Team:UANL Mty-Mexico/project/DNA-Program-Delivery
From 2014.igem.org
SanDionicio (Talk | contribs) |
|||
(5 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
Justification <br> <br> | Justification <br> <br> | ||
- | Cell reprogramming for generation of iPS cells is a technique which uses transduction systems with “reprogrammation factors”, proteins and transcriptions factors involved primarily in the methylation patterns in the genome of a differentiated cell, which are modified in order to produce a cell capable of differentiating again, into different types of cells, but not a whole organism. While this reprogrammation might seem different from the “biohacker” system we propose, it is the same basic principle; the use of a gene/DNA delivery system, in this case, for a mammalian cell; the uses of this biohacker system with this type of DNA delivery system will be discussed, while reprogrammation efficiency cannot be discussed, since it relies on more complex factors, as the complete modification of methylation patterns, the stability of the new methylation patterns and a steady state of other differentiation and growth factors. <br> <br> | + | Cell reprogramming for generation of iPS cells is a technique which uses transduction systems with “reprogrammation factors”, proteins and transcriptions factors involved primarily in the methylation patterns in the genome of a differentiated cell, which are modified in order to produce a cell capable of differentiating again, into different types of cells, but not a whole organism. While this reprogrammation might seem different from the “biohacker” system we propose, it is the same basic principle; the use of a gene/DNA delivery system, in this case, for a mammalian cell; the uses of this biohacker system with this type of DNA delivery system will be discussed, while reprogrammation efficiency cannot be discussed, since it relies on more complex factors, as the complete modification of methylation patterns, the stability of the new methylation patterns and a steady state of other differentiation and growth factors. [12]<br> <br> |
Retroviruses.<br> <br> | Retroviruses.<br> <br> | ||
- | A common tool, used in both clinical gene therapy and basic research, are retroviruses; their biology is well understood, and they have a high efficiency on both transduction and expression of genes, and can be replication-competent (it has in its genome the essential genes for virion synthesis) and replication defective; thus, the technique is widely used. Nevertheless, the virus genome is large, so it has a limited cloning capacity for multiple genes, which makes a reprogrammation difficult on whole systems or modules on synthetic biology or induction of pluripotent cells. <br> | + | A common tool, used in both clinical gene therapy and basic research, are retroviruses; their biology is well understood, and they have a high efficiency on both transduction and expression of genes, and can be replication-competent (it has in its genome the essential genes for virion synthesis) and replication defective; thus, the technique is widely used. Nevertheless, the virus genome is large, so it has a limited cloning capacity for multiple genes, which makes a reprogrammation difficult on whole systems or modules on synthetic biology or induction of pluripotent cells. [13]<br> |
Even though, in the work of Yamanaka, the first delivery of four reprogrammation factors on rat fibroblasts in order to make iPS was made using a Moloney murine leukemia virus (MMLV) based retrovirus vector, but this system often reactivated the MMLVLTR promoter, causing tumors due to expression of c-Myc factor; when this promoter was removed, they got completely functional iPS cells. <br> | Even though, in the work of Yamanaka, the first delivery of four reprogrammation factors on rat fibroblasts in order to make iPS was made using a Moloney murine leukemia virus (MMLV) based retrovirus vector, but this system often reactivated the MMLVLTR promoter, causing tumors due to expression of c-Myc factor; when this promoter was removed, they got completely functional iPS cells. <br> | ||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
<p align="justify"><b> Animal-bacteria horizontal gene transfer. </b><br><br> | <p align="justify"><b> Animal-bacteria horizontal gene transfer. </b><br><br> | ||
- | Horizontal gene transfer has been described in a wide variety of organisms, mostly prokaryotes; whole genome analyses show that genes are transferred horizontally between closely related taxa, and between bacteria inhabiting the same environment. <br> | + | Horizontal gene transfer has been described in a wide variety of organisms, mostly prokaryotes; whole genome analyses show that genes are transferred horizontally between closely related taxa, and between bacteria inhabiting the same environment. [15]<br> |
- | Horizontal gene transfer is also found in eukaryotes, and even on superior animals; examples range from the transfer of P elements between Drosophila melanogaster and D. willistoni, the transfer of genes for carotenoid biosynthesis from fungi to pea aphids and the more recently discovered heritable lateral gene transfer in humans and <i>Trypanosoma cruzi.</i> <br> | + | Horizontal gene transfer is also found in eukaryotes, and even on superior animals; examples range from the transfer of P elements between Drosophila melanogaster and D. willistoni, the transfer of genes for carotenoid biosynthesis from fungi to pea aphids and the more recently discovered heritable lateral gene transfer in humans and <i>Trypanosoma cruzi.</i> [16]<br> |
- | Although rare, interkingdom gene transfer has also been observed, the Eubacteria <i>Thermotoga maritime</i> has 81 archeal genes, and the well known Eubacteria-Eukaryota transference; <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i> transfers 10- | + | Although rare, interkingdom gene transfer has also been observed, the Eubacteria <i>Thermotoga maritime</i> has 81 archeal genes, and the well known Eubacteria-Eukaryota transference; <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i> transfers 10-30 kbp to plants. In the case of bacteria to animals, it happens through symbiosis, like the symbiotic relationship between <i>Wolbachia</i> with arthropods and filarial nematodes. <br> |
Though not a DNA delivery system in itself, the danger of transferring the program to other species, bacteria, animals or plants, has to be considered in function of the organism we are using. <br> <br> </p> | Though not a DNA delivery system in itself, the danger of transferring the program to other species, bacteria, animals or plants, has to be considered in function of the organism we are using. <br> <br> </p> | ||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
could be used as a DNA delivery system for almost any phagocytic organism, more specifically, | could be used as a DNA delivery system for almost any phagocytic organism, more specifically, | ||
protozoan, amoebas being the classic phagocytic example.</p> | protozoan, amoebas being the classic phagocytic example.</p> | ||
- | <p>The design of a vector capable of replicating in both amoebas and yeasts might seem complicated, but finding a real life application for the idea is even more complex.</p> | + | <p>The design of a vector capable of replicating in both amoebas and yeasts might seem complicated, but finding a real life application for the idea is even more complex.[11]</p> |
<p><b>Non-living delivery systems.</b><br>Justification. <br> | <p><b>Non-living delivery systems.</b><br>Justification. <br> | ||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
organisms need to be in a controlled environment, in order to be transformed with methods | organisms need to be in a controlled environment, in order to be transformed with methods | ||
using non-living delivery systems, in particular nanoparticles (e.g. biolistics). Its use as a | using non-living delivery systems, in particular nanoparticles (e.g. biolistics). Its use as a | ||
- | transformation method on the field is limited. </p> | + | transformation method on the field is limited. [9][10]</p> |
<p><b>Plant gene transfer systems.</b><br> Justification.<br> | <p><b>Plant gene transfer systems.</b><br> Justification.<br> | ||
The idea proposed in this project is meant to be employed on the field, and since plants are one | The idea proposed in this project is meant to be employed on the field, and since plants are one | ||
Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
an advantage over other organisms. But the problem is the capability of the bacteria to transform other organisms. | an advantage over other organisms. But the problem is the capability of the bacteria to transform other organisms. | ||
- | <p>We cannot change a mechanism that we do not understand, so making the bacterium host-specific is impossible, since we do not know what proteins are involved in host attachment and recognition.</p> | + | <p>We cannot change a mechanism that we do not understand, so making the bacterium host-specific is impossible, since we do not know what proteins are involved in host attachment and recognition.[8]</p> |
<p>Virus<br>The use of virus to genetically modify an organism is mostly reduced to promoters and other regulatory elements of the virus, since plant virus are not widely studied (except for TMV); but most of the known ones are host-specific.</p> | <p>Virus<br>The use of virus to genetically modify an organism is mostly reduced to promoters and other regulatory elements of the virus, since plant virus are not widely studied (except for TMV); but most of the known ones are host-specific.</p> | ||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
<p>Continuing with the virus subject, as in animals, the genetic material of plant virus can be RNA or DNA, never both. Among the RNA virus are the families Tobacovirus (turnip vein-clearing virus, tobacco mosaic virus) and Potexvirus (Alternanthera mosaic virus and potato virus X), and among DNA (which are relevant to us) are the Geminiviridae; small viruses (2.5-3.0 kb per single stranded DNA circle) which replicate within the nucleus, completely depending on host proteins to complete their life cycle.</p> | <p>Continuing with the virus subject, as in animals, the genetic material of plant virus can be RNA or DNA, never both. Among the RNA virus are the families Tobacovirus (turnip vein-clearing virus, tobacco mosaic virus) and Potexvirus (Alternanthera mosaic virus and potato virus X), and among DNA (which are relevant to us) are the Geminiviridae; small viruses (2.5-3.0 kb per single stranded DNA circle) which replicate within the nucleus, completely depending on host proteins to complete their life cycle.</p> | ||
- | <p>Which means another transformation method, one involving the modification of certain sequences in the Geminivirus, along with the addition of the relevant vir genes from A. tumefasciens or a transposon linked sequence, and our circuit, can be proposed.This way we would have a host-specific delivery system for plants, which could be transfected by a simple rub-inoculation. The system could be replication-competent or replication-deficient, depending on the modified sequences, and integrative or episomal in function of the number of vir genes added.</p> | + | <p>Which means another transformation method, one involving the modification of certain sequences in the Geminivirus, along with the addition of the relevant vir genes from A. tumefasciens or a transposon linked sequence, and our circuit, can be proposed.This way we would have a host-specific delivery system for plants, which could be transfected by a simple rub-inoculation. The system could be replication-competent or replication-deficient, depending on the modified sequences, and integrative or episomal in function of the number of vir genes added.[7]</p> |
- | <p>Though not a major set-back, the rub-inoculation method has the disadvantage of limiting the number of specimens that can be transformed at one time; a difficulty that the reprogramator method does not have due to its sprayed inoculation approach.</p> | + | <p>Though not a major set-back, the rub-inoculation method has the disadvantage of limiting the number of specimens that can be transformed at one time; a difficulty that the reprogramator method does not have due to its sprayed inoculation approach.[6]</p> |
<p><i>Genetic delivery system using specific virus for plants</i><br>A reasonable viral vector option for Maize (Zea mays), one of the most important crops for global agriculture, is the Maize rayadofinomarafivirus (MRFV). These virus, first reported in Zea mays in El Salvador by Ancalmo and Davies (1961), have as its only natural host the Zea mays ssp. mays (maize) and Zea mays ssp. mexicana. It produce chlorotic vein stippling and striping especially in new cultivars, and its transmitted by an insect named Dalbulusmaidis (Cicadellidae). The experimental host range has determined that it have just some few families susceptible, the Gramineae, including three species: Zea mays, Zea mays ssp. mays, and Zea mays ssp. mexicana. Its genome consists of single-stranded RNA with a total genome size of 6.7 kb. Also there are other virus that are good options as gen delivery vectors.</p> | <p><i>Genetic delivery system using specific virus for plants</i><br>A reasonable viral vector option for Maize (Zea mays), one of the most important crops for global agriculture, is the Maize rayadofinomarafivirus (MRFV). These virus, first reported in Zea mays in El Salvador by Ancalmo and Davies (1961), have as its only natural host the Zea mays ssp. mays (maize) and Zea mays ssp. mexicana. It produce chlorotic vein stippling and striping especially in new cultivars, and its transmitted by an insect named Dalbulusmaidis (Cicadellidae). The experimental host range has determined that it have just some few families susceptible, the Gramineae, including three species: Zea mays, Zea mays ssp. mays, and Zea mays ssp. mexicana. Its genome consists of single-stranded RNA with a total genome size of 6.7 kb. Also there are other virus that are good options as gen delivery vectors.</p> | ||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/e/e5/Dibujo.PNG"></center> | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/e/e5/Dibujo.PNG"></center> | ||
+ | <center><p><i>Table 1</i> General table of DNA delivery systems in bacteria. [1][2][3][4][5]</center> | ||
<p><b>Reference</b> | <p><b>Reference</b> | ||
- | <li>http://bio-rad.com/webroot/web/pdf/lsr/literature/Bulletin_5443.pdf</li> | + | <li>1. http://bio-rad.com/webroot/web/pdf/lsr/literature/Bulletin_5443.pdf</li> |
- | <li>Weavera J., Y. Chizmadzhevb. 1996. Theory of electroporation: A review. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 41(2): 135–160.</li> | + | <li>2. Weavera J., Y. Chizmadzhevb. 1996. Theory of electroporation: A review. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 41(2): 135–160.</li> |
- | <li>Rattanachaikunsopon P., P. Phumkhachorn. 2009. Glass bead transformation method for gram-positive bacteria. Braz J Microbiol. 40(4): 923–926.</li> | + | <li>3. Rattanachaikunsopon P., P. Phumkhachorn. 2009. Glass bead transformation method for gram-positive bacteria. Braz J Microbiol. 40(4): 923–926.</li> |
- | <li>University of Massachussets Medical School. Transformation of Bacterial Cells. Regional Science Resource Center. Retrieved from https://www.umassmed.edu/uploadedFiles/trans%20bact%20cells(1).pdf</li> | + | <li>4. University of Massachussets Medical School. Transformation of Bacterial Cells. Regional Science Resource Center. Retrieved from https://www.umassmed.edu/uploadedFiles/trans%20bact%20cells(1).pdf</li> |
- | <li>Kittleson J., W. DeLoache, H. Cheng, J. Anderson. 2012. Scalable Plasmid Transfer using Engineered P1-based Phagemids. ACS Synth. Biol. 1, 583−589.</li> | + | <li>5. Kittleson J., W. DeLoache, H. Cheng, J. Anderson. 2012. Scalable Plasmid Transfer using Engineered P1-based Phagemids. ACS Synth. Biol. 1, 583−589.</li> |
- | <li> | + | <li>6. Scholthof HB.”Rapid delivery of foreign genes into plants by direct rub-inoculation with intact plasmid DNA of a tomato bushy stunt virus gene vector” (1999) Journal of Virology. 73(9): 7823-7829 PMCID: PMC104311</li> |
- | <li>Pitzschke A, Hirt H. “New insights into an old story: Agrobacterium-induced tumour formation in plants by plant transformation” (2010) The EMBO Journal 29: 1021-1032</li> | + | <li>7. Pitzschke A, Hirt H. “New insights into an old story: Agrobacterium-induced tumour formation in plants by plant transformation” (2010) The EMBO Journal 29: 1021-1032</li> |
- | <li>Krenz B, Jeske H, Kleinow T. “The induction of stromule formation by a plant DNA-virus in epidermal leaf tissues suggests a novel intra- and intercellular macromolecular trafficking route” (2012) Frontiers in plant science. ¿? Volume 3, Article 291. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2012.00291</li> | + | <li>8. Krenz B, Jeske H, Kleinow T. “The induction of stromule formation by a plant DNA-virus in epidermal leaf tissues suggests a novel intra- and intercellular macromolecular trafficking route” (2012) Frontiers in plant science. ¿? Volume 3, Article 291. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2012.00291</li> |
- | <li>Kim T, Lee M, Kim SW “A guanidinylatedbioreducible polymer with high nuclear localization ability for gene delivery systems”(2012) Biomaterials. 31(7): 1798-1816 doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.19.034</li> | + | <li>9. Kim T, Lee M, Kim SW “A guanidinylatedbioreducible polymer with high nuclear localization ability for gene delivery systems”(2012) Biomaterials. 31(7): 1798-1816 doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.19.034</li> |
- | <li>Zu Y, Huang S, Liao WC, Lu Y, Wang S. “Gold nanoparticles enhanced electroporation form mammalian cell transfection” (2014) J Biomed Nanotech. 10(6):982-992</li> | + | <li>10. Zu Y, Huang S, Liao WC, Lu Y, Wang S. “Gold nanoparticles enhanced electroporation form mammalian cell transfection” (2014) J Biomed Nanotech. 10(6):982-992</li> |
- | <li>Walch B, Breinig T, Schmitt MJ, Breinig F. “Delivery of functional DNA and messenger RNA to mammalian phagocytic cells by recombinant yeast” (2012) Gene Therapy 19(3):237-245</li> | + | <li>11. Walch B, Breinig T, Schmitt MJ, Breinig F. “Delivery of functional DNA and messenger RNA to mammalian phagocytic cells by recombinant yeast” (2012) Gene Therapy 19(3):237-245</li> |
- | <li>Shao L, Wu Ws “Gene-delivery systems for iPS cell generation” (2010) Expert OpinBiolTher. 10(2):231-242 doi:10.1517/14712590903455989</li> | + | <li>12. Shao L, Wu Ws “Gene-delivery systems for iPS cell generation” (2010) Expert OpinBiolTher. 10(2):231-242 doi:10.1517/14712590903455989</li> |
- | <li>Okita K, Nakagawa M, Hyenjong H, Ichisaka T, Yamanaka S “Generation of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells without viral vectors” (2008) Science 322: 949-952 doi: 10.1126/science.1164270</li> | + | <li>13. Okita K, Nakagawa M, Hyenjong H, Ichisaka T, Yamanaka S “Generation of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells without viral vectors” (2008) Science 322: 949-952 doi: 10.1126/science.1164270</li> |
- | <li>Hotopp JCD “Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals” (2011) Trends on genetics 27(4):157-163 doi:10.1016/j.tig.2011.01.005.</li> | + | <li>14. Hotopp JCD “Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals” (2011) Trends on genetics 27(4):157-163 doi:10.1016/j.tig.2011.01.005.</li> |
- | <li>Beiko RG, Harlow TJ, Ragan MA “Highways of gene sharing in prokaryotes” (2005) PNAS 102(40):14332-14337</li> | + | <li>15. Beiko RG, Harlow TJ, Ragan MA “Highways of gene sharing in prokaryotes” (2005) PNAS 102(40):14332-14337</li> |
</ol> | </ol> |
Latest revision as of 03:53, 18 October 2014
Project |
|
DNA Delivery System
What is a DNA delivery system?
DNA Delivery Systems on Eukaryotes With evidence on induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS cells). Animal-bacteria horizontal gene transfer. Animal yeast transfer systems The design of a vector capable of replicating in both amoebas and yeasts might seem complicated, but finding a real life application for the idea is even more complex.[11] Non-living delivery systems. Plant gene transfer systems. Agrobacterium tumefasciens. Agrobacterium tumefasciens is a species of bacteria widely distributed in soil; it is the oldest and best researched plant transformation method, though we still lack even though we still lack important amounts of knowledge about the basic mechanisms of recognition, attachment, and integration. Nevertheless, our primary concern about using A. tumefasciens on crops is not its transformation efficiency, but the possibility of disseminating transgenes in the environment. While it is true that A. tumefasciencs is widely distributed in soil, most isolates do not contain this plasmid, and the only genes it can transfer are the vir genes; this genes do not represent an advantage to the host organism, so they do not survive or overcome the rest of the population. However, if we transform the host organism on the field with an A. tumefasciens circuit, it could also transform other plants, giving them the traits that the circuit could carry, giving them (or not) an advantage over other organisms. But the problem is the capability of the bacteria to transform other organisms. We cannot change a mechanism that we do not understand, so making the bacterium host-specific is impossible, since we do not know what proteins are involved in host attachment and recognition.[8] Virus In plants, there’s a very special kind of virus, called “virions”, they are RNA particles with no mRNA activity, whose use as a DNA delivery system is null. Continuing with the virus subject, as in animals, the genetic material of plant virus can be RNA or DNA, never both. Among the RNA virus are the families Tobacovirus (turnip vein-clearing virus, tobacco mosaic virus) and Potexvirus (Alternanthera mosaic virus and potato virus X), and among DNA (which are relevant to us) are the Geminiviridae; small viruses (2.5-3.0 kb per single stranded DNA circle) which replicate within the nucleus, completely depending on host proteins to complete their life cycle. Which means another transformation method, one involving the modification of certain sequences in the Geminivirus, along with the addition of the relevant vir genes from A. tumefasciens or a transposon linked sequence, and our circuit, can be proposed.This way we would have a host-specific delivery system for plants, which could be transfected by a simple rub-inoculation. The system could be replication-competent or replication-deficient, depending on the modified sequences, and integrative or episomal in function of the number of vir genes added.[7] Though not a major set-back, the rub-inoculation method has the disadvantage of limiting the number of specimens that can be transformed at one time; a difficulty that the reprogramator method does not have due to its sprayed inoculation approach.[6] Genetic delivery system using specific virus for plants Conclusion Table 1 General table of DNA delivery systems in bacteria. [1][2][3][4][5] Reference |