Team:ULB-Brussels/Project/Results
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
m |
m |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
<!-- Add Table 2 --> | <!-- Add Table 2 --> | ||
• Preparation of the ccdB and Kid biobricks in the Standard 10 by PCR amplification. Cloning into bacteria and screening. We will discover next week that the cloning has failed.</p> | • Preparation of the ccdB and Kid biobricks in the Standard 10 by PCR amplification. Cloning into bacteria and screening. We will discover next week that the cloning has failed.</p> | ||
- | • PCR amplification of phoA and | + | • PCR amplification of phoA and proline::phoA (proline added via primer) from MG1655 $\small E.Coli$, cloning into bacteria and screening. We will discover next week that the cloning has failed.</p> |
• Design and ordering of the sequences needed for the first constructions.</p> | • Design and ordering of the sequences needed for the first constructions.</p> | ||
<!-- Add Table 3 --> | <!-- Add Table 3 --> | ||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
<h2> IV. 22/07-27/07 </h2> | <h2> IV. 22/07-27/07 </h2> | ||
- | • The week begins with the negative results of the screening of the phoA and | + | • The week begins with the negative results of the screening of the phoA and proline::phoA bacteria. Furthermore, the control group (electropored with linearized plasmids) has numerous colonies, meaning that we may have forgotten to inhibit the circularization of the plasmid by incubating with the alkaline phosphatase.</p> |
o We thus begin the digestion of the plasmid and the inserts (phoA and phoA::proline) again. We proceed to the electroporation, goth overnight and screening of the obtained clones, but the results are all negative, once again. (25/07) After investigation, we discover that we used the wrong antibiotic (Ampicilin instead of Chloramphenicol) and that we forgot to add glucose to the medium in order to inhibit phoA overexpression and promote the bacterial growth.</p> | o We thus begin the digestion of the plasmid and the inserts (phoA and phoA::proline) again. We proceed to the electroporation, goth overnight and screening of the obtained clones, but the results are all negative, once again. (25/07) After investigation, we discover that we used the wrong antibiotic (Ampicilin instead of Chloramphenicol) and that we forgot to add glucose to the medium in order to inhibit phoA overexpression and promote the bacterial growth.</p> | ||
• Construction of RFP :: phoA, RFP :: p2A :: phoA and RFP :: ccdB by PCR amplification.</p> | • Construction of RFP :: phoA, RFP :: p2A :: phoA and RFP :: ccdB by PCR amplification.</p> | ||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
V. 28/07-03/08 | V. 28/07-03/08 | ||
- | • After having observed the failure of the screening of phoA, proline::phoA and Kid, we decided to abandon the fabrication of the Kid biobrick to focus on $\MyColi$ (results not shown). We restarted the phoA and | + | • After having observed the failure of the screening of phoA, proline::phoA and Kid, we decided to abandon the fabrication of the Kid biobrick to focus on $\MyColi$ (results not shown). We restarted the phoA and proline::phoA manipulation several times from intermediary steps, and we eventually restarted it one last time from the very beginning, by amplifying the gene phoA from MG1655 $\small E.Coli$ (28/07/14).</p> |
o We later discovered that we did not use the proper annealing temperature during the screening, nor did we adjust the duration of the elongation phase of the PCR to the length of phoA. It means that we might have grown phoA and phoA+P bacteria without noticing it.</p> | o We later discovered that we did not use the proper annealing temperature during the screening, nor did we adjust the duration of the elongation phase of the PCR to the length of phoA. It means that we might have grown phoA and phoA+P bacteria without noticing it.</p> | ||
- | o This time we managed to find 1 colony possessing phoA but still none with | + | o This time we managed to find 1 colony possessing phoA but still none with proline::phoA (05/08). |
• We restarted the PCR amplification for the constructions in $\small S.Cerevisiae$ (RFP :: p2A :: GFP, RFP :: p2A :: GFP, Kid) and the amplification of the RFP(RFP2) gene for the construction RFP :: p2A :: phoA in $\small E.Coli$. This time, the result was positive (29/07/14).</p> | • We restarted the PCR amplification for the constructions in $\small S.Cerevisiae$ (RFP :: p2A :: GFP, RFP :: p2A :: GFP, Kid) and the amplification of the RFP(RFP2) gene for the construction RFP :: p2A :: phoA in $\small E.Coli$. This time, the result was positive (29/07/14).</p> | ||
• We lost the RFP and ccdB segments for the construction RFP::ccdB, or forgot that we had amplified them. We amplified them a 2nd time (30/07/14)</p> | • We lost the RFP and ccdB segments for the construction RFP::ccdB, or forgot that we had amplified them. We amplified them a 2nd time (30/07/14)</p> | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
<!-- Add Table 7 --> | <!-- Add Table 7 --> | ||
Things could have gone better, but since we are now finally familiarized with the basic lab manipulations and since we have seemingly already made all the mistakes that can possibly be made, we are optimistic that things will go faster in August. | Things could have gone better, but since we are now finally familiarized with the basic lab manipulations and since we have seemingly already made all the mistakes that can possibly be made, we are optimistic that things will go faster in August. | ||
- | We can point out our difficulty to produce the constructions (phoA and | + | We can point out our difficulty to produce the constructions (phoA and proline::phoA) needed for the control experiment of the positive screening of the 2A peptides, and our abandon of the construction of the Kid biobrick.</p> |
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/88/10kmULB.png"></p> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/88/10kmULB.png"></p> | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
• The whole week has been spent carefully digesting pbad33 and pGAL1, regrowing proline::phoA colonies, re-amplificating the segment we had lost or depleted and purifying them (either on gel or on column). This took time since several of these steps have failed, so we had to restart so often that we were not more advanced at the end of the week.</p> | • The whole week has been spent carefully digesting pbad33 and pGAL1, regrowing proline::phoA colonies, re-amplificating the segment we had lost or depleted and purifying them (either on gel or on column). This took time since several of these steps have failed, so we had to restart so often that we were not more advanced at the end of the week.</p> | ||
o For example, when the digestion worked properly, something went wrong during the purification and everything was lost. We changed our protocols in small ways several time by listening to the advices of the PhD students in the lab.</p> | o For example, when the digestion worked properly, something went wrong during the purification and everything was lost. We changed our protocols in small ways several time by listening to the advices of the PhD students in the lab.</p> | ||
- | o At the end of the week, we had sent 2 phoA plasmids and 1 | + | o At the end of the week, we had sent 2 phoA plasmids and 1 proline::phoA plasmid to the sequencing, but not much more.</p> |
<!-- Add Figure 10 & 11 --> | <!-- Add Figure 10 & 11 --> | ||
Revision as of 10:38, 11 September 2014
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \newcommand{\MyColi}{{\small Mighty\hspace{0.12cm}Coli}} \newcommand{\Stabi}{\small Stabi}$ $\newcommand{\EColi}{\small E.coli} \newcommand{\SCere}{\small S.cerevisae}\\[0cm] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \newcommand{\PI}{\small PI}$ $\newcommand{\Igo}{\Large\mathcal{I}} \newcommand{\Tgo}{\Large\mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\Ogo}{\Large\mathcal{O}} ~$
|
---|