Team:Minnesota/Templates
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Line 661: | Line 661: | ||
<td> | <td> | ||
<h5> | <h5> | ||
- | + | Fig 1 illustrating the relative positions of Mer proteins within the cell, modified mer operon. | |
+ | <br> click the individual genes to read more about our parts, click here to read more about our composite mer operon part | ||
</h5> | </h5> | ||
</td> | </td> |
Revision as of 10:59, 17 October 2014
Minnesota iGEM 2014
Project
|
|
000000000 | 0 | ||
why this construct?
To design a system for biological remediation of not only mercury ions in contaminated waters, but also the more toxic methyl mercury, we’ve selected to use 5 genes of the mercury resistance (mer) operon of which over 10 genes have been identified and characterized in various strains of mercury resistant bacteria in the environment. This construct was assembled from the mer operon in Serratia marscecens in the plasmid pDU1358, and is regulated by a bidirectional promoter so that merR on one side of the operon is constitutively expressed and allows for the repression of the mer operon in the absence of mercury ions, and the downstream activation and transcription of merT, P, A, B when mercury ions are in close proximity.
TP high turnover rates to bring in merc ions
A allows for conversion of merc ions to volatile merc
mehg diffuses into cell, B allows for conversion of mehg to merc ions
|
|||
Fig 1 illustrating the relative positions of Mer proteins within the cell, modified mer operon.
|
|||
Biobrick Assembly
Text text text text
|
000000000 | 0 | ||
The main goal of EncapsuLab was to create a system for the preservation and protection of the bacteria in our system,
as well as physically separating them from the outside environment. To achieve this, we created a water-porous
silica matrix using techniques developed by the Aksan and Wackett labs at the U of M. Furthermore, we developed
a device to work as a proof of concept for the use of encapsulated bacteria in a real water-cleaning system.
In addition to this, we conceptualized a scaling-up of our system for larger water-cleaning problems. Lastly,
we developed a mathematical model to compare our experimental data in order to better understand the biochemical networks behind our work.
|
|||
Title1 |
|||
Yoloswag |
Encapsulation Procedure
To make a silica matrix surrounding a cell, we needed a supply of silica nanoparticles and a reactive cross-linker capable of
covalently bonding reagents into a unified volume. Two solutions were prepared: one was a combination of TM-40 (colloidal
silica) and diluting components (ultrapure water and polyethylene glycol). The second solution was tetramethyl orthosilicate
(TMOS) cross-linker. In slightly acidic conditions, methyl groups of TMOS are hydrolyzed, producing methanol and the silica
cross-linker. Resuspended and washed cells are then added to the relatively innocuous colloidal solution. Upon combining
these two mixtures, a rapid polymerization linking colloidal silica together occured. In order to achieve proper bead
sphericity, we combined all of these components in an hydrophobic solution and let them set. After some experimentation, we
were able to produce beads with a consistent size. To purify the mixture, we phase-separated the silica beads by adding
water to solution, which forced them into the aqueous phase. These were then recovered to assess viability.
|
Mathematical Modeling
The equations used in conversion steps 3 and 4 are extracted from studies done by Maria on ionic mercury uptake by E. coli
cells (Maria, 2010). These equations can be used because ionic mercury is converted into elemental mercury which in turn
diffuses into the extracellular space; these two steps were described in the Maria paper. It is assumed that methylmercury
and ionic mercury have similar orders of magnitude of transport rate into the cell.
Since step 2 is not explicitly included in the Maria paper, a different approach was used to determine the equation. During
our literature search, we did not find any primary publications that specify the methylmercury conversion behavior of both
MerA and MerB. Our pBBRBB plasmid is designed in the way that the mer genes are induced in the presence of methylmercury and
ionic mercury. Through our literature search, we were able to calculate the steady state concentrations of basal and induced
states based on the presence of methlymercury and ionic mercury in the cytosolic space. Therefore, we used the below
equation to extrapolate the reaction rates of both the mer proteins. For details, please see Supplemental Materials A.
[insert equation 3]
The above equations show the reaction rates of the mer proteins under induced steady state. To represent the full MerA and
MerB expression, we include terms for the basal protein expression, the induction of the Mer proteins, and the degradation
of proteins. For details on the calculations, please refer to Supplemental Materials A. We have determined from our
calculations that Va and Vb resemble Vmax in the equations.
Sensitivity Analysis
We performed sensitivity analysis to give us insight into which parameters will have the greatest effect on each species in
the reaction equations. We calculated the local derivatives of each species with respect to the parameters to determine how
much the parameters affected the result. The concentration of methylmercury in the cytoplasm was found to be most sensitive
to the V and K parameters of MerB. Additionally, the concentration of Hg in the extracellular space and cytosol were both
most sensitive to the V and K parameters of MerA. We can use this sensitivity analysis as a guide to what parameters are most
useful to improve. If we want the device to be more efficient at methylmercury conversion, efforts should be directed towards
improving the enzymatic activity of MerA and MerB.
Policies & Practices
Our Policy and Practices approach this year has focused on establishing an effective two-way discourse between our team and the public in order to inform our design, educate the public, and illuminate ethical issues related to both our project and integration of public opinion into project implementation. We focused our discussion on safety, ethics, and sustainability in order to design a project that fits the needs of the public while maintaining technical viability. Our team did extensive educational outreach in addition to educating ourselves on public perception of our work. We used this input to inform our device design such that it could be implemented in a way that addresses the major concerns of both scientists and consumers. We also took steps to protect our intellectual property and to educate ourselves about the patent process. Finally, our team sought to investigate ethical issues brought up by our discourse with the public by discussing both our work and ethics related to the project with a variety of experts and ethicists.
Educational Outreach
Building on past successes, our team has been devoted to volunteering our services to the community in a number of educational venues. The team took our curriculum, first developed in 2013, and improved the structure and delivery of our lesson plans in the hopes of encouraging awareness and education on topics in synthetic biology. Since 2013 our educational outreach group ECORI (Educating Communities On Research Innovation) has taught our [[File:original, interactive classroom curriculum]] to over 200 students (K-12) and their teachers. This year we also created a mobile exhibit form of our curriculum along with a layman’s introduction to our project that we displayed on over half a dozen weekends to visitors of all ages at the Science Museum of Minnesota. Our curriculum has also been brought to several other STEM fairs and family fun events in the Twin Cities area including the 3M Science Day Fair for 3M employees and their families, UMN Biodiversity Fair, CSE Family Fun Fair, and the Middle School STEM Fair hosted by the Association of Multicultural Students at UMN. Finally, the team designed a Synthetic Biology Game Show that was presented on stage with 30 participants at the Minnesota State Fair to assess the general public’s knowledge of the subject and teach hundreds of passers-by in a way that was both engaging and interactive. Winners were rewarded with reusable bags, magnets, and gift cards donated by our sponsors. In the spirit of science, our curriculum has been ever evolving to constantly address salient topics and educational materials. The variable versions of our curriculum allow it to be flexible and practical in various settings.
Public Perception
Our team sought to inform the majority stakeholders in our community concerning the scope of our project. This year our team chose to have an exhibit catered towards adult residents at the Minnesota State Fair (the largest statewide annual gathering with over 1.8 million visitors each year) to learn how we can best design our technology to meet the needs and concerns of the people whose waters we hope to bioremediate. We delivered a short synopsis of our device, the synthetic biology involved, and safety precautions we have outlined for our project. We then presented visitors with a five question survey using a Likert Scale to gauge public perception of both our device, and the synthetic biology methods used. The survey was a huge success with over 320 participants. With such a diverse attendance, our survey captured a great cross-section of the Minnesota community that would be impacted by the implementation of our device. The results of our survey, illustrated below, informed how and where the public would be most comfortable with implementing our device, and illustrated the need for catered education addressing the public’s major concerns prior to applying our device in the environment. Our model for gauging public perception allowed for a wide, diverse crowd to be accessed. This model can be used upon request.
Intellectual Property
Documentary
We compiled this documentary in order to inform those unfamiliar with the problem of global mercury contamination and to discuss the bioethical questions of synthetic biology as they related to our device implementation. We have conducted interviews with specialists from environmental toxicology, biotechnology, and philosophy at the University of Minnesota. Through our collaboration with the 2014 Colombia iGEM Team, we further examined the current methylmercury contamination in Colombia and around the globe.
Safety in the Lab
Our Training
DEHS Introduction: Research Safety
DEHS Chemical Safety
DEHS Waste Management
Safety in the Lab
2. Our Local Rules and Regulations Who is responsible for biological safety at our institution? The project was discussed with the Department of Environmental Health and Safety at our university, and a plan was devised for mercury waste disposal based on their input. General biosafety guidelines found at https://www.dehs.umn.edu/bio.htm, http://www.dehs.umn.edu/bio_pracprin.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/bmbl.pdf were followed.
Safety in the Lab
3. Risks of Your Project Now To mitigate risks to the safety and health of team members, or other people working in the lab: Gloves are used in any protocol that utilizes Ethidium Bromide, including gel electrophoresis. Lab coat, gloves, and full face shields are used when cutting gel fragments in proximity of ultraviolet light. For handling mercury, a lab coat, inner and outer (long cuffed) nitrile gloves, lab goggles and face shields will be used, and used materials will be disposed of by the University of Minnesota Department of Environmental Health and Safety. There are assigned incubators, hoods, and disposal containers for hazardous materials like mercury chloride. Design features to minimize risk kill switch proposal that would not allow the bacteria to survive outside of the encapsulation or even device holding the cells Air tight? non pathogenic lab strains
Attributions
Sponsors
Retrieved from "http://2014.igem.org/Team:Minnesota/Templates"