TABLE 1.

Cloning success of the promoters upstream of the lux operon depends on the choice of 5′UTR.

Cloning attempt		Cloning outcome
Promoter	5′ UTR
PS7	5′-AGGAGC-3′ RBS	failed
P S7	B. thailandensis fluoride riboswitch	failed
P S7	P. syringae fluoride riboswitch	failed
P S7	B.cereus and B.thailandensis fluoride riboswitch	failed
P S7	N.europea and B.thailandensis fluoride riboswitch	successful
P1 integron	5′-AGGAGC-3′ RBS	failed
P1 integron	5′-AGGAGU-3′ RBS	failed
P1 integron	E. coli thiM TPP riboswitch	failed
P1 integron	B. thailandensis thiC riboswitch	failed
P1 integron	B. thailandensis mini-ykkC riboswitch	failed
P1 integron	B. thailandensis metK 5′UTR a , b	failed
P1 integron	B. thailandensis fluoride riboswitch	successful
P1 integron	P. syringae fluoride riboswitch	successful
B. thailandensis metK promoter	5′-AGGAGC-3′ RBS	successful
P1 integron	B. thailandensis metX 5′UTR b	successful
P1 integron	B. thailandensis metZ 5′UTR b	successful
P1 integron	B. cereus fluoride riboswitch + B. thailandensis fluoride riboswitch	successful (but not inducible)
P1 integron	P. aeruginosa PA14 yybP-ykoY riboswitch	successful

^aThree different construct designs of varying lengths were attempted (not shown).

^bThe metK, metX and metZ 5′UTR, from B. thailandensis were suspected to have regulatory elements (Leyn et al., 2014), which we confirmed (unpublished data).