Revision as of 22:45, 16 October 2018

CAT-Seq Esterase

CAT-Seq Esterase is a hydrolase used in Catalytic Activity Sequencing system to catalyse a reaction wherein a N4-benzoyl-2'-deoxycytidine triphosphate (Substrate Nucleotide) is converted into a 2'-deoxycytidine triphosphate (Product Nucleotide).

It is the main component of Catalytic Activity Sequencing (CAT-Seq) method. CAT-Seq is a method for high-throughput catalytic biomolecule and genetic regulatory part activity-sequence relationship assessment toolkit.

CAT-Seq Esterase can be used to analyse genetic transcriptional and translational regulatory part activities and their cross-interactions.

Also during the development of the CAT-Seq (Vilnius-Lithuania Overgraduate 2018), together with its in-silico derived mutants, this Esterase was used to assess the accuracy and precision of the system.

See how this part is used in the CAT-Seq by pressing here!

Sequence and Features

Assembly Compatibility:

10
COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
12
COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
21
INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
Illegal BamHI site found at 671
23
COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
25
INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
Illegal NgoMIV site found at 487
1000
COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]

Introduction

Biology

Description of the CAT-Seq esterase

Figure 1. Main principles of ColE1 plasmid family replication

CAT-Seq Esterase is a hydrolase used in Catalytic Activity Sequencing system to catalyse a reaction wherein a N4-benzoyl-2'-deoxycytidine triphosphate (Substrate Nucleotide) is converted into a 2'-deoxycytidine triphosphate (Product Nucleotide).

It is the main component of Catalytic Activity Sequencing (CAT-Seq) method. CAT-Seq is a method for high-throughput catalytic biomolecule and genetic regulatory part activity-sequence relationship assessment toolkit.

CAT-Seq Esterase can be used to analyse genetic transcriptional and translational regulatory part activities and their cross-interactions.

Also during the development of the CAT-Seq (Vilnius-Lithuania Overgraduate 2018), together with its in-silico derived mutants, this Esterase was used to assess the accuracy and precision of the system.

In-Silico design of the CAT-Seq esterase mutants

CAT-Seq Esterase is a hydrolase used in Catalytic Activity Sequencing system to catalyse a reaction wherein a N4-benzoyl-2'-deoxycytidine triphosphate (Substrate Nucleotide) is converted into a 2'-deoxycytidine triphosphate (Product Nucleotide).

ColE1-type plasmid replication begins with the synthesis of plasmid encoded RNA II (also called primer transcript) by RNA polymerase which initiates transcription at a site 555bp upstream of origin of replication. The RNA transcript forms a RNA - DNA hybrid with template DNA near the origin of replication. Hybridized RNA is then cleaved at the replication origin by RNAse H and serves as a primer for DNA synthesis by DNA polymerase I (Figure 1. A).^[1]

The interaction between RNA I and RNA II can be amplified by Rop protein, see part:BBa_K2259010.

Usage with CAT-Seq (Catalytic Activity Sequencing)

About CAT-Seq

SynORI is a framework for multi-plasmid systems created by Vilnius-Lithuania 2017 which enables quick and easy workflow with multiple plasmids, while also allowing to freely pick and modulate copy number for every unique plasmid group! Read more about [http://2017.igem.org/Team:Vilnius-Lithuania SynORI here]!

Determining the accuracy of CAT-Seq

RNA II gene is foundational and central biobrick of SynORI system and by far the only one that is mandatory for the framework to run.

Genetic Regulatory Part activity and cross-interaction assessment

It immediately becomes clear that in order to control the copy number of a plasmid one could simply change RNA I promoter. But, as RNA I and RNA II are two antisense molecules, changes made to the sequence will affect both of

Example for RBS activity strength determination

As RNA I and RNA II interact mainly with the three stem loops that form kissing complexes, we have decided to use this fact to our advantage in order to engineer different plasmid groups by adding unique, group-specific sequences to RNA I and RNA II stem loops.

For example if there are two plasmid groups in a cell - A and B - RNA II of A group
would only interact with RNA I A, and not RNA I B.

The inactivation and transfer of RNA I gene away from RNA II allow us to use different sequences for RNA I and RNA II molecules that are not necessarily ideal complements of each other.

Example for Toehold cross-interaction determination

In order to flexibly control the synthesis of RNA I, the RNA I gene first needed to be inactivated in the ColE1 origin of replication. That, however, was not a trivial task, because by changing RNA I promoter sequence, one also changes the RNA II secondary structure, which is crucial for plasmid replication initiation (Find how this problem was solved at [http://2017.igem.org/Team:Vilnius-Lithuania team Vilnius-Lithuania wiki]). This is the main reason why, in the SynORI framework, the wildtype ColE1 ORI is split into two different parts - RNR I and RNA II .

Characterization of the CAT-Seq Esterase (Vilnius-Lithuania Overgraduate 2018)

Esterase and its mutant activity measurement

Challenges of inactivating RNA I in wild type origin of replication were discussed earlier

After the construction of selected ColE1 mutants with inactivated RNA I promoter we have tested whether it was successful. It is difficult to distinguish when the promoter is fully disabled because first, there is no literature data describing replicons that are not negatively regulated at least to some extent, and second - plasmid systems hardly reach the equilibrium without negative control therefore every copy number calculation varies greatly. This is why we decided not to check for the highest copy number mutant, but rather to insert a wild type RNA I with its wild type promoter. By doing that we could see which replicons were most precisely mutated.

ORI 2 mutant seemed like a perfect candidate. Its copy number increased from wild type 37 copies to 1128 ± 315 copies in ORI2. In addition, when RNA I gene was placed next to it, the copy number of the constructed plasmid fell to wild type levels. After these results we have decided to use this ORI 2 mutant as a core for our framework. We simply called it RNA II (part:BBa_K2259000)

In silico produced mutant library based on CAT-Seq esterase enzyme

Once the RNA I promoter was disabled in the ColE1 origin of replication, it could be moved to a different plasmid location and used as a separate unit. We have discovered the sequence of wild type RNA I promoter by using PromoterHunter and removed it, thus creating a wild type RNA I gene part:BBa_K2259005. First, series of Anderson promoters were cloned next to the RNA I gene (part:BBa_K2259021 (0.15 Anderson), part:BBa_K2259023 (0.36 Anderson), part:BBa_K2259027 (0.86 Anderson), part:BBa_K2259028 (1.0 Anderson)) and then placed next to RNA II (part:BBa_K2259067 (0.15 Anderson), part:BBa_K2259068 (0.36 Anderson), part:BBa_K2259069 (0.86 Anderson), part:BBa_K22590671 (1.0 Anderson)).

Ribosome binding sites

When different groups of SynORI system were created, the abilty of corresponding RNA I to inhibit the replication of RNA II were measured by calculating the plasmid copy number with and without RNA I in the system

Figure 7. Different RNA II group copy number with and without RNA I of the same group

Toehold regulatory sequence library

As can be seen in Figure 7, RNA I introduction into the system has a significant effect on the plasmid copy number of the specific group, thus we can conclude that RNA I works on corresponding RNA II.

References

↑ Itoh, T. and Tomizawa, J. (1980). Formation of an RNA primer for initiation of replication of ColE1 DNA by ribonuclease H. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 77(5), pp.2450-2454.

[1] Itoh, T. and Tomizawa, J. (1980). Formation of an RNA primer for initiation of replication of ColE1 DNA by ribonuclease H. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 77(5), pp.2450-2454.

[1]

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
-==== RNA II and RNA I in the engineering of unique plasmid groups for multi-plasmid system====
+==== Example for RBS activity strength determination ====
 As RNA I and RNA II interact mainly with the three stem loops that form kissing complexes, we have decided to use this fact to our advantage in order to engineer different plasmid groups by adding unique, group-specific sequences to RNA I and RNA II stem loops.
@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 The inactivation and transfer of RNA I gene away from RNA II allow us to use different sequences for RNA I and RNA II molecules that are not necessarily ideal complements of each other.
-Since there are three stem loops responsible for RNA I – RNA II interaction for each of the plasmid group we have decided to:
-* Use two different unique sequences in the first two stem loops, in order to maximize same group specificity.
-* For the third loop, we have decided to keep RNA II unchanged, and add either G/C mutations (GC type RNA I) or make RNA I completely non-complement to RNA II (NC type RNA I).
-We did not want to introduce new specific sequences into the third loop of RNA II sequence. That is because according to literature RNA II secondary structure at third loop are very sensitive to any mutations and has a high chance of ruining the replication initiation. <ref>Masukata, H. and Tomizawa, J. (1986). Control of primer formation for ColE1 plasmid replication: Conformational change of the primer transcript. Cell, 44(1), pp.125-136.</ref> Just because we chose not to interfere with the third loop of RNA II, we could not leave RNA I gene unchanged. If every group would have the fully compatible third loop, the background cross-group inhibition would be too large.
+====Example for Toehold cross-interaction determination====
-So now we have 5 different RNA II genes corresponding to groups A B C D and E.
-Also, we have 10 different RNA I alternatives:
-A, B, C, D, E with each having a version of either G/C or NC mutations.
-So for example, if we have a part named RNA I (B-NC), it means: This RNA will only selectively regulate RNA II molecule by having specific B group sequences in first two stem loops. Also, in the third stem loop every nucleotide is not complementary to RNA II third loop.
-These different plasmid groups (A-E) can then be co-maintained in a cell with a specific, pre-selected copy number. Copy number control principle is the same for every group, but each group is only specific to its own group.
-[[Image:RnainteractionIII.png|frame|center|400px|<b>Figure 2.</b> RNA I AND II group interaction example]]
-===Origin of RNA II biobrick===
-[[File:4animacija.gif|centre|frame|200px|<b>Figure 3. </b> Changes introduced in RNA I promoter sequence also changes RNA II secondary structure]]
-If RNA II and RNA I are naturally an antisense system, why are there two separate constructs in SynORI system?
 In order to flexibly control the synthesis of RNA I, the RNA I gene first needed to be inactivated in the ColE1 origin of replication. That, however, was not a trivial task, because by changing RNA I promoter sequence, one also changes the RNA II secondary structure, which is crucial for plasmid replication initiation (Find how this problem was solved at [http://2017.igem.org/Team:Vilnius-Lithuania team Vilnius-Lithuania wiki]). This is the main reason why, in the SynORI framework, the wildtype ColE1 ORI is split into two different parts - <b> RNR I and RNA II </b>.
-=Characterization of RNA II (Vilnius-Lithuania 2017)=
+=Characterization of the CAT-Seq Esterase (Vilnius-Lithuania Overgraduate 2018)=
-==RNA I inactivation in wild type replicon==
+==Esterase and its mutant activity measurement==
 Challenges of inactivating RNA I in wild type origin of replication were discussed  [[#Regulative RNA II molecule in SynORI|earlier]]
@@ Line 109: / Line 87: @@
 After the construction of selected ColE1 mutants with inactivated RNA I promoter we have tested whether it was successful. It is difficult to distinguish when the promoter is fully disabled because first, there is no literature data describing replicons that are not negatively regulated at least to some extent, and second -  plasmid systems hardly reach the equilibrium without negative control therefore every copy number calculation varies greatly. This is why we decided not to check for the highest copy number mutant, but rather to insert a wild type RNA I with its wild type promoter. By doing that we could see which replicons were most precisely mutated.
-If the plasmid copy number (PCN) did not differ from wild type after the insertion of an RNA I gene next to the mutated replicon, it proved a complete disabling of the replicon. Contrary, if the copy number decreased, we could suspect that the replicon did not have a completely disabled RNA I and the sum of inhibition from both RNA I genes reduced the copy number to even lower values than in the wild type replicon.
-First, we planned to calculate the copy number of our mutants that supposedly had their RNA I gene promoter disabled (mutants ORI1, ORI2, ORI3, ORI4, ORI5). After that, we aimed to calculate the copy number of the corresponding mutated replicons, but with RNA I gene containing its wild type promoter cloned next to them.
-After transformation, cells with ORI5 plasmids did not grow successfully, which suggested a conclusion that this mutant had either severely damaged RNA II gene or increased expression of RNA I to the level of complete replication inhibition.
-Since 4 other mutants had grown after the transformation, we incubated the cells overnight, purified the plasmids and cloned wild type RNA I with its wild type promoter next to each of the mutants. We then calculated the copy number of 8 samples: 4 ORI mutants and 4 ORI mutants with RNA I placed next to them.
-[[File:Rnr1_prom_ismusimas.png|thumb|centre|900px|<b>Figure 4. </b> Copy number calculations of the RNA I promoter elimination mutants. Two biological replicates were performed, with 2 technical qPCR replicates each time.]]
-Firstly, ORI 1 mutant had a moderate increase in copy number (Figure 4). Yet, with RNA I next to the replicon, the copy number did not seem to fall back to wild type levels. We hypothesize that the reason for this was the damage done to the RNA II gene. The damage resulted in mutant formed secondary structures no longer sufficiently interacting with inhibitory RNA I molecules.
-ORI 3 did not seem to increase much in copy number. We did not consider it to be a good candidate, because we wanted our core synthetic ORI to possess a range of copy numbers to choose from.
-The third candidate, ORI 4, seemed to be a decent candidate because with cloned RNA I its copy number fell to near wild type levels, but it also did not prove to be good enough, because its maximum number of copies was too low.
 ORI 2 mutant seemed like a perfect candidate. Its copy number increased from wild type 37 copies to 1128 ± 315 copies in ORI2. In addition, when RNA I gene was placed next to it, the copy number of the constructed plasmid fell to wild type levels. After these results we have decided to use this ORI 2 mutant as a core for our framework. We simply called it RNA II (part:[[BBa_K2259000]])
-==Interaction between RNA I and RNA II groups==
+==In silico produced mutant library based on CAT-Seq esterase enzyme==
-===Constitutive promoter===
 Once the RNA I promoter was disabled in the ColE1 origin of replication, it could be moved to a different plasmid location and used as a separate unit. We have discovered the sequence of wild type RNA I promoter by using PromoterHunter and removed it, thus creating a wild type RNA I gene [[part:BBa_K2259005]]. First, series of Anderson promoters were cloned next to the RNA I gene ([[part:BBa_K2259021]] (0.15 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K2259023]] (0.36 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K2259027]] (0.86 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K2259028]] (1.0 Anderson)) and then placed next to RNA II ([[part:BBa_K2259067]] (0.15 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K2259068]] (0.36 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K2259069]] (0.86 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K22590671]] (1.0 Anderson)).
-[[File:RNA_I_anderson.png|thumb|centre|900px|<b>Figure 5. </b> RNA I and RNA II constructs, with RNA I constructs under different-strength Anderson promoters.]]
-In theory (see “Modelling” at [http://2017.igem.org/Team:Vilnius-Lithuania team Vilnius-Lithuania wiki]), lower-strength Anderson promoters should yield lower concentrations of RNA I, hence higher copy numbers of plasmids per cell.  Our constitutive copy number device experiment results prove it to be true in practice as well. The stronger Anderson promoter is used, the less copy number per cell we get. With the strongest Anderson we get only 21+-6.84 plasmids per cell.
+==Ribosome binding sites==
-Worth to mention is that the closest to wild type ColE1 replicon is the 0.86 strength Anderson promoter ([[Part:BBa_J23102]]), measured by copy number alone.
-We can state with certainty that we are now able to control the plasmid copy number in a constitutive manner, and we simply call it the SynORI constitutive copy number device.
-===Inducible promoter===
-We wanted to move one step further and try to build an inducible copy number system. We first had to make sure that at least part of our construct is well characterized and to do so we chose the Rhamnose promoter from the biobrick registry ([[Part:BBa_K914003]])
-For this experiment we have built a Rhamnose promoter and RNA I construct [[part:BBa_K2259065]] and then cloned this construct next to RNA II [[part:BBa_K2259091]]. We have used different concentration of Rhamnose in our media in order to see if this approach was possible and if so, to figure out the dependency between the plasmid copy number and rhamnose concentration.
-[[File:Rha_rnr.png|thumb|centre|900px|<b>Figure 6. </b> RNA I and RNA II constructs, with RNA I gene being under the Rhamnose promoter, inducided by different rhamnose concentrations.]]
-The first thing we noticed was that Rhamnose promoter was very strong in terms of plasmid copy number reduction. It was also considerably leaky (promoter can be enabled even without any inducer). At zero induction there were approximately only 9 plasmids per cell and at 1 percent induction the number dropped to approximately 1 plasmid per cell.
-RNA I rhamnose-induced promoter seemed to be working well, with higher concentrations of inductor giving lower plasmid copy number.
-We called it the SynORI copy number induction device.
-So now when we can flexibly control the copy number of a plasmids, the only question is - what will come next?
-===Proof of concept / Interaction between RNA II and RNA I of different groups===
 When different groups of SynORI system were created, the abilty of corresponding RNA I to inhibit the replication of RNA II were measured by calculating the plasmid copy number with and without RNA I in the system
 [[File:Difgr.png|thumb|centre|900px|<b>Figure 7. </b>Different RNA II group copy number with and without RNA I of the same group]]
+==Toehold regulatory sequence library==
 As can be seen in <b>Figure 7</b>, RNA I introduction into the system has a significant effect on the plasmid copy number of the specific group, thus we can conclude that RNA I works on corresponding RNA II.
-To prove that RNA I works only on the specific RNA II, different groups of SynORI devices were placed in a cell by co-transformation and plasmid copy numbers were calculated. SynORI global copy number control devices ([[part:BBa_K2259072]] (0 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K2259073]] (0.15 Anderson), [[part:K2259074]] (0.24 Anderson)) were co-transformed together with B-GC SynORI device ([[BBa_K2259078]]) and ([[part:BBa_K2259072]] (0 Anderson), [[part:BBa_K2259073]] (0.15 Anderson), [[part:K2259074]] (0.24 Anderson)) with D-GC SynORI device ([[BBa_K2259079]]).
-[[File:Abkot.png|thumb|centre|900px|<b>Figure 8.</b>SynORI A device with Rop under different Anderson promoters together with SynORI B-GC device.]]
-[[File:Adkot.png|thumb|centre|900px|<b>Figure 9.</b>SynORI A device with Rop under different Anderson promoters together with SynORI D-GC device.]]
-As can be seen in <b>Figure 8</b> and <b>Figure 9</b> RNA II A, RNA II B and RNA II D act as different ORIs and their corresponding RNA I inhibits the replication of SynORI groups specifically.
-It can also be concluded that Rop protein placed in a single plasmid lowered the plasmid copy number of both plasmid groups, this proves that Rop works by  binding to a kissing-loop complex and is able to bypass the individual control of different groups.
 ==References==
 <references />

Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K2621000"