Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K1603000"

(Experimental documentation)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
<partinfo>BBa_K1603000 short</partinfo>
 
<partinfo>BBa_K1603000 short</partinfo>
  
Fusion GPCR of the non-cytoplasmic N-terminal signal peptide from ''STE2'' (''Saccharomyces cerevisiae'') and Pheromone P-factor receptor ''MAM2'' (''Schizosaccharomyces pombe'') without its signaling peptide. Allows ''S.cerevisiae'' to detect the Pheromone P-factor through the Pheromone pathway.
 
  
 +
== Summary ==
 +
 +
Fusion GPCR of the non-cytoplasmic N-terminal signal peptide from ''STE2'' (''Saccharomyces cerevisiae'') and Pheromone P-factor receptor ''MAM2'' (''Schizosaccharomyces pombe'') without its signaling peptide. Allows in vivo detection of the Pheromone P-factor from ''S.pombe'' through the Pheromone pathway in ''S.cerevisiae''.
 +
 +
 +
== Experimental documentation ==
 +
 +
To evaluate the detection properties of this part, ''STE2MAM2'' was connected to the promoter pTDH3 and the reporter gene ''mRFP'' (monomeric Red Fluorescent Protein) was connected to the pFUS1, which is activated at the end of the pheromone pathway [1].
 +
 +
To test the detection system in <i> Saccharmyces cerevisiae</i>, h+ pheromones from <i>S. pombe</i> had to be extracted. S. pombe L972 +h was therefore grown in YPD media at 30 ˚C for 3 weeks. The pheromones was extracted by pelleting the cells and filtrating the supernatant through a filter with 0.2 μM pore size. To increase the concentration of the h+ phermones, the solution was run in a concentrator with a cold trap for 5,5 h. The concentration was increased by approximately 20 times.
 +
 +
A test of the detection system was then performed accordingly:
 +
 +
1. A colony of S. cerevisiae CEN.PK2 integrated with construct 4 was inoculated in 5 ml YPD media overnight. Wild type CEN.PK2 and a strain expressing RFP was used as negative and positive control.
 +
 +
2. The OD was measured after an overnight pre-culture and the cells was centrifuged at 1100 rcf for 5 min.
 +
 +
3. The pellet was dissolved in 5 ml YPD media and transferred to a shake flask. The solution was diluted with YPD to a OD of 0,4. The cells were inoculated at 30 ˚C for 2h.
 +
 +
4. 0, 50, 115 and 230 μL concentrated pheromones were added to 1 ml cell suspensions of the negative control and the colony with C4. No pheromones were added to the positive control. The cells were once again incubated at 30 ˚C for 2h to allow expression of RFP.
 +
 +
5. The cells were pelleted and washed with once with distilled water. The pellet was dissolved in 70μl distilled water and 3 μL of the solution was used for examining the detection system using a fluorescence microscope.
 +
 +
6. 1 second exposure time was used for RFP measurement. GFP exposure was used as a measure of inviable cells.
 +
 +
<p>The fluorescent microscopy pictures from the detection test with CEN.PK2 containing construct 4 (C4) are shown in figure 1-5. Samples were made with different amounts of concentrated P-factor and compared with wild type CEN.PK2 (WT).</p>
 +
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgPostitiveControl.jpg|350px]]
 +
<br><b>Figure 1. Positive control. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 +
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgC4230.jpg |350px]]
 +
<br><b>Figure 2. C4 with 230 µl concentrated P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 +
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgC40.jpg|350px]]
 +
<br><b>Figure 3. C4 without P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 +
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgWT230.jpg|350px]]
 +
<br><b>Figure 4. WT with 230 µl concentrated P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 +
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgWT0.jpg|350px]]
 +
<br><b>Figure 5. WT without P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 +
<p>Only the C4 samples containing the highest amount of P-factor showed a few fluorescent cells, which is promising for our concept. The weak signal can be explained by the fact that constructs containing the amplification system through dCas9-vp64 could not be completed. This forces the detection system to rely on the presumably weak promoter pFUS1 to express mRFP. This can result in a weak fluorescent signal when the P-factor is detected.</p>
 +
 +
== References ==
 +
 +
 +
 +
[1] Bardwell, L. (2005). A walk-through of the yeast mating pheromone response pathway (vol 25, pg 1465, 2004). Peptides, 26(2), 337-337. doi:10.1016/j.peptides.2004.10.001
 
<!-- Add more about the biology of this part here
 
<!-- Add more about the biology of this part here
 
===Usage and Biology===
 
===Usage and Biology===
Line 16: Line 58:
 
<partinfo>BBa_K1603000 parameters</partinfo>
 
<partinfo>BBa_K1603000 parameters</partinfo>
 
<!-- -->
 
<!-- -->
 
<p>To analyze the effect in expression levels of serially connecting these two promoters, pTEF1-pSUC2 was connected to mRFP and transformed into the genome of ''S.cerevisiae''.
 
 
The first sample of TEFSUC, SUC and WT was cultivated for 2 hours in YPD. The results from fluorescent microscopy are shown in figure 1-3.</p>
 
[[File:ChalmersGothenburgTEFSUC2h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 1. TEFSUC sample 1 cultivated for 2 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgSUC2h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 2. SUC sample 1 cultivated for 2 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgWT2h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 3. WT sample 1 cultivated for 2 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>3 hours of cultivation in YPD (after overnight preculture) gives no visible RFP fluorescence. A reason for this could be that 2 hours is not enough to give a significant drop in energy levels to relieve the repression of pSUC2.</p>
 
<p>A new sample of TEFSUC, SUC and WT was cultivated for 6 hours in YPD. The results from fluorescent microscopy are shown in figure 4-6.</p>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgTEFSUC6h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 4. TEFSUC sample 2 cultivated for 6 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgSUC6h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 5. SUC sample 2 cultivated for 6 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgWT6h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 6. WT sample 2 cultivated for 6 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>Now there is a clear difference between TEFSUC and SUC. TEFSUC gives several highly fluorescent cells while SUC only shows slightly higher fluorescent compared to WT. This indicates that the repression of pSUC2 is reduced which allows expression of mRFP through the high expression promoter pTEF1. </p>
 
<p>Another fluorescence measurement was performed on the same sample after 23 hours of cultivation.
 
The results from fluorescent microscopy are shown in figure 7-9.</p>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgTEFSUC23h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 7. TEFSUC sample 2 cultivated for 23 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgSUC23h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 8. SUC sample 2 cultivated for 23 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>[[File:ChalmersGothenburgWT23h.jpg|350px]]
 
<br><b>Figure 9. WT sample 2 cultivated for 23 hours. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.</b></p>
 
<p>This demonstrates that the concept of serially could work, but further evaluation could include measuring of fluorescent levels to determine the actual difference in expression rates.</p>
 

Latest revision as of 01:38, 19 September 2015

Fusion GPCR STE2MAM2


Summary

Fusion GPCR of the non-cytoplasmic N-terminal signal peptide from STE2 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and Pheromone P-factor receptor MAM2 (Schizosaccharomyces pombe) without its signaling peptide. Allows in vivo detection of the Pheromone P-factor from S.pombe through the Pheromone pathway in S.cerevisiae.


Experimental documentation

To evaluate the detection properties of this part, STE2MAM2 was connected to the promoter pTDH3 and the reporter gene mRFP (monomeric Red Fluorescent Protein) was connected to the pFUS1, which is activated at the end of the pheromone pathway [1].

To test the detection system in Saccharmyces cerevisiae, h+ pheromones from S. pombe had to be extracted. S. pombe L972 +h was therefore grown in YPD media at 30 ˚C for 3 weeks. The pheromones was extracted by pelleting the cells and filtrating the supernatant through a filter with 0.2 μM pore size. To increase the concentration of the h+ phermones, the solution was run in a concentrator with a cold trap for 5,5 h. The concentration was increased by approximately 20 times.

A test of the detection system was then performed accordingly:

1. A colony of S. cerevisiae CEN.PK2 integrated with construct 4 was inoculated in 5 ml YPD media overnight. Wild type CEN.PK2 and a strain expressing RFP was used as negative and positive control.

2. The OD was measured after an overnight pre-culture and the cells was centrifuged at 1100 rcf for 5 min.

3. The pellet was dissolved in 5 ml YPD media and transferred to a shake flask. The solution was diluted with YPD to a OD of 0,4. The cells were inoculated at 30 ˚C for 2h.

4. 0, 50, 115 and 230 μL concentrated pheromones were added to 1 ml cell suspensions of the negative control and the colony with C4. No pheromones were added to the positive control. The cells were once again incubated at 30 ˚C for 2h to allow expression of RFP.

5. The cells were pelleted and washed with once with distilled water. The pellet was dissolved in 70μl distilled water and 3 μL of the solution was used for examining the detection system using a fluorescence microscope.

6. 1 second exposure time was used for RFP measurement. GFP exposure was used as a measure of inviable cells.

The fluorescent microscopy pictures from the detection test with CEN.PK2 containing construct 4 (C4) are shown in figure 1-5. Samples were made with different amounts of concentrated P-factor and compared with wild type CEN.PK2 (WT).

ChalmersGothenburgPostitiveControl.jpg
Figure 1. Positive control. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.

ChalmersGothenburgC4230.jpg
Figure 2. C4 with 230 µl concentrated P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.

ChalmersGothenburgC40.jpg
Figure 3. C4 without P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.

ChalmersGothenburgWT230.jpg
Figure 4. WT with 230 µl concentrated P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.

ChalmersGothenburgWT0.jpg
Figure 5. WT without P-factor. Left: overlay channels (bright field, RFP and GFP). Right: RFP channel.

Only the C4 samples containing the highest amount of P-factor showed a few fluorescent cells, which is promising for our concept. The weak signal can be explained by the fact that constructs containing the amplification system through dCas9-vp64 could not be completed. This forces the detection system to rely on the presumably weak promoter pFUS1 to express mRFP. This can result in a weak fluorescent signal when the P-factor is detected.

References

[1] Bardwell, L. (2005). A walk-through of the yeast mating pheromone response pathway (vol 25, pg 1465, 2004). Peptides, 26(2), 337-337. doi:10.1016/j.peptides.2004.10.001 Sequence and Features


Assembly Compatibility:
  • 10
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
  • 12
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
  • 21
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
  • 23
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
  • 25
    INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
    Illegal AgeI site found at 408
  • 1000
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]