Team:INSA-Lyon/Results
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
m |
|||
(9 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
<b>Figure 1 : Engineered bacteria Percentage of adhesion</b><br/> | <b>Figure 1 : Engineered bacteria Percentage of adhesion</b><br/> | ||
<p align="justify"><i>csgA-</i>knockout <i>E. coli</i> strain was transformed with BBa_CsgA-WT (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1404006">BBa_K1404006</a>); BBa_CsgA-His1 (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1404007">BBa_K1404007</a>); BBa_CsgA-His2 (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1404008">BBa_K1404008</a>). The corresponding positive and negative controls are, respectively, Wild-type <i>E.coli</i> curli producing strain transformed with the empty vector and <i>csgA-</i>-knockout <i>E. coli</i> strain transformed with the empty vector. <br/> | <p align="justify"><i>csgA-</i>knockout <i>E. coli</i> strain was transformed with BBa_CsgA-WT (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1404006">BBa_K1404006</a>); BBa_CsgA-His1 (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1404007">BBa_K1404007</a>); BBa_CsgA-His2 (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1404008">BBa_K1404008</a>). The corresponding positive and negative controls are, respectively, Wild-type <i>E.coli</i> curli producing strain transformed with the empty vector and <i>csgA-</i>-knockout <i>E. coli</i> strain transformed with the empty vector. <br/> | ||
- | Strains with our parts, the positive and negative controls were cultured in a 24- | + | Strains with our parts, the positive and negative controls were cultured in a 24-well microplate in M63 Mannitol during 24H at 30°C. The supernatant was removed and the OD600 measured, then the bacteria forming the biofilm were resuspended and the OD600 was measured in order to estimate the number of cells (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/80/Adhesion_test_protocole.pdf" target="_blank">See protocol for details</a>). The percentage of adhesion was calculated as follows: |
(OD600 of the biofilm)/ (OD600 of the supernatant + OD600 of the biofilm) <br/> | (OD600 of the biofilm)/ (OD600 of the supernatant + OD600 of the biofilm) <br/> | ||
Different uppercase letters displayed on the graph indicate significant differences between strains (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05) <br/> | Different uppercase letters displayed on the graph indicate significant differences between strains (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05) <br/> | ||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
<b>Figure 2 : Engineered bacteria Biofilm formation</b><br/> | <b>Figure 2 : Engineered bacteria Biofilm formation</b><br/> | ||
<p align=" justify ">The cells were cultured as described in figure 1. <br/> | <p align=" justify ">The cells were cultured as described in figure 1. <br/> | ||
- | <div align="justify"><p>The supernatant was removed and the remaining biofilm was fixed to the microplate by heat treatment at 80°C during 1H. The crystal violet solution was added in each well in order to stain the cells and the wells were washed with water to remove crystal violet in excess (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/e/ef/Crystal_Violet_protocole.pdf" target="_blank">See protocol for details </a>).<br/> | + | <div align="justify"><p>The supernatant was removed and the remaining biofilm was fixed to the microplate by heat treatment at 80°C during 1H. The crystal violet solution was added in each well in order to stain the cells and the wells were washed with water to remove crystal violet in excess (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/e/ef/Crystal_Violet_protocole.pdf" target="_blank">See protocol for details</a>).<br/> |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
Crystal violet staining shows that <b>the strain containing the three parts could form a biofilm like the positive control. Thus tagged CsgA were still functional</b>. CsgA with one or two tags expressed by the P70 promoter were sufficient to form thick biofilms.</p></div> </p> | Crystal violet staining shows that <b>the strain containing the three parts could form a biofilm like the positive control. Thus tagged CsgA were still functional</b>. CsgA with one or two tags expressed by the P70 promoter were sufficient to form thick biofilms.</p></div> </p> | ||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
<b>Figure 3 : Engineered bacteria curli production</b><br/> | <b>Figure 3 : Engineered bacteria curli production</b><br/> | ||
<p align="justify">Strains are the same as in figure 1. <br/> | <p align="justify">Strains are the same as in figure 1. <br/> | ||
- | Strains with our parts, the positive and negative control were cultured in M63 Mannitol at 30°C and 180rpm. After centrifugation, the supernatant was removed and the cell pellet was resuspended in the Congo Red solution, in order to specifically stain the curli. The samples were centrifuged again and the pellets were observed (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/39/CongoRed.pdf" target="_blank">See protocol </a> | + | Strains with our parts, the positive and negative control were cultured in M63 Mannitol at 30°C and 180rpm. After centrifugation, the supernatant was removed and the cell pellet was resuspended in the Congo Red solution, in order to specifically stain the curli. The samples were centrifuged again and the pellets were observed (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/39/CongoRed.pdf" target="_blank">See protocol for more details</a>). <br/> |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
Congo Red staining shows that <b>the CsgA with one or two tags expressed by the P70 promoter allows to form curli fibers</b> which are able to bind Congo Red.<br/></p> | Congo Red staining shows that <b>the CsgA with one or two tags expressed by the P70 promoter allows to form curli fibers</b> which are able to bind Congo Red.<br/></p> | ||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
<h5>Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Analyses</h5> | <h5>Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Analyses</h5> | ||
- | <div align="justify"><p><br/>For the Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy biofilm acquisitions, all the strains were cultivated in 96- | + | <div align="justify"><p><br/>For the Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy biofilm acquisitions, all the strains were cultivated in 96-well microplate in M63 Mannitol during 16H at 30°C (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/7/7e/Culture_confocal_analyse.pdf" target="_blank">See Protocol for details</a>). See results in <b>Figure 4</b>.</p> |
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/7/7d/Figureglobaleetoile2.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/7/7d/Figureglobaleetoile2.png" | ||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
- | <p></br>As no | + | <p></br>As no strain carrying our parts showed a significant difference with the positive control, our part’s insertion doesn’t modify the biofilm formation properties. <b>The His-Tag and His2-Tag engineered CsgA doesn’t disturb the curli formation.</b></p> |
</p> | </p> | ||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
- | <p>A second method has been used, more <b>quantitative</b> and more precise (but more expensive) : <b> ICP-MS </b>. (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/f7/Ni_chelation.pdf" target="_blank">See Protocol for more details</a>)<br/> The metal content of the bacterial pellets were assayed. The quantity of chelated nickel for each strain was compared to the quantity of curlis formed by each strain.</p> | + | <p>A second method has been used, more <b>quantitative</b> and more precise (but more expensive) : <b> ICP-MS (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry)</b>. (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/f7/Ni_chelation.pdf" target="_blank">See Protocol for more details</a>)<br/> The metal content of the bacterial pellets were assayed. The quantity of chelated nickel for each strain was compared to the quantity of curlis formed by each strain.</p> |
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
<p> Different lowercase letters displayed on the graph indicate significant differences between strains (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Error bars represent standard deviations.</p> | <p> Different lowercase letters displayed on the graph indicate significant differences between strains (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Error bars represent standard deviations.</p> | ||
- | <p>Taken together, these results show that the CsgA- Strain with part <a href="http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1404008">BBa_CsgA-His2</a> chelates twice as much as strain CsgA- with part <a href="http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1404007">BBa_CsgA-His1</a>. That means that <b>only two His-tags on C-term can improve the natural nickel chelation capacities of CsgA </b>. CsgA with a single His-tag did not perform better than a wild-type CsgA. It can be explained by the conformation of the His1-tag which could be folded on the side of CsgA, as presented in the <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:INSA-Lyon/Molecular#nichelation"> | + | <p>Taken together, these results show that the CsgA- Strain with part <a href="http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1404008">BBa_CsgA-His2</a> chelates twice as much as strain CsgA- with part <a href="http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1404007">BBa_CsgA-His1</a>. That means that <b>only two His-tags on C-term can improve the natural nickel chelation capacities of CsgA </b>. CsgA with a single His-tag did not perform better than a wild-type CsgA. It can be explained by the conformation of the His1-tag which could be folded on the side of CsgA, as presented in the <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:INSA-Lyon/Molecular#nichelation" target="_blank">modelization section</a>. Potentially, further increase of the amount of His-tags could improve the nickel accumulation capacities of CsgA. </p> |
<br/> </div> | <br/> </div> | ||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
<div align="justify"> | <div align="justify"> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | To | + | To address biosafety issues linked with GMOs, we worked on destroying our bacteria after letting them grow in a biofilm. As the captured metal is extracellular and Curli proteins are very resistant to environmental changes, alive bacteria are not needed for our biofilter. Our goal was to obtain a biomaterial made out of modified Curli able to chelate nickel. |
</p> </br> | </p> </br> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
</table></br> | </table></br> | ||
- | <b>Figure 1 :Monitoring of bacteria kill after UV exposure</b> </div> <br/> | + | <b>Figure 1: Monitoring of bacteria kill after UV exposure</b> </div> <br/> |
No bacteria grew on LB plates after 15 minutes UV light exposure.</br>⇒ <b>Bacterial growth can be stopped this way. </b></p></br> | No bacteria grew on LB plates after 15 minutes UV light exposure.</br>⇒ <b>Bacterial growth can be stopped this way. </b></p></br> | ||
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td><div align="center"><figcaption> | <td><div align="center"><figcaption> | ||
- | <b>Figure 2 : PCR gel after UV exposure </b> </figcaption></div></td> | + | <b>Figure 2: PCR gel after UV exposure </b> </figcaption></div></td> |
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> </div></br> Bacterial DNA seemed to be degraded after 10 min UV light exposure.</br>⇒ <b>In consequence, UV light can be used to destroy DNA.</b> </p></br> | </table> </div></br> Bacterial DNA seemed to be degraded after 10 min UV light exposure.</br>⇒ <b>In consequence, UV light can be used to destroy DNA.</b> </p></br> | ||
- | <p><div align="center"><i>Backlight</i></div></p | + | <p><div align="center"><i>Backlight</i></div></p> |
<p><div align="center"><table> | <p><div align="center"><table> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
- | <b>Figure 3 : Observations of bacteria exposed to UV and after backlight coloration : <br/> | + | <b>Figure 3: Observations of bacteria exposed to UV and after backlight coloration : <br/> |
alive bacteria appear in green and dead ones in red.</b> </div> <br/></div> | alive bacteria appear in green and dead ones in red.</b> </div> <br/></div> | ||
Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
- | <b>Figure 4 : Monitoring of bacteria heated at 60°C</b> </div></br> | + | <b>Figure 4: Monitoring of bacteria heated at 60°C</b> </div></br> |
Bacteria grew on LB plates even 45 min after being heated at 60°C. </br>⇒ <b>60°C isn't enough high to kill bacteria.</b></p></br> | Bacteria grew on LB plates even 45 min after being heated at 60°C. </br>⇒ <b>60°C isn't enough high to kill bacteria.</b></p></br> | ||
Line 282: | Line 282: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> </br> | </table> </br> | ||
- | <b>Figure 5 : Monitoring of bacteria heated at 70°C</b> </div></br> | + | <b>Figure 5: Monitoring of bacteria heated at 70°C</b> </div></br> |
No more bacteria grew on LB plates after 15min at 70°C<br/> ⇒<b>Bacterial growth can be stopped as well as with UV light.</b></p></br> | No more bacteria grew on LB plates after 15min at 70°C<br/> ⇒<b>Bacterial growth can be stopped as well as with UV light.</b></p></br> | ||
Line 296: | Line 296: | ||
No DNA degradation at all.<br/>⇒ <b>In consequence, unlike UV light, temperature treatment doesn't destroy DNA.</b> </p><br/> | No DNA degradation at all.<br/>⇒ <b>In consequence, unlike UV light, temperature treatment doesn't destroy DNA.</b> </p><br/> | ||
- | <p><div align="center"><i>Backlight</i></div></p | + | <p><div align="center"><i>Backlight</i></div></p> |
<p><div align="center"><table> | <p><div align="center"><table> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
Line 315: | Line 315: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
- | <b>Figure 7 : Observations of bacteria heated at 70°C and after backlight coloration</b> | + | <b>Figure 7: Observations of bacteria heated at 70°C and after backlight coloration</b> |
</div></br> | </div></br> | ||
No difference of coloration was observed between the control and the samples heated at 70°C : indeed a lot of green-colored bacteria remained after 45 min of heating.<br/>⇒ <b>Temperature isn’t enough to kill bacteria just like UV light.</b></p></br> | No difference of coloration was observed between the control and the samples heated at 70°C : indeed a lot of green-colored bacteria remained after 45 min of heating.<br/>⇒ <b>Temperature isn’t enough to kill bacteria just like UV light.</b></p></br> | ||
Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
<ul id="contenu4" style="list-style-type: none !important;display:none;"> | <ul id="contenu4" style="list-style-type: none !important;display:none;"> | ||
<li> | <li> | ||
- | |||
<p><p align="justify"> | <p><p align="justify"> | ||
As a follow-up to the exploration of curli production and nickel chelation, we want to know the kinetics behind the 70 base-pair long promoter sequence that we used during the whole summer. | As a follow-up to the exploration of curli production and nickel chelation, we want to know the kinetics behind the 70 base-pair long promoter sequence that we used during the whole summer. | ||
- | In fact, it has the interesting property of being activated at 37°C instead of the 30°C of the natural 750 base-pair | + | In fact, it has the interesting property of being activated at 37°C instead of the 30°C of the natural 750 base-pair <i>csgA</i> promoter from where it is originally isolated. However, we explored these two promoters' kinetics at 30 and 37°C by inserting a GFP downstream. |
- | On a pKK backbone, two essential parts have been assembled: a promoter and a reporter gene. The reporter gene in this case is always the same: GFP. However, the promoter is different for each construction. | + | |
+ | |||
+ | <div align="center"> | ||
+ | <img src= "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/f/fb/2.png"></br> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div align="center"><figcaption><b>Figure 1: GFP expression plasmid for promoter characterization. The promoter sequence can either be the 70 (P70) or the 750 base-pair promoter sequence.</b></figcaption> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | </br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>On a pKK backbone, two essential parts have been assembled: a promoter and a reporter gene. The reporter gene in this case is always the same: GFP. However, the promoter is different for each construction. | ||
On the one hand, P70 is the 70 base-pair long promoter sequence and when combined to the reporter GFP, the construction is called p70:GFP. | On the one hand, P70 is the 70 base-pair long promoter sequence and when combined to the reporter GFP, the construction is called p70:GFP. | ||
- | On the other hand, P750 is the 750 base-pair long promoter sequence coding for the inter-genic regulation region of curli production and combined to the reporter GFP, the construction is called P750:GFP. | + | On the other hand, P750 is the 750 base-pair long promoter sequence coding for the inter-genic regulation region of curli production and combined to the reporter GFP, the construction is called P750:GFP. These constructs allow to compare the expression of both promoters. |
- | + | ||
</p></p> | </p></p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
- | <img src= "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/ | + | <img width="80%" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/5/58/PromoterExpression_EarlyStage.png"</br> |
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | <div align="center"><figcaption><b>Figure 2: Promoter expression as a function of the Optical Density. At early growth stage, P70 has a higher expression rate at 37°C relatively to the P750.</b></figcaption> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | </br> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<b>Early growth stage promoter kinetics</b></br> | <b>Early growth stage promoter kinetics</b></br> | ||
- | <p align="justify">During the early growth stages at 37°C, we can observe that the P70 (orange) has a higher | + | <p align="justify">During the early growth stages at 37°C, we can observe that the P70 (orange) has a higher expression level compared to the P750 (red). |
- | However at 30°C, both P70 (light blue) and P750 (dark blue) have low | + | However at 30°C, both P70 (light blue) and P750 (dark blue) have low expression levels. |
We conclude that P70 has the ability to prematurely activate downstream expression at 37°C. | We conclude that P70 has the ability to prematurely activate downstream expression at 37°C. | ||
</p></p> | </p></p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
- | <img width="80%" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/ | + | <img width="80%" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/f9/PromoterExpression_LateStage.png"></br> |
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | <div align="center"><figcaption><b>Figure 3: Promoter expression as a function of the Optical Density. At mid/late growth stage, P750 has a delayed but higher expression rate at 30°C relatively to the P70.</b></figcaption></div> | ||
+ | </br> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | <b> | + | <b>Mid/late growth stage promoter kinetics</b></br> |
- | <p align="justify">During the late growth stages at 37°C, we can observe that both P70 (orange) and P750 (red) have a | + | <p align="justify">During the mid/late growth stages at 37°C, we can observe that both P70 (orange) and P750 (red) have a decreased promoter expression and are moving towards lower rates. |
- | However at 30°C, P70 (light blue) stabilizes within the range of low | + | However at 30°C, P70 (light blue) stabilizes within the range of low expression levels and P750 (dark blue) reaches the highest promoter expression rates. |
- | We conclude that P750 has a delayed, albeit extremely high-leveled, | + | We conclude that P750 has a delayed, albeit extremely high-leveled, promoter expression at 30°C. |
</p></p> | </p></p> | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
</ul> | </ul> |
Latest revision as of 03:13, 18 October 2014