TABLE 4.
Effectiveness of competition by promoter variants
| Promoter name | Slope of competition curvea
|
Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spo0A∼P | Spo0A(A257V)∼P | ||
| Wild-type abrB | 74.0 | 67.0 | 1.1 |
| abrB+1 | 6.7 | 3.8 | 1.8 |
| abrB+2 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 5.7 |
| abrB+3 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 8.5 |
| abrB-1 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.5 |
| abrB-2 | 5.0 | 2.1 | 2.4 |
| Wild-type spoIIG | 3.7 | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| spoIIG1 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 7.3 |
| spoIIG2 | 4.8 | 0.6 | 8.0 |
| spoIIG3 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 4.1 |
| spoIIG4 | 6.4 | 3.6 | 1.7 |
| spoIIG5 | 38.0 | 33 | 1.2 |
a
The slopes were derived from the slopes of competition curves, such as those shown in Fig. 4. A higher slope indicates better competition and therefore higher affinity for the competitor DNA.