Figure S1 : Southern blot validation of hfq knock-out mutation in Pantoea
ananatis. Genomic DNA of the wild-type (WT) and hfq mutant (1hfq) strains of
P. ananatis LMG 2665T digested with EcoRI and HindIII restriction enzymes was
hybridized to a DIG-labeled probe (a partial amplicon of kanamycin resistance
gene). Positive detection of the antibiotic marker was observed in the 1hfq strains
of P. ananatis LMG 2665T (lanes 2–8). WT of P. ananatis LMG 2665T DNA was
used as a negative control (lane 1) whereas unlabeled probe was used as a
positive control (lane 9).
Figure S2 : Colony PCR verification of hfq knock-out mutation in Pantoea
ananatis. A colony PCR confirmation of insertion of kanamycin resistance gene in
the hfq gene region using Test primers (Table 2) hfq mutant (1hfq) strains of
P. ananatis LMG 2665T. L represents a molecular ladder and the sizes of its
prominent bands 1, 3, and 6 kilo basepairs (kb) are indicated below. A wild-type
(WT) colony of P. ananatis LMG 2665T was used as a negative control (lane 1;
500 bp). Insertion of kanamycin resistance marker is shown in colony PCRs of hfq
mutant (1hfq) strains of P. ananatis LMG 2665T (lanes 2, 3, and 4; 1.5 kb).
Figure S3 : In vitro growth assay. Growths of wild-type (WT), hfq mutant (1hfq),
and hfq complementing (1hfq pBBR1MCS::hfq) strains of Pantoea ananatis LMG
2665T in LB broth at 28 C. The growth was monitored for 20 h at optical density
600 nm (OD600) and the mean OD600 readings of the three replicates for each
P. ananatis LMG 2665T strains were plotted. Solid line (yellow) represents WT, dashed line (purple) 1hfq, and dotted line (green) 1hfq pBBR1MCS::hfq.
Asterisks denote significance differences (P < 0.05) in the absorbance of 1hfq
relative to WT P. ananatis LMG 2665T.
Figure S4 : In planta growth assay. (A) Disease progression in onion scales
inoculated with wild-type (WT), hfq mutant (1hfq), and hfq complementing [1hfq
(pBBR1MCS::hfq)] strains of P. ananatis LMG 2665T, and incubated for 5 days
post inoculation (dpi). (B) In planta populations of WT, 1hfq, and 1hfq
(pBBR1MCS::hfq) strains of P. ananatis LMG 2665T in onion scales measured for
5 dpi. The mean CFUs of three replicates for each strain from two independent
experiments were plotted. Solid line (yellow) represents WT, dashed line (purple)
1hfq, and dotted line (green) 1hfq (pBBR1MCS::hfq).
Figure S5 : Logarithmic plot of the number of putative small RNAs (sRNAs)
identified in Pantoea ananatis LMG 2665T (pPAR sRNA) as a function of the
threshold selected for calling sRNAs. This was generated by calling putative
sRNAs across a range of thresholds using the custom script (see Supplementary
Data Sheet S1 in the section “peak_ID.py”).
Figure S6 : In silico prediction of selected Pantoea ananatis sRNAs (pPAR
sRNA) secondary structure. Secondary structures of P. ananatis LMG 2665T
sRNAs (A) FnrS, (B) GlmZ, (C) pPAR 237, (D) pPAR 238, and (E) pPAR 395 were
predicted based on a minimum free energy model provided by RNAfold
(http://rna.tbi.univie.ac.at).
Figure S7 : Putative interaction of pPAR237 and pPAR238 to eanIR in Pantoea
ananatis LMG 2665T. (A) Location of pPAR237 and pPAR238. In silico predicted
interaction of pPAR237 (red) to eanIR (black): (B) eanI upstream sequence
(energy: 8.62323 kcal/mol; hybridization energy: 23.5). (C) eanR coding
sequence (energy: 13.63700 kcal/mol, hybridization energy: 39.4) and (D)
in silico predicted interaction of pPAR238 (red) to eanI (black) upstream sequence
(energy: 7.83954 kcal/mol, hybridization energy: 12.0).
Table S1 : Summary of sRNA sequencing reads obtained and filtered for use in
sRNA identification.
Table S2 : A list of sRNAs identified, their genomic coordinates, sequences, and
selected characteristics.
Table S3 : A list of sRNAs that has significant abundance difference between WT
and hfq mutant strains of Pantoea ananatis.
Table S4 : A list of predicted targets of selected sRNAs.
Data Sheet S1 : A custom phython script compiled for bioinformatic analyses
of sRNA sequencing data.