Team:Northwestern/Results/Summary

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(38 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
-
We characterized over two dozen parts over the course of this project. However, among the many, we will present the parts which represent our project best. These parts are [lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR], [rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+rhlR], and [GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR].  
+
We characterized more than two dozen parts over the course of this project. Here, we focus our discussion on the biosensor constructs that best illustrate our successful proof-of-concept experiments. These parts are [lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR], [rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+rhlR], and [GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR].
-
<DIV style="font-size:20px">Binary Detection System</DIV>
+
<DIV style="font-size:20px">PAI-1 Biosensor: Binary Detection System</DIV>
-
The construct [lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR] is suited perfectly for conducting a binary test to determine the presence of P. Aeruginosa. Figure 1 below details the fluorescence per OD observed upon the induction of the system with multiple autoinducer concentrations. It is important to mention that there were 4 replicates of each autoinducer concentration sample, and the mean fluorescence per OD was plotted with the relevant error. In every case, the construct follows the same general trend except the negative control (0μM).  
+
In order to evaluate the suitability of our biosensor constructs for detecting ''P. aeruginosa'', we conducted a series of dose-response studies for characterization purposes. We also analyzed this data to determine the transfer function and dynamic range of each biosensor system.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 1:''' Fluorescence per OD for ''LasP+RBS30+GFP,CP+RBS30+lasR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 1: Dose response of the PAI-1 biosensor system (''LasP+RBS30+GFP and CP+RBS30+lasR'').''' Immediately before the assay, cells were diluted to ensure that they were growing in the exponential phase for the experiment. Autoinducer PAI-1 was added at the concentrations indicated, and GFP fluorescence was quantified using an incubated, shaking plate reader. In this plot, fluorescence was normalized to the culture OD to control for cell growth. Samples were run in quadruplicates with standard deviation indicated (error bars = SD; n=4).<html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/3/38/S1_full.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="720px" height="564px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/3/38/S1_full.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="720px" height="564px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
   
   
-
There is significant amount of overlapping of error bars in the above Figure 1. In order to statistically confirm the variance of each concentration curve t-tests were conducted as detailed below in Table 1. The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. On the other hand, the green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis that there is significant difference between the means of the compared samples. Blue cells indicate failure to reject. Table 1 has three sections: the top, center and bottom.  
+
Our first observation was that the construct [lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR] appears to be well-suited as a binary sensor and can be used to simply determine whether or not ''P. aeruginosa'' is present in a sample. The construct follows the same general trend of fluorescence at varying autoinducer concentrations, except for the negative control in which no autoinducer was present. There is a significant amount of overlap in the error bars in Figure 1, so T-tests were conducted in order to evaluate the statistical significance of this observed trend, as detailed below in Table 1.  
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Table 1:''' Statistical testing table for ''lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR''. The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis, while blue cells indicate failure to reject.<html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Table 1: Statistical analysis of the PAI-1 biosensor response (lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR).''' The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis (p<0.05), while blue cells indicate failure to reject (p>0.05). (A) Data from each of the initial segments of the curves (region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min) was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations. (B) Data from the initial segment of each curve (before any fluorescence is observed) was compared with the final steady state fluorescence of that curve from the same sample (last 10 data points). (C) Data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations (last 10 data points).<html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/0/03/S1_ttest.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="700px" height="513px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/0/03/S1_ttest.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="700px" height="513px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
-
The table on top compares the data from each of the initial segments of the curves with the other initial segments (the region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min). As the table indicates, most samples have no statistical difference than their counter parts, except of course for the 100μM which is induced quite quickly. Therefore we can conclude that the samples generally exhibit similar basal fluorescence.  
+
In the first 30 minutes after autoinducer dosages were given, only the sample that was given 100μM of PAI-1 exhibited a response that was significantly different from the other samples (Table 1A). Table 1b tests the activation of each construct.  This is accomplished by comparing the data from the initial segment of the curves (before any fluorescence is observed) with the final steady state fluorescence (last 10 data points). Our data also indicated that fluorescence per OD changed significantly over time in each sample (Table 1B).  
-
 
+
Table 1C compares the data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves with the other final steady state segments (last 10 data points). The negative control exhibited significantly different fluorescence readings per OD. This is because the cells showed relatively steady total fluorescence coupled with rapid of cell growth, resulting in a decrease in fluorescence per OD, as shown in Figure 2 below. All the samples showed similar fluorescence readings except for the 0.1μM, to some extent the 0.5μM, and of course 0μM PAI-1 negative control.  
-
The table in the middle compares the data from the initial segment of the curves (before any fluorescence is observed) with the final steady state fluorescence (last 10 data points). A glance at the table confirms that fluorescence per OD changes in each of the samples as time progresses. However, that seems to be the case with the negative control as well. Figure 1 demonstrates that the fluorescence per OD of the cell doesn’t increase, but decrease. This oddity is actually the result of a steady of fluorescence and a high rate of cell growth which led to a sharp decrease in fluorescence per OD was shown in Figure 2 below.
+
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 2:''' Fluorescence and OD for ''lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 2: Overall response of the PAI-1 biosensor system (lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR).''' Here, the data from Figure 1 are presented without normalization, showing total fluorescence (left) and total OD of the cultures.<html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/b/bb/S1_flOD.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="309px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/b/bb/S1_flOD.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="309px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
-
The table on the bottom compares the data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves with the other final steady state segments (last 10 data points). In this case, all the samples show no similar distributions of fluorescence except the 0.1μM, 0.5μM, and of course 0μM autoinducer concentrations. At first this may seem alarming, but it actually is not. In a binary test, simple detection is all that matters, whereas concentration sensitivity does not. When analyzing the steady state fluorescence and autoinducer concentration, one can observe that the fluorescence per OD is maintained fairly constant from within a 10% of the mean fluorescence per OD, illustrated by figure 3.  
+
In order to further characterize this biosensor, we next plotted the steady state fluorescence (per OD) vs. autoinducer concentration to determine the input-output transfer function (Figure 3). As indicated by the analysis and discussion above, in this “binary” biosensor, fluorescence per OD stayed relatively constant (within about 10% of the mean fluorescence per OD) for all samples treated with PAI-1 autoinducer, and all samples exhibited significantly different behavior in contrast to the negative control sample.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 3:''' Fluorescence per OD vs. Autoinducer concentration for ''lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 3: Input-output transfer function for PAI-1 biosensor (''lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR'').''' Steady-state responses were calculated from the data in Figure 1 and plotted against the input concentration of PAI-1 autoinducer. <html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/0/07/S1_tranf1.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="279px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/0/07/S1_tranf1.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="279px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
-
<DIV style="font-size:20px">Concentration Detection System</DIV>
+
<DIV style="font-size:20px">PAI-2 Biosensor 1: Concentration Detection System</DIV>
-
In contrast to the binary detection system, the construct [rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR] is well suited for a conducting for determining the concentration of P. Aeruginosa by detecting and discriminating between various different concentrations of autoinducers. Figure 4 below details the fluorescence per OD observed upon the induction of the system with multiple autoinducer concentrations. Once again, there were 4 replicates of each autoinducer concentration sample, and the mean fluorescence per OD was plotted with the relevant error. Unlike the binary detection system, the fluorescence per OD of each of the curves is distinguishable from the other concentrations.   
+
In contrast to the binary detection system, the construct [rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR] is well suited for determining the amount of ''P. Aeruginosa'' present in a sample because it appears to be able to detect and discriminate between varying autoinducer concentrations. Figure 4 below details the fluorescence per OD observed upon the induction of the system at multiple autoinducer concentrations. Unlike the binary detection system, the fluorescence per OD of each curves is distinctive.   
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 4:''' Fluorescence per OD for ''rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 4: Dose response of the PAI-2 Biosensor System 1 (''rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR'')'''. This experiment was conducted as in Figure 1, and strains were exposed to 0 - 100 micromolar PAI-2.  Fluorescence and OD were measured every 7.5 min (error bars = SD; n=4). <html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/7/77/S4_full.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="700px" height="493px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/7/77/S4_full.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="700px" height="493px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
-
For the most part, overlapping of error bars only occurs when the concentration of the autoinducer increases beyond 15μM which is not physiologically relevant. The resolution of the system can be demonstrated by figure 5, which clearly demonstrates that autoinducer concentrations between 0μM and 5μM are clear and distinguishable.
+
For the most part, error bars only overlapped when the autoinducer concentration exceeded 15μM, which is not a physiologically relevant value. Notably, autoinducer concentrations between 0μM and 5μM are clear and distinguishable. T-tests were conducted in order to statistically confirm the variance of each concentration curve, as detailed below in Table 2.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 5:''' Fluorescence per OD for 0μM-5μM and 5μM-100μM''rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Table 2: Statistical analysis of the PAI-2 Biosensor 1 response (''rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR'').''' The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis (p<0.05), while blue cells indicate failure to reject (p>0.05). (A) Data from each of the initial segments of the curves (region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min) was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations. (B) Data from the initial segment of each curve (before any fluorescence is observed) was compared with the final steady state fluorescence of that curve from the same sample (last 10 data points). (C) Data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations (last 10 data points).<html></caption>
-
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/3/37/S4_half.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="266px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
+
-
 
+
-
+
-
However, in order to statistically confirm the variance of each concentration curve, t-tests were conducted as detailed below in Table 2. The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. On the other hand, the green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis that there is significant difference between the means of the compared samples. Blue cells indicate failure to reject. Table 2 has three sections: the top, center and bottom.
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
+
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Table 2:''' Statistical testing table for 0μM-5μM and 5μM-100μM''rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR''. The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis, while blue cells indicate failure to reject. <html></caption>
+
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/7/70/S4_ttest.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="700px" height="636px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/7/70/S4_ttest.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="700px" height="636px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
-
The table on top compares the data from each of the initial segments of the curves with the other initial segments (the region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min). As one can observe, the samples predominantly are not statistically different than their counter parts, with except of course for the 100μM which is induced quite quickly, relative to the 0μM-5μM autoinducer samples. Hence it can be concluded that the samples exhibit similar basal fluorescence.  
+
Table 2A, as before, compares the early time points, before GFP is induced (t=30 min). As we observed with the PAI-1 biosensor, only the 100μM sample significantly induced fluorescence in the PAI-2 Biosensor 1 within the first 30 minutes.  
-
The table in the middle compares the data from the initial segment of the curves (before any fluorescence is observed) with the final steady state fluorescence (last 10 data points). Similar to the observation made in the binary system, each construct changes a statistically significant amount when exposed to the autoinducer. Unfortunately, so does the 0μM autoinducer sample. However, in this case, the induced constructs produce orders of magnitude more fluorescence than the negative control, so any cell bias introduced by either an OD irregularity is insignificant and can be ignored.  
+
Table 2B, as before, shows promoter activation, by comparing the data from the initial segment of the curves (before any fluorescence is observed) with the final steady state fluorescence (last 10 data points). The system exhibited behavior that is similar to the behavior of the binary sensor, as each construct changes a statistically significant amount when in the presence of autoinducers. Surprisingly, the 0μM autoinducer sample also has a statistically significant change. However, the induced constructs produced fluorescence readings that were orders of magnitude higher than the negative control, so any cell bias introduced by an OD irregularity is insignificant and can be ignored.
-
The table on the bottom compares the data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves with the other final steady state segments (last 10 data points). As can be observed, almost every single steady state fluorescence curve is different than the other. The two exceptions are the 7.5μM-10μM, and the 15μM-20μM autoinducer concentration samples. It is important to note that 10μM-15μM and 20μM-50μM concentration samples to indeed have statistically significant differences. In fact, the high degree of discrimination between relative autoinducer concentrations strongly qualifies this construct to be a concentration sensor. The steady state fluorescence per OD is conveyed in figure 6. The logarithmic regression fits the data quite well, and proves that the construct can potentially be used in as a sensor.
+
Table 2C compares the data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves with the other final steady state segments (last 10 data points). The data shows that the final steady-state fluorescence of nearly every sample is distinct in comparison to the final-steady state fluorescence of samples that were administered a different autoinducer concentration. The two exceptions are the 7.5μM-10μM, and the 15μM-20μM autoinducer concentration samples. It is important to note that 10μM-15μM and 20μM-50μM concentration samples have statistically significant responses. In fact, the high degree of discrimination between relative autoinducer concentrations strongly qualifies this construct as a useful concentration-based detection method. The steady state fluorescence per OD is presented in Figure 5. The logarithmic regression fits the data quite well, and proves that the construct can be used in a biosensor application.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 6:''' Fluorescence per OD vs. Autoinducer concentration for ''rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 5: Input-output transfer function for PAI-2 Biosensor 1 (''rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR'').''' Steady-state responses were calculated from the data in Figure 4 and plotted against the input concentration of PAI-2 autoinducer.<html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/c/cc/S4_tranf.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="266px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/c/cc/S4_tranf.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="266px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
-
<DIV style="font-size:20px">Extracted Genomic Promoter Construct (Novel Entry)</DIV>
+
<DIV style="font-size:20px">PAI-2 Biosensor 2: Newly Isolated Genomic Promoter Construct (Novel Entry)</DIV>
-
In addition to designing plasmid systems using the existing and available biobricks, we also designed a plasmid containing an induced promoter extracted from the genome. Out of all the parts that we derived from the P. aeruginosa genome, the construct [GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR] was most suited to autoinducer detection. Figure 7 below details the fluorescence per OD observed upon the induction of the system with multiple autoinducer concentrations. In this case, the interval between successive data points is 7.5 minutes compared to the 5 minutes before. Additionally, the number of autoinducer concentrations tested for were less than in the previous characterizations; however, there were 4 replicates of each experimental sample.  
+
In addition to designing plasmid systems using existing biobricks from the registry, we also engineered a plasmid that contains an inducible promoter that was isolated from the genome of ''P. aeruginosa''. Out of all the parts that we derived from the ''P. aeruginosa'' genome, the construct [GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR] was most suitable in autoinducer detection. Figure 6 shows our GR(S) promoter is sensitive to a range of autoinducer concentrations and requires an average of two hours for reach full induction.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 7:''' Fluorescence per OD for ''GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 6: Dose response of the PAI-2 Biosensor System 2 (''GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR'').''' This experiment was conducted in a similar fashion as the experiment shown in Figure 1, and strains were exposed to 0 - 100 micromolar PAI-2.  Fluorescence and OD were measured every 7.5 min (error bars = SD; n=4). <html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/b/b8/Gp_full.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="720px" height="431px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/b/b8/Gp_full.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="720px" height="431px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
-
Just as in the previous concentration detecting system, the genomic promoter system also discriminates very well between the varying autoinducer concentrations. To confirm our results, we conducted t-tests to validate the observed significance between the curves. The t-tests conducted follow the same format as the two described above and is detailed below in Table 3. The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. On the other hand, the green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis that there is significant difference between the means of the compared samples. Blue cells indicate failure to reject. Table 3 has three sections: the top, center and bottom.  
+
Just as in the previous concentration-dependent detection system, the genomic promoter system also discriminates very well between the varying autoinducer concentrations. To confirm our results, we conducted T-tests to validate the observed significance between the curves. The T-tests conducted follow the same format as the prior ones described above and is detailed below in Table 3.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Table 3:''' Statistical testing table for ''GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR''. The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis, while blue cells indicate failure to reject. <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Table 3: Statistical analysis of the PAI-2 Biosensor 2 response (''GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR'').''' The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis (p<0.05), while blue cells indicate failure to reject (p>0.05). (A) Data from each of the initial segments of the curves (region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min) was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations. (B) Data from the initial segment of each curve (before any fluorescence is observed) was compared with the final steady state fluorescence of that curve from the same sample (last 10 data points). (C) Data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations (last 10 data points).<html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/9/97/Gp_ttest.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="611px" height="577px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/9/97/Gp_ttest.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="611px" height="577px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
-
The table on top compares the data from each of the initial segments of the curves with the other initial segments (the region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min). The statistical analysis of our novel genomic promoter construct turned out even better than that of our concentration detection system (discussed above). The initial data of almost every sample coincided with that of the negative control (0μM). Once again, the 100μM sample experienced induced fluorescence quite quickly. Thus, virtually all the samples exhibit fluorescence similar to that of the negative control.
+
Table 3A shows that the genomic promoter construct had better uniformity in early time points than our concentration detection system (discussed above). The initial data of almost every sample coincided with that of the negative control (0μM). Once again, the 100μM sample exhibited induced fluorescence quickly. Thus, virtually all the samples exhibit fluorescence similar to that of the negative control at this short time point.
-
The table in the middle compares the data from the initial segment of the curves (before any fluorescence is observed) with the final steady state fluorescence (last 10 data points). Similar to the observation made in the binary system, each construct changes a statistically significant amount when exposed to the autoinducer. The only outlying t-test in this characterization is the 0.1μM-20μM comparison, which may indicate that the uninduced state of the 20μM autoinducer sample was close to the induced state of the 0.1μM autoinducer sample’s fluorescence per OD.  As the sole statistical irregularity it’s effect is insignificant.  
+
In Table 3B, the data shows that similar to previous systems, each construct exhibited a statistically significant amount of fluorescence per OD in the presence of autoinducers. The only outlying T-test in this characterization is the 0.1μM-20μM comparison, which may indicate that the uninduced state of the 20μM autoinducer sample was close to the induced state of the 0.1μM autoinducer sample’s fluorescence.  
-
The table on the bottom compares the data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves with the other final steady state segments (last 10 data points). Unquestionably, the data validates the claim that the fluorescence per OD of every single steady state curve is statistically different than the others. This result is further highlighted by the steady state fluorescence per OD vs. autoinducer concentration in figure 8. The low error and an extremely well fit logarithmic regression, and proves that the construct can not only works exactly the way it should, but is our most suited construct to be used in a sensor.  
+
Table 3C's data validates the claim that the fluorescence per OD of every single steady state curve is statistically different across varying autoinducer concentrations. This result is further highlighted by the steady state fluorescence per OD vs. autoinducer concentration in Figure 8. The low error and an extremely well fit logarithmic regression exhibited proves that the construct can not only works exactly the way it should, but is also the most suitable construct in a biosensor application.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 8:''' Fluorescence per OD vs. Autoinducer concentration for ''GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR'' <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 7: Input-output transfer function for PAI-2 Biosensor 2 (''GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR'').''' Steady-state responses were calculated from the data in Figure 6 and plotted against the input concentration of PAI-2 autoinducer. <html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/e/ea/Gp_tranf1.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="224px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/e/ea/Gp_tranf1.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="750px" height="224px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
Line 132: Line 123:
-
In the modelling section, the theoretical math behind the system was discussed. In order to fully understand our system, the <html><a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:Northwestern/Project/Modelling">mathematical model</a></html> had to support the experimental data. Consequently, the sensitivity analysis was conducted (also in the modelling section) to gauge which factors influenced the system the most. A number of parameters were found to exert a significant amount of influence on the system. Each of these parameters was carefully adjusted until the theoretical graphs closely resembled those received from experimental testing as demonstrated in figure 9.
+
In the modelling section, the theoretical math behind the system was discussed. In order to fully understand our system, the <html><a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:Northwestern/Project/Modelling">mathematical model</a></html> needed to support the experimental data. Consequently, a sensitivity analysis was conducted (also in the modelling section) to gauge which factors influenced the system the most. A number of parameters were found to exert a significant amount of influence on the system. Each of these parameters was carefully adjusted until the theoretical graphs closely resembled those received from experimental testing, as demonstrated below in Figure 8.
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
-
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 9:''' Curve fit to the experimental data using the math model <html></caption>
+
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 8:''' Curve fit to the experimental data using the math model <html></caption>
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/6/62/Fitted_model1.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="650px" height="332px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/6/62/Fitted_model1.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="650px" height="332px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>  
 +
Upon administration of autoinducer molecules to a sample, the intracellular concentration of the autoinducer increases dramatically as it is passively tranported through the cell membrane. Similarly, the initial concentration of R-proteins is quite high relative to other biochemical species in the cell because it is constitutively produced. However, the increase in intracellular autoinducer concentration facilitates an instantaneous drop in the (free) R-protein concentration. The R-protein/dimer concentration level increases almost simultaneously, inducing the R-protein/autoinducer-induced promoter. The rise in the dimer complex facilitates a sudden increase in expression of the reporter construct, producing GFP. The concentration of GFP increases steadily due to the increasing concentration of the dimer complex.
 +
Autoinducer concentrations continue to drop until the reversible binding of the R-protein, autoinducer, and dimer complex reaches steady state. This approximately happens 150 minutes after induction. At this point, most of the autoinducer is bound to the dimer complex, and any remaining amount is degrading. In a way, the dimer complex is protecting the autoinducer from degradation, which maintains steady R-protein and dimer complex levels. Meanwhile, GFP is generated due to the initial excessive amount of reporter expression. However, when the R-protein and dimer complex reach steady state, GFP expression reaches steady state as well. The model fits the fluorescence data in the above characterization graphs. In the GFP curve, the concentration actually decreases slightly over an extended period of time, which is exactly what was observed experimentally.
 +
 +
Additionally, the critical parameters were varied until the model coincided with the experimental data, as shown in Figure 1, 4, and 6. Consequently, the model's application to the LasR system can be seen below in Figure 9. As one can observe, the model qualitatively represents the data. Almost all of the autoinducer dosages produce the same concentration of GFP.
 +
 +
 +
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
 +
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 9:''' Curve fit to the LasR experimental data (Figure 1) using the math model <html></caption>
 +
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/f/f5/Las_fit.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="650px" height="437px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
 +
 +
 +
Moreover, Figure 10 illustrates the model applied to fit the RhlR experimental data (Figure 2). Note the difference between the scale of the y-axis scale of Figure 9 and Figure 10. This model shows that the system discriminates between varying autoinducer dosages, just as the response exhibited by the actual RhlR construct in experimental findings. The y-axis range here is almost one order of magnitude higher than the LasR system, which is also supported by the data.
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
 +
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 10:''' Curve fit to the RhlR experimental data (Figure 1) using math model <html></caption>
 +
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/a/a0/Rhl_fit.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="650px" height="436px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<DIV style="font-size:20px">Model Variance and Potential Implications</DIV>
 +
 +
 +
The difference in parameter values facilitate the binary and dosage-dependent responses of the Las and Rhl systems. Parameters that primarily contribute to this observed difference are depicted below in Figure 11.The degradation rates of RhlR were found to be much lower than that of the LasR. The LasR/PAI-1 dimer was also found to possess a higher degradation rate than its RhlR/PAI-2 counterpart. Furthermore, it is likely that the RhlR dimer exhibited positive cooperativity when binding to its cognate induced promoter to an extent. These factors are the main culprits behind the resultant dramatic changes observed in the biosensor response.
 +
 +
 +
<div align="center"><html><table class="image">
 +
<caption align="bottom"></html>'''Figure 11:''' Critical parameters that influence the difference between the Las system (binary response) and the Rhl system (dosage dependent response). The red circles indicate the critical parameters which vary between the Las and the Rhl system. The two figures on the right demonstrate the Las (Figure 1) and Rhl (Figure 4) systems.<html></caption>
 +
<tr><td><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/1/13/Critical_parameters.jpg" style="opacity:1;filter:alpha(opacity=100);" width="650px" height="321px" alt="fig1"/ border="0"></td></tr></table></html></div>
Line 150: Line 171:
-
A brief overview of our analysis shows that our GFP constructs were extremely successful. Both the Las and Rhl reporter constructs exhibited fluorescence that was statistically significant relative to the controls at most or all of the autoinducer concentrations we tested. The Rhl promoters produced more fluorescence overall, but exhibited had a stronger concentration dependence (potentially indicating a broader dynamic range for these biosensors). The Las promoters produced very similar fluorescence values at almost every autoinducer concentration. These results provide an excellent characterization of the original registry promoters they are based on, as well as the constructs themselves. They also provide a solid basis for a device that can detect the presence of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa.
+
On the whole, we demonstrated that our biosensor constructs are functional and are excellent candidates for a cell-based biosensor system. Both the Las and Rhl reporter constructs exhibited fluorescence that was statistically significant relative to the controls at most or all of the autoinducer concentrations we tested. Compared to the Las (PAI-1) construct, the Rhl (PAI-2) system produced more fluorescence overall and output fluorescence readings that were more dependent on the concentration of autoinducers present (potentially indicating a broader dynamic range for these biosensors). The Las constructs produced very similar fluorescence values at almost every autoinducer concentration. Our results provide detailed characterizations of not only the original registry Las and Rhl promoters on which our constructs are based, but also of the newly-assembled biosensor constructs we built. Our results provide a solid basis for a synthetic cell-based “device” that can detect the presence of ''Pseudomonas aeruginosa''.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Our RFP constructs were not as successful. The results were inconsistent and the signals did not seem to be correlated to the presence of the autoinducers. Although we were not able to determine the cause of this problem, we have put the parts in the registry for future investigation.
-
Our RFP constructs were not as successful. The results were inconsistent and the signals did not seem to be correlated to the presence of the autoinducersAlthough were not able to determine the cause of this problem, we have put the parts in the registry for future investigation.
+
In addition to working with the Las and Rhl dependent promoters already on the registry, we also characterized some new promoters isolated directly from the ''Pseudomonas'' genome. This resulted in another potential set of promoters for use in a ''Pseudomonas'' detection device. In particular, the Rhl-dependent promoter we extracted from the genome exhibited excellent sensitivity to PAI2.
-
In addition to working with the Las and Rhl dependent promoters already on the registry, we also characterized some new ones isolated directly from the Pseudomonas genome. This resulted in another potential set of promoters for use in a Pseudomonas detection device. In particular, the Rhl-dependent promoter we extracted showed excellent sensitivity to PAI2.
+
Moreover, we identified the critical parameters in our system which contribute to the observed fluctuations in the biosensor response. By using our math model, we can take the constructs we built and can tune the sensitivity of the biosensor to a specific range of autoinducer dosages through varying the critical parameters. This gives the system a high level of versatility to adjust the biosensor towards specific types of detection applications.  
-
For complete characterization information on all of our parts, please refer to our [https://2011.igem.org/Team:Northwestern/Parts Biobricks page]. Clicking on a part will take you to the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, where the complete analysis for that part is posted.
+
Finally, we built a generalized model which represents autoinducer detection. This model can be applied to any number of other genetic constructs designed to detect pathogens. In our system, an autoinducer is detected, and a resultant induced promoter produces a fluorescent protein to facilitate detection. To apply the system design to another pathogen, one only needs to identify the associated autoinducers, the cognate R-proteins, and an inducible promoter. Once the construct is built, it can be analyzed using the [https://2011.igem.org/Team:Northwestern/Project/Modelling mathematical model] and geared towards whichever specific system that a research is attempting to characterize.
-
Refer [https://2011.igem.org/Team:Northwestern/Notebook/Protocols/Testing here] for our testing protocol.
+
For complete characterization information on all of our parts, please refer to our [https://2011.igem.org/Team:Northwestern/Parts Biobricks page]. Clicking on a part will take you to the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, where the complete analysis for that part is posted. Additionally, our testing protocol can be found [https://2011.igem.org/Team:Northwestern/Notebook/Protocols/Testing here].
{{:Team:Northwestern/Templates/footer}}
{{:Team:Northwestern/Templates/footer}}

Latest revision as of 03:48, 29 October 2011

RETURN TO IGEM 2010



Overview


We characterized more than two dozen parts over the course of this project. Here, we focus our discussion on the biosensor constructs that best illustrate our successful proof-of-concept experiments. These parts are [lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR], [rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+rhlR], and [GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR].


PAI-1 Biosensor: Binary Detection System


In order to evaluate the suitability of our biosensor constructs for detecting P. aeruginosa, we conducted a series of dose-response studies for characterization purposes. We also analyzed this data to determine the transfer function and dynamic range of each biosensor system.


Figure 1: Dose response of the PAI-1 biosensor system (LasP+RBS30+GFP and CP+RBS30+lasR). Immediately before the assay, cells were diluted to ensure that they were growing in the exponential phase for the experiment. Autoinducer PAI-1 was added at the concentrations indicated, and GFP fluorescence was quantified using an incubated, shaking plate reader. In this plot, fluorescence was normalized to the culture OD to control for cell growth. Samples were run in quadruplicates with standard deviation indicated (error bars = SD; n=4).
fig1


Our first observation was that the construct [lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR] appears to be well-suited as a binary sensor and can be used to simply determine whether or not P. aeruginosa is present in a sample. The construct follows the same general trend of fluorescence at varying autoinducer concentrations, except for the negative control in which no autoinducer was present. There is a significant amount of overlap in the error bars in Figure 1, so T-tests were conducted in order to evaluate the statistical significance of this observed trend, as detailed below in Table 1.


Table 1: Statistical analysis of the PAI-1 biosensor response (lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR). The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis (p<0.05), while blue cells indicate failure to reject (p>0.05). (A) Data from each of the initial segments of the curves (region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min) was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations. (B) Data from the initial segment of each curve (before any fluorescence is observed) was compared with the final steady state fluorescence of that curve from the same sample (last 10 data points). (C) Data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations (last 10 data points).
fig1


In the first 30 minutes after autoinducer dosages were given, only the sample that was given 100μM of PAI-1 exhibited a response that was significantly different from the other samples (Table 1A). Table 1b tests the activation of each construct. This is accomplished by comparing the data from the initial segment of the curves (before any fluorescence is observed) with the final steady state fluorescence (last 10 data points). Our data also indicated that fluorescence per OD changed significantly over time in each sample (Table 1B).

Table 1C compares the data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves with the other final steady state segments (last 10 data points). The negative control exhibited significantly different fluorescence readings per OD. This is because the cells showed relatively steady total fluorescence coupled with rapid of cell growth, resulting in a decrease in fluorescence per OD, as shown in Figure 2 below. All the samples showed similar fluorescence readings except for the 0.1μM, to some extent the 0.5μM, and of course 0μM PAI-1 negative control.


Figure 2: Overall response of the PAI-1 biosensor system (lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR). Here, the data from Figure 1 are presented without normalization, showing total fluorescence (left) and total OD of the cultures.
fig1


In order to further characterize this biosensor, we next plotted the steady state fluorescence (per OD) vs. autoinducer concentration to determine the input-output transfer function (Figure 3). As indicated by the analysis and discussion above, in this “binary” biosensor, fluorescence per OD stayed relatively constant (within about 10% of the mean fluorescence per OD) for all samples treated with PAI-1 autoinducer, and all samples exhibited significantly different behavior in contrast to the negative control sample.


Figure 3: Input-output transfer function for PAI-1 biosensor (lasP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS30+lasR). Steady-state responses were calculated from the data in Figure 1 and plotted against the input concentration of PAI-1 autoinducer.
fig1


PAI-2 Biosensor 1: Concentration Detection System


In contrast to the binary detection system, the construct [rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR] is well suited for determining the amount of P. Aeruginosa present in a sample because it appears to be able to detect and discriminate between varying autoinducer concentrations. Figure 4 below details the fluorescence per OD observed upon the induction of the system at multiple autoinducer concentrations. Unlike the binary detection system, the fluorescence per OD of each curves is distinctive.


Figure 4: Dose response of the PAI-2 Biosensor System 1 (rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR). This experiment was conducted as in Figure 1, and strains were exposed to 0 - 100 micromolar PAI-2. Fluorescence and OD were measured every 7.5 min (error bars = SD; n=4).
fig1


For the most part, error bars only overlapped when the autoinducer concentration exceeded 15μM, which is not a physiologically relevant value. Notably, autoinducer concentrations between 0μM and 5μM are clear and distinguishable. T-tests were conducted in order to statistically confirm the variance of each concentration curve, as detailed below in Table 2.


Table 2: Statistical analysis of the PAI-2 Biosensor 1 response (rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR). The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis (p<0.05), while blue cells indicate failure to reject (p>0.05). (A) Data from each of the initial segments of the curves (region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min) was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations. (B) Data from the initial segment of each curve (before any fluorescence is observed) was compared with the final steady state fluorescence of that curve from the same sample (last 10 data points). (C) Data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations (last 10 data points).
fig1


Table 2A, as before, compares the early time points, before GFP is induced (t=30 min). As we observed with the PAI-1 biosensor, only the 100μM sample significantly induced fluorescence in the PAI-2 Biosensor 1 within the first 30 minutes.


Table 2B, as before, shows promoter activation, by comparing the data from the initial segment of the curves (before any fluorescence is observed) with the final steady state fluorescence (last 10 data points). The system exhibited behavior that is similar to the behavior of the binary sensor, as each construct changes a statistically significant amount when in the presence of autoinducers. Surprisingly, the 0μM autoinducer sample also has a statistically significant change. However, the induced constructs produced fluorescence readings that were orders of magnitude higher than the negative control, so any cell bias introduced by an OD irregularity is insignificant and can be ignored.


Table 2C compares the data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves with the other final steady state segments (last 10 data points). The data shows that the final steady-state fluorescence of nearly every sample is distinct in comparison to the final-steady state fluorescence of samples that were administered a different autoinducer concentration. The two exceptions are the 7.5μM-10μM, and the 15μM-20μM autoinducer concentration samples. It is important to note that 10μM-15μM and 20μM-50μM concentration samples have statistically significant responses. In fact, the high degree of discrimination between relative autoinducer concentrations strongly qualifies this construct as a useful concentration-based detection method. The steady state fluorescence per OD is presented in Figure 5. The logarithmic regression fits the data quite well, and proves that the construct can be used in a biosensor application.


Figure 5: Input-output transfer function for PAI-2 Biosensor 1 (rhlP+RBS30+GFP, CP+RBS34+rhlR). Steady-state responses were calculated from the data in Figure 4 and plotted against the input concentration of PAI-2 autoinducer.
fig1


PAI-2 Biosensor 2: Newly Isolated Genomic Promoter Construct (Novel Entry)


In addition to designing plasmid systems using existing biobricks from the registry, we also engineered a plasmid that contains an inducible promoter that was isolated from the genome of P. aeruginosa. Out of all the parts that we derived from the P. aeruginosa genome, the construct [GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR] was most suitable in autoinducer detection. Figure 6 shows our GR(S) promoter is sensitive to a range of autoinducer concentrations and requires an average of two hours for reach full induction.


Figure 6: Dose response of the PAI-2 Biosensor System 2 (GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR). This experiment was conducted in a similar fashion as the experiment shown in Figure 1, and strains were exposed to 0 - 100 micromolar PAI-2. Fluorescence and OD were measured every 7.5 min (error bars = SD; n=4).
fig1


Just as in the previous concentration-dependent detection system, the genomic promoter system also discriminates very well between the varying autoinducer concentrations. To confirm our results, we conducted T-tests to validate the observed significance between the curves. The T-tests conducted follow the same format as the prior ones described above and is detailed below in Table 3.


Table 3: Statistical analysis of the PAI-2 Biosensor 2 response (GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR). The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the means of the compared samples. Green cells indicate rejection of the null hypothesis (p<0.05), while blue cells indicate failure to reject (p>0.05). (A) Data from each of the initial segments of the curves (region before any fluorescence is observed ~30min) was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations. (B) Data from the initial segment of each curve (before any fluorescence is observed) was compared with the final steady state fluorescence of that curve from the same sample (last 10 data points). (C) Data from each of the final steady state segments of the curves was compared between varying autoinducer concentrations (last 10 data points).
fig1


Table 3A shows that the genomic promoter construct had better uniformity in early time points than our concentration detection system (discussed above). The initial data of almost every sample coincided with that of the negative control (0μM). Once again, the 100μM sample exhibited induced fluorescence quickly. Thus, virtually all the samples exhibit fluorescence similar to that of the negative control at this short time point.


In Table 3B, the data shows that similar to previous systems, each construct exhibited a statistically significant amount of fluorescence per OD in the presence of autoinducers. The only outlying T-test in this characterization is the 0.1μM-20μM comparison, which may indicate that the uninduced state of the 20μM autoinducer sample was close to the induced state of the 0.1μM autoinducer sample’s fluorescence.


Table 3C's data validates the claim that the fluorescence per OD of every single steady state curve is statistically different across varying autoinducer concentrations. This result is further highlighted by the steady state fluorescence per OD vs. autoinducer concentration in Figure 8. The low error and an extremely well fit logarithmic regression exhibited proves that the construct can not only works exactly the way it should, but is also the most suitable construct in a biosensor application.


Figure 7: Input-output transfer function for PAI-2 Biosensor 2 (GR(S)+RBS34+GFP, CP+RBS34+RhlR). Steady-state responses were calculated from the data in Figure 6 and plotted against the input concentration of PAI-2 autoinducer.
fig1


Model Fitting and Analysis


In the modelling section, the theoretical math behind the system was discussed. In order to fully understand our system, the mathematical model needed to support the experimental data. Consequently, a sensitivity analysis was conducted (also in the modelling section) to gauge which factors influenced the system the most. A number of parameters were found to exert a significant amount of influence on the system. Each of these parameters was carefully adjusted until the theoretical graphs closely resembled those received from experimental testing, as demonstrated below in Figure 8.


Figure 8: Curve fit to the experimental data using the math model
fig1


Upon administration of autoinducer molecules to a sample, the intracellular concentration of the autoinducer increases dramatically as it is passively tranported through the cell membrane. Similarly, the initial concentration of R-proteins is quite high relative to other biochemical species in the cell because it is constitutively produced. However, the increase in intracellular autoinducer concentration facilitates an instantaneous drop in the (free) R-protein concentration. The R-protein/dimer concentration level increases almost simultaneously, inducing the R-protein/autoinducer-induced promoter. The rise in the dimer complex facilitates a sudden increase in expression of the reporter construct, producing GFP. The concentration of GFP increases steadily due to the increasing concentration of the dimer complex.


Autoinducer concentrations continue to drop until the reversible binding of the R-protein, autoinducer, and dimer complex reaches steady state. This approximately happens 150 minutes after induction. At this point, most of the autoinducer is bound to the dimer complex, and any remaining amount is degrading. In a way, the dimer complex is protecting the autoinducer from degradation, which maintains steady R-protein and dimer complex levels. Meanwhile, GFP is generated due to the initial excessive amount of reporter expression. However, when the R-protein and dimer complex reach steady state, GFP expression reaches steady state as well. The model fits the fluorescence data in the above characterization graphs. In the GFP curve, the concentration actually decreases slightly over an extended period of time, which is exactly what was observed experimentally.


Additionally, the critical parameters were varied until the model coincided with the experimental data, as shown in Figure 1, 4, and 6. Consequently, the model's application to the LasR system can be seen below in Figure 9. As one can observe, the model qualitatively represents the data. Almost all of the autoinducer dosages produce the same concentration of GFP.


Figure 9: Curve fit to the LasR experimental data (Figure 1) using the math model
fig1


Moreover, Figure 10 illustrates the model applied to fit the RhlR experimental data (Figure 2). Note the difference between the scale of the y-axis scale of Figure 9 and Figure 10. This model shows that the system discriminates between varying autoinducer dosages, just as the response exhibited by the actual RhlR construct in experimental findings. The y-axis range here is almost one order of magnitude higher than the LasR system, which is also supported by the data.


Figure 10: Curve fit to the RhlR experimental data (Figure 1) using math model
fig1


Model Variance and Potential Implications


The difference in parameter values facilitate the binary and dosage-dependent responses of the Las and Rhl systems. Parameters that primarily contribute to this observed difference are depicted below in Figure 11.The degradation rates of RhlR were found to be much lower than that of the LasR. The LasR/PAI-1 dimer was also found to possess a higher degradation rate than its RhlR/PAI-2 counterpart. Furthermore, it is likely that the RhlR dimer exhibited positive cooperativity when binding to its cognate induced promoter to an extent. These factors are the main culprits behind the resultant dramatic changes observed in the biosensor response.


Figure 11: Critical parameters that influence the difference between the Las system (binary response) and the Rhl system (dosage dependent response). The red circles indicate the critical parameters which vary between the Las and the Rhl system. The two figures on the right demonstrate the Las (Figure 1) and Rhl (Figure 4) systems.
fig1



Conclusion


On the whole, we demonstrated that our biosensor constructs are functional and are excellent candidates for a cell-based biosensor system. Both the Las and Rhl reporter constructs exhibited fluorescence that was statistically significant relative to the controls at most or all of the autoinducer concentrations we tested. Compared to the Las (PAI-1) construct, the Rhl (PAI-2) system produced more fluorescence overall and output fluorescence readings that were more dependent on the concentration of autoinducers present (potentially indicating a broader dynamic range for these biosensors). The Las constructs produced very similar fluorescence values at almost every autoinducer concentration. Our results provide detailed characterizations of not only the original registry Las and Rhl promoters on which our constructs are based, but also of the newly-assembled biosensor constructs we built. Our results provide a solid basis for a synthetic cell-based “device” that can detect the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.


Our RFP constructs were not as successful. The results were inconsistent and the signals did not seem to be correlated to the presence of the autoinducers. Although we were not able to determine the cause of this problem, we have put the parts in the registry for future investigation.


In addition to working with the Las and Rhl dependent promoters already on the registry, we also characterized some new promoters isolated directly from the Pseudomonas genome. This resulted in another potential set of promoters for use in a Pseudomonas detection device. In particular, the Rhl-dependent promoter we extracted from the genome exhibited excellent sensitivity to PAI2.


Moreover, we identified the critical parameters in our system which contribute to the observed fluctuations in the biosensor response. By using our math model, we can take the constructs we built and can tune the sensitivity of the biosensor to a specific range of autoinducer dosages through varying the critical parameters. This gives the system a high level of versatility to adjust the biosensor towards specific types of detection applications.


Finally, we built a generalized model which represents autoinducer detection. This model can be applied to any number of other genetic constructs designed to detect pathogens. In our system, an autoinducer is detected, and a resultant induced promoter produces a fluorescent protein to facilitate detection. To apply the system design to another pathogen, one only needs to identify the associated autoinducers, the cognate R-proteins, and an inducible promoter. Once the construct is built, it can be analyzed using the mathematical model and geared towards whichever specific system that a research is attempting to characterize.


For complete characterization information on all of our parts, please refer to our Biobricks page. Clicking on a part will take you to the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, where the complete analysis for that part is posted. Additionally, our testing protocol can be found here.



Sponsor northwestern.jpg Sponsor weinberg.jpg Sponsor mccormick.jpg