Team:SydneyUni Australia/Project/SinceHK

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 29: Line 29:
==Gibson Assembly Success==
==Gibson Assembly Success==
When assembled individually, we observed colonies from transformation of Gibson assembly produces for all our genes:
When assembled individually, we observed colonies from transformation of Gibson assembly produces for all our genes:
-
* ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/2660722 aldehyde dehydrogenase A] from ''Xanthobacter autotrophicus''.
+
* ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/2660722 aldehyde dehydrogenase A] from ''Xanthobacter autotrophicus'' (aldA).
-
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/91700989 cytochrome p450]-[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/91700987 ferredoxin]-[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/91700988 reductase] from ''Polararomonas JS666''
+
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/91700989 cytochrome p450]-[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/91700987 ferredoxin]-[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/91700988 reductase] from ''Polararomonas JS666'' (CYP450)
*Our Tet-based inducible promoter system.
*Our Tet-based inducible promoter system.
*Not adh1b2 because we forgot to order it! Oops.
*Not adh1b2 because we forgot to order it! Oops.
Line 39: Line 39:
==Cloning==
==Cloning==
-
We attempted to take a short cut in constructing our pathway by inserting a new restriction enzyme recognition site at the end of our Promoter system (just upstream of the suffix) and at the start of our transcriptional unit parts (just downstream of the prefix to avoid incorporation of forbidden sites in later constructs). However in our haste to order new gBlocks post-Hong Kong, we had selected NheI which, whilst unique in our coding sequence and pSB1C3, creates a CTAG overhang that is compatible with both XbaI and SpeI site digests (Oops)!
+
We Cloned our inducible promoter system in front of each transcriptional part (aldA and CYP450) and genotypically screened colonies by junction PCR and plasmid digest.
Line 45: Line 45:
-
=='''Results'''==
 
-
For the Friar Tuck,
+
=='''Results'''==
 +
CYP450 catalyses the degradation of 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA) to chloracetaldehyde, releasing chloride ions. We performed a [https://2013.igem.org/Team:SydneyUni_Australia/Project/Protocols#chloride chloride assay] on successfully screened clones of CYP450 under control of our promoter system in the presence and absence of Tetracycline to test the activity of CYP450 on DCA
-
Talk about the magic we made -
 
-
*GA of parts
 
-
*cloning with inducible system
 
-
*two p450 clones look promising on cl- assay (the GC experiment had way higher conc. tet and way less time with tet)
 
-
*...yet to be characterised...
 
-
Rob
 
{{Team:SydneyUni_Australia/Footer}}
{{Team:SydneyUni_Australia/Footer}}

Revision as of 00:45, 29 October 2013

SydneyUniversity Top Banner.jpg SydneyUniversity Bottom Banner.jpg



Design

Throughout the year we’d been trying to assemble our DCA-degrading pathway in a single Gibson Assembly reaction. An approach with which we had found some troubles. We believe that the strong constitutive expression of our operon, especially some of our larger parts such as the cytochrome p450,-ferredoxin-reductase cluster may actively harm the cells or be metabolically taxing, effectively create a positive selection pressure for misassembled Gibson inserts. With this one-shot approach, we had left no flexibility in the face of failure: because we’d designed our gBlocks to assemble all at once, when this failed we couldn’t assemble the genes in our pathway from parts.


Having learned the virtues of modularity and flexibility the hard way, upon returning from the igem2013 Asia jamboree we designed replacement gBlocks for the start and end of each gene with the BioBrick prefix and suffix respectively. These new gBlocks, along with our old intermediate gBlocks could be gibson assembled with the Registry’s shipping vector, pSB1C3 separately. Because we still suspected that our pathway, or parts-of, might be toxic in E.coli we designed an inducible promoter system consisting of the Tetracycline resistance operon promoter preceded by a constitutive tetracycline repressor protein generator.


2013SydneyUniAustraliaexisting gBlocks.png


2013SydneyUniAustralianew gBlocks.png


This approach would allow us to:

  • use the more time-consuming but flexible of conventional BioBrick assembly.
  • identify which, if any, genes present a toxic or metabolic burden to E. coli.
  • characterise each gene individually to inform our model.
  • optimise the order of genes in our pathway.
  • submit all of our genes as individually characterised parts that might be used by others in any other projects or context.

Gibson Assembly Success

When assembled individually, we observed colonies from transformation of Gibson assembly produces for all our genes:

The cytochrome p450,-ferredoxin-reductase cluster transformants yielded comparatively fewer colonies than the other two. This may be in-part the result of a more complex assembly (five blocks compared to two or three) and in-part a result of the suspected high metabolic load the cluster places on cells. To circumvent the low yield of clones we performed successive round of transformations from the gibson reaction product.

We genotypically screened around 40 colonies for each construct initially by junction PCR, followed by diagnostic digests of plasmid preparations of promising colonies.

Cloning

We Cloned our inducible promoter system in front of each transcriptional part (aldA and CYP450) and genotypically screened colonies by junction PCR and plasmid digest.




Results

CYP450 catalyses the degradation of 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA) to chloracetaldehyde, releasing chloride ions. We performed a chloride assay on successfully screened clones of CYP450 under control of our promoter system in the presence and absence of Tetracycline to test the activity of CYP450 on DCA


With thanks to: