Team:Goettingen/Parts

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Results)
(Discussion)
Line 804: Line 804:
==Discussion==
==Discussion==
-
Since we used two of the promoters from the Anderson collection for our reporter system, we characterized them further. In doing so we compared three different methods to monitor promoter strength: fluorescence microscopy, determination of relative transcript levels of the rfp reporter gene by qRT-PCR and measurement of the fluorescence of the RFP protein. The fluorescence microscopy provided only a very rough impression of the different strength of the promoters. However, we could conclude, that RFP was expressed indicating that the promoters were functional. The weaker fluorescence observed for Promoter 1 and Promoter 2 indicated that these promoters might be weaker than the other two.
+
Since we used two of the promoters from the Anderson collection for our reporter system, we characterized them further. In doing so we compared three different methods to monitor promoter strength: fluorescence microscopy, determination of relative transcript levels of the rfp reporter gene by qRT-PCR and measurement of the fluorescence of the RFP protein. The fluorescence microscopy provided only a very rough impression of the different strength of the promoters. However, we could conclude, that RFP was expressed indicating that the promoters were functional. The weaker fluorescence observed for Promoter 1 and Promoter 2 indicated that these promoters might be less active than the other two.
 +
 
 +
The plate reader experiments allowed deeper insights into the strength of the different promoters. In these measurements, the observed fluctuations and elevated RFP/OD<sub>600nm</sub> values during initial growth might result from the low cell number in LB medium and might therefore be not significant (compare: [https://2012.igem.org/Team:LMU-Munich/Data/Anderson#Luminescence_measurements click here]). The RFP fluorescence remained low during exponential growth. After 5 h, there was a strong increase in RFP fluorescence. At the same time, cell growth slowed down suggesting that both, reduced cell growth and stronger fluorescence might be correlated. In order to fluoresce, fluorescent proteins like GFP and RFP need oxygen (Remington, 2006). The oxygen RFP needs for fluorophore maturation could not have been available during log phase, since the cells consume the oxygen for enhanced cell growth. This possibility underlines the advantage of promoter characterization via transcript levels over promoter characterization via fluorophores. Still, fluorophore-depended characterization might be useful during stationary phase.
 +
 
 +
By qRT-PCR we were able to observe a tendency for the strength of the different promoters, though the exact fold changes seemed not to be reproducible. This lack of reproducibility might have resulted from the clones which differed in age. While the clones from replicate 1 were from the first transformation of the Biobrick vectors, the clones from replicate 2 originated from a new re-transformation of the plasmids. In general, our results suggested that Promoter 1 was the weakest, followed by Promoter 2, which was slightly stronger. Most interestingly, in E. coli DH5α, Promoter 3 seemed to be even stronger than Promoter 4, though it was shown to be weaker than promoter 4 before. However, our observations regarding Promoter 4 are difficult to interpret. First, this promoter led to contradicting results regarding the ''rfp'' fold changes during stationary phase, while the plate reader results independent of the clone indicated that it is weaker than Promote 3. Second, qRT-PCR replicate 2 suggested that it is almost as weak as promoter 4, which is in contrast to all other results obtained for this promoter. There are two possible explanations: (a) An experimental mistake resulted in insignificant fold changes; (b) Promoter 4 is subject to a complex regulation depending on the exact growth conditions. Considering this, it has to be noted that it is difficult to harvest the cells for RNA preparation at exactly the same OD<sub>600nm</sub>. Hence, we took the samples for all strains at the same time when they had reached the approximate OD<sub>600nm</sub> we were interested in. Since none of the two explanations could be ruled out, further characterization is necessary to obtain a more detailed view of the promoters and their regulation under different growth conditions. All in all, our results showed that it is useful to apply several methods for characterization. Taking the majority of the results of the three methods into account, we suggest that the order of the promoter activity in ''E. coli'' DH5α grown in broth LB<sup>Amp</sup> is as follows: Promoter 1 BBa_J23117 < Promoter 2 BBa_J23116 < Promoter 4 BBa_J23118 < Promoter 3 BBa_J23110.
-
Deeper insights into the promoter strength allowed the plate reader experiments. In these measurements, the observed fluctuations and elevated RFP/OD600nm values during initial growth might result from the low cell number in LB medium and might therefore be not significant (compare: [https://2012.igem.org/Team:LMU-Munich/Data/Anderson#Luminescence_measurements here]). The RFP fluorescence remained low during exponential growth. After 5 h, there was a strong increase in RFP fluorescence. At the same time, cell growth slowed down suggesting that both, extensive cell growth and reduced fluorescence might be correlated. In order to fluoresce, fluorescent proteins like GFP need oxygen (Tsien, 1998). This could be true for RFP, as well. The oxygen RFP might need for fluorophore maturation could not have been available during log phase, since the cells consume the oxygen for enhanced cell growth. This possibility underlines the advantage of qRT-PCR over promoter characterization via fluorophores. Fluorophore-depended characterization might only be useful during stationary phase, since during this stage, significant results for the different activities of the promoters were obtained.
 
-
By qRT-PCR we were able to observe a tendency for the strength of the different promoters, though the exact fold changes seemed not to be reproducible. This lack of reproducibility might have resulted from the difference in age. While the clones from replicate 1 were from the first transformation of the biobrick vectors, the clones from replicate 2 originated from a new re-transformation of the plasmids. In general, our results suggested that Promoter 1 was the weakest, followed by Promoter 2, which was slightly stronger. Most interestingly, in E. coli DH5α, Promoter 3 seemed to be even stronger than Promoter 4, though it was shown to be weaker than promoter 4. During stationary phase, we obtained contradicting results for the strength of Promoter 4. This could be clarified by the plate reader measurements: During stationary phase, Promoter 3 seemed to be stronger than promoter 4 for all clones tested, confirming the assumptions based on the qRT-PCR results. Likewise, the plate reader experiments confirmed the qRT-PCR results for all other promoters.
 
-
All in all, our results showed that it is useful to apply several methods for characterization. Taking the results of the three methods into account, we suggest that the order of the strength of the promoters in ''E. coli'' DH5α is – independent of the growth phase - as follows: Promoter 1 < Promoter 2 < Promoter 4 < Promoter 3.
 
'''References'''
'''References'''

Revision as of 22:29, 2 October 2013





The beast and its Achilles heel:

 A novel target to fight multi-resistant pathogenic bacteria



Parts

Parts we used in our project

Internal Part No.

Registry No.

Function

Strength (au)

Length (bp)

whereabout
(in 2013kit)

Backbone/Resistance

 

Important additional Info

1

BBa_J23117

Promoters

162

35

P5 20 O

BBa_J61002

Amp

 

2

BBa_J23116

396

35

P5 20 M

BBa_J61002

 

3

BBa_J23110

844

35

P5 20 C

BBa_J61002

 

4

BBa_J23118

1429

35

P5 22 A

BBa_J61002

 

5

BBa_J61101

RBS

rather low

 

P5 5 L

pSB1A2

Amp

 

8

BBa_B0034

very strong

12

P5 2 M

pSB1A2

Amp

 

6

BBa_E0240

GFP generator

(with promoter and RBS)

 

876

P3 23 A

pSB1C3

(high copy)

Cm

Excitation: 501 nm

Emission: 511 nm

Latency: 8 min

 

Literature:

Cormack, B.P. et al  (1996)

 

P5 12 M

pSB1A2

(high copy)

Amp

7

BBa_B0015

Terminator

 

129

P3 4 F

pSB1C3

(high copy)

Cm

 

9

BBa_E0030

EYFP (no promoter, no RBS)

 

723

P3 16 D

pSB1C3

(high copy)

Cm

Excitation: 514 nm

Emission: 527 nm

10

BBa_E0020

ECFP (no promoter, no RBS)

 

723

P3 3 M

pSB1C3

(high copy)

Cm

Excitation: 439 nm

Emission: 476 nm


Parts we modified/improved/created


<groupparts>iGEM013 Goettingen</groupparts>


Promoter Characterization

To construct our reporter systems, we needed promoters of different strength. The well-known Anderson promoter collection consists of nineteen constitutive promoters of different strength. Because of their specific strength, we chose four different promoters (Table 1).

Intern No. for promoter

Registry No.

Strenght in arbitrary units

(according to the characterization of the iGEM Team Berkeley 2006)

Promotor 1

BBa_J23117

126

Promoter 2

BBa_J23116

396

Promoter 3

BBa_J23110

844

Promoter 4

BBa_J23118

1429









Table 1. For our project, we were interested in four different promoters from the Anderson Collection. For each part, we used an intern number, which will be used in the text, as well.

The activity of these promoters was mainly characterized by measurement of the activity of a reporter protein expressed from these promoters. Protein activity is not only determined by the efficiency of transcription. In addition to this, translation efficiency contributes to the protein amounts in a cell. In particular, regarding fluorescent proteins like RFP or GFP, the growth phase might affect their fluorescence (see discussion below). A more direct way to determine the promoter activity is to assess the transcript levels. We were interested in how the mRNA levels of RFP placed downstream of the promoters from the Anderson collection change dependent on the promoter and how the protein activity compares to them.

For this, we transformed E. coli DH5α with the promoter parts present in the plasmid backbone BBa_J61002. As an empty vector control lacking a promoter and RFP, we used E. coli cells transformed with BBa_B0034(an RBS) in plasmid Backbone pSB1A2. Subsequently, we characterized three clones of each strain by qRT-PCR and by monitoring the RFP fluorescence in different growth stages. In addition to this, we did fluorescence microscopy of exponentially growing cells (Fig. 1).

For qRT-PCR analysis (Fig. 2), E. coli cells were harvested at an OD600nm of ca. 0.6 (exponential growth phase) and after 5 – 6 h when the OD600nm had reached approximately 2 (stationary phase). The cells were incubated over night and a third sample taken the next morning ( > 20 h incubation, OD600nm was ca. 2 – 3). The relative mRNA levels of rfp were normalized to the rpoA levels. Then, the fold change (∆∆CT) of the promoters compared to promoter 1 (the weakest) was calculated for each phase. The fold enrichments obtained for different growth phases could not be compared since the CT values determined for rpoA suggested a generally altered transcription during the different growth stages.

Plate reader measurements served to determine the RFP fluorescence. The wells of a titer plate were inoculated with the clones and the RFP fluorescence and the OD600nm measured over the time. (Fig 3).


Results

To characterize the promoters, we transformed E. coli DH5α with the promoter parts present in the plasmid backbone BBa_J61002. As an empty vector control lacking a promoter and RFP, we used E. coli cells transformed with BBa_B0034 (an RBS) in plasmid Backbone pSB1A2. Subsequently, we characterized different clones (Clone 1 – 3) of these strains by qRT-PCR and by monitoring the RFP fluorescence in different growth stages. In addition to this, we did fluorescence microscopy of exponentially growing cells of clone 2 of each strain (Fig. 1). We noticed that the cells of the control strain did not fluoresce, while all strains transformed with a promoter plasmid exhibited a red fluorescence. The cells with promoter 1 and promoter 2 seemed to fluoresce less than those of promoter 3 and promoter 4.

Goe-proC-1.png

Fig. 1. The E. coli cells shown above harbored an Anderson promoter plasmid or a control vector without RFP. The cells were cultured in broth LBAmp, harvested during exponential growth and analyzed by fluorescence microscopy. Left: Bright field (BF); Right: RFP; Abbreviations: P1 = [http:partsregistry/Part:BBa_J23117 BBa_J23117]; P2 = BBa_J23116; P3 = BBa_J23110; P4 = BBa_J23118; P8 = BBa_B0034; C2 = Clone 2.

For qRT-PCR analysis (Fig. 2), E. coli cells cultured in broth LBAmp medium were harvested at an OD600nm of ca. 0.6 (exponential growth phase) and when the OD600nm had reached approximately 2 (stationary phase). The cells were incubated over night and a third sample taken the next morning (OD600nm was ca. 2 – 3). The relative mRNA levels of rfp were normalized to the rpoA levels. Then, the fold change (∆∆CT) of the promoters compared to promoter 1 (the weakest) was calculated for each phase. The fold enrichment obtained for different growth phases could not be compared since the CT values determined for rpoA suggested a generally altered transcription during the different growth stages. For the exponential phase (Fig. 2 A), the fold changes indicate that Promoters 1 and 2 were weak. For Promoter 2, the rfp mRNA levels appeared to be slightly higher than for Promoter 1. Promoter 3 led to even higher rfp mRNA levels. For stationary phase (Fig. 2 B) and overnight incubation (Fig. 2 C), the same tendency was observed. Only for Promoter 4 during stationary phase, the fold changes for the replicates provided contradicting results: While replicate 1 suggested that this promoter was stronger during stationary phase than promoter 3, the second replicate indicated the opposite. In addition to this, Promoter 4 seemed not to differ significantly in activity compared to Promoter 1 when considering replicate 2.

Goe-proC-2.png

Fig. 2. The RNA from two E. coli clones of cells transformed with an Anderson promoter plasmid was subjected to qRT-PCR analysis. The CT values of rfp determined by qRT-PCR were normalized to those of rpoA. The fold change of rfp transcript levels relative to the rfp transcript levels of promoter 1 were calculated. The bars indicate the fold changes. Two independent replicates are shown. Replica 1 = Clone 1; Replica 2 = Clone 3.

Plate reader measurements served to determine the RFP fluorescence. The wells of a titer plate were inoculated with the clones and the RFP fluorescence and the OD600nm measured over the time (Fig 3). During the initial growth phase, all strains, including the non-fluorescent control strain, showed slightly elevated RFP/OD600nm. For all clones 1, fluctuation during the first hours was observed, as well. During logarithmic growth of the strains, the RFP fluorescence dropped (minimum at 4 – 5 h). While the fluorescence remained low for the control strain, it increased for all promoter clones as soon as the stationary phase was reached (>5 h). After that, the fluorescence and optical density remained largely constant. The RFP fluorescence in stationary phase was strongest for Promoter 3 clones, followed by those of Promoter 4 and, then, Promoter 2. Promoter 1 clones showed the weakest RFP fluorescence.

Goe-proC-3.png

Discussion

Since we used two of the promoters from the Anderson collection for our reporter system, we characterized them further. In doing so we compared three different methods to monitor promoter strength: fluorescence microscopy, determination of relative transcript levels of the rfp reporter gene by qRT-PCR and measurement of the fluorescence of the RFP protein. The fluorescence microscopy provided only a very rough impression of the different strength of the promoters. However, we could conclude, that RFP was expressed indicating that the promoters were functional. The weaker fluorescence observed for Promoter 1 and Promoter 2 indicated that these promoters might be less active than the other two.

The plate reader experiments allowed deeper insights into the strength of the different promoters. In these measurements, the observed fluctuations and elevated RFP/OD600nm values during initial growth might result from the low cell number in LB medium and might therefore be not significant (compare: click here). The RFP fluorescence remained low during exponential growth. After 5 h, there was a strong increase in RFP fluorescence. At the same time, cell growth slowed down suggesting that both, reduced cell growth and stronger fluorescence might be correlated. In order to fluoresce, fluorescent proteins like GFP and RFP need oxygen (Remington, 2006). The oxygen RFP needs for fluorophore maturation could not have been available during log phase, since the cells consume the oxygen for enhanced cell growth. This possibility underlines the advantage of promoter characterization via transcript levels over promoter characterization via fluorophores. Still, fluorophore-depended characterization might be useful during stationary phase.

By qRT-PCR we were able to observe a tendency for the strength of the different promoters, though the exact fold changes seemed not to be reproducible. This lack of reproducibility might have resulted from the clones which differed in age. While the clones from replicate 1 were from the first transformation of the Biobrick vectors, the clones from replicate 2 originated from a new re-transformation of the plasmids. In general, our results suggested that Promoter 1 was the weakest, followed by Promoter 2, which was slightly stronger. Most interestingly, in E. coli DH5α, Promoter 3 seemed to be even stronger than Promoter 4, though it was shown to be weaker than promoter 4 before. However, our observations regarding Promoter 4 are difficult to interpret. First, this promoter led to contradicting results regarding the rfp fold changes during stationary phase, while the plate reader results independent of the clone indicated that it is weaker than Promote 3. Second, qRT-PCR replicate 2 suggested that it is almost as weak as promoter 4, which is in contrast to all other results obtained for this promoter. There are two possible explanations: (a) An experimental mistake resulted in insignificant fold changes; (b) Promoter 4 is subject to a complex regulation depending on the exact growth conditions. Considering this, it has to be noted that it is difficult to harvest the cells for RNA preparation at exactly the same OD600nm. Hence, we took the samples for all strains at the same time when they had reached the approximate OD600nm we were interested in. Since none of the two explanations could be ruled out, further characterization is necessary to obtain a more detailed view of the promoters and their regulation under different growth conditions. All in all, our results showed that it is useful to apply several methods for characterization. Taking the majority of the results of the three methods into account, we suggest that the order of the promoter activity in E. coli DH5α grown in broth LBAmp is as follows: Promoter 1 BBa_J23117 < Promoter 2 BBa_J23116 < Promoter 4 BBa_J23118 < Promoter 3 BBa_J23110.


References

Roger Y. Tsien (1998) “The green fluorescent protein“, Annu. Rev. Biochem. Vol. 67, pp. 509–544


 

Previous Next