Team:WashU/Week8

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(22 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
{{WashUback}}
+
{{WashUbacknotebook}}
-
 
+
<div id ="longweek4">
<br>
<br>
<html>
<html>
Line 169: Line 169:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-
The gel of these digests is found below. <br><div align = "center"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-htrirqNSahQ/UAbRBZ6vPfI/AAAAAAAAAVU/fTlb30i-V-I/s800/digestalotostuff-2.jpg" width=350/></div> <br>
+
 
 +
The gel of these digests is found below.
 +
 
 +
<br>
 +
<div align = "center"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-htrirqNSahQ/UAbRBZ6vPfI/AAAAAAAAAVU/fTlb30i-V-I/s800/digestalotostuff-2.jpg" width=350/></div> <br>
<br>
<br>
</html>
</html>
In addition, we ran several PCRs today.
In addition, we ran several PCRs today.
-
Following the NEB protocol, we ran four PCRs to amplify the CCD plasmid (PUT PROPER NAME HERE) and also tried four colony PCRs, using colonies 2, 4, 13 and ______.
+
Following the NEB protocol, we ran four PCRs to amplify the CCD plasmid (PUT PROPER NAME HERE) and also tried three colony PCRs, using colonies 2, 4, and 13. However, the PCRs were all unsuccessful and resulted only in primer dimers.
To enable amplification of our plasmid PSL2131, PsbA2, and CS42S, we designed primers to multiply the aforementioned DNA pieces.
To enable amplification of our plasmid PSL2131, PsbA2, and CS42S, we designed primers to multiply the aforementioned DNA pieces.
We have started cultures of <i>E. coli</i> doubly transformed with our Z construct and CS42S at different chloramphenicol concentrations. We will miniprep them after they grow to obtain the DNA.
We have started cultures of <i>E. coli</i> doubly transformed with our Z construct and CS42S at different chloramphenicol concentrations. We will miniprep them after they grow to obtain the DNA.
-
<br>
+
<br><br>
 +
 
<html>
<html>
<font size = "4">
<font size = "4">
Line 188: Line 193:
We repeated the digests and PCRs from yesterday in order to ascertain what went wrong. The PCRs yielded primer dimers and were thus unsuccessful, so we plan on troubleshooting our procedure to determine why our reactions are failing.
We repeated the digests and PCRs from yesterday in order to ascertain what went wrong. The PCRs yielded primer dimers and were thus unsuccessful, so we plan on troubleshooting our procedure to determine why our reactions are failing.
-
[PICTURE OF GEL]
+
 
In order to increase our output of carotenoids in <i>Synechocystis</i>, we began a PAL mutant liquid culture of the cyanobacterium in order to transform with in the next few days.
In order to increase our output of carotenoids in <i>Synechocystis</i>, we began a PAL mutant liquid culture of the cyanobacterium in order to transform with in the next few days.
Line 199: Line 204:
</font>
</font>
</html>
</html>
-
This morning, we miniprepped a culture of PC42, our ligation of plasmid PSL2131 and construct CS42S. Then, we ran a gel of double and single digests of PC42, cut with X and P and just P, along with an uncut PC42 as a control. [GEL SHOWN BELOW]
+
We discovered that our problem with the PCRs was due to not optimizing the amount of magnesium chloride needed for the Taq polymerase. Instead, we had been using the Taq buffer with magnesium chloride already added, which was not suited for the reactions we were running. In the gel picture below, the first three wells contain DNA using the buffer with pre-added magnesium chloride, and the last three wells show what happens when we calculate and manually add the proper amount of MgCl2 to optimize Taq polymerase activity. (Also, Z=ZCD, U=GTCs2, and C=CrtZ.)
 +
<div align="center">https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qhlXSIMl1d8/UAhpneZ2cOI/AAAAAAAAAWI/9auR5qDv-d0/s800/pcrmgcl.jpg</div><br>
-
In addition, we took the cultures of the double digest from Monday, miniprepped them, nanodropped, and then digested them with EcoRI and PstI. The digestions were then run on a gel [PICTURE BELOW]
 
-
Finally, we conducted an experiment to see if the copy number of a plasmid could be regulated by varying the antibiotic concentration. To do this we grew our <i>E. coli</i> which was transformed with both the zeaxanthin producing construct and our Cs42s construct with varying amounts of chloramphocol while holding ampicilin concentration constant. We then analyzed the recovered plasmid by digesting with XbaI and PstI and comparing the intensity of the digested plasmids on ethidium bromide stained agarose gel electrophoresis.  The results below demonstrated that above a critical concentration needed to select for the double transformed cultures, copy number is unaffected by antibiotic concentration. [PICTURE]
+
This morning, we miniprepped a culture of PC42, our ligation of plasmid PSL2131 and construct CS42S. Then, we ran a gel of double and single digests of PC42, cut with X and P and just P, along with an uncut PC42 as a control. (2x refers to ligation cut with both X and P, 1x indicates ligation cut with P, and 0x signifies uncut PC42) The band sizes resulting from the digestion match the sizes of the plasmid and construct, indicating that the ligation worked.
 +
<div align="center">https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--ulNrdD-1xs/UAhk8NfQmeI/AAAAAAAAAV0/BVhDt7rnPAY/s800/pc42digest%25207-18.jpg</div><br>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Finally, we conducted an experiment to see if the copy number of a plasmid could be regulated by varying the antibiotic concentration. To do this we grew our <i>E. coli</i> which was transformed with both the zeaxanthin producing construct and our Cs42s construct with varying amounts of chloramphenicol while holding ampicilin concentration constant. We then analyzed the recovered plasmid by digesting with XbaI and PstI and comparing the intensity of the digested plasmids on ethidium bromide stained agarose gel electrophoresis.  The results below demonstrated that above a critical concentration needed to select for the double transformed cultures, copy number is unaffected by antibiotic concentration. In the picture below, the wells, from left to right, have 5 microliters of DNA followed by 10 microliters of DNA per each concentration of chloramphenicol, which is labelled on the graph as 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 mM.
 +
<div align="center">https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-fcvfs63edE0/UAhgutphORI/AAAAAAAAAVg/L0bC_u9UFZE/s800/c%252BZdouble%2520digest%25207.18.jpg</div><br>
<br>
<br>
Line 213: Line 223:
</html>
</html>
-
We made plain LB plates and then plated 50 microliters of both wild type and the PAL mutant of <i>Synechocystis</i>.
+
To determine whether our culture of <i>Synechocystis</i> is contaminated or not, we plated 50 microliters of both the PAL mutant and wild type <i>Synechocystis</i> on plain LB agar plates.
-
PCR the color constructs in order to biobrick them
+
In order to prepare some of our constructs for sequencing, we ran PCRs for the color (1=YFP, 2=GFP, 3=RFP, 4=CFP and 8=mCherry) and our Z, U and C constructs. The products were run on a gel, displayed below.
 +
<div align="center">https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1zFHq0fxISc/UAiEhlpf2OI/AAAAAAAAAWc/aMwhG0oVJE8/s400/pcrcolorsandothers7.18.jpg</div>
 +
<br>
<br>
<br>
Line 225: Line 237:
</html>
</html>
 +
After using a PCR cleanup kit to purify our results from yesterday, we then digested the constructs and ligated them into plasmids, and plated the final products.
<html>
<html>
Line 239: Line 252:
</style>
</style>
<tr2>
<tr2>
-
<td2><a href="/Team:WashU/Week6"><img src ="http://aux4.iconpedia.net/uploads/937908040.png" width=82px height=82px></a></td2>
+
<td2><a href="/Team:WashU/Week7"><img src ="http://aux4.iconpedia.net/uploads/937908040.png" width=82px height=82px></a></td2>
-
<td2><a href="/Team:WashU/Week8"><img src ="http://aux.iconpedia.net/uploads/1782679686.png" width=82px height=82px></a></td2>
+
<td2><a href="/Team:WashU/Week9"><img src ="http://aux.iconpedia.net/uploads/1782679686.png" width=82px height=82px></a></td2>
</tr2>
</tr2>
</table>
</table>

Latest revision as of 02:18, 15 September 2012




Monday, July 16

We ran multiple digests today, following the standard biobrick assembly protocol.

Digestions
Z and C: digest with P and E
Ligation 2: digest with X and P
Ligation 2: digest with X
Z and C: digest with E
ZCD: digest with X and P
UGTCs2: digest with X and P
2: digest with P
2: digest with B


The gel of these digests is found below.


In addition, we ran several PCRs today. Following the NEB protocol, we ran four PCRs to amplify the CCD plasmid (PUT PROPER NAME HERE) and also tried three colony PCRs, using colonies 2, 4, and 13. However, the PCRs were all unsuccessful and resulted only in primer dimers.

To enable amplification of our plasmid PSL2131, PsbA2, and CS42S, we designed primers to multiply the aforementioned DNA pieces.

We have started cultures of E. coli doubly transformed with our Z construct and CS42S at different chloramphenicol concentrations. We will miniprep them after they grow to obtain the DNA.

Tuesday, July 17

We repeated the digests and PCRs from yesterday in order to ascertain what went wrong. The PCRs yielded primer dimers and were thus unsuccessful, so we plan on troubleshooting our procedure to determine why our reactions are failing.


In order to increase our output of carotenoids in Synechocystis, we began a PAL mutant liquid culture of the cyanobacterium in order to transform with in the next few days.


Wednesday, July 18
We discovered that our problem with the PCRs was due to not optimizing the amount of magnesium chloride needed for the Taq polymerase. Instead, we had been using the Taq buffer with magnesium chloride already added, which was not suited for the reactions we were running. In the gel picture below, the first three wells contain DNA using the buffer with pre-added magnesium chloride, and the last three wells show what happens when we calculate and manually add the proper amount of MgCl2 to optimize Taq polymerase activity. (Also, Z=ZCD, U=GTCs2, and C=CrtZ.)

pcrmgcl.jpg


This morning, we miniprepped a culture of PC42, our ligation of plasmid PSL2131 and construct CS42S. Then, we ran a gel of double and single digests of PC42, cut with X and P and just P, along with an uncut PC42 as a control. (2x refers to ligation cut with both X and P, 1x indicates ligation cut with P, and 0x signifies uncut PC42) The band sizes resulting from the digestion match the sizes of the plasmid and construct, indicating that the ligation worked.

pc42digest%25207-18.jpg


Finally, we conducted an experiment to see if the copy number of a plasmid could be regulated by varying the antibiotic concentration. To do this we grew our E. coli which was transformed with both the zeaxanthin producing construct and our Cs42s construct with varying amounts of chloramphenicol while holding ampicilin concentration constant. We then analyzed the recovered plasmid by digesting with XbaI and PstI and comparing the intensity of the digested plasmids on ethidium bromide stained agarose gel electrophoresis. The results below demonstrated that above a critical concentration needed to select for the double transformed cultures, copy number is unaffected by antibiotic concentration. In the picture below, the wells, from left to right, have 5 microliters of DNA followed by 10 microliters of DNA per each concentration of chloramphenicol, which is labelled on the graph as 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 mM.

c%252BZdouble%2520digest%25207.18.jpg


Thursday, July 19

To determine whether our culture of Synechocystis is contaminated or not, we plated 50 microliters of both the PAL mutant and wild type Synechocystis on plain LB agar plates.

In order to prepare some of our constructs for sequencing, we ran PCRs for the color (1=YFP, 2=GFP, 3=RFP, 4=CFP and 8=mCherry) and our Z, U and C constructs. The products were run on a gel, displayed below.

pcrcolorsandothers7.18.jpg



Friday, July 20

After using a PCR cleanup kit to purify our results from yesterday, we then digested the constructs and ligated them into plasmids, and plated the final products.