Team:Imperial/Functionalisation

From 2014.igem.org

Revision as of 11:49, 16 October 2014 by HChughtai (Talk | contribs)

Imperial iGEM 2014

Aqualose

Functionalisation

Overview

(This overview is incomplete). By attaching functional proteins to cellulose we can expand it's properties and can bind specific contaminants in water. We used five different cellulose binding domains and fused them to different metal binding proteins, and sfGFP. We performed assays to test the binding of the CBD fusions to our cellulose.

Key Achievements

Introduction

Figure 1. Pictorial summary showing the two cellulose functionalization approaches considered in our project. Strategy 1: Cellulose binding domains are expressed as fusions with the protein of interest, separated optionally by a linker sequence. The cellulose binding domains attach to the cellulose by hydrophobic interactions. Strategy 2: Curli fibrils are expressed in parallel with cellulose to form a composite material. The curli fibres coding sequence is modified to contain a ‘SpyTag’ peptide (Zakeri et al 2012) which binds specifically via a covalent isopeptide bond to its protein partner, ‘SpyCatcher’. This SpyCatcher is fused to the proteins of interest. In our project we only had time to pursue strategy 1 but are still excited about the potential of strategy 2 in the future.

Bacterial cellulose is already a useful biomaterial as is due its attractive mechanical properties, with research on applications from loudspeaker diaphragms to protective packaging and wound dressings (Lee 2014). However, our project also aims to extend the properties of cellulose by conjugating functional proteins and peptides to it. This allows us to target specific contaminants in water which can not be filtered by size exclusion alone. (refer to water report and informing design sections).

We considered two ways of functionalizing cellulose (figure 1) but continued to work fully on the cellulose-binding domain (CBD) method. The curli-fibre method would be an exciting avenue to explore in the future; it is feasible since there has already been research into making a “programmable” biomaterial from curli fibres using a peptide tag approach (Nguyen et al 2014), and in combination with cellulose could produce a composite with robust mechanical properties as well.

Aims

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etia.

Cellulose Binding Domains (CBDs)

The cellulose binding domain (CBD) is the link between our functional proteins and the cellulose. Therefore, we wanted to use a CBD which had high affinity and strong binding to cellulose. However, weaker CBDs may still be useful since they could have the potential be controllably eluted under specific conditions, thereby enabling regeneration of the filter when saturated, and controlled disposal of the collected contaminants (refer to water report if relevant?).

We started our search by looking into the parts registry (link to parts.igem.org) and found two CBDs already existed in the registry: CBDclos (link BBa_K863111) and CBDcex (link BBa_K863101). We also added made three new CBDs to contribute to the registry: dCBD (link to below), CBDcipA, and CBDcenA (hyperlink to the relevant sections below). All the CBDs are in RFC(25) freiberg fusion format to allow for ease of use in protein fusions.

CBDclos and CBDcex

These parts were biobricked by Beilefeld 2012 (link to their wiki https://2012.igem.org/Team:Bielefeld-Germany/Results/cbc), please see their part pages (link BBa_K863111 and BBa_K863101) for detailed information. CBDclos is from the cellulolytic bacterium Clostridium cellulovorans and CBDcex originates from the cellulolytic bacterium Cellulomonas fimi. This is the same organism as for CBDcenA; cex is from the exoglucanase gene and cen is from the endoglucanase gene.

Double CBD (dCBD) with N-terminal linker

This part, BBa_K1321340 (link http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1321340) is based on the double cellulose-binding domain construct synthesised and characterised by Linder et al1996, who found that this double CBD had higher affinity for cellulose than either of the two CBDs on their own. The main difference is that our part contains an additional linker sequence on the N-terminus of the protein.

The two CBDs are from the fungus Trichoderma reesei (Hypocrea jecorina) Exocellobiohydrolase (Exoglucanase) I (cbh1), uniprot ID P62694; and Exocellobiohydrolase (Exoglucanase) II, uniprot ID P07987 (cbh2); with a linker peptide between the two CBDs and at the N-terminus of the protein. Both linkers are the same amino acid sequence and are based on the endogenous linker sequences that exists in cbh1 and cbh2 genes. The linker sequence is PGANPPGTTTTSRPATTTGSSPGP which is the same as used by Linder et al 1996. The first three amino acids are from the cbh2 endogenous linker, and the rest is from the cbh1 endogenous linker. CBDcbh1 is placed C-terminal to CBDcbh2 because naturally CBDcbh1 is a C-terminal domain and CBDcbh2 is an N-terminal domain. Both CBDs are from the CBM family 1 (link to cazy here). The precise location of the CBD within the cbh genes was slightly different according to the uniprot annotations and the sequence used by Linder et al 1996; we chose to use the sequence from the paper since the protein was expressed and characterised successfully.

CBDcpiA with N and C-terminal linker

This CBD is from the Cellulosomal -scaffolding protein A (cipA) of Clostridium thermocellum including the endogenous linker sequences at the N and C-terminus (UniProt ID Q06851 link http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q06851). It is in RFC25 format to allow for easy use in protein fusions.

The CBD is part of the CBM3 family (link to cazy http://www.cazy.org/CBM3.html). This CBD has been used in many application: in fusions with cell adhesion peptides to enhance the properties of cellulose as a cell-growth matrix (Andrade et al 2010a, Andrade et al 2010b), fused to enzymes to remove contaminants from water (Kauffmann et al 2000) and fused to an antimicrobial peptide (Ramos, Domingues & Gama 2010).

At present the cloning for these constructs is still in progress to correct an illegal EcoRI site which was identified in the parts with this CBD. This can be achieved with a silent mutation via site-directed mutagenesis and we aim to send these parts to the registry once thi

CBDcenA with C-terminal linker

This CBD is from the Endoglucanase A (cenA) gene from Cellulomonas fimi and also contains an endogenous C-terminal linker. The cellulose binding domain region occurs at the N-terminus of the cenA gene (UniProt P07984 link to http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P07984) and is from the CBM family 2 (link to http://www.cazy.org/CBM2.htm)

The linker sequence (PTTSPTPTPTPTTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTVTP) is Pro-Thr box which has an extended conformation and acts as a hinge region (Gilkes et al 1989). The endoglucanase CBDcenA has 50% homology to the exoglucanase CBDcex (BBa_K863101) and the linker is highly conserved in both, but the order of the catalytic, linker and cellulose-binding regions is reversed (Warren et al 1986). It has been shown that CBDcenA has the highest binding affinity for crystalline cellulose out of the C. fimi CBDs (Kim et al 2013).

Functionalisation proteins: Binding partners

Metal Binding Proteins

One of the contaminants we can filter out which current size-exclusion technologies can not target, are heavy metals (link to water report). We have worked with four different metal binding proteins: the metallothioneins SmtA and fMT (link to below), a histidine-rich nickel binding protein (NiBP) (link to below) from the bacterium Heliobacter pylori and a synthetic phytochelatin (PC) EC20 (link to below).

SmtA and fMT metallothioneins

These two parts already existed in the BioBrick registry, but since we needed to use them as fusions with the CBDs we improved the parts by making them compatible with the RFC25 (link) Frieburg Fusion BioBrick standard.

Metallothioneins (MTs) are genetically encoded cysteine-rich peptides which serve a role in the detoxification of heavy metals in plants, animals and some prokaryotes (Cobbett, 2002). They have a similar structure and function to phytochelatins, but are produced by different mechanisms (Cobbett, 2002). SmtA is from the cyanobacteria Synechococcus sp. and was used by the Tokyo-NoKoGen 2011 igem team (link) (who submitted the RFC10 part originally, BBa_K519010) to confer cadmium (Cd2+) tolerance to E.coli cells when expressed. fMT originates from the seaweed Fucus vesiculosus and was submitted by Groningen team 2009 (link) and detailed information can be found on the original part page (BBa_K190019).

We successfully cloned the following CBD fusion constructs: (insert table when finalised)

Nickel binding protein (NiBP)

This protein is the histidine-rich nickel-binding protein from Heliobacter pylori (GenBank accession ACX98466.1), and already existed as a BioBrick in the registry (link to K1151001). Since we needed to use this part in fusion proteins we improved the part by submitting it as a basic part in RFC(25) (link) Freiberg fusion format (link here to K1321009).

We successfully cloned (link to cloning protocols on the word cloned) the following CBD fusion constructs with NiBP: (insert table from the parts table spreadsheet when finalised)

However, sadly we discovered late on in the project that the DNA sequence of the NiBP protein in the registry is out of frame, leading to an incorrect protein translation and read-through of the stop codon (figure 2).

Figure 2. Alignment of BBa_K1151001 NiBP in the registry to the , showing incorrect amino-acid sequence in red compared to native H.pylori sequence (link to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/261838700 on the words native H.pylori)

Further investigation into the error let us to identify a single nucleotide deletion in BBa_K1151001 compared to the native H.pylori DNA sequence (GenBank CP000012.1 (link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/261837457) bp1391851-1392033, reverse complement strand). As seen in Figure 3 the deletion is a ‘C’ at bp 53 of the native sequence. This error was propagated through all our NiBP constructs and means that any subsequent C-terminal fusions are also out of frame and we were unable to express and characterise these constructs. We have noted this on the description pages for each of the parts and hope that in the future they will still be useful, since the error could be corrected relatively easily by a team who wishes to use them by site-directed-mutagenesis PCR to insert the missing nucleotide.

IMAGE right aligned 50% width
Figure 3. Single nucleotide deletion in BBa_K1151001 compared to native H.pylori sequence (GenBank CP000012.1 (link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/261837457) bp1391851-1392033, reverse complement) resulting in any downstream nucleotides being out of frame.

Synthetic phytochelatin EC20

This is our new contribution of a metal-binding protein to the parts registry. Synthetic phytochelatins are analogues of phytochelatins (PCs); cysteine-rich peptides of the general structure (γ-GluCys)n-Gly (n~2-5) which bind and sequester heavy metals, with a role in detoxification (Cobbett & Goldsbrough 2002). PCs are found mainly in plants but also in other organisms including diatoms, fungi, algae (including cyanobacteria) and some invertebrates (Cobbett & Goldsbrough 2002, Rea 2012). Natively, the PCs are enzymatically synthesized by phytochelatin synthase (PCS) from a glutathione (GSH) precursor and the amino acids in the resulting peptide are linked by the non-standard gamma peptide bonds (Cobbett & Goldsbrough 2002, Rea 2012). However, genetically encoded analogues (containing normal alpha-peptide bonds) of different number Glu-Cys (EC) repeats have been characterised, with the EC20 having the highest binding (Bae et al 2000).

The main metal PCs confer tolerance to is Cadmium (Cobbett & Goldsbrough 2002) with a reported stoichiometry of 10 Cd2+ per peptide (Bae et al, . EC20 peptide has still showed good metal ion binding whilst fused to a cellulose binding domain (CBD) for water purification (Xu et al 2002) and when anchored to bacterial cell membrane to confer Cd2+ tolerance (Bae et al 2000, Chaturvedi & Archana 2014). PC EC20 has also been shown to bind many more heavy metals. For example, when displayed on the surface of Cupriavidus metallidurans, the cells capacity to adsorb ions increased by 31 to 219% depending on the ion (table 1, Biondo et al 2012). These binding properties of PC EC20 have been utilised in applications including a regeneratable biosensor of Hg2+, Cd2+, Pb2+, Cu2+ and Zn2+ ions to 100 fM–10 mM (Bontidean et al 2003), and to target CdSe/ZnS quantum dots to streptavidin expressing HeLa cells when biotinylated (Pinaud et al 2004). INSERT TABLE OF THE IONS FROM THE PAPER

We used this part to create a library of different cellulose-binding domains fused to phytochelatin: (insert parts table from the spreadsheet here when it is finalised)

Other potential proteins

During our research we also explored other functional proteins to fuse to the CBDs.

Laccases

Laccases are enzymes which can break down aromatic and phenolic compounds such as modified estrogens which can end up unfiltered in the water supply with unknown consequences (Auriol et al 2008). This method of treating estrogen in water was explored by Bielefeld 2012 iGEM team (link), and our system also has potential to address this.

Nanobodies

Nanobodies are fragments of camelid antibodies which can be generated against a variety of antigens and can be easily expressed by organisms such as E. coli . Nanobodies could be used to target viruses, which are often too small to be filtered by size exclusion. For example there are already nanobodies which can bind to Vaccinia virus, ricin, Cholera toxin, Stephylococcal enterotoxin B and H5N1 Influenza (Goldman et al 2006, Ibanez et al 2011) to name a few. Additionally, nanobodies are stable and can be selected to resist proteolytic attach (Harmsen et al 2006). Nanobodies can also be functional when as fusions or conjugates to other proteins for example to target enzymes to specific cells (Cortez-Retamozo 2004), so there is much potential for targeting a wide array of contaminants when fused to cellulose binding domains.

Modelling

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etia

Results

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim.

References

  1. Lee, K.-Y., Buldum, G., Mantalaris, A. and Bismarck, A. (2014), More Than Meets the Eye in Bacterial Cellulose: Biosynthesis, Bioprocessing, and Applications in Advanced Fiber Composites. Macromol. Biosci., 14: 10–32. doi: 10.1002/mabi.201300298
  2. Nguyen, P.Q., Botyanszki, Z., Tay, P.K.R. & Joshi, N.S. (2014) Programmable biofilm-based materials from engineered curli nanofibres. Nature communications. [Online] 54945. Available from: doi:10.1038/ncomms5945.
  3. Zakeri, B., Fierer, J.O., Celik, E., Chittock, E.C., et al. (2012) Peptide tag forming a rapid covalent bond to a protein, through engineering a bacterial adhesin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. [Online] 109 (12), E690–E697. Available from: doi:10.1073/pnas.1115485109.
  4. Linder, M.; Salovuori, I.; Ruohonen, L.; Teeri, T.T., 1996. Characterization of a Double Cellulose-binding Domain. SYNERGISTIC HIGH AFFINITY BINDING TO CRYSTALLINE CELLULOSE. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 271(35), pp.21268–21272. Available at: http://www.jbc.org/content/271/35/21268.full
  5. Andrade, F.K., Moreira, S.M.G., Domingues, L. & Gama, F.M.P. (2010) Improving the affinity of fibroblasts for bacterial cellulose using carbohydrate-binding modules fused to RGD. Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A. [Online] 92 (1), 9–17. Available from: doi:10.1002/jbm.a.32284.
  6. Andrade, F.K., Costa, R., Domingues, L., Soares, R., et al. (2010) Improving bacterial cellulose for blood vessel replacement: Functionalization with a chimeric protein containing a cellulose-binding module and an adhesion peptide. Acta biomaterialia. [Online] 6 (10), 4034–4041. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.023.
  7. Kauffmann, C., Shoseyov, O., Shpigel, E., Bayer, E.A., et al. (2000) Novel Methodology for Enzymatic Removal of Atrazine from Water by CBD-Fusion Protein Immobilized on Cellulose. Environmental Science & Technology. [Online] 34 (7), 1292–1296. Available from: doi:10.1021/es990754h.
  8. Ramos, R., Domingues, L. & Gama, M. (2010) Escherichia coli expression and purification of LL37 fused to a family III carbohydrate-binding module from Clostridium thermocellum. Protein expression and purification. [Online] 71 (1), 1–7. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.pep.2009.10.016.
  9. Gilkes, N.R., Kilburn, D.G., Miller, R.C. & Warren, R.A. (1989) Structural and functional analysis of a bacterial cellulase by proteolysis. The Journal of biological chemistry. 264 (30), 17802–17808.
  10. Warren, R.A., Beck, C.F., Gilkes, N.R., Kilburn, D.G., et al. (1986) Sequence conservation and region shuffling in an endoglucanase and an exoglucanase from Cellulomonas fimi. Proteins. 1 (4), 335–341.
  11. Kim, H.-D., Choi, S.-L., Kim, H., Sohn, J.H., et al. (2013) Enzyme-linked assay of cellulose-binding domain functions from Cellulomonas fimi on multi-well microtiter plate. Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering. 18 (3), 575–580.
  12. Cobbett, C. & Goldsbrough, P. (2002) Phytochelatins and metallothioneins: roles in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Annual review of plant biology. [Online] 53159–182. Available from: doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135154.
  13. Rea, P.A. (2012) Phytochelatin synthase: of a protease a peptide polymerase made. Physiologia plantarum. 145 (1), 154–164.
  14. Bae, W., Chen, W., Mulchandani, A. & Mehra, R.K. (2000) Enhanced bioaccumulation of heavy metals by bacterial cells displaying synthetic phytochelatins. Biotechnology and bioengineering. 70 (5), 518–524.
  15. Xu, Z., Bae, W., Mulchandani, A., Mehra, R.K., et al. (2002) Heavy Metal Removal by Novel CBD-EC20 Sorbents Immobilized on Cellulose. Biomacromolecules. [Online] 3 (3), 462–465.
  16. Chaturvedi, R. & Archana, G. (2014) Cytosolic expression of synthetic phytochelatin and bacterial metallothionein genes in Deinococcus radiodurans R1 for enhanced tolerance and bioaccumulation of cadmium. Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine. 27 (3), 471–482.
  17. Biondo, R., da Silva, F.A., Vicente, E.J., Souza Sarkis, J.E., et al. (2012) Synthetic phytochelatin surface display in Cupriavidus metallidurans CH34 for enhanced metals bioremediation. Environmental science & technology. 46 (15), 8325–8332.
  18. Bontidean, I., Ahlqvist, J., Mulchandani, A., Chen, W., et al. (2003) Novel synthetic phytochelatin-based capacitive biosensor for heavy metal ion detection. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 18 (5-6), 547–553.
  19. Pinaud, F., King, D., Moore, H.-P. & Weiss, S. (2004) Bioactivation and cell targeting of semiconductor CdSe/ZnS nanocrystals with phytochelatin-related peptides. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 126 (19), 6115–6123.
  20. Auriol, M., Filali-Meknassi, Y., Adams, C.D., Tyagi, R.D., et al. (2008) Removal of estrogenic activity of natural and synthetic hormones from a municipal wastewater: efficiency of horseradish peroxidase and laccase from Trametes versicolor. Chemosphere. [Online] 70 (3), 445–452. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.06.064.
  21. Harmsen, M.M., van Solt, C.B., van Zijderveld-van Bemmel, A.M., Niewold, T.A., et al. (2006) Selection and optimization of proteolytically stable llama single-domain antibody fragments for oral immunotherapy. Applied microbiology and biotechnology. [Online] 72 (3), 544–551. Available from: doi:10.1007/s00253-005-0300-7.
  22. Cortez-Retamozo, V. (2004) Efficient Cancer Therapy with a Nanobody-Based Conjugate. Cancer Research. [Online] 64 (8), 2853–2857. Available from: doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-3935.

Retrieved from "http://2014.igem.org/Team:Imperial/Functionalisation"