PubMed
Lee TI et al., Science (New York, N.Y.), 2002 Oct 25;298(5594):799-804Lee TI et al., Science (New York, N.Y.), 2002 Oct 25;298(5594):799-804
Direct
Chip-on-chip
N/A
S288c
Unstressed log-phase growth (control)
YPD medium; mid-log phase
N/A
PubMed
Harbison CT et al., Nature, 2004 Sep 2;431(7004):99-104Harbison CT et al., Nature, 2004 Sep 2;431(7004):99-104
Direct
Chip-on-chip
N/A
S288c
Unstressed log-phase growth (control)
YPD medium; mid-log phase
N/A
PubMed
Liu R et al., Metabolic engineering, 2019 Jan;51():50-58Liu R et al., Metabolic engineering, 2019 Jan;51():50-58
Indirect
RNA-seq - wt vs TF mutant
Positive
BY4741
Stress
6% ethanol with 120 g/L glucose
N/A
Indirect
RNA-seq - wt vs TF mutant
Positive
BY4741
Carbon source quality/availability
6% ethanol
N/A
PubMed
van der Horst SC et al., Nature communications, 2025 Feb 6;16(1):1416van der Horst SC et al., Nature communications, 2025 Feb 6;16(1):1416
Indirect
RNA-seq analysis - WT vs TF Deletion
Negative
W303
Cell cycle/morphology
60 min: RNA-seq performed in YPAD medium. Overnight cultures were diluted in fresh YPAD and grown for 3 h. Cells were then synchronized in G1 by α-factor treatment for 2 h, washed once in YPAD, and released into YPAD containing 200 mM hydroxyurea (HU). Samples were collected at t=60min: 60 min after release into HU (replication stress condition)