Team:Calgary/Project/PostRegionals
From 2013.igem.org
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<html> | <html> | ||
- | <div id="Banner"><h1> | + | <div id="Banner"><h1>Final System</h1></div> |
</html> | </html> | ||
{{Team:Calgary/ContentPage}} | {{Team:Calgary/ContentPage}} | ||
<html> | <html> | ||
<section id="Content"> | <section id="Content"> | ||
- | <h1> | + | <h1>Final System</h1> |
- | <h2><span class="blue"> Our Sensor</span> </h2> | + | <h2><span class="blue">Our Sensor</span> </h2> |
- | <p>The goal of our project is to design a biosensor to rapidly identify cattle known as | + | <p>The goal of our project is to design a biosensor to rapidly identify cattle known as super shedders. We are building a DNA-based biosensor, as it is more reliable and cheaper than a protein-based sensor; antibodies are expensive and the proteins that they target can get degraded during the sample preparation, whereas DNA is much more stable. A DNA-based sensor also enabled us to target a broader range of harmful <i>E.coli</i>. <span class="yellow"> <b> The design of our system was influenced by our conversations with industry stakeholders </b></span>. Their feedback revealed three design considerations which we would have to incorporate into our prototype. First, it would have to be cheap so that it could be scaled-up to entire feedlots. Second, it would have to be easy to use by non-laboratory employees in feedlots. And third, it would have to provide a definitive measure of <i>E.coli</i> shedding levels within an hour to be used during routine check-up procedures. Our solution is the <spane class=“yellow”><b>FerriTALE strip assay</b></span>. We are using TALEs as detectors for the target DNA. Our detector is coupled with a reporter, Prussian Blue Ferritin or β-lactamase, to give a rapid colourimetric output. To couple our detector to our reporter, we are making use of synthetic coiled coils to allow <i>in vitro</i> assembly. In order to increase the specificity of our system we have made use of two FerriTALEs, a mobile FerriTALE reporter and an immobilized FerriTALE scaffold (no reporter ability). Our post regional data demonstrates the success of our proof of concept system. We will now demonstrate that our detector TALEs can detect target DNA with specificity and our coiled coils allow <i>in vitro</i> assembly which is further characterized to show proper reporter activity compared to a direct fusion. We have further characterization of our parts and a full system kinetic model. But most importantly, <span class="yellow"> <b> we can show that our final capture system works! </b></span> </p> |
<figure> | <figure> | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<h2>Can we detect DNA with specificity?</h2> | <h2>Can we detect DNA with specificity?</h2> | ||
- | <p> | + | <p> |
- | We ordered 60mer FAM-labeled [A] (target sequence for TALEA) and FAM-labeled [B] (target sequence for TALEB) | + | We ordered 60mer FAM-labeled [A] (target sequence for TALEA) and FAM-labeled [B] (target sequence for TALEB) oligos and hybridized them with their reverse complement oligo to make double stranded pieces of DNA containing the target sequence of our TALEs. Using these target sequences and following the <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Notebook/Protocols/FunctionalityAssayOnNitrocellulose" >TALE Nitrocellulose Functionality Assay</a>, we showed that TALEs bind their target sequence. We incubated Ferritin fused to an E coil to TALE fused to a K coil to make the ferriTALE complex. The complex was then blotted on strips of nitrocellulose paper. The strips were then blocked with milk and soaked in the appropriate DNA solution. Finally, the strips were washed and imaged. We showed that not only <span class="Yellow"><b>TALEs bind DNA</b></span> (figure 24 and 25), they are also <span class="Yellow"><b>specific</b></span> for their own target site (Figure 26). |
<figure> | <figure> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/95/Calary2013TALEABlotWithKinetics.png" width="70%" height="70%"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/95/Calary2013TALEABlotWithKinetics.png" width="70%" height="70%"> | ||
<figcaption> | <figcaption> | ||
- | <p><b>Figure 24.</b> (A) Dot blot of ferriTALE A exposed to FAM labeled DNA containing the A target sequence (<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Notebook/Protocols/FunctionalityAssayOnNitrocellulose" >protocol</a>). 1. | + | <p><b>Figure 24.</b> (A) Dot blot of ferriTALE A exposed to FAM labeled DNA containing the A target sequence (<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Notebook/Protocols/FunctionalityAssayOnNitrocellulose" >protocol</a>). 1.5 µg of TALEA+K coil and 1 µg of ferritin with E coil were incubated for 1 hour to make the ferriTALE complex and the complex was blotted on a strip. The blots were then exposed to 1.66 mM FAM-labeled [A] (TALEA target site) for 1 to 90 minutes as indicated on the strips. "x" is a ferriTALE that was exposed to FAM labeled DNA prior to being blotted onto the nitrocellulose. The kinetics from the densitometry is shown in section B of the figure. The Kd from this plot was determined to be 293nM</p> |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/d/db/Calgary2013TALEBBlotWithKinetics.png" width="70%" height="70%"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/d/db/Calgary2013TALEBBlotWithKinetics.png" width="70%" height="70%"> | ||
<figcaption> | <figcaption> | ||
- | <p><b>Figure 25.</b> (A) Dot blot of ferriTALE B exposed to FAM labeled DNA containing the B target sequence (<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Notebook/Protocols/FunctionalityAssayOnNitrocellulose" >protocol</a>). | + | <p><b>Figure 25.</b> (A) Dot blot of ferriTALE B exposed to FAM labeled DNA containing the B target sequence (<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Notebook/Protocols/FunctionalityAssayOnNitrocellulose" >protocol</a>). 1 µg of ferritin fused to E coil was incubated with 2 µg of TALEB fused to k coil for 1hour to make the FerriTALEB complex. Subsequently the complex was blotted on the nitrocellulose strip. The blots were then exposed to 1.66 mM FAM labeled DNA for 1 to 90 minutes as indicated on the strips. The controls are to the right, with "ftn" being ferritin only, "np" being no protein, and "D-" being no DNA exposure. The kinetics from the densitometry is shown in section B of the figure. The Kd from this plot was determined to be 66nM.</p> |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5c/Ucalgary_2013_ocotber._TALE_specificity.png"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5c/Ucalgary_2013_ocotber._TALE_specificity.png"> | ||
<figcaption> | <figcaption> | ||
- | <p><b>Figure 26.</b> (A) A Dot blot of TALEA on nitrocellulose paper (<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Notebook/Protocols/FunctionalityAssayOnNitrocellulose" >protocol</a>). A6 is TALEA soaked in 1.66mM FAM-labeled [B]. A7 is TALEA soaked in 1.66mM FAM-labeled [A]. A2 is TALEA soaked in 1mM FAM-labeled [B]. A3 is TALEA soaked in 1mM FAM-labeled [A]. | + | <p><b>Figure 26.</b> (A) A Dot blot of TALEA on nitrocellulose paper (<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Notebook/Protocols/FunctionalityAssayOnNitrocellulose" >protocol</a>). A6 is TALEA soaked in 1.66mM FAM-labeled [B]. A7 is TALEA soaked in 1.66mM FAM-labeled [A]. A2 is TALEA soaked in 1mM FAM-labeled [B]. A3 is TALEA soaked in 1mM FAM-labeled [A]. On the A- strip no protein was blotted and it was soaked in 1.66mM [A]. All strips were soaked in DNA solution for 90 minutes. (B) 1uL of the DNA solutions used for soaking were blotted on nitrocellulose and a picture was taken instantly, to indicate that both [A] and [B] fluoresce to the same extent. |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
<h2>How does the use of Coils versus Direct Fusions of TALEs Affect our Prussian Blue reporter?</h2> | <h2>How does the use of Coils versus Direct Fusions of TALEs Affect our Prussian Blue reporter?</h2> | ||
- | <p>After successfully confirming that we could convert our own ferritin proteins that were produced from the parts we constructed (<a href="http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1189018">BBa_K1189018,</a> < | + | <p>After successfully confirming that we could convert our own ferritin proteins that were produced from the parts we constructed (<a href="http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1189018">BBa_K1189018,</a> <a |
href="http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1189021">BBa_K1189021</a>) into Prussian blue ferritin the next step was to evaluate how the design of our parts could potentially affect the reporter activity of our Prussian blue ferritin. Based on the spatial modelling performed by our team it was suggested that assembly of the ferritin nanoparticle with TALE proteins directly fused was highly unlikely. This is because the TALE proteins are significantly larger than the ferritin subunits. Their size would likely result in steric hindrance and prevent the assembly of the full ferritin protein. In order to test the predictions put forward by our modelling we ensured that our protein samples were balanced in order to have the same number ferritin cores in each sample. The catalytic activity of these proteins was then compared. From the data gathered we saw that the Prussian blue ferritin with fused coils (even if TALES are additionally bound to the ferritin via coils) was more effective as a reporter than having the TALE proteins directly fused to the ferritin nanoparticle (Figure 19). The results from this experiment suggest that the predictions made by our model were correct. Using coils however alleviates this issue as these coils are small and would not interfere in the ferritin self-assembly but can be used to attach our TALES to create the FerriTALE. </p> | href="http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1189021">BBa_K1189021</a>) into Prussian blue ferritin the next step was to evaluate how the design of our parts could potentially affect the reporter activity of our Prussian blue ferritin. Based on the spatial modelling performed by our team it was suggested that assembly of the ferritin nanoparticle with TALE proteins directly fused was highly unlikely. This is because the TALE proteins are significantly larger than the ferritin subunits. Their size would likely result in steric hindrance and prevent the assembly of the full ferritin protein. In order to test the predictions put forward by our modelling we ensured that our protein samples were balanced in order to have the same number ferritin cores in each sample. The catalytic activity of these proteins was then compared. From the data gathered we saw that the Prussian blue ferritin with fused coils (even if TALES are additionally bound to the ferritin via coils) was more effective as a reporter than having the TALE proteins directly fused to the ferritin nanoparticle (Figure 19). The results from this experiment suggest that the predictions made by our model were correct. Using coils however alleviates this issue as these coils are small and would not interfere in the ferritin self-assembly but can be used to attach our TALES to create the FerriTALE. </p> | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/0/0d/UCalgary2013TRPBFAssayNoColour.png" alt="Recombinant Prussian Blue FerritinMole Balanced" width="465" height="480"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/0/0d/UCalgary2013TRPBFAssayNoColour.png" alt="Recombinant Prussian Blue FerritinMole Balanced" width="465" height="480"> | ||
<figcaption> | <figcaption> | ||
- | <p><b>Figure 19.</b> Samples of our parts that were converted to Prussian Blue ferritin were mole balanced in order to ensure that the same number of effective ferritin cores are present in every sample. Additionally the ferritin-coil fusion was incubated with the TALE-coil fusion part in order to allow their binding for a separate trial. Negative controls include unconverted recombinant ferritin, bovine serum albumin and a substrate only control. Samples were incubated with a TMB substrate solution for 10 minutes at a pH of 5.6. Absorbance readings were taken at the 10 minute time-point at a wavelength of 650 nm. An ANOVA (analysis of | + | <p><b>Figure 19.</b> Samples of our parts that were converted to Prussian Blue ferritin were mole balanced in order to ensure that the same number of effective ferritin cores are present in every sample. Additionally the ferritin-coil fusion was incubated with the TALE-coil fusion part in order to allow their binding for a separate trial. Negative controls include unconverted recombinant ferritin, bovine serum albumin and a substrate only control. Samples were incubated with a TMB substrate solution for 10 minutes at a pH of 5.6. Absorbance readings were taken at the 10 minute time-point at a wavelength of 650 nm. An ANOVA (analysis of variance) was performed upon the values to determine that there was statistical difference in the data gathered (based off of three replicates). A t-test was then performed which determined that the * columns are significantly different from the ** column (p=0.0012). Neither * column is significantly different from each other (p=0.67).</p> |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
- | <h2><span class="blue">Our Final System: Putting it all together </span> | + | <h2><span class="blue">Our Final System: Putting it all together </span> </h2> |
<h2>Can we successfully capture our DNA with our detectors with specificity and report it?</h2> | <h2>Can we successfully capture our DNA with our detectors with specificity and report it?</h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p> In order to test whether we can capture target DNA with our detector TALES we wanted to | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
<figure> | <figure> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/54/TALE_B_and_TALE_A_B-lac_DNA_capture_assay.png" alt="TALE DNA Capture Assay" width="800" height="600"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/54/TALE_B_and_TALE_A_B-lac_DNA_capture_assay.png" alt="TALE DNA Capture Assay" width="800" height="600"> | ||
<figcaption> | <figcaption> | ||
- | <p><b>Figure 6: </b> TALE capture assay was done with TALE B | + | <p><b>Figure 6: </b> TALE capture assay was done with TALE B (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K1189001"> |
<span class="Yellow"><b> | <span class="Yellow"><b> | ||
BBa_K1189001 | BBa_K1189001 | ||
Line 91: | Line 95: | ||
<h2>Full System Kinetic Model</h2> | <h2>Full System Kinetic Model</h2> | ||
- | <p>With a preliminary understanding of how our system works we proceeded to quantitatively model our entire system. To do this <span class="yellow" | + | <p>With a preliminary understanding of how our system works we proceeded to quantitatively model our entire system. To do this <span class="yellow">we used the kinetic constants found in our experiments</span> from the TALE and prussian blue ferritin characterization to build a deterministic model in Scilab. We modeled the binding of an immobilized TALE to target DNA in solution and then the subsequent binding of one of our ferriTALEs. We then used the Michaelis-Menten kinetics of our prussian blue ferritin to calculate how quickly it converts TMB into the coloured product that we can see.</p> |
+ | |||
+ | <p>When we assembled our reactions into differential equations we generated 6 equations to cover the change in our 6 variables over time. When this equation was run with the amount of DNA present in a super shedding cow the output chemical, X, changes over time as shown below.</p> | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
<figure> | <figure> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c1/Calgary2013product_concentration_2013_robert.png" alt="Results" width="645" height="431"> | ||
<figcaption> | <figcaption> | ||
- | <p><b> | + | <p><b>Figure 6.</b> Change in X, the output chemical of our prussian blue ferritin reaction, over time in a system with the amount of target DNA present in a super shedding cow. The red line indicates the concentration at which the reaction becomes visible to the naked eye.</p> |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
- | <p> | + | <p>The red line on the figure above shows when the reaction reaches 22.176 µM, which is the concentration at which a blue dot or line becomes visible. This value was calculated based on the kinetic parameters we determined in our <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Project/OurSensor/Reporter/PrussianBlueFerritin">characterization of prussian blue ferritin</a>. This takes approximately 4.9 minutes, meaning that we will be able to see a <span class="yellow">visible response from a super shedding cow in less than 5 minutes</span>!</p> |
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | < | + | <h2>Further Characterization of our parts </h2> |
- | + | <p> We tested β-lactamase using benzylpenicillin as a substrate in combination with bromothymol blue as a pH indicator. From this assay we could see that β-lactamase could be used as a reporter enzyme producing a visible colour change (Figure 9,10). </p> | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | |||
- | |||
<figure> | <figure> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c7/UCalgary2013TRBetalactamasecolourpsd.png" alt="Beta-lactamase Visual Assay" width="432" height="599"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c7/UCalgary2013TRBetalactamasecolourpsd.png" alt="Beta-lactamase Visual Assay" width="432" height="599"> | ||
Line 186: | Line 127: | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
+ | <h2>Conclusion</h2> | ||
- | + | <p>We have been able to show our final system capable of capturing DNA with an immobilized TALE, exposing a second TALE with a reporter molecule, and detection of that reporter molecule. In our project we have utilized modelling at every step of the way to inform the course of our experiments, as well as to feed our data back into our models to generate better predictions, utilizing the full design cycle for our system. Through our characterization of parts from previous teams and the ones we have submitted ourselves we have created a collection of well documented parts that can be easily used and modified by any future team. Finally, we are bringing our system into the final prototype stages through our work with nitrocellulose, such that our work can move beyond the proof of principle stages and make an impact in the world to reduce the risk of EHEC harming people in the future.</p> | |
- | + | ||
</html> | </html> |
Revision as of 03:33, 29 October 2013
Final System
Final System
Our Sensor
The goal of our project is to design a biosensor to rapidly identify cattle known as super shedders. We are building a DNA-based biosensor, as it is more reliable and cheaper than a protein-based sensor; antibodies are expensive and the proteins that they target can get degraded during the sample preparation, whereas DNA is much more stable. A DNA-based sensor also enabled us to target a broader range of harmful E.coli. The design of our system was influenced by our conversations with industry stakeholders . Their feedback revealed three design considerations which we would have to incorporate into our prototype. First, it would have to be cheap so that it could be scaled-up to entire feedlots. Second, it would have to be easy to use by non-laboratory employees in feedlots. And third, it would have to provide a definitive measure of E.coli shedding levels within an hour to be used during routine check-up procedures. Our solution is the
Can we detect DNA with specificity?
We ordered 60mer FAM-labeled [A] (target sequence for TALEA) and FAM-labeled [B] (target sequence for TALEB) oligos and hybridized them with their reverse complement oligo to make double stranded pieces of DNA containing the target sequence of our TALEs. Using these target sequences and following the TALE Nitrocellulose Functionality Assay, we showed that TALEs bind their target sequence. We incubated Ferritin fused to an E coil to TALE fused to a K coil to make the ferriTALE complex. The complex was then blotted on strips of nitrocellulose paper. The strips were then blocked with milk and soaked in the appropriate DNA solution. Finally, the strips were washed and imaged. We showed that not only TALEs bind DNA (figure 24 and 25), they are also specific for their own target site (Figure 26).
Can our coils bind?
After putting in gratuitous effort to build parts containing these coils and successfully purifying these proteins we wanted to determine if the E and K coils interacted with each other. In order to characterize coil-coil interaction we performed an immunoprecipitation (IP) assay. We built a GFP with an E-coil ( BBa_K1189014) and we also built TALE-B with a K-coil (BBa_K1189030). To characterize the binding of the coils we pulled down with either an immunoglobulin G antibody (IgG) that serves as a negative control or with GFP antibody. The idea behind this experiment is to pull down the E coil which is fused to GFP with a GFP antibody and then probe with a anti-his antibody which recognizes the his tag on the TALE fused to the K coil. Upon interaction between the E and K coils we will see an output at approximately 86 kDa when probed with a His-antibody as seen in Figure 7. Our test groups included the coils by themselves and both the E and K coils put together in solution. As seen in Figure 7 a band appears only when we pull E and K coil with a GFP and probe with an anti-his antibody indicating the presence of both GFP and TALE in the elution solution indicating that the coils interact with each other.
How does the use of Coils versus Direct Fusions of TALEs Affect our Prussian Blue reporter?
After successfully confirming that we could convert our own ferritin proteins that were produced from the parts we constructed (BBa_K1189018, BBa_K1189021) into Prussian blue ferritin the next step was to evaluate how the design of our parts could potentially affect the reporter activity of our Prussian blue ferritin. Based on the spatial modelling performed by our team it was suggested that assembly of the ferritin nanoparticle with TALE proteins directly fused was highly unlikely. This is because the TALE proteins are significantly larger than the ferritin subunits. Their size would likely result in steric hindrance and prevent the assembly of the full ferritin protein. In order to test the predictions put forward by our modelling we ensured that our protein samples were balanced in order to have the same number ferritin cores in each sample. The catalytic activity of these proteins was then compared. From the data gathered we saw that the Prussian blue ferritin with fused coils (even if TALES are additionally bound to the ferritin via coils) was more effective as a reporter than having the TALE proteins directly fused to the ferritin nanoparticle (Figure 19). The results from this experiment suggest that the predictions made by our model were correct. Using coils however alleviates this issue as these coils are small and would not interfere in the ferritin self-assembly but can be used to attach our TALES to create the FerriTALE.
Our Final System: Putting it all together
Can we successfully capture our DNA with our detectors with specificity and report it?
In order to test whether we can capture target DNA with our detector TALES we wanted to
This assay shows that we can capture our target DNA with two detector TALEs with specificity . Additionally, we can report whether that DNA has been captured and is present in the sample, which is a very important concept for our sensor system.
Full System Kinetic Model
With a preliminary understanding of how our system works we proceeded to quantitatively model our entire system. To do this we used the kinetic constants found in our experiments from the TALE and prussian blue ferritin characterization to build a deterministic model in Scilab. We modeled the binding of an immobilized TALE to target DNA in solution and then the subsequent binding of one of our ferriTALEs. We then used the Michaelis-Menten kinetics of our prussian blue ferritin to calculate how quickly it converts TMB into the coloured product that we can see.
When we assembled our reactions into differential equations we generated 6 equations to cover the change in our 6 variables over time. When this equation was run with the amount of DNA present in a super shedding cow the output chemical, X, changes over time as shown below.
The red line on the figure above shows when the reaction reaches 22.176 µM, which is the concentration at which a blue dot or line becomes visible. This value was calculated based on the kinetic parameters we determined in our characterization of prussian blue ferritin. This takes approximately 4.9 minutes, meaning that we will be able to see a visible response from a super shedding cow in less than 5 minutes!
Further Characterization of our parts
We tested β-lactamase using benzylpenicillin as a substrate in combination with bromothymol blue as a pH indicator. From this assay we could see that β-lactamase could be used as a reporter enzyme producing a visible colour change (Figure 9,10).
Conclusion
We have been able to show our final system capable of capturing DNA with an immobilized TALE, exposing a second TALE with a reporter molecule, and detection of that reporter molecule. In our project we have utilized modelling at every step of the way to inform the course of our experiments, as well as to feed our data back into our models to generate better predictions, utilizing the full design cycle for our system. Through our characterization of parts from previous teams and the ones we have submitted ourselves we have created a collection of well documented parts that can be easily used and modified by any future team. Finally, we are bringing our system into the final prototype stages through our work with nitrocellulose, such that our work can move beyond the proof of principle stages and make an impact in the world to reduce the risk of EHEC harming people in the future.