Team:Valencia Biocampus/Results
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Beta3designs (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
In this synthetic symbiosis<b>, <i>C. elegans</i> </b>acts as a transport for engineered bacteria <b>(<i>Pseudomonas putida</i></b><i>) </i>in order to | In this synthetic symbiosis<b>, <i>C. elegans</i> </b>acts as a transport for engineered bacteria <b>(<i>Pseudomonas putida</i></b><i>) </i>in order to | ||
take them to the hotspot of interest, because bacteria are not able to move fast through solid or semi-solid substrates but they are very | take them to the hotspot of interest, because bacteria are not able to move fast through solid or semi-solid substrates but they are very | ||
- | interesting from a biotechnological point of view. This is the reason why we thought about this innovative | + | interesting from a biotechnological point of view. This is the reason why we thought about this innovative mode of transport: the regulated <b> formation of a biofilm</b>. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<h3>Controlling the mechanism</h3> | <h3>Controlling the mechanism</h3> | ||
- | Riding | + | Riding is a regulated process: with <b>low nitrogen </b>in the media, the promoter is activated and <i>hms</i> genes are expressed, triggering the <b>formation of the biofilm </b>over <i>C. elegans</i>; in contrast, with <b>high nitrogen </b>concentrations, such as the ones found in nutrient-rich hotspots, the promoter is repressed, so bacteria can <b>“get off</b>” of the nematode <b>(Fig. 2)</b>. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p style="text-align:center"> | <p style="text-align:center"> | ||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Our original idea was to introduce the Biobrick in <b><i>Pseudomonas putida </i></b>, a bacterial species with wide applications in biotechnology. To do | Our original idea was to introduce the Biobrick in <b><i>Pseudomonas putida </i></b>, a bacterial species with wide applications in biotechnology. To do | ||
- | + | so, we cloned the construction (<b>Fig.1)</b> in the <b>pIZ1016 vector</b>, which has a replication origin compatible with <i>Pseudomonas</i>. We | |
successfully performed the cloning <b>(Fig.3)</b>, but the efficiency of the transformation was too low, so we have not been able to obtain <i>P. putida </i> | successfully performed the cloning <b>(Fig.3)</b>, but the efficiency of the transformation was too low, so we have not been able to obtain <i>P. putida </i> | ||
- | transformants yet. This is probably a consequence of the length of the construction, 6,5 kb, which decreases transformation efficiency. | + | transformants as of yet. This is probably a consequence of the length of the construction, 6,5 kb, which decreases transformation efficiency. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p style="text-align:center"> | <p style="text-align:center"> | ||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
But far from being disheartened, we decided to express the construction with <b><i>E. coli.</i> </b>We cloned the construction in the pUC57 vector, | But far from being disheartened, we decided to express the construction with <b><i>E. coli.</i> </b>We cloned the construction in the pUC57 vector, | ||
- | obtained transformant <i>E. coli</i>, and then grew them in medium with low nitrogen (0 | + | obtained transformant <i>E. coli</i>, and then grew them in medium with low nitrogen (0.6 g/L) in order to induce the formation of the biofilm. <i>C. elegans </i>was fed with these induced bacteria, and then several worms were isolated in order to check biofilm formation with <b>scanning electron microscopy (SEM) </b>imaging. As you can see in <b>Fig.4</b>, it actually worked! We observed a formation of an <i>E. coli </i>biofilm |
over the nematode! | over the nematode! | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<h3>Looking for an attractant</h3> | <h3>Looking for an attractant</h3> | ||
- | When we were considering setting up a transport for bacteria, we thought it was necessary to have a 'destination', a place to go. That | + | When we were considering setting up a transport for bacteria, we thought it was necessary to have a 'destination', a place to go. That destination would be a <b>'hot spot' on a heterogeneous substrate</b> where <b><i>Caenorhabditis</i> <i>elegans</i></b> should carry the bacteria to. |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
- | Leveraging the powerful smell of the nematode, it was decided to try a number of attractants from various lists from web <a href="http://www.wormbook.org">www.wormbook.org</a> that could work as 'hot spots' in our experiment. Thus, using | + | Leveraging the powerful smell of the nematode, it was decided to try a number of attractants from various lists from the web <a href="http://www.wormbook.org">www.wormbook.org</a> that could work as 'hot spots' in our experiment. Thus, using <i> C. elegans</i> <b>chemotaxis, </b>we would be able to direct transport. |
</p> | </p> | ||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
<h3>The attractants experiment</h3> | <h3>The attractants experiment</h3> | ||
- | The test was carried out by creating our own plates in which half would be unmodified NGM and the other half | + | The test was carried out by creating our own plates in which half plate would be unmodified NGM and the other half would include soluble compounds before |
- | solidifying or after solidification in the case of volatiles. The list of modifications can be found in <b>Fig. 1</b>. | + | solidifying, or after solidification (in the case of volatiles). The list of modifications can be found in <b>Fig. 1</b>. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p style="text-align:center"> | <p style="text-align:center"> | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | To place <b><i>C. elegans</i> </b>on the plate, different cuts were made on a fresh plate of NGM | + | To place <b><i>C. elegans</i> </b>on the plate, different cuts were made on a fresh plate of NGM and the resulting small pieces were placed in the exact |
- | center of the 50% -50% plates to determine which side of the plate the nematode preferred, one per Petri plate. | + | center of the 50% - 50% plates to determine which side of the plate the nematode preferred, one per Petri plate. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | From <b>Table 2 </b> many of the attractants that were thought viable were | + | From <b>Table 2 </b> many of the attractants that were thought viable were discarded. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | Volatile attractants were not a good choice because they | + | Volatile attractants were not a good choice because they evaporate quickly (which would also be a limitation for the field experiments). |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | Another impediment arose. Once we had already performed the experiments, | + | Another impediment arose. Once we had already performed the experiments, we decided that the promoter that would control the production of interference RNA |
- | in <i>Escherichia coli</i> would be regulated by nitrogen, so amino acids had to be discarded as attractants; it would modify the controlled expression of E.coli. | + | in <i>Escherichia coli</i> would be regulated by nitrogen, so amino acids had to be discarded as attractants; because it would modify the controlled expression of E.coli. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | That left | + | That left MgSO<sub>4</sub> and hypoosmotic media as potential attractants. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<h3>Attractant final choice</h3> | <h3>Attractant final choice</h3> | ||
- | Because the hyposmotic medium could interfere with the proper growth of bacteria (our nematode's food), the final decision was to choose | + | Because the hyposmotic medium could interfere with the proper growth of bacteria (our nematode's food), the final decision was to choose MgSO<sub>4</sub> as our attractant. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | The question | + | The question at that time was: <i>How can we multiply the amount of MgSO<sub>4</sub> to increase the efficiency?</i> |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<h3>MgSO<sub>4</sub> efficiency</h3> | <h3>MgSO<sub>4</sub> efficiency</h3> | ||
- | Once we had selected the most feasible attractant for the ‘transport’ during our experiments, we needed to know | + | Once we had selected the most feasible attractant for the ‘transport’ during our experiments, we needed to know which could be the largest concentration of MgSO<sub>4</sub>, in order to optimize the attraction of the nematode. |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
- | To choose the concentration, attraction was tested in a battery of | + | To choose the concentration, attraction was tested in a battery of increasing concentrations (regarding the initial medium of 1 ml / L). Bearing in mind the results of |
- | the | + | the x2 factor, we decided to test other factor concentrations: x3, x4, x5, x8 and x10; covering a wide range that did not exceed the concentration that |
- | + | would affect the life of <i>C. elegans</i> or bacteria. | |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
- | Moreover, | + | Moreover, experiments with <i>E. coli</i> and <i>Pseudomonas putida</i> were carried out, these trials were performed in order to obtain the final media: half plate with |
- | non-altered NGM and half as PHA production medium for <i>Pseudomonas</i> and interference of <i>E. coli</i>. | + | non-altered NGM and half as the PHA production medium for <i>Pseudomonas</i> and interference of <i>E. coli</i>. |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
- | Not knowing | + | Not knowing which fatty acid could activate better the transcription process, we tested two possibilities: oleic acid (named in the tables as PHAol) and octanoic acid |
- | (PHAoc). The concentration for each fatty acid was tested in <i>E. coli</i> | + | (PHAoc). The concentration for each fatty acid was tested in <i>E. coli</i> and we obtained best results with: |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>1.28 µl/ml of Octanoic acid.</li> | <li>1.28 µl/ml of Octanoic acid.</li> | ||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | You can see our results in<b> figures 3, 4, 5 and 6</b>. The | + | You can see our results in<b> figures 3, 4, 5 and 6</b>. The first two counts were made after 3 hours and the next ones after 6 hours. We supposed that after that time, the worms were already capable of selecting their "favourite" side of the plate, get to the desired side and keep moving in the same part of the petri dish. We prepared control plates with the |
same composition but without MgSO<sub>4</sub> in PHA media. | same composition but without MgSO<sub>4</sub> in PHA media. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<h3>Final concentration choice</h3> | <h3>Final concentration choice</h3> | ||
- | Once the tests were | + | Once the tests were performed and after observing the results obtained with the different selected fatty acids, we then observed a scattered result(there was |
- | probably a repellent effect at high concentrations in the medium with oleic but reversed in octanoic) and in the end decided to use | + | probably a repellent effect at high concentrations in the medium with oleic but reversed in the octanoic) and in the end, we decided to use the following MgSO<sub>4</sub> concentrations |
- | for each medium | + | for each medium: |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li> <b>If oleic acid is used</b><b>:</b><b> </b>Best results with 4ml/L MgSO<sub>4</sub>. | <li> <b>If oleic acid is used</b><b>:</b><b> </b>Best results with 4ml/L MgSO<sub>4</sub>. | ||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
</li> | </li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
- | Octanoic was discarded as a transcriptional activator of the iRNA of clumping after other results | + | Octanoic was discarded as a transcriptional activator of the iRNA of clumping after other results for <i>E. coli</i> were obtained, so finally we selected the PHA medium with |
oleic acid only. | oleic acid only. | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
- | The biggest problem while trying to have an effective attractant was knowing <b>how effective could an attractant | + | The biggest problem while trying to have an effective attractant was knowing <b>how effective could an attractant, in the presence of <i>E. coli</i>, be</b>. It was therefore necessary |
to test the tradeoff between the value of 4ml / L MgSO<sub>4</sub> and pair it with different concentrations of bacteria, high enough to feed the nematode | to test the tradeoff between the value of 4ml / L MgSO<sub>4</sub> and pair it with different concentrations of bacteria, high enough to feed the nematode | ||
- | but low enough to | + | but low enough to allow the attractive effect of MgSO<sub>4</sub>. |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
- | To find this point of commitment we prepared experiments in which the concentration of 4ml/L of MgSO<sub>4</sub> | + | To find this point of commitment we prepared experiments in which the concentration of 4ml/L of MgSO<sub>4</sub> was faced against different ODs from serial |
dilutions of a preculture of E. coli DH5a. | dilutions of a preculture of E. coli DH5a. | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
<b>Table 7 </b> | <b>Table 7 </b> | ||
- | shows the results. The count took place at 3h after the passing of fresh nematodes. | + | shows the results obtained. The count took place at 3h after the passing of fresh nematodes. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<h3>Best E. coli OD choice</h3> | <h3>Best E. coli OD choice</h3> | ||
- | An OD of 1 (minimum concentration of cells / volume) gives an attractive effect even better than expected (subsequent experiments try to | + | An OD of 1 (minimum concentration of cells / volume) gives an attractive effect even better than expected (subsequent experiments try to check if there is |
synergy between <i>E. coli </i>and attractive factors MgSO4). | synergy between <i>E. coli </i>and attractive factors MgSO4). | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
To improve the approximation we decided to repeat the experiment with MgSO<sub>4</sub> concentration and the chosen bacterial OD showing that the system | To improve the approximation we decided to repeat the experiment with MgSO<sub>4</sub> concentration and the chosen bacterial OD showing that the system | ||
- | + | worked correctly. The results can be seen in <b>figure 8.</b> | |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p style="text-align:center"> | <p style="text-align:center"> | ||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | Our<i> <b>C. elegans</b></i> strain <b>(N2 strain</b>) has two feeding behaviours: <b>Social and solitary feeding</b>. Social feeding is known as clumping | + | Our<i> <b>C. elegans</b></i> strain <b>(N2 strain</b>) has two feeding behaviours: <b>Social and solitary feeding</b>. Social feeding is known as clumping. You can watch it in this video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCNsmcVVUVY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCNsmcVVUVY</a> |
- | + | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | Clumping is known to be induced under some conditions <b>like temperature or | + | Clumping is known to be induced under some conditions <b>like temperature or starvation</b>, something that we had to consider during the entire project. |
- | However, it is also known how clumping is controlled from a genetic perspective and the main genes have already been described. | + | However, it is also known how clumping is controlled from a genetic perspective and the main genes involved have already been described. Therefore, we thought about using |
this genetic approximation to control clumping under specific and controlled conditions. <i>(<a href="http://129.85.244.162/bard/pdf week_07_de_bono_bargmann_natural_variation_in_receptor_modifies_social_behavior_and_food_response_cell_1998.pdf | this genetic approximation to control clumping under specific and controlled conditions. <i>(<a href="http://129.85.244.162/bard/pdf week_07_de_bono_bargmann_natural_variation_in_receptor_modifies_social_behavior_and_food_response_cell_1998.pdf | ||
">view “</i>Natural variation in a neuropeptide Y receptor | ">view “</i>Natural variation in a neuropeptide Y receptor |
Revision as of 18:16, 20 October 2013