Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K2992015"

m (Usage and Biology)
m (Characterisation)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
Characterisation of this promoter against P<i>fdx</i>, P<i>thl</i> and P<i>botR</i> using FAST fluorescent assay, showed P<i>ntnh</i> to be an effective promoter in E.<i>coli</i> and only slightly stronger than no promoter in C.<i>sporogenes</i>. <br> In the C. <i>sporogenes</i> experiments, adequate expression was detected for each of the clostridial promoters chosen for study. The two Pfdx derivatives generated the greatest level of reporter activity whilst the two C. <i>botulinum</i> promoters generated much lower levels of activity. Reporter activity appeared to be generally higher when analysed from the E. <i>coli</i> lysates as opposed to the C. <i>sporogenes</i> lysates. In those experiments, activity from the P<i>botR</i> and P<i>ntnh</i> constructs were considerably greater than the no promoter control.
 
Characterisation of this promoter against P<i>fdx</i>, P<i>thl</i> and P<i>botR</i> using FAST fluorescent assay, showed P<i>ntnh</i> to be an effective promoter in E.<i>coli</i> and only slightly stronger than no promoter in C.<i>sporogenes</i>. <br> In the C. <i>sporogenes</i> experiments, adequate expression was detected for each of the clostridial promoters chosen for study. The two Pfdx derivatives generated the greatest level of reporter activity whilst the two C. <i>botulinum</i> promoters generated much lower levels of activity. Reporter activity appeared to be generally higher when analysed from the E. <i>coli</i> lysates as opposed to the C. <i>sporogenes</i> lysates. In those experiments, activity from the P<i>botR</i> and P<i>ntnh</i> constructs were considerably greater than the no promoter control.
  
<br> <br> <br>
+
<br> <br> <br>
 
<!-- -->
 
<!-- -->
 
<span class='h3bb'>Sequence and Features</span>
 
<span class='h3bb'>Sequence and Features</span>

Revision as of 20:31, 21 October 2019


5-UTR containing RBS for ntnH gene from C. botulinum

5’-UTR containing RBS for ntnH gene from C. botulinum


Usage and Biology

The native 5’-UTR containing the RBS is found naturally upstream of PntnH (BBa_K2992001) in C. botulinum. ntnH encodes the non-toxic non-haemagglutinin component of the botulinum neurotoxin complexes. Its expression is directly regulated by BotR (BBa_K2992002). In our project we use the regulatory region of ntnH to drive expression of the toxin regulator botR and our chosen reporter genes of interest which have been placed under the control of the neurotoxin and neurotoxin-associated promoters. Doing so allows us to link volatile reporter production with neurotoxin production following food manufacturing processes.

Characterisation

This basic part was used for the assembly of our composite parts and characterised using using 3 difference reporters: GusA (BBa_K2992039), FAST (BBa_K2992044) and acetone (BBa_K2992036 ). This part was used as a promoter which functions in both the Gram-negative E. coli and the Gram-positive Clostridium sporogenens. More information can be found on our Results Page.



T--Nottingham--Basic4.png
T--Nottingham--Basic3.png
Characterisation of this promoter against Pfdx, Pthl and PbotR using FAST fluorescent assay, showed Pntnh to be an effective promoter in E.coli and only slightly stronger than no promoter in C.sporogenes.
In the C. sporogenes experiments, adequate expression was detected for each of the clostridial promoters chosen for study. The two Pfdx derivatives generated the greatest level of reporter activity whilst the two C. botulinum promoters generated much lower levels of activity. Reporter activity appeared to be generally higher when analysed from the E. coli lysates as opposed to the C. sporogenes lysates. In those experiments, activity from the PbotR and Pntnh constructs were considerably greater than the no promoter control.




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
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
  • 1000
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]

References

Raffestin et al., 2005 (update)