Part:BBa_K1475005
GFP controlled by TetR and pTet.
This composite part has GFP controlled by a TetR, p(TetR) expression system. The TetR repressor protein binds to the Tet promoter repressing expression. [1] The tet repressor protein is inhibited by [http://openwetware.org/wiki/ATc ATc (anhydrotetracycline)] or the analogue dox (doxycycline) hereby inducing the expression of GFP.[2]
Please note that this part contains the TetR repressor without the LVA rapid degradation tag, for a similar part containing TetR repressor with LVA tag please see Part:BBa_K1475006. The TetR+LVA bacis part can be found here: Part:BBa_C0040.
Usage and Biology
This part can be used to test the expression from the TetR p(TetR) system.
Sequence and Features
- 10COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
- 12INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]Illegal NheI site found at 7
Illegal NheI site found at 30 - 21COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
- 23COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
- 25COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
- 1000INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]Illegal BsaI.rc site found at 1390
Characterization
We wanted to test if the Tet promoter could be fine-tuned, and what influence the LVA tag on TetR has on the expression.
The ligation of the TetR(+LVA) construct with the pTet-GFP construct was cloned successfully and is found as BBa_K1475006.
The promoters in the TetR-pTet constructs are supposed to be inhibited by TetR. By induction with doxycycline, the repressor is inhibited, and thus pTet will be active. In this case, GFP will be expressed after induction with doxycycline. [1]
To test if the Tet promoter could be fine-tuned using different concentrations of doxycycline, we ran FACS (Fuorescence-activated Cell Sorting) on E. coli expressing GFP controlled by pTet, regulated by TetR with and without LVA tag. A wild-type was used as control.
Results of the fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) before and after induction with doxycycline. the strains used is NoTetR=E. coli K12 MG1655 with BBa_K136030, GFP regulated by the constitutively active p(tetR). tetR=E. coli K12 MG1655 with BBa_K1475005, GFP controlled by a constitutively expressed tetR repressor without the LVA-tag and the p(tetR) promoter. tetR:LVA=E. coli K12 MG1655 with BBa_K1475005, GFP controlled by a constitutively expressed tetR repressor with the LVA-tag and the p(tetR) promoter.
The results of the FACS illustrates that without induction with doxycycline, GFP is still expressed. This is because the promoter is leaky. There is a very little variation in expression of GFP upon induction with low concentration of doxycycline. At high concentration of doxycycline (2000 ng/mL) it can clearly be seen that TetR (+LVA) inhibits pTet at a weaker extent than TetR without LVA.
Leaving the leakiness of pTet out of account, FACS results indicates that the pTet inhibited by TetR with LVA tag is the one most active, upon induction by doxycycline. This could be because the LVA tag makes TetR more unstable and tags it for degredation or because TetR with LVA is better inhibited by doxycycline than TetR without LVA.
To analyse the amount of TetR with and without LVA tag present in the cell, coommassie stainging was made on a SDS-page with E. coli K12 (induced by 0 ng/mL, 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, 500 ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL doxycycline) expressing pTet-GFP, pTet-TetR (no LVA)-GFP and pTet-TetR (+LVA)-GFP, respectively.
Coomassie staining on with E. coli K12 (induced by 0 ng/mL, 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, 500 ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL doxycycline) expressing pTet-GFP, pTet-TetR (no LVA)-GFP and pTet-TetR (+LVA)-GFP, respectively.
The coomassie staining shows that the construct expressing TetR(+LVA) expresses more GFP than the construct expressing TetR(no LVA). In addition to this, the staining shows a higher amount of TetR(no LVA) in the cell than of TetR(+LVA). This is consistent with the FACS results that illustrates that pTet-TetR(+LVA) expresses more GFP than pTet-TetR(no LVA). The coomassie staining indicates that the reason for the higher expression of GFP by pTet-TetR (+ LVA) is because the cell contains less inhibitor. This must be due to the LVA tag making TetR unstable and tagging it for degredation.
Because pTet is leaky, all cells express GFP. It can be difficult to tell if the pTet has been induced and to what extent, however, plates containing the corresponding concentrations of doxycycline as used in FACS clearly shows an induction.
Duplicates of plates with doxycycline were made with 0 ng/mL, 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, 500 ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL doxycycline. On the plates, TetR-pTet construct with LVA, TetR-pTet construct with no LVA, pTet-GFP without TetR construct and wild-type were plated.
[[File:]]
The plating of TetR-GFP constructs on plates with doxycycline shows that GFP is expressed at different levels at different concentrations of doxycycline. Expression increases with an increase in doxycycline concentrations. The plates also show that GFP, to some extent, is expressed without doxycycline. This indicates that the Tet promoter is leaky and is not fully inhibited by TetR as it could be seen in the FACS results.
To see how the growth of the bacteria expressing GFP controlled by pTet are affected, we have measured OD over 8 hours. We measured OD on triplicates of bacteria with an empty vector, pTet-GFP, pTet(no LVA)-GFP, pTet(+LVA)-GFP and a wild-type.
[[File:]]
The graph shows the growth of bacteria expressing GFP constitutiely, are attenuated the most with most comprised growth. Removing the LVA tag from TetR also has a negative effect on the growth of the bacteria. This could be because TetR without LVA stresses the metabolism of the bacteria more than TetR with LVA or because LVA tags TetR for degradation and thus TetR with LVA stresses the cell less than TetR without LVA.
References
1. C. Krafft, et al.: Interaction of Tet Repressor with Operator DNA and with Tetracycline Studied by Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy. Biophysical Journal, Volume 74, Issue 1, January 1998, Pages 63–71. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349598777677
2. Tetsystems, 2008: Principles and Components Description. http://www.tetsystems.com/science-technology/principles-components
3. Cormack, B.P., Valdivia, R.H., and S. Falkow. FACS-optimized mutants of green fluorescent protein (GFP). Gene 173: 33-38 (1996). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378111995006850
| None |