"
Team:BostonU/Data
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td scope="col">For the first tandem promoter flow cytometry experiment, we tested pBad-pTet-BCD2-E1010m-B0015 and pTet-pBad-BCD2-E1010m-B0015. We planned on inducing each promoter separately with it's corresponding small molecule (either arabinose or atc) and also planned on inducing both together. We followed the <a href= "https://2014.igem.org/Team:BostonU/Protocols">flow cytometry</a> workflow. By growing the constructs in different concentrations of media, we hoped to see RFP fluorescence increase as the small molecule concentration increased. For each concentration, we also had a negative. We also ran controls including: J04B2RM, J04B2GM, COXGR, COXRG, and DH5alpha. The pTet-pBad graph turned out the way we expected and showed the anticipated function. For the 5,000 and 10,000 ng/ul atc concentrations (for both graphs), the cells died because of the high concentrations. This is why the graph dropped rapidly. </td> | <td scope="col">For the first tandem promoter flow cytometry experiment, we tested pBad-pTet-BCD2-E1010m-B0015 and pTet-pBad-BCD2-E1010m-B0015. We planned on inducing each promoter separately with it's corresponding small molecule (either arabinose or atc) and also planned on inducing both together. We followed the <a href= "https://2014.igem.org/Team:BostonU/Protocols">flow cytometry</a> workflow. By growing the constructs in different concentrations of media, we hoped to see RFP fluorescence increase as the small molecule concentration increased. For each concentration, we also had a negative. We also ran controls including: J04B2RM, J04B2GM, COXGR, COXRG, and DH5alpha. The pTet-pBad graph turned out the way we expected and showed the anticipated function. For the 5,000 and 10,000 ng/ul atc concentrations (for both graphs), the cells died because of the high concentrations. This is why the graph dropped rapidly. </td> | ||
| - | <td scope="col"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b0/PTet_pBad_RFP_all_three.png" height="500" width="600" style="float:right" style= "margin-left:10px"><capt>Flow Cytometry graph for pTet-pBad level 1 construct with RFP for three conditions: atc (red), arabinose (blue), atc and arabinose (purple)</capt></td> | + | <td scope="col"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/b0/PTet_pBad_RFP_all_three.png" height="500" width="600" style="float:right" style= "margin-left:10px"><capt>Figure 1: Flow Cytometry graph for pTet-pBad level 1 construct with RFP for three conditions: atc (red), arabinose (blue), atc and arabinose (purple)</capt></td> |
</tr></table><br><br> | </tr></table><br><br> | ||
| Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
<td scope="col">According to literature, the pTet-pBad construct has not previously functioned as suspected. This was possibly due to position-dependence interference [1]. Conversely, our flow cytometer data showed that pTet-pBad had a greater range of fluorescence than pBad-pTet. We will need to do further investigating to find out why this was the case. Unlike results in the literature, our pTet-pBad construct worked well, but the pBad-pTet didn't show anticipated function. We are predicting that the arabinose concentrations were too low for this experiment and the atc concentrations were too high. We are planning to run another flow experiment before the jamboree with new small molecule concentrations. We hope that this will improve function (fluorescence expression) and reduce the error bars. </td> | <td scope="col">According to literature, the pTet-pBad construct has not previously functioned as suspected. This was possibly due to position-dependence interference [1]. Conversely, our flow cytometer data showed that pTet-pBad had a greater range of fluorescence than pBad-pTet. We will need to do further investigating to find out why this was the case. Unlike results in the literature, our pTet-pBad construct worked well, but the pBad-pTet didn't show anticipated function. We are predicting that the arabinose concentrations were too low for this experiment and the atc concentrations were too high. We are planning to run another flow experiment before the jamboree with new small molecule concentrations. We hope that this will improve function (fluorescence expression) and reduce the error bars. </td> | ||
| - | <td scope = "col"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/39/PBad_pTet_RFP_all_three.png" height="500" width="600" style="float:right" style= "margin-left:10px"><capt>Flow Cytometry graph for pBad-pTet level 1 construct with RFP for three conditions: atc (red), arabinose (blue), atc and arabinose (purple) </capt></td></tr></table> | + | <td scope = "col"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/39/PBad_pTet_RFP_all_three.png" height="500" width="600" style="float:right" style= "margin-left:10px"><capt>Figure 2: Flow Cytometry graph for pBad-pTet level 1 construct with RFP for three conditions: atc (red), arabinose (blue), atc and arabinose (purple) </capt></td></tr></table> |
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="15" cellpadding="0"> | <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="15" cellpadding="0"> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
| - | <td scope="col"> | + | <td scope="col">This data is a result of our collaboration with Team WPI-Worcestor. They gave us two copies of the same construct, in different antibiotic resistant backbones. This construct expresses BclA-YFP, a cell surface targeted protein that expresses YFP on the cell surface. Our intention was to compare BclA expression with expression of our internal YFP (J23104+BCD2+YFP+B0015). As evident from Figure 4, the Internal YFP has an expression of over 2 * 10^4 MEFLs, while none of the BclA constructs have expression more than 10^4 MEFLs. This data is, however, inconclusive as the internal YFP is in a Kanamycin resistant backbone and as we have shown, different backbones can lead to greatly varied data. </td> |
| - | <td scope = "col"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/0e/Bar_graphs_YFP.png" height="500" width="600" style="float:right" style= "margin-left:10px"></td></tr></table> | + | <td scope = "col"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/0e/Bar_graphs_YFP.png" height="500" width="600" style="float:right" style= "margin-left:10px"></td> |
| + | <capt>Figure 4: Expression of BclA-YFP constructs as compared to Internal YFP expression</capt></td></tr> | ||
| + | </tr></table> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Revision as of 03:08, 16 October 2014
As a measurement team, we completed the Interlab Study. For more information about our Interlab Study results, please refer to our Interlab Study page
Primer Design for Tandem Promoters and Repressor Genes
| Device Name | Forward Primer | Sequence | Reverse Primer | Sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BetI_CD | BetI_For_C | ATGAAGACGTAATGGTGCCGAAACTGGGTATGCAGAGC | BetI_Rev_D | ACGAAGACCTACCTTTAATCGGTCGGCAGATGCTGGGT |
| PhlF_CD | PhlF_For_C | ATGAAGACGTAATGATGGCACGTACCCCGAGCCGTAGC | PhlF_Rev_D | ACGAAGACCTACCTTTAACGCTGTGTACCCGGACAAAC |
| BM3R1_CD | BM3R1_For_C | ATGAAGACGTAATGATGGAAAGCACCCCGACCAAACAG | BM3R1_Rev_D | ACGAAGACCTACCTTTAGCTCTGACGGCTCAGTGCTGC |
| LmrA_CD | LmrA_For_C | ATGAAGACGTAATGATGAGCTATGGTGATAGCCGTGAA | LmrA_Rev_D | ACGAAGACCTACCTTTAACGTTTCAGCAGATCCGGAAT |
| SrpR_CD | SrpR_For_C | ATGAAGACGTAATGATGGCACGTAAAACCGCAGCAGAA | SrpR_Rev_D | ACGAAGACCTACCTTTATTCGAAGGATTTCACCTGTTT |
| pTet_AK | pTet_For_A | ATGAAGACGTGGAGTCCCTATCAGTGATAGAGATTGAC | pTet_Rev_K | ACGAAGACCTGCATTTCGGTCAGTGCGTCCTGCTGATG |
| pTet_KB | pTet_For_K | ATGAAGACGTATGCTCCCTATCAGTGATAGAGATTGAC | pTet_Rev_B | ACGAAGACCTAGTATTCGGTCAGTGCGTCCTGCTGATG |
| pBad_AK | pBad_For_A | ATGAAGACGTGGAGAAGAAACCAATTGTCCATATTGCA | pBad_Rev_K | ACGAAGACCTGCATTATGGAGAAACAGTAGAGAGTTGC |
| pBad_KB | pBad_For_K | ATGAAGACGTATGCAAGAAACCAATTGTCCATATTGCA | pBad_Rev_B | ACGAAGACCTAGTATATGGAGAAACAGTAGAGAGTTGC |
| pSrpR_KB | pSrpR_For_K | ATGAAGACGTATGCTTCGTTACCAATTGACAGCTAGCT | pSrpR_Rev_B | ACGAAGACCTAGTAGTTTACAAACAAACAAGCATGTAT |
| pLmrA_FK | pLmrA_For_F | ATGAAGACGTCGCTTTCGTTACCAATTGACAACTGGTG | pLmrA_Rev_K | ACGAAGACCTGCATAAATATAGTGACTGGTCTATTATC |
| pBetI_EB | pBet_For_E | ATGAAGACGTGCTTTTCATGGATTCGTTACCAATTGAC | pBetI_Rev_B | ACGAAGACCTAGTAGCTAGCATTATATTGAACGTCCAA |
| pPhlF_GB | pPhlF_For_G | ATGAAGACGTTGCCTTCGTTACCAATTGACATGATACG | pPhlF_Rev_B | ACGAAGACCTAGTAACCTTAACGATACGGTACGTTTCG |
| pBM3R1_FB | pBM3R1_For_F | ATGAAGACGTCGCTTTCGTTACCAATTGACGGAATGAA | pBM3R1_Rev_B | ACGAAGACCTAGTAGCTAGCATTATCGGAATGAACGTT |
Primer Design for Fusion Proteins
| Device Name | Primer | Sequence |
|---|---|---|
| C0080_CI | C0080_Rev_I | ACGAAGACCTTAGACAACTTGACGGCTACATCATTCAC |
| C0040_CI | C0040_Rev_I | ACGAAGACCTTAGACAACTTGACGGCTACATCATTCAC |
| E0040m_ID | E0040m_For_I | ATGAAGACGTTCTAGAATGCGTAAAGGAGAAGAACTTTTC |
| E0030_ID | E0030_For_I | ATGAAGACGTTCTAGAATGGTGAGCAAGGGCGAGGAGCTG |
Flow Cytometry Data
| For the first tandem promoter flow cytometry experiment, we tested pBad-pTet-BCD2-E1010m-B0015 and pTet-pBad-BCD2-E1010m-B0015. We planned on inducing each promoter separately with it's corresponding small molecule (either arabinose or atc) and also planned on inducing both together. We followed the flow cytometry workflow. By growing the constructs in different concentrations of media, we hoped to see RFP fluorescence increase as the small molecule concentration increased. For each concentration, we also had a negative. We also ran controls including: J04B2RM, J04B2GM, COXGR, COXRG, and DH5alpha. The pTet-pBad graph turned out the way we expected and showed the anticipated function. For the 5,000 and 10,000 ng/ul atc concentrations (for both graphs), the cells died because of the high concentrations. This is why the graph dropped rapidly. |  |
| According to literature, the pTet-pBad construct has not previously functioned as suspected. This was possibly due to position-dependence interference [1]. Conversely, our flow cytometer data showed that pTet-pBad had a greater range of fluorescence than pBad-pTet. We will need to do further investigating to find out why this was the case. Unlike results in the literature, our pTet-pBad construct worked well, but the pBad-pTet didn't show anticipated function. We are predicting that the arabinose concentrations were too low for this experiment and the atc concentrations were too high. We are planning to run another flow experiment before the jamboree with new small molecule concentrations. We hope that this will improve function (fluorescence expression) and reduce the error bars. |  |
| Place holder text:) |  |
| This data is a result of our collaboration with Team WPI-Worcestor. They gave us two copies of the same construct, in different antibiotic resistant backbones. This construct expresses BclA-YFP, a cell surface targeted protein that expresses YFP on the cell surface. Our intention was to compare BclA expression with expression of our internal YFP (J23104+BCD2+YFP+B0015). As evident from Figure 4, the Internal YFP has an expression of over 2 * 10^4 MEFLs, while none of the BclA constructs have expression more than 10^4 MEFLs. This data is, however, inconclusive as the internal YFP is in a Kanamycin resistant backbone and as we have shown, different backbones can lead to greatly varied data. |  |
References
[1] A. Tamsir, J. Tabor, C. Voigt (2011). “Robust multicellular computing using genetically encoded NOR gates and chemical ‘wires’.” Nature 469: 212-215
