Core oxidative stress response in Aspergillus nidulans

Emri, Tamás; Szarvas, Vera; Orosz, Erzsébet; Antal, Károly; Park, HeeSoo; Han, Kap-Hoon; Yu, Jae-Hyuk; Pócsi, István

doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1705-z

BMC Genomics

Table 5 Effect of atfA deletion on the transcriptome under different stress conditions

From: Core oxidative stress response in Aspergillus nidulans

	Stress exposures^a
	None	MSB	l-H₂O₂	h-H₂O₂	tBOOH	Diamide	NaCl
	Number of genes influenced by stress exposure and/or atfA deletion
Increased transcription
Only in control^b	-	1053	117	444	391	497	709
Only in ΔatfA ^c	-	480	318	508	927	387	386
In both strains^d	-	521	36	355	975	1380	388
Control vs. ΔatfA ^e	657	1646	649	585	709	526	725
AtfA-dependent^f	657	721	64	130	148	60	313
Ratio of AtfA-dependent genes^g		0.46	0.42	0.16	0.11	0.03	0.29
Decreased transcription
Only in control^h	-	1228	189	467	395	696	653
Only in ΔatfA ⁱ	-	582	201	513	738	519	466
In both strains^j	-	468	128	322	1046	1326	379
Control vs. ΔatfA ^k	542	1815	648	661	749	310	431
AtfA-dependent^l	542	857	34	74	91	64	119
Ratio of AtfA-dependent genes		0.51	0.11	0.09	0.06	0.03	0.12

^aStressor concentrations are presented in footnotes to Table 2
^bUp-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) > 1 and log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) ≤ 1
^cUp-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) > 1 and log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) ≤ 1
^dUp-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) > 1 and log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) > 1
^eUp-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control} /I_{treated, ΔatfA}) > 1
^fUp-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control} /I_{treated, ΔatfA}) > 1, log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) > 1 and log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) ≤ 1
^gNumber of AtfA dependent genes/number of genes regulated in the control strain
^hDown-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) < −1 and log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) ≥ −1
ⁱDown-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) < −1 and log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) ≥ −1
^jDown-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) < −1 and log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) < −1
^kDown-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control} /I_{treated, ΔatfA}) < −1
^lDown-regulation was defined by the threshold of log₂ (I_{treated, control} /I_{treated, ΔatfA}) < −1, log₂ (I_{treated, control}/I_{untreated, control}) < −1 and log₂ (I_{treated, ΔatfA}/I_{untreated, ΔatfA}) ≥ −1

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2164

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcgenomics@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com