Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K3183000"
(→Uses by Team Oxford 2019) |
(→Measurement of promoter strength: BBa_K3183028) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
This part was characterised in <partinfo>BBa_K3183100</partinfo> and <partinfo>BBa_K3183028</partinfo>. | This part was characterised in <partinfo>BBa_K3183100</partinfo> and <partinfo>BBa_K3183028</partinfo>. | ||
− | ==== | + | ====Constitutive expression in <i>L. reuteri</i>: <partinfo>BBa_K3183000</partinfo>==== |
<b> | <b> | ||
Summary</b><br> | Summary</b><br> | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
====Measurement of promoter strength: <partinfo>BBa_K3183028</partinfo>==== | ====Measurement of promoter strength: <partinfo>BBa_K3183028</partinfo>==== | ||
− | <b> | + | <br><b> |
Summary | Summary | ||
</b><br> | </b><br> | ||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Results: | Results: | ||
<br></b> | <br></b> | ||
− | [[File:T--Oxford--Results- | + | |
− | Figure 1: | + | [[File:T--Oxford--Results-erm.png|thumb|left|430px| |
− | + | '''Figure 1:''' erm promoter FI and OD600 time dependence - Blank corrected Fluorescence intensity and OD600 was plotted against time for ldh promoter. From this graph, we can observe that the rate of expression of mClover decreases over time as does the growth. <i>Error bars represent Standard error of the mean. n = 3</i> ]] | |
− | + | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
− | [[File:T--Oxford--Results-erm-vs-ldh.png|thumb| | + | [[File:T--Oxford--Results-erm-vs-ldh.png|thumb|right|430px| |
− | Figure | + | '''Figure 2:''' Promoter strength comparison - The blank corrected fluorescence intensity and OD600 ratio was plotted against time for both promoters. On the plot, the mean of ldh promoter seems to be larger than that of erm promoter. However, due to the broad standard deviation, no significant conclusion can be made. On the other hand, for erm promoter, it could be observed that the FI/OD600 decreases over time. One hypothesis is that due to the cell growth (increased OD600) and increased scattering, the fluorescence intensity decreases. <i>Error bars represent 1 standard deviation. n = 3</i>]] |
Line 78: | Line 77: | ||
<br></b> | <br></b> | ||
The results section shows that the blank corrected fluorescence intensity have very high standard deviations. This is likely because, instead of purifying the protein and exchanging the buffer, we performed our assays on living cells; this had a number of consequences on the accuracy of our results: | The results section shows that the blank corrected fluorescence intensity have very high standard deviations. This is likely because, instead of purifying the protein and exchanging the buffer, we performed our assays on living cells; this had a number of consequences on the accuracy of our results: | ||
− | <li>The MRS medium in which the cells were grown has very high background fluorescence, such that its intrinsic noise significantly overshadowed the signal and | + | <li>The MRS medium in which the cells were grown has very high background fluorescence, such that its intrinsic noise significantly overshadowed the signal and sometimes lead to unreasonable results. </li> |
<li>The optical density of the solution due to light scattering by bacteria led to a significant drop in signal intensity, which would have been extremely difficult to correct for at large ODs</li> | <li>The optical density of the solution due to light scattering by bacteria led to a significant drop in signal intensity, which would have been extremely difficult to correct for at large ODs</li> | ||
<li>The vastly different chemical properties (e.g. ionic strength, the presence of quenchers etc.)of the cytosolic environment from regular buffer solutions likely result in very different spectroscopic properties of the fluorophores, such as quantum yield and maximal absorption/emission wavelengths, thus reducing the feasibility of comparison of our sample to the calibration curve based on fluorescein.</li> | <li>The vastly different chemical properties (e.g. ionic strength, the presence of quenchers etc.)of the cytosolic environment from regular buffer solutions likely result in very different spectroscopic properties of the fluorophores, such as quantum yield and maximal absorption/emission wavelengths, thus reducing the feasibility of comparison of our sample to the calibration curve based on fluorescein.</li> |
Latest revision as of 03:45, 22 October 2019
Erythromycin Constitutive Promoter
P-erm is a constitutive promoter which can be used in Lactobacillus reuteri 10023C, and may have uses in other Lactobacillus species. It has also been shown to be functional in E. coli.
The promoter is derived from the erythromycin ribosomal methylase (ermB) promoter from the broad-host range plasmid pAMβ1 isolated from Enterococcus faecalis.1 It was subsequently characterised in six strains of Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactococcus lactisspp. cremoris MG1363.2
Sequence and Features
- 10COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
- 12COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
- 21COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
- 23COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
- 25COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
- 1000COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]
Use by Team Oxford 2019
This part was used in the following composite parts: BBa_K3183100, BBa_K3183028, and BBa_K3183103.
Part characterization by Team Oxford 2019
This part was characterised in BBa_K3183100 and BBa_K3183028.
Constitutive expression in L. reuteri: BBa_K3183000
Summary
We have used this part as a reporter of transformation success in our work on L. reuteri, and as a positive control for protein expression.
Methods
The composite part was inserted into the pTRKH3 (BBa_K3183050) vector by Gibson Assembly and transformed into L. reuteri 10023c by electroporation. The transformants were used in a fluorometric assay using excitation at 500 nm and detecting emission at 520 nm; the assay was used to show the relationship between exogenous protein expression and bacterial growth rate by comparing the OD600 and relative fluorescence of wild type and transformed bacteria. In addition, the part was used in fluorescence microscopy using excitation at 473nm wavelength to determine the cytoplasmic protein distribution/morphology:
Results:
Conclusion:
From the fluorometry results and the fluorescence microscopy, we demonstrate that this composite part is a reliable qualitative reporter of gene expression in L. reuteri, with potential uses in other Lactobacillus species.
Measurement of promoter strength: BBa_K3183028
Summary
A major use of this part was to facilitate the quantification and comparison of promoter strengths in vivo. The principle of such an assay is to correlate the fluorescence intensity of our bacterial sample to the fluorescence intensity of a fluorescein solution of known concentration, thus allowing us to estimate the exact protein concentration under the control of the promoter reached in the cytoplasm.
Method:
The composite part was inserted into pTRKH3 vector by Gibson assembly and transformed into E.coli by heat-shock transformation. Successfully transformed colonies were picked and used in fluorometric assay using excitation at 500nm and detecting emission 520nm. The assay was used to compare the protein expression strength of the two promoters by measuring fluorescence intensity and OD600 over time. Then, to normalize the results, the blank corrected ratio of fluorescence intensity and absorbance at 600nm was used to compare the promoters.
Results:
Discussion:
The results section shows that the blank corrected fluorescence intensity have very high standard deviations. This is likely because, instead of purifying the protein and exchanging the buffer, we performed our assays on living cells; this had a number of consequences on the accuracy of our results:
Therefore, we argue that the data we obtained cannot be used to quantitatively assess the strength of the promoters and has, at most, qualitative value. Therefore, we suggest that in the future more rigorous assays performed by purifying the enzyme and measuring its fluorescence after the buffer was exchanged to one similar to that of the fluorescein solution.
References
1. Swinfield, Tracy-Jane, et al. “Physical Characterisation of the Replication Region of the Streptococcus Faecalis Plasmid pAMβ1.” Gene, vol. 87, no. 1, 1990, pp. 79–90., doi:10.1016/s0378-1119(19)30488-3.
2. Lizier, Michela, et al. “Comparison of Expression Vectors in Lactobacillus Reuteri Strains.” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 308, no. 1, 2010, pp. 8–15., doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01978.x.