Team:SDU-Denmark/Tour41
From 2014.igem.org
SarahNielsen (Talk | contribs) |
SarahNielsen (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<h4>Tet construct</h4> | <h4>Tet construct</h4> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | We wanted to test if the Tet promoter could be fine-tuned, and what influence the LVA tag on TetR has on | + | <span class="intro">We wanted to test</span> if the Tet promoter could be fine-tuned, and what influence the LVA tag on TetR has on |
the expression.<br><br> | the expression.<br><br> | ||
- | The ligation of the TetR(+LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct was cloned successfully. | + | <span class="intro">The ligation of the</span> TetR(+LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct was cloned successfully. |
(<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1475006" target="_blank">Bba_K1475006</a>)<br><br> | (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1475006" target="_blank">Bba_K1475006</a>)<br><br> | ||
- | In order for us to ligate the TetR(no LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct, we first needed | + | <span class="intro">In order for us</span> to ligate the TetR(no LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct, we first needed |
to remove the LVA tag from TetR. The ligation was cloned successfully into a plasmid and can be | to remove the LVA tag from TetR. The ligation was cloned successfully into a plasmid and can be | ||
found in parts registry as <a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:Bba_K1475003" target="_blank">Bba_K1475003</a>.<br><br> | found in parts registry as <a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:Bba_K1475003" target="_blank">Bba_K1475003</a>.<br><br> | ||
- | The ligation of TetR(no LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct was done successfully and can | + | <span class="intro">The ligation of</span> TetR(no LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct was done successfully and can |
be found as <a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:Bba_K1475005" target="_blank">Bba_K1475005</a>.<br><br> | be found as <a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:Bba_K1475005" target="_blank">Bba_K1475005</a>.<br><br> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<h4>Characteriztion/expression</h4> | <h4>Characteriztion/expression</h4> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | The promoters in the TetR-pTet constructs are supposed to be inhibited by TetR. By induction with | + | <span class="intro">The promoters in the</span> TetR-pTet constructs are supposed to be inhibited by TetR. By induction with |
doxycycline, the repressor is inhibited, and thus pTet will be active. In this case, GFP will be expressed | doxycycline, the repressor is inhibited, and thus pTet will be active. In this case, GFP will be expressed | ||
after induction with | after induction with | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | The results of the FACS illustrates that without induction with doxycycline, GFP is still expressed. This is | + | <span class="intro">The results of the</span> FACS illustrates that without induction with doxycycline, GFP is still expressed. This is |
because the promoter is leaky. There is a very little variation in expression of GFP upon induction with low | because the promoter is leaky. There is a very little variation in expression of GFP upon induction with low | ||
concentration of doxycycline. At high concentration of doxycycline (2000 ng/mL) it can clearly be seen that | concentration of doxycycline. At high concentration of doxycycline (2000 ng/mL) it can clearly be seen that | ||
TetR (+LVA) is more inhibited than TetR without LVA.<br><br> | TetR (+LVA) is more inhibited than TetR without LVA.<br><br> | ||
- | Leaving the leakiness of pTet out of account, FACS results indicates that the pTet inhibited by TetR with LVA | + | <span class="intro">Leaving the leakiness of</span> pTet out of account, FACS results indicates that the pTet inhibited by TetR with LVA |
tag is the one most active, upon induction by doxycycline.<br><br> | tag is the one most active, upon induction by doxycycline.<br><br> | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
clearly shows an induction.<br><br> | clearly shows an induction.<br><br> | ||
- | Duplicates of plates with doxycycline were made with 0 ng/mL, 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, 500 | + | <span class="intro">Duplicates of plates with</span> doxycycline were made with 0 ng/mL, 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, 500 |
ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL doxycycline. On the plates, TetR-pTet construct with LVA, TetR-pTet | ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL doxycycline. On the plates, TetR-pTet construct with LVA, TetR-pTet | ||
construct with no LVA, pTet-GFP without TetR construct and wild-type were plated. | construct with no LVA, pTet-GFP without TetR construct and wild-type were plated. | ||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
</table><br> | </table><br> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | The plating of TetR-GFP constructs on plates with doxycycline shows that GFP is expressed at different | + | <span class="intro">The plating of</span> TetR-GFP constructs on plates with doxycycline shows that GFP is expressed at different |
levels at different concentrations of doxycycline. Expression increases with an increase in doxycycline | levels at different concentrations of doxycycline. Expression increases with an increase in doxycycline | ||
concentrations. The plates also show that GFP, to some extent, is expressed without doxycycline. This | concentrations. The plates also show that GFP, to some extent, is expressed without doxycycline. This | ||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
results.<br><br> | results.<br><br> | ||
- | To see how the growth of the bacteria expressing GFP controlled by pTet are affected, we have measured | + | <span class="intro">To see how the</span> growth of the bacteria expressing GFP controlled by pTet are affected, we have measured |
OD over 8 hours. We measured OD on triplicates of bacteria with an empty vector, pTet-GFP, pTet(no LVA)- | OD over 8 hours. We measured OD on triplicates of bacteria with an empty vector, pTet-GFP, pTet(no LVA)- | ||
GFP, pTet(+LVA)-GFP and a wild-type.<br> | GFP, pTet(+LVA)-GFP and a wild-type.<br> | ||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | Figure 2 shows the growth of bacteria expressing GFP constitutiely, are attenuated the most with most | + | <span class="intro">Figure 2 shows the</span> growth of bacteria expressing GFP constitutiely, are attenuated the most with most |
comprised growth. Removing the LVA tag from TetR also has a negative effect on the growth of the | comprised growth. Removing the LVA tag from TetR also has a negative effect on the growth of the | ||
bacteria.</p><br><br> | bacteria.</p><br><br> |
Revision as of 03:01, 17 October 2014
Expressions
Tet construct
We wanted to test if the Tet promoter could be fine-tuned, and what influence the LVA tag on TetR has on
the expression.
The ligation of the TetR(+LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct was cloned successfully.
(Bba_K1475006)
In order for us to ligate the TetR(no LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct, we first needed
to remove the LVA tag from TetR. The ligation was cloned successfully into a plasmid and can be
found in parts registry as Bba_K1475003.
The ligation of TetR(no LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct was done successfully and can
be found as Bba_K1475005.
Characteriztion/expression
The promoters in the TetR-pTet constructs are supposed to be inhibited by TetR. By induction with
doxycycline, the repressor is inhibited, and thus pTet will be active. In this case, GFP will be expressed
after induction with
doxycycline.
Source:
Aagaard, L., et al.: A Facile Lentiviral Vector System for Ekspression
of Doxycycline-Inducible dhRNAs: Knockdown of the Pre-miRNA Processing Enzyme Drosha. Molecular
Therapy, 2007. 15:5, p. 938-945.
(Link)
To test if the Tet promoter could be fine-tuned using different concentrations of doxycycline, we ran FACS
(Fuorescence-activated Cell Sorting) on E. coli expressing GFP controlled by pTet, regulated by TetR with
and without LVA tag. A wild-type was used as control.
The results of the FACS illustrates that without induction with doxycycline, GFP is still expressed. This is
because the promoter is leaky. There is a very little variation in expression of GFP upon induction with low
concentration of doxycycline. At high concentration of doxycycline (2000 ng/mL) it can clearly be seen that
TetR (+LVA) is more inhibited than TetR without LVA.
Leaving the leakiness of pTet out of account, FACS results indicates that the pTet inhibited by TetR with LVA
tag is the one most active, upon induction by doxycycline.
Because pTet is leaky, all cells express GFP. It can be difficult to tell if the pTet has been induced and to
what extent, however, plates containing the corresponding concentrations of doxycycline as used in FACS
clearly shows an induction.
Duplicates of plates with doxycycline were made with 0 ng/mL, 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, 500
ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL doxycycline. On the plates, TetR-pTet construct with LVA, TetR-pTet
construct with no LVA, pTet-GFP without TetR construct and wild-type were plated.
The plating of TetR-GFP constructs on plates with doxycycline shows that GFP is expressed at different
levels at different concentrations of doxycycline. Expression increases with an increase in doxycycline
concentrations. The plates also show that GFP, to some extent, is expressed without doxycycline. This
indicates that the Tet promoter is leaky and is not fully inhibited by TetR as it could be seen in the FACS
results.
To see how the growth of the bacteria expressing GFP controlled by pTet are affected, we have measured
OD over 8 hours. We measured OD on triplicates of bacteria with an empty vector, pTet-GFP, pTet(no LVA)-
GFP, pTet(+LVA)-GFP and a wild-type.
Figure 2 shows the growth of bacteria expressing GFP constitutiely, are attenuated the most with most comprised growth. Removing the LVA tag from TetR also has a negative effect on the growth of the bacteria.