PubMed
Coffman JA et al., J Bacteriol, 1997 Jun;179(11):3416-29Coffman JA et al., J Bacteriol, 1997 Jun;179(11):3416-29
Indirect
LacZ - WT vs TF mutant
Positive
TCY1
Minimal medium + proline
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
SC medium; mid-log phase
PubMed
Georis I et al., Mol Cell Biol, 2009 Jul;29(13):3803-15Georis I et al., Mol Cell Biol, 2009 Jul;29(13):3803-15
Indirect
RT-PCR - WT vs TF mutant
Positive
S288c
proline
PubMed
Georis I et al., J Biol Chem, 2011 Dec 30;286(52):44897-912Georis I et al., J Biol Chem, 2011 Dec 30;286(52):44897-912
Indirect
RT-PCR - WT vs TF mutant
Positive
S288c
Methionine sulfoximine
PubMed
Georis I et al., RNA Biol, 2015;12(8):824-37Georis I et al., RNA Biol, 2015;12(8):824-37
Indirect
RT-PCR - WT vs TF mutant
Positive
S288c
wt (TB50) vs gln3DELTA (FV005) mutant, cells grown in YNB medium with proline (Pro) or treated with ammonium and methionine sulfoximine (Am. C Msx); GAT1 expression was assayed using 7 pairs of primers along the open reading frame as shown on the insert
PubMed
Ponomarova O et al., Cell Syst, 2017 Oct 25;5(4):345-357.e6Ponomarova O et al., Cell Syst, 2017 Oct 25;5(4):345-357.e6
Indirect
RNA-seq - WT vs TF mutant
Negative
S90
wt and DELTAgln3 cells were grown in YPAD medium
PubMed
Rossi MJ et al., Nature, 2021 Apr;592(7853):309-314Rossi MJ et al., Nature, 2021 Apr;592(7853):309-314