Team:UNICAMP-EMSE Brazil/Results

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(→Device 3 testing, Protein Secretion System)
(→Results)
Line 76: Line 76:
[[Image:picind.png|center|600px]]
[[Image:picind.png|center|600px]]
<div align=center>'''Figure 2: GFP fluorescence assessed by microscopy in Paraquat induced cells. A) Fluorescence microscopy 40X Exp.: 0.478 ms; B) Light microscopy 40X; C) Fluorescence microscopy 100X Exp.: 0.478 ms; D) Light microscopy 100X.'''</div>
<div align=center>'''Figure 2: GFP fluorescence assessed by microscopy in Paraquat induced cells. A) Fluorescence microscopy 40X Exp.: 0.478 ms; B) Light microscopy 40X; C) Fluorescence microscopy 100X Exp.: 0.478 ms; D) Light microscopy 100X.'''</div>
 +
[[Image:picnotind.png|center|600px]]
[[Image:picnotind.png|center|600px]]
<div align=center>'''Figure 3: GFP fluorescence assessed by microscopy in non-induced cells. A) Fluorescence microscopy 40X Exp.: 0.478 ms; B) Light microscopy 40X; C) Fluorescence microscopy 100X Exp.: 0.478 ms; D) Light microscopy 100X.'''</div>
<div align=center>'''Figure 3: GFP fluorescence assessed by microscopy in non-induced cells. A) Fluorescence microscopy 40X Exp.: 0.478 ms; B) Light microscopy 40X; C) Fluorescence microscopy 100X Exp.: 0.478 ms; D) Light microscopy 100X.'''</div>
 +
GFP secretion was confirmed by fluorescence emission and estimated to be approximately 6% of total protein, according to fluorescence levels. Significant levels of GFP fluorescence were found only in the supernatant of Paraquat induced cultures containing both the sensor/effector and the secretion systems but not in the non-induced cultures and in the cultures containing only the sensor/effector system (Figure 4).
GFP secretion was confirmed by fluorescence emission and estimated to be approximately 6% of total protein, according to fluorescence levels. Significant levels of GFP fluorescence were found only in the supernatant of Paraquat induced cultures containing both the sensor/effector and the secretion systems but not in the non-induced cultures and in the cultures containing only the sensor/effector system (Figure 4).
 +
[[Image:Unicamp-emse-graph-secr.png|center|600px]]
[[Image:Unicamp-emse-graph-secr.png|center|600px]]

Revision as of 02:41, 29 September 2011

Home Project Methods Results Data Team Notebook Human Practices Safety Profile Sponsors Wix



Contents

Overview

Functional tests

The students assembled the devices subparts: the SoxR/SoxS sensor (Device 2, NO sensor device/ IL-10 producer), the Adrenaline sensor (Device 1, CA/AI-3 sensor device/ IL-12 producer), and the hemolysin secretion system (Device 3, Protein Secretion System).

The assembled devices related to oxidative-stress sensing ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K554010 SoxR transcription factor under control of a strong constitutive promoter - BBa_J23119]) and effector function in response to oxidative stress ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K554012 a generic protein fusioned with the C-terminal tail of Hemolysin A - HlyA -under control of the SoxS promoter, recognized by the SoxR transcription factor]) were tested under laboratory conditions using GFP as reporter.


Device 2 testing: SoxR/SoxS system regulating GFP production

The Device 2 is a modification of Stanford team anti-inflammatory device (iGEM 2009 - https://2009.igem.org/Team:Stanford/ProjectPage), which comprises SoxR gene (BBa_K223047) under control of a Constitutive Promoter (BBa_J23119) and SoxS promoter (BBa_K223001 – deleted part), coupled to human IL-10 gene (sequence designed by the team, improved for bacterial expression).

In order to test the ability of Jedi Bacteria in sensing NO levels and activating genes linked to SoxS promoter, we built a Device testing, with GFP linked to SoxS promoter, as it is shown in the following schema (Figure 1):

UNICAMP EMSE GFP SOX device.jpg
Figure 1: Testing Device 2 through replacement of IL-10 to GFP.


Methods

Competent E. coli DH5α strain cells were transformed with a pSB1A2 vector (Ampicillin resistant) carrying both the sensor (Strong_Constitutive_promoter + RBS + SoxR + Terminator) and the effector (SoxS_pormoter + RBS + GFP + HlyA + Terminator) devices using a chemical shock protocol. Transformed bacteria were plated on solid LB medium with 50 μg/mL Ampicillin and grown at 37ºC overnight. Surviving colonies were grown on liquid LB medium containing 50 μg/mL Ampicillin. Oxidative stress was induced by adding increasing concentrations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat Paraquat (Methyl viologen dichloride hydrate - Sigma), an oxidative stress inducer in bacteria. Final Paraquat concentrations were: 0 μM (control), 5 μM, 10 μM, 20 μM, 30 μM and 40 μM. Induction of the designed sensor/effector mechanism was accessed by fluorescence using a fluorometer (SLM – Aminco; 4 nm bandpass and 10 mm) with excitation in 500 nm and emission spectra from 508-550 nm. In order to access if increasing concentrations of Paraquat could inhibit culture growth due to it´s toxicity, optical density (OD) levels of the culture were measured during the incubation time with Paraquat. The ability to recognize NO (nitric oxide), an inflammation signal molecule, was characterized for SoxR/SoxS sensor, and found to be FUNCTIONAL. In the section below we present the detailed results.

Results

Achieved results indicated that the designed sensor/effector device system was capable of inducible production of GFP (or another generic protein controlled by the sensor). In addition, protein induction can be modulated through varying inducer concentration (Figure 2). Higher concentrations of Paraquat exhibited higher fluorescence levels, which indicates increased GFP concentrations. No plateau was achieved using the highest tested concentrations.

UNICAMP EMSE GFP SOX device result1.jpg
Figure 2: SoxS/SoxR fluorescence data (511 nm) for concentrations 0, 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 µM of inducer.

The experimental concentrations of Paraquat did not show significant differences in cell growth as shown by OD levels in Figure 3.

UNICAMP EMSE GFP SOX device result2.jpg
Figure 3: SoxS/SoxR optical density data for concentrations 0, 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 µM of inducer.
UNICAMP EMSE GFP SOX device result3.jpg
Figure 4. Determination of specific growth rate (μ) for cells in the control (0 μM) and 40 μM experiment. X is the cellular concentration per volume. Specific growth rate (μ) is equal to the slope of the plot lnX x time, described by the equation lnX= lnX0 + μt.

Discussion

The SoxR/SoxS system is one of the best characterized redox-sensing mechanisms in bacteria. Under oxidative stress conditions, activation of this system results in a cascade effect that ends in the activation of more than 16 genes that can counteract the harmful effect of superoxide and other oxidative radicals (Pomposiello and Demple 2001).

This device is a modification of Stanford team anti-inflammatory device (iGEM 2009 - https://2009.igem.org/Team:Stanford/ProjectPage), which comprises SoxR gene (BBa_K223047) under control of a Constitutive Promoter (BBa_J23119) and SoxS promoter (BBa_K223001 – deleted part). Although this system has already been designed and used in previously iGEM competitions (iGEM 2009 - https://2009.igem.org/Team:Stanford/ProjectPage), we took advantage of the availability of synthesized sequences to design new parts (SoxR and SoxS) that conforms the common biobrick standards in the iGEM registry. Our team has improved the parts, designing them according to the assembly standard 23, which allows the insertion of more than one coding region in frame. In addition, the new parts are in transcription unit format (with RBS).

These newly designed parts were capable of sensing different concentrations of the inducer, resulting in an increased production of the protein under control of the SoxS promoter (in this case, GFP).

Under the experimental conditions, no cell growth inhibition was observed and confirmed by the calculations of the specific growth rate (μ). No significant difference was found in control experiment (0 μM of Paraquat) and cell induced with 40 μM of Paraquat, both presented μ= 0,18 h-1. Although the Stanford 2009 team showed that Paraquat concentrations between 60 μM and 80 μM can inhibit E. coli cell growth due to enhanced toxicity.

Device 3 testing, Protein Secretion System

The assembled devices related to secretion system (Hemolysin secretion system under control of SoxS – SoxS-HlyB-HlyD-TolC) was tested under laboratory conditions using GFP as reporter.

UNICAMP EMSE GFP SOX device.jpg
Figure 1: Testing Device 3 through replacement of IL-10 to GFP.

Methods

To access GFP secretion, competent E. coli DH5α strain cells were transformed simultaneously with a pSB1C3 vector (Chloramphenicol resistant) carrying both the sensor (Strong_Constitutive_promoter + RBS + SoxR + Terminator) and the effector (SoxS_promoter + RBS + GFP + HlyA + Terminator), and pSB1AK3 (Ampicillin resistant) carrying the secretion system (SoxS_promoter + RBS + HlyB + HlyD + TolC + Terminator). As a non-secretion control, E. coli harboring only the pSB1C3 vector with both sensor and effector systems was used.

Oxidative stress was induced by adding increasing concentrations of Paraquat (Methyl viologen dichloride hydrate - Sigma), an oxidative stress inducer in bacteria. The secretion was tested in cultures harboring A) and B) (Figure ) using 0 μM and 40 μM of Paraquat as described above. After 3 hours samples were collected, centrifuged (4000 rpm / 10 min; to avoid cell lysis) and the supernatant was collected and centrifuged again (13000 rpm / 10 min; to remove remaining cells). The supernatant fluorescence was measured in fluorometer (SLM – Aminco; 4 nm bandpass and 10 mm) with excitation in 500 nm and emission spectra from 508-550 nm. The GFP fluorescence was also detected in cells by fluorescence microscopy (Olympus).

Results

Microscopy data revealed GFP expression in the Paraquat induced cultures (Figure 2) but not in the non-induced one (Figure 3).

Picind.png
Figure 2: GFP fluorescence assessed by microscopy in Paraquat induced cells. A) Fluorescence microscopy 40X Exp.: 0.478 ms; B) Light microscopy 40X; C) Fluorescence microscopy 100X Exp.: 0.478 ms; D) Light microscopy 100X.


Picnotind.png
Figure 3: GFP fluorescence assessed by microscopy in non-induced cells. A) Fluorescence microscopy 40X Exp.: 0.478 ms; B) Light microscopy 40X; C) Fluorescence microscopy 100X Exp.: 0.478 ms; D) Light microscopy 100X.


GFP secretion was confirmed by fluorescence emission and estimated to be approximately 6% of total protein, according to fluorescence levels. Significant levels of GFP fluorescence were found only in the supernatant of Paraquat induced cultures containing both the sensor/effector and the secretion systems but not in the non-induced cultures and in the cultures containing only the sensor/effector system (Figure 4).


Unicamp-emse-graph-secr.png
Figure 4: Supernatant fluorescence emission from 508 to 540 nm, excitation in 500 nm. Black squares (40 μM A): sensor/effector with secretion system; Green triangles (40 μM B): sensor/effector without secretion system; Red circles (0 μM): sensor/effector with secretion system, non-induced.

Discussion

References

Pomposiell P.J., Demple B. (2001). Redox-operated genetic switches: the SoxR and OxyR transcription factors. Trends in Biotechnology. 19(3):109-114. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11179804 Link to PubMed]



Special acknowledgement:

We would like to thank the following people for the support given in the testing experiments

  • Viviane Cristina Heinzen da Silva, Functional and Molecular Biology PhD student
  • Msc. Gleidson Silva Teixeira, Laboratório de Genômica e Expressão (LGE) - IB/Unicamp
  • Joan Grande Barau, Laboratório de Genômica e Expressão (LGE) - IB/Unicamp






Retrieved from "http://2011.igem.org/Team:UNICAMP-EMSE_Brazil/Results"