Team:EPF-Lausanne/Our Project/T7 promoter variants/t7make/characterization

{{:Team:EPF-Lausanne/Templates/Header|title= Characterizing the T7 Promoter Variants}}

* [[Team:EPF-Lausanne/Our Project/T7 promoter variants/t7make/characterization/designed| Characterization of Designed Variants ]]: Characterization Results for the Designed T7 Promoters

* [[Team:EPF-Lausanne/Our Project/T7 promoter variants/t7make/characterization/randomer| Characterization of Randomer Variants ]]: Characterization Results for the Randomer T7 Promoters
 
* [[Team:EPF-Lausanne/Our Project/T7 promoter variants/t7make/characterization/iptg| Characterization by IPTG Induction]]: How an IPTG Induction Experiment Works



=== Characterization Using Fluorescence ===

For each family, we tested the randomers and the designed variants separately. To characterize the promoter strengths, we used RFP as the reporter gene and used a platereader to test for fluorescence during and after induction with IPTG. 

[[File:non_random_dose_response.png|700px]]

The six designed T7 promoter variants are named as a function of their predicted promoter efficiency, relative to the wildtype. For example, T7 14 has a predicted efficiency of 14% compared to the consensus T7 promoter, whereas T7 111 is predicted to be 111% more efficient than the wildtype. In the chart above, you find each of the designed promoter variants for both the T7 with and without the lac operator, arranged in increasing predicted efficiency. Contrary to our expectation, some variants that were designed to have a lesser efficiency than the wildtype (e.g. T7 54) seem to have a much higher strength (as measured by fluorescence at saturation, normalized by the optical density). Already in the designed variants, we see a substantial difference in the behaviour of the promoters that have a lac operator as opposed to those that do not. The data for this graph was produced in triplicate, so the error bar represents the standard error across those three measurements. 

[[File:induction_ratio.png|700px]]

In addition to fluorescence at saturation, another way to characterize promoter strength is to look at its induction ratio, which is the ratio, at saturation, of fluorescence produced by induction with IPTG versus fluorescence produced without induction. In layman's terms, it indicates how strongly the promoter reacts to induction. Here again, our results indicate that some promoter variants (T7 80 in particular) stand out with respect to this feature. Here too the importance of the lac operator in producing high induction ratios is not to be underestimated.  



[[File:varability_comparison.png|200px| left]]

For the three sets of randomers for T7 with and without the lac operator, we tested seventy-two different variants and characterized their expression using the same IPTG induction protocol as with the designed variants. The goal of using these variants was to examine the range of expressions that can be produced by random mutations as opposed to directed mutations. The results, as presented in the graph, indicate that the designed variants (with and without lac operator put together) produce a much higher average normalized fluorescence than the randomers.

{{:Team:EPF-Lausanne/Templates/Footer}}