Team:SDU-Denmark/Tour42
From 2014.igem.org
SarahNielsen (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
the wild-type which means that it might be difficult to have OneProt expressed in high amounts controlled | the wild-type which means that it might be difficult to have OneProt expressed in high amounts controlled | ||
by pTet (+/-LVA). It is, however, shown that the cells are growing in despite of their stressed metabolism | by pTet (+/-LVA). It is, however, shown that the cells are growing in despite of their stressed metabolism | ||
- | and | + | and it is possible that the expression of OneProt can be controlled by pTet controlled by TetR although |
the TetR(+LVA) seems more favorable. It can also be seen that the growth of E. coli YYC912 is comprised | the TetR(+LVA) seems more favorable. It can also be seen that the growth of E. coli YYC912 is comprised | ||
compared to the K12 wild-type which also contributes to possible difficulties in expressing OneProt in the | compared to the K12 wild-type which also contributes to possible difficulties in expressing OneProt in the |
Revision as of 15:41, 17 October 2014
OneProt
The pTet expression system and limonene synthase construct is evolved around one thing: the OneProt.
We have made the pTet-OneProt construct in order for us to synthesize a nutritional protein with the
correct ratio of essential amino acids and the correct ratio between essential and non-essential
amino acids. The device is found as Bba_K1475000.
The protein is self-designed, so we wanted to test if the protein were expressed in E. coli K12 MG1655, by
the use of Western blotting. The western blot was blottet with E. coli K12 MG1655 wild-type and E. coli
expressing OneProt at different OD measures.
The protein has a 3xFLAG tag and since bonds are showing, OneProt is expressed. However, from this
western blot, we cannot see if the protein has been cut, just that it is expressed.
In order to check that we had the protein expressed in its full length, we did a coomassie stain on a SDS-
page. Here we also wanted to receive information on the expression of the protein at different growth
stages of E. coli. We analyzed samples from early exponential phase (OD600=0.3), late exponential phase
(OD600=1.5), stationary phase (OD=2.5) and an overnight culture. As a control, E. coli with an empty vector
(PSC1C3) was used.
OneProt has a molecular weight of approximately 53.7 kDa. Unfortunately, there is no clear bond at this
length. However, there is a bond at approximately 25 kDa, which is not detected in the control. We cannot
conclude what gives rise to the band, but it might be a cellular response to an unfolded protein.
To test how what effect the expression of OneProt have on E. coli we set up a growth experiment
measuring OD over time on the growth of E. coli K12 MG1655 WT, odor-free E. coli YYC912, E. coli K12
expressing OneProt and with an empty vector.
From the growth curve, it is shown that the expression of OneProt stresses the metabolism a lot compared
to the E. coli K12 wild-type. In addition to this, the metabolism of YYC912 is also quite stressed compared to
the K12 wild-type. Despite the stressed metabolism of the two strains, the expression of OneProt increases
over time as does the growth of YYC912.
Comparing the growth curve of E. coli K12 expressing OneProt, TetR(+LVA), TetR(no LVA) and odor-free E. coli YYC912 it is seen that the metabolism of E. coli expressing OneProt and TetR is stressed compared to
the wild-type which means that it might be difficult to have OneProt expressed in high amounts controlled
by pTet (+/-LVA). It is, however, shown that the cells are growing in despite of their stressed metabolism
and it is possible that the expression of OneProt can be controlled by pTet controlled by TetR although
the TetR(+LVA) seems more favorable. It can also be seen that the growth of E. coli YYC912 is comprised
compared to the K12 wild-type which also contributes to possible difficulties in expressing OneProt in the
odor-free YYC912 strain. However, the possibility still exists.
Because OneProt is self-designed, we wanted to test if the protein has any toxicity. To do so, we fed
Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) with E. coli K12 MG1655 containing an empty vector and a vector
expressing OneProt on separate plates. On both plates, 20 C. elegans were tested. Articles recommend
using heat chock assay for 7 hours: 1 hour at 35° C followed by 1 hour at 22°C,
repeated.
Source:
Mosbech, M., et al.: Functional Loss of Two Ceramide Synthases Elicits Autophagy-Dependent Lifespan Extension in C.
elegans.: PLoS ONE, 2013. 8 vol:7.
(Link)
Source:
Rodriguez, M., et al.:Worms under stress: C. elegans stress response and its relevance to complex human disease and
aging. Trends in Genetics, 2013. Vol: 29, 6, p. 367-374.
(Link)
After approximately 5 hours still no effects on C. elegans was detectable. Therefore we decided to stress
C. elegans a little more, incubating them in 2 hours at 35°C followed by 1 hour at 22°C, repeated. After 7
hours, every C. elegans on both plates were alive. Thus we conclude that the protein has no toxic effect.