Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K5237009"
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
<!-- Part summary --> | <!-- Part summary --> | ||
<section id="0"> | <section id="0"> | ||
− | <h1>Mini staple:</h1> | + | <h1>Mini staple: bGCN4</h1> |
<p> | <p> | ||
− | The Mini | + | The bGCN4 Mini Staple is a fusion of the basic leucine zipper GCN4 and rGCN4, offering a smaller, compact protein |
− | + | staple. With its well-characterized subunits and strong in silico and experimental validation, this Mini Staple | |
− | + | serves as a versatile foundation for expanding to similar staples. | |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4.3"><a href="#4.3"><span class="tocnumber">4.3</span> <span | <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4.3"><a href="#4.3"><span class="tocnumber">4.3</span> <span | ||
class="toctext">In Silico Characterization using DaVinci</span></a> | class="toctext">In Silico Characterization using DaVinci</span></a> | ||
+ | </li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</li> | </li> | ||
Line 104: | Line 105: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
− | Next to the well-studied linear DNA sequence, the 3D spatial organization of DNA plays a crucial role in | + | Next to the well-studied linear DNA sequence, the <b>3D spatial organization</b> of DNA plays a crucial role in |
− | regulation, | + | gene regulation, |
− | cell fate, disease development and more. However, the tools to precisely manipulate this genomic | + | cell fate, disease development and more. However, the tools to precisely manipulate this genomic |
− | remain limited, rendering it challenging to explore the full potential of the | + | architecture remain limited, rendering it challenging to explore the full potential of the |
− | 3D genome in synthetic biology. We - iGEM Team Heidelberg 2024 - have developed PICasSO, a powerful molecular | + | 3D genome in synthetic biology. We - iGEM Team Heidelberg 2024 - have developed PICasSO, a <b>powerful |
− | + | molecular toolbox</b> based on various DNA-binding proteins to address this issue. | |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
The <b>PICasSO</b> part collection offers a comprehensive, modular platform for precise manipulation and | The <b>PICasSO</b> part collection offers a comprehensive, modular platform for precise manipulation and | ||
− | re-programming | + | <b>re-programming |
− | + | of DNA-DNA interactions</b> using protein staples in living cells, enabling researchers to recreate natural 3D | |
+ | genomic | ||
interactions, such as enhancer hijacking, or to design entirely new spatial architectures for gene regulation. | interactions, such as enhancer hijacking, or to design entirely new spatial architectures for gene regulation. | ||
− | Beyond its versatility, PICasSO includes robust assay systems to support the engineering, optimization, and | + | Specifically, the fusion of two DNA binding proteins enables to artifically bring distant genomic loci into |
+ | proximty. | ||
+ | To unlock the system's full potential, we introduce versatile <b>chimeric CRISPR/Cas complexes</b>, connected | ||
+ | either on | ||
+ | the protein or the guide RNA level. These1 complexes are reffered to as protein- or Cas staples. Beyond its | ||
+ | versatility, PICasSO includes <b>robust assay</b> systems to support the engineering, optimization, and | ||
testing of new staples, ensuring functionality <i>in vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i>. We took special care to include | testing of new staples, ensuring functionality <i>in vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i>. We took special care to include | ||
− | parts crucial for testing every step of the cycle (design, build, test, learn) when engineering new parts. | + | parts crucial for testing every step of the cycle (design, build, test, learn) when <b>engineering new parts</b>. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p>At its heart, the PICasSO part collection consists of three categories. <br /><b>(i)</b> Our <b>DNA-binding | <p>At its heart, the PICasSO part collection consists of three categories. <br /><b>(i)</b> Our <b>DNA-binding | ||
Line 332: | Line 339: | ||
<h1>2. Usage and Biology</h1> | <h1>2. Usage and Biology</h1> | ||
<p>Small basic-region leucine zipper (bZip) proteins are characterized by their DNA-binding. The bZip motif | <p>Small basic-region leucine zipper (bZip) proteins are characterized by their DNA-binding. The bZip motif | ||
− | consists of a coiled-coil leucine zipper dimerization domain, and a highly charged basic region that | + | consists of a coiled-coil leucine zipper dimerization domain, and a highly charged basic region that binds to DNA |
− | + | (Hollenbeck & Oakley, 2000). One well characterized example is the General Control | |
− | Protein | + | Protein 4 (GCN4), a well-characterized transcriptional activator from yeast (Arndt & Fink, 1986).<br> |
− | + | At its N-terminus, GCN4 contains basic residues, the so-called bZip domain, through which it binds specifically to | |
− | + | the CRE (cyclic AMP | |
− | + | ||
response element) DNA sequence (5' ATGACGTCAT 3') (Hollenbeck <i>et al.</i>, 2002). A variant of GCN4 with the DNA | response element) DNA sequence (5' ATGACGTCAT 3') (Hollenbeck <i>et al.</i>, 2002). A variant of GCN4 with the DNA | ||
− | binding bZip-domain | + | binding bZip-domain at the C-terminus (rGCN4) has been engineered to bind to the inverted CRE sequence, INV2 (5' |
− | + | GTCAtaTGAC 3', upper | |
case letters indicate direct interaction between protein and DNA) with similar affinity | case letters indicate direct interaction between protein and DNA) with similar affinity | ||
− | (Hollenbeck <i>et al.</i>, 2001). By genetically fusing GCN4 to rGCN4, we created a small bivalent DNA binding | + | (Hollenbeck <i>et al.</i>, 2001). By genetically fusing GCN4 to rGCN4, we created a small, bivalent DNA binding |
− | staple with less than 150 amino acids | + | staple with less than 150 amino acids.</p> |
</section> | </section> | ||
<section id="3"> | <section id="3"> | ||
<h1>3. Assembly and part evolution</h1> | <h1>3. Assembly and part evolution</h1> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
− | The amino acid | + | The amino acid sequences for GCN4 and rGCN4 were obtained from literature (Hollenbeck et al. 2001), and |
codon-optimized for <i>Escherichia coli</i>. | codon-optimized for <i>Escherichia coli</i>. | ||
The two leucine zipper were combined with a GSG linker harbouring a BamHI site to adapt the construct with different | The two leucine zipper were combined with a GSG linker harbouring a BamHI site to adapt the construct with different | ||
− | linker designs. | + | linker designs, based on our dry lab <a href="https://2024.igem.wiki/heidelberg/model" target="_blank">DaVinci</a> |
+ | model. | ||
A FLAG-tag (DYKDDDDK) was added to the N-terminus for protein purification. The FLAG-tag can be cleaved off using an | A FLAG-tag (DYKDDDDK) was added to the N-terminus for protein purification. The FLAG-tag can be cleaved off using an | ||
Enterokinase, if necessary. | Enterokinase, if necessary. | ||
− | + | Expression of FLAG-GCN4 was done under an IPTG inducible T7 promoter in <i>E. coli</i> BL21 (DE3) cells. | |
</p> | </p> | ||
</section> | </section> | ||
Line 365: | Line 372: | ||
linker types to | linker types to | ||
create a functioning staple. Through dry lab modelling, various linker designs have already been simulated to | create a functioning staple. Through dry lab modelling, various linker designs have already been simulated to | ||
− | predict | + | predict improved dimerization and DNA binding. |
− | + | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<section id="4.1"> | <section id="4.1"> | ||
<h2>4.1 Protein Expression and Purification</h2> | <h2>4.1 Protein Expression and Purification</h2> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
− | The bZip proteins GCN4, rGCN4 and | + | The bZip proteins GCN4, rGCN4 and the fusion thereof, bGCN4, were fused N-terminally to a FLAG-tag (DYKDDDDK). |
− | proteins could be readily | + | All proteins could be readily |
expressed under the T7 promoter in <i class="”italic”">E. coli</i> BL21 DE3 and purified with Anti-FLAG affinity | expressed under the T7 promoter in <i class="”italic”">E. coli</i> BL21 DE3 and purified with Anti-FLAG affinity | ||
columns. The purity of the proteins was confirmed by SDS-PAGE (Figure 2). | columns. The purity of the proteins was confirmed by SDS-PAGE (Figure 2). | ||
Line 401: | Line 407: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | <p align="justify" | + | <p align="justify"> |
The Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) is a widely adopted method used to study DNA-protein | The Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) is a widely adopted method used to study DNA-protein | ||
− | interactions. EMSA functions on the basis that nucleic acids bound to proteins have reduced electrophoretic | + | interactions. EMSA functions on the basis that nucleic acids, bound to proteins, have reduced electrophoretic |
mobility, compared to their counterpart. (Hellman & Fried, 2007). Mobility-shift | mobility, compared to their counterpart. (Hellman & Fried, 2007). Mobility-shift | ||
assays can both be used to qualitatively assess DNA binding capabilities or quantitatively to determine binding | assays can both be used to qualitatively assess DNA binding capabilities or quantitatively to determine binding | ||
stoichiometry and kinetics such as the apparent dissociation constant (K<sub>d</sub>) (Fried, 1989). | stoichiometry and kinetics such as the apparent dissociation constant (K<sub>d</sub>) (Fried, 1989). | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
− | <section | + | |
+ | <section id="4.2.1" style="clear:both;"> | ||
<h2>4.2.1 Qualitative DNA binding analysis</h2> | <h2>4.2.1 Qualitative DNA binding analysis</h2> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
Line 416: | Line 423: | ||
(Figure 4). | (Figure 4). | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p> | ||
+ | The Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) is a widely adopted method used to study DNA-protein | ||
+ | interactions. EMSA functions on the basis that nucleic acids, bound to proteins, have reduced electrophoretic | ||
+ | mobility, compared to their counterpart. (Hellman & Fried, 2007). Mobility-shift | ||
+ | assays can be used both to qualitatively assess DNA binding capabilities or quantitatively to determine binding | ||
+ | stoichiometry and kinetics such as the apparent dissociation constant (K<sub>d</sub>) (Fried, 1989).<br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | To analyze the binding DNA affinity an EMSA was performed, in which | ||
+ | bGCN4 was incubated in binding buffer with a 20 bp DNA probe containing the either the <i>CRE</i> (GCN4 binding) | ||
+ | sequence (5' ATGACGTCAT 3') or the <i>INVii</i> (rGCN4 binding) sequence (5' GTCAtaTGAC 3') until equilibration. | ||
+ | Subsequently the formed protein-DNA complexes were loaded on a native PAGE. Afterwards the DNA bands were | ||
+ | stained with SYBR-safe. <br> | ||
+ | The bGCN4 fusion protein did not show any DNA binding for both target sites. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | |||
<div class="thumb"> | <div class="thumb"> | ||
<div class="thumbinner" style="width:550px"><img alt="" class="thumbimage" | <div class="thumbinner" style="width:550px"><img alt="" class="thumbimage" | ||
Line 437: | Line 460: | ||
<h2>4.2.2 Quantitative DNA binding analysis</h2> | <h2>4.2.2 Quantitative DNA binding analysis</h2> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
− | To further analyze DNA binding, quantitative shift assays were performed for GCN4 and rGCN4. Here | + | To further analyze DNA binding of the staple subunits, quantitative shift assays were performed for GCN4 and rGCN4. Here |
0.5 µM DNA were incubated with varying concentrations of protein until equilibration. After | 0.5 µM DNA were incubated with varying concentrations of protein until equilibration. After | ||
electrophoresis, bands were stained with SYBR-Safe and quantified based on pixel intensity. The | electrophoresis, bands were stained with SYBR-Safe and quantified based on pixel intensity. The | ||
Line 452: | Line 475: | ||
experimentally | experimentally | ||
determined site saturation values (For this experiment 0 and 1 were chosen for min and max | determined site saturation values (For this experiment 0 and 1 were chosen for min and max | ||
− | respectively) | + | respectively). |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<div class="thumb"> | <div class="thumb"> | ||
Line 474: | Line 494: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | + | <p> | |
− | + | GCN4 binds to its optimal DNA binding motif with an apparent dissociation | |
− | + | constant K<sub>D</sub> of (0.293 ± 0.033) × 10<sup>-6</sup> M, which is almost identical to the | |
− | + | rGCN4 dissociation constant | |
− | + | to INVii a K<sub>D</sub> of (0.298 ± 0.030) × 10<sup>-6</sup> M. | |
− | + | Comparing them to literature values, our dissociation constants are approximately a factor 10 higher then those | |
− | + | described in literature ((96) × 10<sup>-8</sup> M for | |
− | + | GCN4 and (2.90.8) × 10<sup>-8</sup> M for rGCN4) (Hollenbeck <i class="italic">et al.</i>, 2001). The | |
− | + | differences could be due to the lower sensitivity of SYBR-Safe staining compared to radio-labeled oligos. | |
− | + | Most likely, the protein concentration was miscalculated due to the presence of additional (lower intensity) | |
− | + | bands in | |
− | + | the SDS-PAGE analysis, indicating co-purification of small amounts of unspecific proteins. | |
− | + | <br /><br /> | |
− | + | The FLAG-tag fusion to the N-terminus of proteins could potentially decrease binding affinity, likely due | |
− | + | to steric hindrance affecting the interaction with DNA. Interestingly, the differences in binding affinity | |
− | + | between GCN4 and rGCN4 appear negligible. Since GCN4 binds to DNA via its N-terminus and rGCN4 binds | |
− | + | C-terminally, the FLAG-tag likely does not directly influence DNA binding. However, it may influence the | |
− | + | dimerization of the proteins, which is necessary for DNA binding. To further investigate this, the | |
− | + | FLAG-tag can be cleaved using an enterokinase and potential changes in binding affinity analyzed. | |
− | + | Furthermore, coiled coil formation, and the amount of dimeric and monomeric proteins could be further analyzed | |
− | + | with circular dichroism spectroscopy (Greenfield, 2006). | |
− | + | </p> | |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | </p> | + | |
</section> | </section> | ||
<section id="4.3"> | <section id="4.3"> | ||
Line 512: | Line 526: | ||
refine experimental parameters, and find optimal connections between protein staples and target DNA. | refine experimental parameters, and find optimal connections between protein staples and target DNA. | ||
We calibrated DaVinci with literature and our own experimental affinity data obtained via EMSA assays and | We calibrated DaVinci with literature and our own experimental affinity data obtained via EMSA assays and | ||
− | purified | + | purified proteins.<br> |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
DaVinci is divided into three phases: static structure prediction, all-atom dynamics simulation, and long-ranged | DaVinci is divided into three phases: static structure prediction, all-atom dynamics simulation, and long-ranged | ||
− | dna | + | dna dynamics simulation. We applied the first two to our parts, characterizing structure and dynamics of the |
− | + | ||
dna-binding | dna-binding | ||
interaction. | interaction. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
− | + | In our efforts to create a bivalent DNA binding protein with minimal size, we created a Mini staple (<a | |
− | + | href="https://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K5237009" target="_blank">BBa_K5237009</a>) | |
− | + | consisting of | |
− | + | GCN4 fused with an GSG-linker to rGCN4 (<a href="https://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K5237008" | |
− | + | target="_blank">BBa_K5237008</a>). The structure and binding affinity of GCN4 were predicted and calculated. | |
− | + | Furthermore different possible linkers were tested.<br> | |
− | + | We assessed the flexibility and rigidity of our constructs through the pLDDT values assigned | |
+ | during the predictions. Figure 2 illustrates the variation in linkers using the ('GGGGS')<sub>n</sub> | ||
+ | sequence for flexible linkers and the ('EAAAK')<sub>n</sub> sequence for rigid linkers (Arai <i>et al.</i>, 2001). | ||
+ | The predictions are colored by their pLDDT scores, which act as a surrogate measure of | ||
+ | chain rigidity (Akdel <i>et al.</i>, 2022; Guo <i>et al.</i>, 2022). The construct C (Fig. 5) was tested as part | ||
+ | BBa_K5237009 in the Wetlab - it did not bind DNA on any side as the structure is to rigid | ||
+ | which hinders dimerisation of the two subunits | ||
+ | |||
</p> | </p> | ||
<div class="thumb"> | <div class="thumb"> | ||
− | <div class="thumbinner" style="width:80%"> | + | <div class="thumbinner" style="width:80%;"> |
− | <img alt="" src="" style="width:99%; | + | <img alt="" class="thumbimage" |
+ | src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5237/model/structure-figure-3.svg" style="width:99%;" /> | ||
<div class="thumbcaption"> | <div class="thumbcaption"> | ||
− | <i> | + | <i><b>Figure 5: Variation of linkers connecting our mini staples.</b> |
− | + | Panels A (BBa_K5237007) and B (BBa_K5237008) show | |
− | Panels | + | orientations of the leucine zipper, each bound to DNA. Panels C to I display linker variations colored by their pLDDT |
− | + | confidence score, which serves as a surrogate for chain flexibility (Akdel et al., 2022). Note that panels H and I are | |
− | + | not bound to the second DNA strand. All structures were predicted using the AlphaFold server (Google DeepMind, | |
− | + | 2024). | |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
</i> | </i> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
</section> | </section> | ||
</section> | </section> | ||
Line 569: | Line 574: | ||
href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w</a> | href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w</a> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
− | <p>Arai, R., Ueda, H., Kitayama, A., Kamiya, N., & Nagamune, T. (2001). Design of the linkers which effectively | + | <p>Arai, R., Ueda, H., Kitayama, A., Kamiya, N., & Nagamune, T. (2001). Design of the linkers which effectively |
separate domains of a bifunctional fusion protein. <i>Protein Engineering, Design and Selection</i>, 14(8), | separate domains of a bifunctional fusion protein. <i>Protein Engineering, Design and Selection</i>, 14(8), | ||
529–532. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/14.8.529" | 529–532. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/14.8.529" | ||
Line 578: | Line 583: | ||
8516–8520. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.22.8516" | 8516–8520. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.22.8516" | ||
target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.22.8516</a></p> | target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.22.8516</a></p> | ||
− | <p>Chen, X., Zaro, J. L., & Shen, W.-C. (2013). Fusion protein linkers: Property, design and functionality. | + | <p>Chen, X., Zaro, J. L., & Shen, W.-C. (2013). Fusion protein linkers: Property, design and functionality. |
<i>Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews</i>, 65(10), 1357–1369. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.039" | <i>Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews</i>, 65(10), 1357–1369. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.039" | ||
target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.039</a> | target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.039</a> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
− | |||
<p>Google DeepMind. (2024). AlphaFold Server. <a href="https://alphafoldserver.com/terms" | <p>Google DeepMind. (2024). AlphaFold Server. <a href="https://alphafoldserver.com/terms" | ||
target="_blank">https://alphafoldserver.com/terms</a></p> | target="_blank">https://alphafoldserver.com/terms</a></p> | ||
− | |||
<p>Guo, H.-B., Perminov, A., Bekele, S., Kedziora, G., Farajollahi, S., Varaljay, V., Hinkle, K., Molinero, V., | <p>Guo, H.-B., Perminov, A., Bekele, S., Kedziora, G., Farajollahi, S., Varaljay, V., Hinkle, K., Molinero, V., | ||
− | Meister, K., Hung, C., Dennis, P., Kelley-Loughnane, N., & Berry, R. (2022). AlphaFold2 models indicate that | + | Meister, K., Hung, C., Dennis, P., Kelley-Loughnane, N., & Berry, R. (2022). AlphaFold2 models indicate that |
protein sequence determines both structure and dynamics. <i>Scientific Reports</i>, 12(1), 10696. <a | protein sequence determines both structure and dynamics. <i>Scientific Reports</i>, 12(1), 10696. <a | ||
href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14382-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14382-9</a> | href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14382-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14382-9</a> | ||
Line 618: | Line 621: | ||
href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104579" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104579</a> | href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104579" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104579</a> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
</section> | </section> | ||
+ | </section> | ||
</html> | </html> |
Revision as of 02:13, 2 October 2024
Mini staple: bGCN4
The bGCN4 Mini Staple is a fusion of the basic leucine zipper GCN4 and rGCN4, offering a smaller, compact protein staple. With its well-characterized subunits and strong in silico and experimental validation, this Mini Staple serves as a versatile foundation for expanding to similar staples.
Contents
Next to the well-studied linear DNA sequence, the 3D spatial organization of DNA plays a crucial role in
gene regulation,
cell fate, disease development and more. However, the tools to precisely manipulate this genomic
architecture remain limited, rendering it challenging to explore the full potential of the
3D genome in synthetic biology. We - iGEM Team Heidelberg 2024 - have developed PICasSO, a powerful
molecular toolbox based on various DNA-binding proteins to address this issue.
The PICasSO part collection offers a comprehensive, modular platform for precise manipulation and re-programming of DNA-DNA interactions using protein staples in living cells, enabling researchers to recreate natural 3D genomic interactions, such as enhancer hijacking, or to design entirely new spatial architectures for gene regulation. Specifically, the fusion of two DNA binding proteins enables to artifically bring distant genomic loci into proximty. To unlock the system's full potential, we introduce versatile chimeric CRISPR/Cas complexes, connected either on the protein or the guide RNA level. These1 complexes are reffered to as protein- or Cas staples. Beyond its versatility, PICasSO includes robust assay systems to support the engineering, optimization, and testing of new staples, ensuring functionality in vitro and in vivo. We took special care to include parts crucial for testing every step of the cycle (design, build, test, learn) when engineering new parts.
At its heart, the PICasSO part collection consists of three categories.
(i) Our DNA-binding
proteins
include our
finalized enhancer hijacking Cas staple as well as half staples that can be used by scientists to compose entirely
new Cas staples in the future. We also include our Simple staples that serve as controls for successful stapling
and can be further engineered to create alternative, simpler and more compact staples.
(ii) As functional elements, we list additional parts that enhance the functionality of our Cas and
Basic staples. These
consist of
protease-cleavable peptide linkers and inteins that allow condition-specific, dynamic stapling in vivo.
Besides staple functionality, we also include the parts to enable the efficient delivery of PICasSO's constructs
with our
interkingdom conjugation system.
(iii) As the final category of our collection, we provide parts that support the use of our custom
readout
systems. These include components of our established FRET-based proximity assay system, enabling users to
confirm
accurate stapling. Additionally, we offer a complementary, application-oriented testing system for functional
readouts via a luciferase reporter, which allows for straightforward experimental simulation of enhancer hijacking
in mammalian cells.
The following table gives a comprehensive overview of all parts in our PICasSO toolbox. The highlighted parts showed
exceptional performance as described on our iGEM wiki and can serve as a reference. The other parts in
the
collection are versatile building blocks designed to provide future iGEMers with the flexibility to engineer their
own custom Cas staples, enabling further optimization and innovation.
Our part collection includes:
DNA-binding proteins: The building blocks for engineering of custom staples for DNA-DNA interactions with a modular system ensuring easy assembly. | ||
BBa_K5237000 | fgRNA Entry vector MbCas12a-SpCas9 | Entryvector for simple fgRNA cloning via SapI |
BBa_K5237001 | Staple subunit: dMbCas12a-Nucleoplasmin NLS | Staple subunit that can be combined with sgRNA or fgRNA and dCas9 to form a functional staple |
BBa_K5237002 | Staple subunit: SV40 NLS-dSpCas9-SV40 NLS | Staple subunit that can be combined witha sgRNA or fgRNA and dCas12avto form a functional staple |
BBa_K5237003 | Cas Staple: SV40 NLS-dMbCas12a-dSpCas9-Nucleoplasmin NLS | Functional Cas staple that can be combined with sgRNA or fgRNA to bring two DNA strands into close proximity |
BBa_K5237004 | Staple subunit: Oct1-DBD | Staple subunit that can be combined to form a functional staple, for example with TetR. Can also be combined with a fluorescent protein as part of the FRET proximity assay |
BBa_K5237005 | Staple subunit: TetR | Staple subunit that can be combined to form a functional staple, for example with Oct1. Can also be combined with a fluorescent protein as part of the FRET proximity assay |
BBa_K5237006 | Simple staple: TetR-Oct1 | Functional staple that can be used to bring two DNA strands in close proximity |
BBa_K5237007 | Staple subunit: GCN4 | Staple subunit that can be combined to form a functional staple, for example with rGCN4 |
BBa_K5237008 | Staple subunit: rGCN4 | Staple subunit that can be combined to form a functional staple, for example with rGCN4 |
BBa_K5237009 | Mini staple: bGCN4 | Assembled staple with minimal size that can be further engineered | Functional elements: Protease-cleavable peptide linkers and inteins are used to control and modify staples for further optimization for custom applications |
BBa_K5237010 | Cathepsin B-cleavable Linker: GFLG | Cathepsin B-cleavable peptide linker that can be used to combine two staple subunits to make responsive staples |
BBa_K5237011 | Cathepsin B Expression Cassette | Expression Cassette for the overexpression of cathepsin B |
BBa_K5237012 | Caged NpuN Intein | A caged NpuN split intein fragment that undergoes protein trans-splicing after protease activation. Can be used to create functionalized staples units |
BBa_K5237013 | Caged NpuC Intein | A caged NpuC split intein fragment that undergoes protein trans-splicing after protease activation. Can be used to create functionalized staples units |
BBa_K5237014 | fgRNA processing casette | Processing casette to produce multiple fgRNAs from one transcript, that can be used for multiplexed 3D genome reprograming |
BBa_K5237015 | Intimin anti-EGFR Nanobody | Interkindom conjugation between bacteria and mammalian cells, as alternative delivery tool for large constructs |
BBa_K4643003 | incP origin of transfer | Origin of transfer that can be cloned into the plasmid vector and used for conjugation as a means of delivery | Readout Systems: FRET and enhancer recruitment to measure proximity of stapled DNA in bacterial and mammalian living cells enabling swift testing and easy development for new systems |
BBa_K5237016 | FRET-Donor: mNeonGreen-Oct1 | FRET Donor-Fluorpohore fused to Oct1-DBD that binds to the Oct1 binding cassette. Can be used to visualize DNA-DNA proximity |
BBa_K5237017 | FRET-Acceptor: TetR-mScarlet-I | Acceptor part for the FRET assay binding the TetR binding cassette. Can be used to visualize DNA-DNA proximity |
BBa_K5237018 | Oct1 Binding Casette | DNA sequence containing 12 Oct1 binding motifs, compatible with various assays such as the FRET proximity assay |
BBa_K5237019 | TetR Binding Cassette | DNA sequence containing 12 Oct1 binding motifs, can be used for different assays such as the FRET proximity assay | BBa_K5237020 | Cathepsin B-Cleavable Trans-Activator: NLS-Gal4-GFLG-VP64 | Readout system that responds to protease activity. It was used to test cathepsin B-cleavable linker |
BBa_K5237021 | NLS-Gal4-VP64 | Trans-activating enhancer, that can be used to simulate enhancer hijacking | BBa_K5237022 | mCherry Expression Cassette: UAS, minimal Promotor, mCherry | Readout system for enhancer binding. It was used to test cathepsin B-cleavable linker |
BBa_K5237023 | Oct1 - 5x UAS binding casette | Oct1 and UAS binding cassette, that was used for the simulated enhancer hijacking assay |
BBa_K5237024 | TRE-minimal promoter- firefly luciferase | Contains Firefly luciferase controlled by a minimal promoter. It was used as a luminescence readout for simulated enhancer hijacking |
1. Sequence overview
- 10COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
- 12COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
- 21INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]Illegal BamHI site found at 175
- 23COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
- 25COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
- 1000COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]
Small basic-region leucine zipper (bZip) proteins are characterized by their DNA-binding. The bZip motif
consists of a coiled-coil leucine zipper dimerization domain, and a highly charged basic region that binds to DNA
(Hollenbeck & Oakley, 2000). One well characterized example is the General Control
Protein 4 (GCN4), a well-characterized transcriptional activator from yeast (Arndt & Fink, 1986).
The amino acid sequences for GCN4 and rGCN4 were obtained from literature (Hollenbeck et al. 2001), and
codon-optimized for Escherichia coli.
The two leucine zipper were combined with a GSG linker harbouring a BamHI site to adapt the construct with different
linker designs, based on our dry lab DaVinci
model.
A FLAG-tag (DYKDDDDK) was added to the N-terminus for protein purification. The FLAG-tag can be cleaved off using an
Enterokinase, if necessary.
Expression of FLAG-GCN4 was done under an IPTG inducible T7 promoter in E. coli BL21 (DE3) cells.
The current version of the part with GCN4-rGCN4 fusion, linked by a GSG peptide linker has not demonstrated any DNA
binding in the tests conducted thus far.
Nevertheless, we belive the part to still be a valuable addition, as it can be further engineered with different
linker types to
create a functioning staple. Through dry lab modelling, various linker designs have already been simulated to
predict improved dimerization and DNA binding.
The bZip proteins GCN4, rGCN4 and the fusion thereof, bGCN4, were fused N-terminally to a FLAG-tag (DYKDDDDK).
All proteins could be readily
expressed under the T7 promoter in E. coli BL21 DE3 and purified with Anti-FLAG affinity
columns. The purity of the proteins was confirmed by SDS-PAGE (Figure 2).
The Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) is a widely adopted method used to study DNA-protein
interactions. EMSA functions on the basis that nucleic acids, bound to proteins, have reduced electrophoretic
mobility, compared to their counterpart. (Hellman & Fried, 2007). Mobility-shift
assays can both be used to qualitatively assess DNA binding capabilities or quantitatively to determine binding
stoichiometry and kinetics such as the apparent dissociation constant (Kd) (Fried, 1989).
To asses possible DNA binding, a qualitative EMSA was performed with the purified proteins. The same binding
buffer conditions were used, as previously desribed for GCN4 and rGCN4 (Hollenbeck et al. 2001).
DNA binding could only be shown for GCN4 and rGCN4, no visible band was observed for the bGCN4 fusion protein
(Figure 4).
The Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) is a widely adopted method used to study DNA-protein
interactions. EMSA functions on the basis that nucleic acids, bound to proteins, have reduced electrophoretic
mobility, compared to their counterpart. (Hellman & Fried, 2007). Mobility-shift
assays can be used both to qualitatively assess DNA binding capabilities or quantitatively to determine binding
stoichiometry and kinetics such as the apparent dissociation constant (Kd) (Fried, 1989).
To further analyze DNA binding of the staple subunits, quantitative shift assays were performed for GCN4 and rGCN4. Here
0.5 µM DNA were incubated with varying concentrations of protein until equilibration. After
electrophoresis, bands were stained with SYBR-Safe and quantified based on pixel intensity. The
obtained values were fitted to equation 1, describing formation of a 2:1 protein-DNA complex:
GCN4 binds to its optimal DNA binding motif with an apparent dissociation
constant KD of (0.293 ± 0.033) × 10-6 M, which is almost identical to the
rGCN4 dissociation constant
to INVii a KD of (0.298 ± 0.030) × 10-6 M.
Comparing them to literature values, our dissociation constants are approximately a factor 10 higher then those
described in literature ((96) × 10-8 M for
GCN4 and (2.90.8) × 10-8 M for rGCN4) (Hollenbeck et al., 2001). The
differences could be due to the lower sensitivity of SYBR-Safe staining compared to radio-labeled oligos.
Most likely, the protein concentration was miscalculated due to the presence of additional (lower intensity)
bands in
the SDS-PAGE analysis, indicating co-purification of small amounts of unspecific proteins.
We developed the in silico model DaVinci
for rapid engineering
and development of our PiCasSO system.
DaVinci acts as a digital twin to PiCasSO, designed to understand the forces acting on our system,
refine experimental parameters, and find optimal connections between protein staples and target DNA.
We calibrated DaVinci with literature and our own experimental affinity data obtained via EMSA assays and
purified proteins.
In our efforts to create a bivalent DNA binding protein with minimal size, we created a Mini staple (BBa_K5237009)
consisting of
GCN4 fused with an GSG-linker to rGCN4 (BBa_K5237008). The structure and binding affinity of GCN4 were predicted and calculated.
Furthermore different possible linkers were tested. Akdel, M., Pires, D. E. V., Pardo, E. P., Janes, J., Zalevsky, A. O., Meszaros, B., Bryant, P., Good, L. L.,
Laskowski, R. A., Pozzati, G., Shenoy, A., Zhu, W., Kundrotas, P., Serra, V. R., Rodrigues, C. H. M., Dunham, A.
S., Burke, D., Borkakoti, N., Velankar, S., … Beltrao, P. (2022). A structural biology community assessment of
AlphaFold2 applications. Nat Struct Mol Biol, 29(11), 1056–1067. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w
Arai, R., Ueda, H., Kitayama, A., Kamiya, N., & Nagamune, T. (2001). Design of the linkers which effectively
separate domains of a bifunctional fusion protein. Protein Engineering, Design and Selection, 14(8),
529–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/14.8.529 Arndt, K., & Fink, G. R. (1986). GCN4 protein, a positive transcription factor in yeast, binds general
control promoters at all 5’ TGACTC 3’ sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
83(22),
8516–8520. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.22.8516 Chen, X., Zaro, J. L., & Shen, W.-C. (2013). Fusion protein linkers: Property, design and functionality.
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 65(10), 1357–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.039
Google DeepMind. (2024). AlphaFold Server. https://alphafoldserver.com/terms Guo, H.-B., Perminov, A., Bekele, S., Kedziora, G., Farajollahi, S., Varaljay, V., Hinkle, K., Molinero, V.,
Meister, K., Hung, C., Dennis, P., Kelley-Loughnane, N., & Berry, R. (2022). AlphaFold2 models indicate that
protein sequence determines both structure and dynamics. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 10696. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14382-9
Ellenberger, T. E., Brandl, C. J., Struhl, K., & Harrison, S. C. (1992). The GCN4 basic region leucine
zipper
binds DNA as a dimer of uninterrupted alpha helices: Crystal structure of the protein-DNA complex. Cell,
71(7), 1223–1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(05)80070-4 Hollenbeck, J. J., Gurnon, D. G., Fazio, G. C., Carlson, J. J., & Oakley, M. G. (2001). A GCN4 Variant with
a
C-Terminal Basic Region Binds to DNA with Wild-Type Affinity. Biochemistry, 40(46), 13833–13839. Hollenbeck, J. J., McClain, D. L., & Oakley, M. G. (2002). The role of helix stabilizing residues in GCN4
basic region folding and DNA binding. Protein Science, 11(11), 2740–2747. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.0211102 Hollenbeck, J. J., & Oakley, M. G. (2000). GCN4 Binds with High Affinity to DNA Sequences Containing a
Single
Consensus Half-Site. Biochemistry, 39(21), 6380–6389. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi992705n Liu, J., Zheng, Q., Deng, Y., Cheng, C.-S., Kallenbach, N. R., & Lu, M. (2006). A seven-helix coiled coil.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(42), 15457–15462. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604871103
Lupas, A. N., Bassler, J., & Dunin-Horkawicz, S. (2017). The Structure and Topology of α-Helical Coiled
Coils. Fibrous Proteins: Structures and Mechanisms, 82, 95–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49674-0_4 Woolfson, D. N. (2023). Understanding a protein fold: The physics, chemistry, and biology of α-helical coiled
coils. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 299(4), 104579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104579
2. Usage and Biology
At its N-terminus, GCN4 contains basic residues, the so-called bZip domain, through which it binds specifically to
the CRE (cyclic AMP
response element) DNA sequence (5' ATGACGTCAT 3') (Hollenbeck et al., 2002). A variant of GCN4 with the DNA
binding bZip-domain at the C-terminus (rGCN4) has been engineered to bind to the inverted CRE sequence, INV2 (5'
GTCAtaTGAC 3', upper
case letters indicate direct interaction between protein and DNA) with similar affinity
(Hollenbeck et al., 2001). By genetically fusing GCN4 to rGCN4, we created a small, bivalent DNA binding
staple with less than 150 amino acids.3. Assembly and part evolution
4. Results
4.1 Protein Expression and Purification
4.2 Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay
4.2.1 Qualitative DNA binding analysis
To analyze the binding DNA affinity an EMSA was performed, in which
bGCN4 was incubated in binding buffer with a 20 bp DNA probe containing the either the CRE (GCN4 binding)
sequence (5' ATGACGTCAT 3') or the INVii (rGCN4 binding) sequence (5' GTCAtaTGAC 3') until equilibration.
Subsequently the formed protein-DNA complexes were loaded on a native PAGE. Afterwards the DNA bands were
stained with SYBR-safe.
The bGCN4 fusion protein did not show any DNA binding for both target sites.
4.2.2 Quantitative DNA binding analysis
Θapp = Θmin + (Θmax - Θmin) ×
(Ka2 [L]tot2) / (1 + Ka2
[L]tot2)
Equation 1
Here [L]tot describes the total protein monomer concentration, Ka
corresponds
to the apparent monomeric equilibration constant. The Θmin/max values are the
experimentally
determined site saturation values (For this experiment 0 and 1 were chosen for min and max
respectively).
The FLAG-tag fusion to the N-terminus of proteins could potentially decrease binding affinity, likely due
to steric hindrance affecting the interaction with DNA. Interestingly, the differences in binding affinity
between GCN4 and rGCN4 appear negligible. Since GCN4 binds to DNA via its N-terminus and rGCN4 binds
C-terminally, the FLAG-tag likely does not directly influence DNA binding. However, it may influence the
dimerization of the proteins, which is necessary for DNA binding. To further investigate this, the
FLAG-tag can be cleaved using an enterokinase and potential changes in binding affinity analyzed.
Furthermore, coiled coil formation, and the amount of dimeric and monomeric proteins could be further analyzed
with circular dichroism spectroscopy (Greenfield, 2006).
4.3 In Silico Characterization using DaVinci
DaVinci is divided into three phases: static structure prediction, all-atom dynamics simulation, and long-ranged
dna dynamics simulation. We applied the first two to our parts, characterizing structure and dynamics of the
dna-binding
interaction.
We assessed the flexibility and rigidity of our constructs through the pLDDT values assigned
during the predictions. Figure 2 illustrates the variation in linkers using the ('GGGGS')n
sequence for flexible linkers and the ('EAAAK')n sequence for rigid linkers (Arai et al., 2001).
The predictions are colored by their pLDDT scores, which act as a surrogate measure of
chain rigidity (Akdel et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2022). The construct C (Fig. 5) was tested as part
BBa_K5237009 in the Wetlab - it did not bind DNA on any side as the structure is to rigid
which hinders dimerisation of the two subunits
5. References