Team:XMU-China/Project PSystem

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 587: Line 587:
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
-
     <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">Because of the </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">imperfect simplified</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> design doesn’t follow the original function completely, the abnormal oscillation is justifiable. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">M</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">isfolding protein is a</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">n</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> evidence to support our assumption.</span>
+
     <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">Because of the </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">imperfect simplified</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> design didn’t follow the original function completely, the abnormal oscillation was justifiable. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">M</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">isfolding protein were</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">n</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> evidence to support our assumption.</span>
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
Line 593: Line 593:
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
-
     <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">iGEM14 XMU-China involved sequence comparison to investigate the difference between the original and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">the registry parts.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> We find that</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> the original Lux pR has 20bp overlapping sequence with origin</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">al Lux p</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">R</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">There is </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">a r</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">estriction e</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">nzyme cutting site (EcoR I)</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> at the 56bp of original Lux pR</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> (</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">Figure 4</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">)</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">.</span>
+
     <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">iGEM14 XMU-China involved sequence comparison to investigate the difference between the original and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">the registry parts.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> We found that</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> the original Lux pR had 20bp overlapping sequence with original</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">al Lux p</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">R</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">There was </span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">a r</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">estriction e</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">nzyme cutting site (EcoR I)</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> at the 56bp of original Lux pR</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;"> (</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">Figure 4</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">)</span><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">.</span>
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
Line 623: Line 623:
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">
-
         <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">Parts registry truncate the original Lux pR at 56bp to get the 55bp Lux pR (BBa_R0062). On the contrary, Lux pL (BBa_R0063) is longer the original Lux pL, and at the end of BBa_R0063 is initial part of 41bp LuxR (BBa_C0062). Thus new problems arise—is the modification of original QS promoter reasonable? Does the modification result in the unexpected backward transcription?</span>
+
         <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">Parts registry truncated the original Lux pR at 56bp to get the 55bp Lux pR (BBa_R0062). On the contrary, Lux pL (BBa_R0063) is longer than the original Lux pL, and at the end of BBa_R0063 is initial part of 41bp LuxR (BBa_C0062). Thus new problems arised—was the modification of original QS promoter reasonable? Did the modification result in the unexpected backward transcription?</span>
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">
Line 629: Line 629:
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
-
     <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">Quorum sensing system is so widely used in the synthetic biology, we think it’s remarkable to make it clear. We highlight the abnormal phenomenon of QS oscillation which may be caused by imperfect simplification for the very first time. We hope that more efforts could be made to figure out the interaction between QS oscillation parts.[3]</span>
+
     <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400;">Quorum sensing system is so widely used in the synthetic biology, we thought it’s remarkable to make it clear. We highlighted the abnormal phenomenon of QS oscillation which might be caused by imperfect simplification for the very first time. We hope that more efforts could be made to figure out the interaction between QS oscillation parts.[3]</span>
</p>
</p>
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">
<p style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 700;">

Revision as of 00:55, 18 October 2014

side_bar

A REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF MISFOLDING GFP UNDER QS OSCILLATION

In the project of iGEM13 XMU-China, they can’t get expected oscillation. However, this year iGEM14 XMU-China further investigate the reason of abnormal oscillation. We further review SDS-PAGE analysis to confirm the circuit at protein level. The SDS-PAGE data is shown in Figure 1. Based on that, we made a reasonable assumption that the unexpected behavior of the LuxR Promoter leads to the misfolding proteins hence the abnormal oscillation.

 

Figure 1. SDS-PAGE analysis of E. coli K strain (DH5α). (a) Lane 1-2: supernatant and pellet of original DH5α; Lane 3-4: supernatant and pellet of strain with single plasmid A1 (BBa_K1036003); Lane 5-6: supernatant and pellet of strain with both plasmids A1 (BBa_K1036003) and B (BBa_K1036000). The red arrows indicate the misfolding GFP-LVA protein (27.6 kDa) in the precipitation. (b) Lane 1-2: supernatant and pellet of original BL21; Lane 3-4: supernatant and pellet of strain with single plasmid A1 (BBa_K1036003); Lane 5-6: supernatant and pellet of strain with both plasmids A1 (BBa_K1036003) and B (BBa_K1036000). The blue arrows indicate LuxR (27.5 kDa), GFP-LVA (27.6 kDa) and AiiA-LVA (28.7 kDa) in the supernatant. The orange arrows indicate LuxI-LVA (22.4 kDa) in the supernatant. (The marker of b was not in right position, however, the proteins were confirmed by MALDI-TOF-TOF .)

 

As the SDS-PAGE shows, a large amount of GFP-LVA and LuxI-LVA appear in pellet where misfolding proteins often exist. Both proteins directly affect the oscillation result. And it is critical to find out the reason for misfolding proteins. iGEM14 XMU-China made the following assumption:

   

The research[1] reveals an unexpected behavior of Lux pR (BBa_R0062). In the absence of autoinducer 3OC6 (AHL), LuxR binds to Plux (Lux pR) and activates backwards transcription (Figure 2).

 

Figure 2. Relative RFP fluorescence for a control construct designed to measure backwards transcription from Lux pR. Addition of LuxR and 3OC6 90 (AHL) as indicated. Error bars in all panels are one standard deviation.

 

The imperfect simplification of setting lux pL and Lux pR in the same direction: 

From the original design by Jeff Hasty, Lux pR and Lux pL were set in opposite directions (Figure 3A). In the absence of AHL, LuxR could activate backward transcription of Lux pR leading to more expression of LuxR which was critical to meet the oscillation conditions. However, present literature did’t consider the backwards transcription which had effect on quorum sensing oscillation.

 

A. Original Design

B. iGEM13 XMU-China Design

Figure 3A.Top row is the original design by Jeff Hasty.B. Bottom row is the simplified design which sets lux pL and lux pR in the same direction.

 

In the simplified design (Figure 3B), when LuxR activates the backward transcription, RNA polymerase will be blocked by the terminators B0015. So that this simplification didn’t perform as same as original design. Actually, the reverse terminated efficiency of B0015 is 0.295(CC)[2] which may lead to leakage transcription. However, the correct sequence of GFP-LAA couldn’t be transcribed during the backwards transcription, even if the minus-strand of GFP-LAA could be transcribed, the sequence of the RNA is not in the right direction of GFP-LAA, hence incorrect amino acid sequences might be translated, resulting in misfolding GFP just as what the SDS-PAGE shows (Figure 1).

 

Because of the imperfect simplified design didn’t follow the original function completely, the abnormal oscillation was justifiable. Misfolding protein weren evidence to support our assumption.

 

iGEM14 XMU-China involved sequence comparison to investigate the difference between the original and the registry parts. We found that the original Lux pR had 20bp overlapping sequence with originalal Lux pR. There was a restriction enzyme cutting site (EcoR I) at the 56bp of original Lux pR (Figure 4).

 

Figure 4. Schematic of original QS promoter.

 

Parts registry truncated the original Lux pR at 56bp to get the 55bp Lux pR (BBa_R0062). On the contrary, Lux pL (BBa_R0063) is longer than the original Lux pL, and at the end of BBa_R0063 is initial part of 41bp LuxR (BBa_C0062). Thus new problems arised—was the modification of original QS promoter reasonable? Did the modification result in the unexpected backward transcription?

 

Quorum sensing system is so widely used in the synthetic biology, we thought it’s remarkable to make it clear. We highlighted the abnormal phenomenon of QS oscillation which might be caused by imperfect simplification for the very first time. We hope that more efforts could be made to figure out the interaction between QS oscillation parts.[3]

 

References

1. Eckdahl T, Sawyer E M, Barta C, et al. Bacterial logic devices reveal unexpected behavior of frameshift suppressor tRNAs[J]. Interdisciplinary Bio Central, 2012, 4(1): 10.

2. http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_B0015

3. Danino T, Mondragón-Palomino O, Tsimring L, et al.A synchronized quorum of genetic clocks[J]. Nature, 2010, 463(7279): 326-330.