Team:Penn/MethylaseCharacterization

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 73: Line 73:
F = Off Target Methylation Band</br></i>
F = Off Target Methylation Band</br></i>
<div style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;text-align:center"><figure><img border="0" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/fa/CodeCogsEqn42314.gif" alt="Workflow" width="250px"><figcaption><i> </i></figcaption></figure></div>
<div style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;text-align:center"><figure><img border="0" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/fa/CodeCogsEqn42314.gif" alt="Workflow" width="250px"><figcaption><i> </i></figcaption></figure></div>
-
</br></br>
+
</br><p>
-
 
+
The software package calculated for us that the largest band we were seeing on the TALE gel was the result of simultaneous target site and off target site methylation while the second largest band was only off target site methylation. We used this information to formulate the Targeting Score to reflect increased site-specificity. We varied induction conditions, expecting one might be more optimal than our previous inductions. As desired, the negative control produced a baseline Targeting Score of almost exactly 1 (1.06). However, no induction condition increased Targeting Score, rather there was a steady decline (Figure 4). This indicated the TALE could be giving negative feedback to the site-specific methylation.
         </div>
         </div>

Revision as of 11:59, 27 October 2013

Penn iGEM

Methylase Characterization




Zinc Finger-M.SssI Fusion. The zinc finger is a small DNA binding domain, with limited sequence specificity. Previous studies showed it was prone to off-target methylation, which we verified. This was also validation that the MaGellin assay accurately reports the site-specificity of methylation, effectively demonstrating our assay does everything we need it to do.


SHOW ZINC FINGER DATA

Figure 1: The ZF-M.SssI was cloned into MaGellin with and without its binding site present. We ran the standard MaGellin assay on both plasmids, using methylation sensitive restriction enzymes to report the methylase activity.



To be sure of the targeting specificity, we cloned the MaGellin plasmid with and without the zinc finger’s binding site present at the target cut site. This demonstrated how the presence of a zinc finger binding site shifts the methylation pattern (Figure 1).


TALE-M.SssI Fusion. TALEs have a greater sequence specificity than zinc fingers, and are easier to customize and less expensive to construct. They have already been validated for use in genome engineering and are quickly replacing zinc fingers. We performed a similar experiment with our TALE-M.SssI fusion, with and without the binding site present at the target cut site. We ran the gel and saw a significant effect on the methylation pattern but it was not in agreement with our software’s predicted experimental outcome.

TALE-M.SssI actively methylates DNA

Workflow
Figure 2: A TALE-M.SssI was cloned into and expressed from MaGellin, then induced with IPTG in T7 Express cells. The NEB10 control has no T7 polymerase and no possibility of leaky expression. The linearized control is the same band length as blanket methylation.


Our TALE-M.SssI was actively methylating DNA at both the target site and off-target site. We expected a certain degree of off target methylation simply because the TALEs could occupy all the target sites on our low copy plasmid; the molar ratio is one of the problems in developing site-specific methylases that the inducible MaGellin system is designed to address. However, it was unexpected to see methylation skewed in favor of the off target site so we carried out more characterization experiments.

COBRA confirms on and off target methylation

Workflow
Figure 3: COBRA on induced TALE-M.SssI. The plasmid was bisulfite treated and the target and off target sites were amplified with our standard bisulfite sequencing primers. The amplicons were digested with TaqαI, which only cuts methylated sites, and BamHI, which only cuts untreated DNA.



We bisulfite converted the plasmid and used our validated bisulfite sequencing primers on both the target and off target site, then used the COBRA assay. The controls recapitulated that our primers are biased for only bisulfite converted DNA, as desired. Unconverted DNA would have been digested by the control enzyme. TaqαI digested both the on and off target sites, confirming that the TALE was partially methylating both sites (Figure 3). This validated our assay further, as it reports the same biological outcome as the published COBRA method, but at a fraction of the cost, time, and technical difficulty.


Varied Induction Conditions Clarify TALE Mechanism of Action

Workflow
Figure 4: The TALE-M.SssI with and without the TALE binding site present was induced with 0, .1, 1, and 2 mM of IPTG for 0, 2, 6, and 24 hours to find optimal expression conditions. Representative bands’ intensities were quantified. The targeting score (formula below) increases with site-specificity and decreases with enzymatic over activity as measured by the TALE without the binding site.


P = TALE Binding Site
M = No TALE Binding Site
N = On Target Methylation Band
F = Off Target Methylation Band
Workflow

The software package calculated for us that the largest band we were seeing on the TALE gel was the result of simultaneous target site and off target site methylation while the second largest band was only off target site methylation. We used this information to formulate the Targeting Score to reflect increased site-specificity. We varied induction conditions, expecting one might be more optimal than our previous inductions. As desired, the negative control produced a baseline Targeting Score of almost exactly 1 (1.06). However, no induction condition increased Targeting Score, rather there was a steady decline (Figure 4). This indicated the TALE could be giving negative feedback to the site-specific methylation.