ArticlePloS one2014
Prophage induction and differential RecA and UmuDAb transcriptome regulation in the DNA damage responses of Acinetobacter baumannii and Acinetobacter baylyi.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should I stay or should I go? DNA damage thresholds drive stay-or-go decisions inJournal of bacteriology · 2026Review
- A WYL transcriptional regulator activates the DNA damage response pathway in Acinetobacter species.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- A new component of the DNA damage response biofilm axis in Acinetobacter baumannii is a TetR-like DNA damage response regulator.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- An activator regulates the DNA damage response and anti-phage defense networks in Moraxellaceae.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Identification of EppR, a Second Repressor of Error-Prone DNA Polymerase Genes in Acinetobacter baumannii.Molecular microbiology · 2025Article
- Differential effects of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH/GuaB) inhibition inJournal of bacteriology · 2024Article
- Repression ofJournal of bacteriology · 2024Article
- Interspecies ecological competition rejuvenates decayed Geobacter electroactive biofilm.The ISME journal · 2024Article
- Alterations in gene expression ofJournal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Bacterial type VI secretion system (T6SS): an evolved molecular weapon with diverse functionality.Biotechnology letters · 2023Review
- DNA damage response coregulatorFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- The DdrR Coregulator of the Acinetobacter baumannii Mutagenic DNA Damage Response Potentiates UmuDAb Repression of Error-Prone Polymerases.Journal of bacteriology · 2022Article
- Locking down SOS Mutagenesis Repression in a Dynamic Pathogen.Journal of bacteriology · 2022Article
- Light RegulatesJournal of bacteriology · 2022Article
- The Small DdrR Protein Directly Interacts with the UmuDAb Regulator of the Mutagenic DNA Damage Response in Acinetobacter baumannii.Journal of bacteriology · 2022Article
- Sending out an SOS - the bacterial DNA damage response.Genetics and molecular biology · 2022Article
- Non-canonical LexA proteins regulate the SOS response in the Bacteroidetes.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- Characterization of a Novel Phage ΦAb1656-2 and Its Endolysin with Higher Antimicrobial Activity against Multidrug-ResistantViruses · 2021Article
- Homodimerization and heterodimerization requirements ofCanadian journal of microbiology · 2021Article
- Prophage Activation in the Intestine: Insights Into Functions and Possible Applications.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The SOS response to DNA damage that induces up to 10% of the prokaryotic genome requires RecA action to relieve LexA transcriptional repression. In Acinetobacter species, which lack LexA, the error-prone polymerase accessory UmuDAb is instead required for ddrR induction after DNA damage, suggesting it might be a LexA analog. RNA-Seq experiments defined the DNA damage transcriptome (mitomycin C-induced) of wild type, recA and umuDAb mutant strains of both A. baylyi ADP1 and A. baumannii ATCC 17978. Of the typical SOS response genes, few were differentially regulated in these species; many were repressed or absent. A striking 38.4% of all ADP1 genes, and 11.4% of all 17978 genes, were repressed under these conditions. In A. baylyi ADP1, 66 genes (2.0% of the genome), including a CRISPR/Cas system, were DNA damage-induced, and belonged to four regulons defined by differential use of recA and umuDAb. In A. baumannii ATCC 17978, however, induction of 99% of the 152 mitomycin C-induced genes depended on recA, and only 28 of these genes required umuDAb for their induction. 90% of the induced A. baumannii genes were clustered in three prophage regions, and bacteriophage particles were observed after mitomycin C treatment. These prophages encoded esvI, esvK1, and esvK2, ethanol-stimulated virulence genes previously identified in a Caenorhabditis elegans model, as well as error-prone polymerase alleles. The induction of all 17978 error-prone polymerase alleles, whether prophage-encoded or not, was recA dependent, but only these DNA polymerase V-related genes were de-repressed in the umuDAb mutant in the absence of DNA damage. These results suggest that both species possess a robust and complex DNA damage response involving both recA-dependent and recA-independent regulons, and further demonstrates that although umuDAb has a specialized role in repressing error-prone polymerases, additional regulators likely participate in these species' transcriptional response to DNA damage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.