The ability to adapt to adverse conditions permits many bacterial species to be virtually ubiquitous
and survive in a variety of ecological niches. This ability is of particular importance for
many plant pathogenic bacteria that should be able to exist, except for their host plants, in
different environments e.g. soil, water, insect-vectors etc. Under some of these conditions,
bacteria encounter absence of nutrients and persist, acquiring new properties related to
resistance to a variety of stress factors (cross-protection). Although many studies describe
the phenomenon of cross-protection and several regulatory components that induce the formation
of resistant cells were elucidated, the global comparison of the physiology of cross-protected
phenotype and growing cells has not been performed. In our study, we took advantage
of RNA-Seq technology to gain better insights into the physiology of cross-protected cells on
the example of a harmful phytopathogen, Pectobacterium atrosepticum (Pba) that causes crop
losses all over the world. The success of this bacterium in plant colonization is related to both
its virulence potential and ability to persist effectively under various stress conditions (including
nutrient deprivation) retaining the ability to infect plants afterwards. In our previous studies, we
showed Pba to be advanced in applying different adaptive strategies that led to manifestation
of cell resistance to multiple stress factors. In the present study, we determined the period necessary
for the formation of cross-protected Pba phenotype under starvation conditions, and
compare the transcriptome profiles of non-adapted growing cells and of adapted cells after the
cross-protective effect has reached the maximal level. The obtained data were verified using
qRT-PCR. Genes that were expressed differentially (DEGs) in two cell types were classified
into functional groups and categories using different approaches. As a result, we portrayed
physiological features that distinguish cross-protected phenotype from the growing cells.
S1 Table. Relative expression levels of genes in adapted P. atrosepticumcells vs. growing
S2 Table. GO analysis of P. atrosepticumgenes up-regulated in adapted cells compared to
growing ones (p-value 0.05).
S3 Table. GO analysis of P. atrosepticumgenes down-regulated in adapted cells compared
to growing ones (p-value 0.05).
S4 Table. Modules and pathways of P. atrosepticumgenes up-regulated in adapted cells
compared to growing ones.
S5 Table. Modules and pathways of P. atrosepticumgenes down-regulated in adapted cells
compared to growing ones.