bacillus subtilis and is regulated by the SOS response and the RapI-PhrI cell-cell peptide signali

90 The SOS response and the RapI-PhrI sensory system activate I

91 p between drug-induced oxidative stress, the SOS response and their potential combined contribution t

92 a Mutator Response similar to the bacterial "SOS response" and characterized by the initiation of err

93 causes cell filamentation, induction of the SOS response, and DNA replication arrest in the Gram-neg

94 ation") requires recombination proteins, the SOS response, and error-prone DNA polymerase IV (DinB),

95 ualinium, which also indirectly inhibits the SOS response, and found it had a strong ability to inhib

96 h lambda-like phage genes, are induced by an SOS response, and genes involved in the SOS response wer

97 expression of ftsK increased as part of the SOS response, and increased expression of ftsK conferred

98 astic process, which temporarily induces the SOS response, and is followed by DNA repair, maintaining

99 Damage caused by the peptides induces the SOS response, and is synergistic with damage caused by U

100 E. coli, this inducible system is termed the SOS response, and it controls both accurate and potentia

101 pair mutants rule out unbalanced growth, the SOS response, and nucleotide excision repair as explanat

102 ng components of a TTSS are regulated by the SOS response, and our data might explain how a subset of

103 ination, DNA damage repair, induction of the SOS response, and SOS mutagenesis, was found to catalyze

104 air, general recombination, induction of the SOS response, and SOS mutagenesis.

105 ed between FtsZ and SulA, a component of the SOS response, and the interacting regions were mapped to

106 umuDC genes are part of the Escherichia coli SOS response, and their expression is induced as a conse

107 The delta oriL plasmid induces the SOS response, and this is important for plasmid maintena

108 te a predicted role for IsrA and GlmZ in the SOS response, and we expand on current knowledge of the

109 n cancer cells is reminiscent of prokaryotic SOS responses, and further elucidation of these events s

110 ndancy within the circuit, modulation of the SOS response, antibiotic-independent plasmid maintenance

111 physiological environment and highlights the SOS response as a possible mechanism that contributes to

112 /pSK1002 or NM2009 tester strains, using the SOS response as an end point of DNA damage.

113 utionary conservation of its catalytic SRAP (SOS Response Associated Peptidase) domain, the enzymatic

114 The highly evolutionarily conserved SOS-response associated peptidase (SRAP) domain of HMCES

115 report crystal structures of the human HMCES SOS response-associated peptidase (SRAP) domain in compl

116 HMCES mediates Alt-EJ through its SOS-response-associated-peptidase domain (SRAPd), a func

117 s filament extensively and induce impressive SOS responses before returning to a normal appearance.

118 ncentrations of ciprofloxacin did induce the SOS response, but not when the cells were exposed to rif

119 Pol IV is induced as part of the SOS response, but the effect of GroE on Pol IV was indep

120 ototype antibacterial quinolone, induces the SOS response by a mechanism that requires the RecBCD nuc

121 Induction of the SOS response by the genotoxic antibiotic ciprofloxacin c

122 t pyocin production during the P. aeruginosa SOS response carries both expected and unexpected costs.

123 s Rad6 and Rad18 comparable to the bacterial SOS response, controlling damage-induced transcriptional

124 ction differs from that by which the E. coli SOS response controls induction of many prophages.

125 major classes of antibiotics may induce the SOS response could have worthwhile implications for anti

126 revealed that CS induced SCVs emerge via the SOS response DNA mutagenic repair system.

127 However, inducing the SOS response does not stimulate transposition.

128 We found that elimination of the SOS response either genetically or by treatment with the

129 erent genetic backgrounds indicated that the SOS response enhances the mutagenicity of M1G and that M

130 erstanding of the importance of a functional SOS response for bacterial fitness in the context of a c

131 ecA protein of Escherichia coli controls the SOS response for DNA damage tolerance and plays a crucia

132 ter gene analyses indicated induction of the SOS response for some of the derivatives, suggesting int

133 This response operates independently of the SOS response, governs the expression of genes crucial fo

134 To date, the SOS response has been characterized in most major bacter

135 Recently, the SOS response has been shown to play an important role in

136 RecA, the master regulator of the SOS response, has been shown to play a central role in t

137 Analyses of the SOS response have led to new insights into the transcrip

138 a new class of repressors orchestrating the SOS response illuminates long-standing questions regardi

139 Quinolone treatment induces the bacterial SOS response in a RecBC-dependent manner, arguing that c

140 The SOS response in bacteria includes a global transcription

141 proteins may be part of the LexA-controlled SOS response in bacteria.

142 equences, overproduction of DpiA induced the SOS response in E. coli, suggesting that chromosomal DNA

143 -binding proteins following induction of the SOS response in Enterobacter cloacae decreased the amoun

144 l three base substitution mutations, and the SOS response in Escherichia coli increases bypass of bul

145 The DNA damage-mediated SOS response in Escherichia coli is the best-known examp

146 itution at this position found to induce the SOS response in Escherichia coli.

147 A by screening for the ability to induce the SOS response in Escherichia coli.

148 recently described negative regulator of the SOS response in Escherichia coli.

149 n, indicating that it may be involved in the SOS response in M. tuberculosis.

150 Genotoxic stress induces the RecA-dependent SOS response in many bacteria.

151 terial pathogenesis, and yet the role of the SOS response in nonpathogenic organisms and in physiolog

152 The report of an operational SOS response in presumed symbiotic and parasitic bacteri

153 ng DNA double-strand breaks and inducing the SOS response in target cells.

154 constitutive [recA(Con)] mutants induce the SOS response in the absence of DNA damage.

155 established as the cellular repressor of the SOS response in the bacterium Bacillus subtilis.

156 spectively) and for induction of the E. coli SOS response in the presence of M.HpaII methylation, ind

157 he aminoglycosides become able to induce the SOS response in this species, thus leading to the elevat

158 The SOS response in UV-irradiated Escherichia coli includes

159 binding and degradation of LexA regulate the SOS response in vivo.

160 100 MPa elicits a RecA-dependent DNA damage (SOS) response in Escherichia coli K-12, despite the fact

161 or the induction of the DNA damage response (SOS response) in individual cells.

162 Part of the SOS response includes genes that repair DNA damage, but

163 ull mutation caused partial induction of the SOS response, including induction of the defective proph

164 In Escherichia coli, after DNA damage, the SOS response increases the transcription (and protein le

165 as an unexpected initiator of the bacterial SOS response, indicate that beta-lactam antibiotics are

166 richia coli is dependent on induction of the SOS response, indicating a role for translesion DNA poly

167 rk damage and exhibit high expression of the SOS response, indicative of repair deficiency.

168 se to cold shock, heat shock, stringent, and SOS response-inducing conditions.

169 ulA, an inhibitor of FtsZ induced during the SOS response, inhibits FtsZ function.

170 The SOS response is a bacterial stress response activated by

171 The bacterial SOS response is a widespread transcriptional regulatory

172 ressed state is abolished when the host cell SOS response is activated.

173 The SOS response is an essential process for responding to D

174 Our findings show that the induction of the SOS response is due to nitric oxide (NO) accumulation in

175 ion tolerance events (i) only occur when the SOS response is fully induced and (ii) are executed in c

176 ors can block Stx1 production even after the SOS response is fully induced.

177 om reporter assays support the idea that the SOS response is influenced by activities associated with

178 ing of the regulation and termination of the SOS response is much more limited.

179 During F plasmid conjugation, however, the SOS response is suppressed by PsiB, an F-plasmid-encoded

180 The bacterial SOS response is the essential signal for high level prod

181 A hallmark of the Escherichia coli SOS response is the large increase in mutations caused b

182 The induction of the SOS response is well understood and involves the cleavag

183 l V) are expressed late during the bacterial SOS response, it has long been thought that TLS was the

184 ies of recombination crossovers although the SOS-response itself was not induced.

185 The SOS response leads to overexpression of the TisB toxin a

186 is controlled by the master regulator of the SOS response, LexA.

187 Unlike the well-investigated classical SOS response, little is known about newly recognized pat

188 ution of CTX prophage in the essentiality of SOS response master regulator LexA, which is otherwise n

189 The constitutive induction of the SOS response may be a consequence of the impaired abilit

190 regulation of DinB is the only aspect of the SOS response needed for stress-induced mutagenesis.

191 hat overproduction of Tnp neither induces an SOS response nor a strong heat shock response.

192 enes encoding pyruvate kinase and a putative SOS response nuclease, respectively.

193 Here we discuss the SOS response of E. coli and concentrate in particular on

194 A critical step in the SOS response of Escherichia coli is the specific proteol

195 During the SOS response of Escherichia coli to DNA damage, the umuD

196 hat has been most extensively studied is the SOS response of Escherichia coli.

197 While the SOS response of S. aureus is much more limited than thos

198 We report an analysis of a sample of the SOS response of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium

199 ly on nucA expression by elevating the basal SOS response of the cell.

200 for the observed phenotype: induction of the SOS response or of the heat shock response.

201 d that either the inability to derepress the SOS response or the lack of the LexA-regulated polymeras

202 sphate/tetraphosphate (henceforth ppGpp) and SOS response pathway involved in the formation of persis

203 fluence of negative supercoiling induced the SOS response pathway, and they were recognized as lesion

204 erichia coli strain, MP1, we showed that the SOS response plays a vital role during colonization of t

205 Several commonly used antibiotics induce the SOS response, potentially hastening genetic change and t

206 that described for other inhibitors like the SOS response protein SulA or the moonlighting enzyme Opg

207 Among SOS-response proteins, 25% were ClpXP substrates and, im

208 ed by mutations that prevented the bacterial SOS response (recA mutations) or by enzymes that breakdo

209 time-resolved, simultaneous read-out of the SOS response (recAP-cfp) and Stx1 production (stx1::yfp)

210 that when produced at high levels during the SOS response, RecN interferes with nucleoid partitioning

211 The bacterial SOS response, regulated by the master regulators, LexA a

212 We found that the V. cholerae SOS response regulates CTXvphi production.

213 shows amino acid sequence similarity to the SOS response regulator LexA from Escherichia coli.

214 DinI's function in the SOS response remains controversial, since its interactio

215 The bacterial SOS response represents a paradigm of gene networks cont

216 y, our results indicate that sbcDC, upon the SOS response, represses type 5 capsule production throug

217 tely 4-fold higher than those induced by the SOS response severely impede its growth.

218 1)dG in Escherichia coli is dependent on the SOS response, specifically the umuC and umuD gene produc

219 -23) and that cell subpopulations induce the SOS response spontaneously even in the absence of stress

220 t, we tested the effect of inhibitors of the SOS response, such as zinc acetate.

221 agent, is a potent inducer of the bacterial SOS response; surprisingly, it has not been used to sele

222 e extensively studied lac operon system, the SOS response system and the araBAD operon system of Esch

223 gene regulation, whereas the results for the SOS response system indicate that the framework is able

224 DNA damage induces the SOS response that in bacteria inhibits cell division whi

225 existence of a noncanonical mechanism beyond SOS-response that is controlled by the intracellular oxi

226 DNA damage-inducible responses, such as the SOS response, the adaptive response to alkylating agents

227 The induction of the SOS response, the appearance of RecA foci, the appearanc

228 r stress conditions such as induction of the SOS response, the association of DNA polymerase IV with

229 nal repressor LexA is a key component of the SOS response, the main mechanism for the regulation of D

230 equently hindering its cleavage, suppressing SOS response thereby reducing mutation frequency and AMR

231 enesis is observed in cells incapable of the SOS response, these data are consistent with the notion

232 cteria, this coordination is mediated by the SOS response through LexA, which triggers a halt in cell

233 t signal transduction system involved in the SOS response to beta-lactams.

234 These mutations require the induction of the SOS response to DNA damage and display a distinct patter

235 occurs when pol V is induced as part of the SOS response to DNA damage and incorrectly incorporates

236 tly upregulated as part of the cell's global SOS response to DNA damage and under these conditions, m

237 Bacillus subtilis LexA protein represses the SOS response to DNA damage by binding as a dimer to the

238 The SOS response to DNA damage in bacteria is a well-known c

239 olecules in Escherichia coli and induced the SOS response to DNA damage in E. coli.

240 The SOS response to DNA damage in Escherichia coli involves

241 The V. cholerae SOS response to DNA damage induces the CTX prophage by s

242 The Escherichia coli SOS response to DNA damage is modulated by the RecA prot

243 The SOS response to DNA damage was not induced under these c

244 mbda CI repressor, is inactivated during the SOS response to DNA damage, and this regulation ensures

245 Activated RecA, the mediator of the host SOS response to DNA damage, causes inactivation of the r

246 on and during the induction of the bacterial SOS response to DNA damage.

247 polB) gene, is induced as part of the global SOS response to DNA damage.

248 protein plays a principal role in bacterial SOS response to DNA damage.

249 gene products is upregulated as part of the SOS response to DNA damage.

250 c translesion DNA synthesis (TLS) during the SOS response to DNA damage.

251 We investigated the SOS response to double-strand breaks in both Escherichia

252 ation complex plays a role in modulating the SOS response to nalidixic acid and that the response is

253 on mutants are specifically deficient in the SOS response to nalidixic acid.

254 in a complementary way to the RecA-dependent SOS response to promote bacterial cell survival to repli

255 RecQ is required for proper induction of the SOS response to replication stress in Escherichia coli.

256 The bacterial SOS response to unusual levels of DNA damage has been re

257 The 'SOS response' to DNA damage alleviates this repression,

258 cell division inhibitor associated with the SOS response, to gain insight into the role of filamento

259 modification, and we confirm binding of the SOS response transcriptional repressor to sites in the p

260 In both cell types, the SOS response was activated, and levels of proteins such

261 Mutants in which the SOS response was constitutively derepressed repaired CPD

262 The SOS response was induced by the addition of mitomycin C

263 Although the SOS response was observed with all three treatments, the

264 ytic pathway, measured in a host lacking the SOS response, was almost undetectably low, probably less

265 ymerase, one that was induced as part of the SOS response, we actually rediscovered DNA polymerase II

266 In addition to the SOS response, we observed the induction of other stress

267 hia coli, which later came to be called the "SOS response." We revisited this response using the repl

268 y an SOS response, and genes involved in the SOS response were also regulated by quorum sensing.

269 products, which are up-regulated during the SOS response, were previously shown to bind to the alpha

270 Escherichia coli initiates the SOS response when single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) produced b

271 ollowing DNA damage in bacteria involves the SOS response where cleavage of the transcriptional repre

272 entially targeted, due to its involvement in SOS response which is majorly responsible for adaptive m

273 ediated DNA damage activates the V. cholerae SOS response, which in turn likely accounts for ParE's i

274 The potentially deleterious SOS response, which is normally triggered by the appeara

275 ral complex regulatory networks, such as the SOS response, which modifies transcription in response t

276 ther stresses, Escherichia coli utilizes the SOS response, which regulates the expression of at least

277 ion, we found that ciprofloxacin induces the SOS response, which we show, by comparison of a wild-typ

278 he parameters monitored was the induction of SOS responses, which indicate of DNA damage.