Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K3183100"
(→Part characterisation by Oxford iGEM 2019) |
(→Part characterisation by Oxford iGEM 2019) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Summary</b><br> | Summary</b><br> | ||
We have used this part as a reporter of transformation success in our work on <i>L. reuteri</i>, and as a positive control for protein expression. | We have used this part as a reporter of transformation success in our work on <i>L. reuteri</i>, and as a positive control for protein expression. | ||
− | <br><b> | + | <br><br><b> |
Methods</b><br> | Methods</b><br> | ||
The composite part was inserted into the pTRKH3 (<partinfo>BBa_K3183050</partinfo>) vector by Gibson Assembly and transformed into <i>L. reuteri</i> 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 the same absorption and emission wavelengths to determine the cytoplasmic protein distribution/morphology: | The composite part was inserted into the pTRKH3 (<partinfo>BBa_K3183050</partinfo>) vector by Gibson Assembly and transformed into <i>L. reuteri</i> 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 the same absorption and emission wavelengths to determine the cytoplasmic protein distribution/morphology: | ||
− | <br><b> | + | <br><br><b> |
Results:</b> | Results:</b> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
<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 most frequently led to negative values. </li> | <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 most frequently led to negative values. </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 | + | <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> |
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. | 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. | ||
<br> | <br> |
Revision as of 15:25, 21 October 2019
Erythromycin Promoter Reporter Gene
Erythromycin Promoter fused with mGFP5
Sequence and Features
- 10COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
- 12COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
- 21COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
- 23COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
- 25COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
- 1000INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]Illegal BsaI.rc site found at 928
Part characterisation by Oxford iGEM 2019
Reporter of constitutive expression in L. reuteri
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 the same absorption and emission wavelengths to determine the cytoplasmic protein distribution/morphology:
Results:
Discussion:
The results section shows that the blank corrected fluorescence intensity signals often have negative values. 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.