Team:INSA-Lyon/Results
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
m |
|||
(7 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 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" target="_blank"> | + | <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 350: | Line 350: | ||
<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. |
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
- | <img src= "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/f/fb/2.png" | + | <img src= "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/f/fb/2.png"></br> |
</div> | </div> | ||
- | 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"><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> | ||
Line 367: | Line 371: | ||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
- | <img width="80%" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/5/58/PromoterExpression_EarlyStage.png | + | <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> | ||
Line 380: | Line 388: | ||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
- | <img width="80%" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/f9/PromoterExpression_LateStage.png" | + | <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> |
Latest revision as of 03:13, 18 October 2014