SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
mbo3137-sup-0001-FigS1.pdfapplication/PDF178KFigure S1. RT-qPCR validation of the microarray data. Expression of 13 genes was determined using RT-qPCR for wild type, ΔecfG1, ΔecfG2, and ΔecfG1ΔecfG2. The log2 transformed mean values of three replicates were used to report three different fold changes for each gene (Y-axis) compared to the respective microarray fold changes (X-axis). Black squares represent wild type versus ΔecfG1; light gray diamonds wild type versus ΔecfG2 and dark gray dots wild type versus ΔecfG1ΔecfG2
mbo3137-sup-0002-FigS2.pdfapplication/PDF15KFigure S2. σEcfG1-, σEcfG2- and σEcfG1EcfG2-dependent ncRNA expression. Venn diagram of all differentially expressed ncRNAs in ΔecfG1, ΔecfG2, and ΔecfG1ΔecfG2 strains compared to the wild-type strain R. etli CFN42. Upward- and downward-oriented arrows indicate gene induction and repression, respectively.
mbo3137-sup-0003-TableS1.pdfapplication/PDF38KTable S1. Bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study.
mbo3137-sup-0004-TableS2.pdfapplication/PDF40KTable S2. Primers used in this study.
mbo3137-sup-0005-TableS3.pdfapplication/PDF34KTable S3. Distribution of σEcfG sigma factors in completely sequenced α-proteobacterial genomes. Data retrieved from MiST database (http://mistdb.com; (Ulrich and Zhulin 2010) on 29 November 2012.
mbo3137-sup-0006-TableS4.pdfapplication/PDF55KTable S4. The differentially expressed genes and ncRNAs in ΔecfG1, ΔecfG2, and ΔecfG1ΔecfG2 compared to the wild type.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.