Team:SDU-Denmark/Tour53

Rubber results

Did we indeed make rubber?

Now that we control the expression of the genes it is time to characterize our central genes (dxs (B. subtilis) and HRT2). We invite you along on a journey through our attempts to obtain proof of concept; to show that Bacteriorganic Rubber is a true possibility.

Characterization of dxs (B. subtilis)

Functionality assay
To optimize the flow through the MEP pathway, the dxs gene was overexpressed, the expectation being increased levels of IPP and DMAPP (see Specification). To examine if overexpression indeed resultats in an increase in substrate, we attempted to assay the levels of DMAPP using a headspace gas chromatography (GC)-technique.

DMAPP was hydrolyzed in acid to the volatile hydrocarbon gas isoprene. The gas was subsequently analyzed with headspace GC. A linear relationship between amount of detected isoprene and DMAPP concentration has previously been established. Source: Fisher AJ, Rosenstiel TN, Shirk MC, Fall R. Nonradioactive assay for cellular dimethylallyl diphosphate. Anal Biochem. 2001 May 15;292(2):272-9. (Link) We were capable of producing a standard curve by reacting DMAPP with acid for 2 min (instead of the 60 min specified in the previous study) (Fig. 1). At this time, we obtained optimal peak detection for standard solutions. We were, however, incapable of detecting isoprene, even in high concentrations of bacterial samples treated with acid. The test was expanded to include acid hydrolyzation for 2, 30, 60 or 90 min, yet we could not detect isoprene, and therefore not detect DMAPP.

Figure 1. Optimization of the procedure is needed before characterization of the dxs bricks can be completed using this approach. We suspect that the complexity of the bacterial samples is too high, and thus the reaction does not take place as fast as might be necessary for detection in our setup. Sonication of bacterial samples with and without addition of standard DMAPP, and subsequent measurements might shed some light on this hypothesis. However, it should be noted that the GC wasn’t fully functional during the test period, consequently leading to broader peaks and thus lowered the sensitivity of the instrument. On the 3^rd of October, we received a mail from Professor Lars Porskjær Christensen, Department of Chemistry-, Bio- and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark:

"...The GC has now been repaired and the sensitivity has been improved considerably. The GC-peaks should be very sharp now. This may be the reason that you have not observed any release of isoprene from your samples...MailTranslated from danish".

Unfortunately, with only 2 days left to wiki-freeze, there was no time for another round of testing.

Growth Experiment
Figure 2. Carrying the dxs devices and expressing the gene could impair the growth, and hence be important in production purpose. To test if the growth of MG1655 bacteria is impaired when carrying and expressing our dxs devices, we measured the growth rate with OD₆₀₀ measurements.

Two triplicates of MG1655 carrying no vector, empty pSB1C3 vector, pSB1C3-Plac-dxs (B. subtilis), pSB1C3-Pcon-lacI-Plac-dxs (B. subtilis), or pSB1C3-Pcon-lacI:LVA-Plac-dxs (B. subtilis) were started from ONC at time 0 hours, OD₆₀₀=0.005, and grown at 37ºC and 180 rpm. OD₆₀₀ measurements were done every half an hour, and 1 of each triplicates was induced at time 2.5 hours. All strains grew at the same pace and induction didn’t impair growth rate (Fig. 2).

Characterization of HRT2

Rubber purification
To discover rubber, it is useful to isolate the rubber from the rest of the bacterial cells. This will allow us to remove as many variables in the detection assays as possible. The rubber was purified according to self-written SOP0030 - Rubber purification.
The method of purification was based on a literature search and chemical evaluation of solubility of the polyisoprene. Cells were sonicated in ethanol suspension, washed in acetone, and extracted in n-hexane (both steps were overnight).

Two different methods were tested to evaluate the most efficient extraction method. In the first method, we washed with acetone and extract with n-hexane in a soxhlet extractor. The second method excluded the time-consuming soxhlet steps and washed with acetone for a shorter duration of time (15 min shake at 37 deg). Rubber was extracted by adding hexane to the cell suspension, then centrifuging the sample. The supernatent was saved (hexane solution). We tested the methods of rubber extraction on a positive control made from MG1655, mixed with polyisoprene. Both the soxhlet and the non-soxhlet method were evaluated using H¹-NMR. We deemed the results to be similar, and since the required time for non-soxhlet extraction was significantly less, we chose to use the non-soxleth method.

The H¹ NMR test
We now seemed able to detect rubber that was extracted from a mixture of bacterial debris and polyisoprene, and felt ready for a test of our production system. H¹ NMR allowed us a certain specificity and although a significant amount of polyisoprene was needed to enable detection, it was preferred over C¹³NMR. All samples were run an a bruker 400 mHz NMR spectrometer. We also knew that we could control the expression of the genes in both of our plasmids. We were ready to put our abilities to extract rubber through the non-soxhlet method and detect it using H¹ NMR to the test. In other words, we were ready to find the rubber present in our strain! Source: Donald L. Pavia and Gary M. Lampman. Introduction to Spectroscopy, International Edition 4e (Book) ISBN-13: 9780538734189 / ISBN-10: 0538734183 (Link)

During the first test of our CPS bacteria (MG1655 transformed with both plasmids - see Design), bacteria were grown to late exponential phase at 37 deg, then induced with 1mM IPTG, 0.2% Ara, and 1mM MgCl2. It was then moved to room temperature for a further 4 hours of growth. Non-soxhlet extraction was used to purify any rubber present in the sample, which was then compared to a positive control (WT mixed with polyisopren - also undergone non-soxhlet extraction) and a standard isoprene solution.

Figure 3 illustrates the peaks given by pure polyisoprene are found at 5.12 (A), 2.04(B) and 1.68(C)in the ratio 1(A):4(B):3(C). Additionally, a peak is visible at 1.56 indicating water (the standard was not dried in a vacuum oven ON like the rubber extraction was). The peak at 0.00 ppm is the defining peak of the ppm axis and represents TMSTMSTetramethylsilane which is a calibrating standard.

Our rubber extraction of WT + polyisoprene (Fig. 4) gives the same peak placement as the pure polyisoprene ((A), (B) and (C)). However, the integration of the 3 peaks shows a relationship of approximately 1:5:4. The discrepancy can be explained by the impurities in the area between 0-2.5 ppm. Such impurities might add additional integration value to the peaks assigned to the polyisoprene peaks (B) and (C) - hereby causing a disruption of the true relationship. Some peaks from the solvents used to purify the rubber (Acetone, Ethanol, and Hexane), as well as a small amount of water (1.56 ppm) are seen, too.

The conclusion arrives in figure 5, named DXS+PT, which is our double plasmid CPS bacteria, and displays the same peaks (A), (B) and (C) as both the WT + polyisoprene and pure polyisoprene. This is a strong indication of the presence of rubber - specifically, this is an indication that our CPS bacteria produces rubber: Bacteriorganic Rubber. Peak distortion of the spectrum due to solvents are the same as seen in the rubber purification from WT + polyisoprene.

A second round of testing was done to validate the first experiment. We wanted to include a negative test (WT), in order to exclude the possibility of a naturally occurring polyisoprenoid compounds in E. coli. We performed rubber purification on WT, our CPS bacteria as well as a strain containing only the pSB1K3-AraC-Para-PT device. Bacteria were grown and rubber extracted as described above. The three samples where unfortunately not dried properly in the vacuum oven due to apparatus malfunction.

The test provided the following results: Fig 6 lacks the characteristic peaks of polyisoprene at 5.12, 2.04 and 1.68. It can be concluded from their absence that there is not rubber (nor any other compound that might provide a similar chemical shift values) in the wildtype. In the CPS (Fig. 7), we observe very a slight peak at 5.12, indicating the presence of (A) hydrogen. This peak has the same splitting pattern as the first round of H¹-NMR, but it has a very low intensity. The (B) and (C) peaks are hidden in the background noise, which is most likely due to cell debris and solvents, which did not evaporate appropriately. We suspect that the machinery has a decreased sensitivity towards the isoprene peaks due to the high amount of solvent seen from the assigned peaks, but the peak at 5.12 (with the recognizable splitting pattern) is a strong indication that rubber is once again present in our CPS bacteria (containing both PT and dxs plasmids).

The future of our H¹ NMR test rubber characterization experiments will see us replicate our results. Specifically, we must redo the second rubber extraction and rerun the H¹ NMR to verify the rubber presence in our CPS bacteria. Also, this particular rerun allows us to check that the WT is indeed lacking any sign of a peak at 5.12. In addition, we must investigate the rubber yield in terms of weight to further evaluate the two purification methods mentioned above.

MALDI-ToF
We thoroughly studied the literature concerning polyisoprene on MALDI-ToF and found that the formation of adducts by adding AgNO₃^- would make it possible to ionize the long alkene chain, despite its lack of functional groups that can be ionized. be ionized. Source: Hyuneui L, Yeonhee L, Seunghee H, Youngsook Y, and Kang-Jin K. Investigation of Polystyrene, Polyisoprene, and Poly(2-vinylpyridine) using Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 1999, Vol. 20, No. 7 p. 853-856. (Link)

We tried several matrixes including MBTMBT2-mercaptobenzothiazole, DHBDHB2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid, CHCACHCAalpha-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid, SASAsinapinic acid and DTDTdithranol, but didn't have the time to perform the tests on anything but our standard polyisoprene (Mw 38 kDa). Unfortunately, it appeared to be too large a molecule to be detected by the bruker MALDI-ToF machine. It was concluded that the machine's hardware settings could not match the requirements for such large molecules. However, the expected length that we expect HRT2 produces is in the 2-10 kDa range. This is within the limits of the machine, though we have yet to test this hypothesis as the machine is frequently occupied by other research groups.

Composite production system

Growth experiments
Carrying the HRT2, dxs and both (CPS) devices and expressing the genes could impair the growth, and hence be important in production purpose. To test if the growth of MG1655 bacteria is impaired when carrying and expressing our devices, we measured the growth rate with OD₆₀₀ measurements.

Four different MG1655 strains carrying either no plasmid (WT), pSB1C3-Pcon-araC-term-Para-HRT2 (HRT2), pSB1C3-Pcon-lacI(N)-term-Plac-dxs (B.subtilis) (Dxs), or pSB1K3-Pcon-araC-term-Para-HRT2 and pSB1C3-Pcon-lacI(N)-term-Plac-dxs (B.subtilis) (CPS), were grown from OD₆₀₀=0.05 and induced with 1 mM IPTG and/or 0.2% arabinose during growth. The first experiment showed impaired growth of the bacteria only carrying construct expressing HRT2. We thought that the reason why the strains expressing HRT2 as well as Dxs didn’t show impaired growth rate could be due to a phenomenon called inclusion bodies. When overexpressing too many proteins, there is a risk of misfolding and hence loss of function. A way to lower this risk is to lower the temperature. Therefore we set up a growth experiment where the temperature was lowered from 37 to 20ºC at time of induction. This did not prove to make a difference, and CPS strains with and without IPTG and/or arabinose induction grew at same pace as WT. However, we want to verify these results by a more thorough investigation and consequently setup a new growth experiment including OD₆₀₀ measurements, counts of colony forming units (CFU) and finally scanning electron microscopy (fig 8).

Figure 8