"

From 2012.igem.org

Revision as of 07:54, 3 October 2012 (view source) Bchen26 (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 07:56, 3 October 2012 (view source) Bchen26 (Talk | contribs) Newer edit →
Line 80:		Line 80:
	<br/><br/><br/>		<br/><br/><br/>
-	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/d/d1/Freiburg_RNA_Tools_Website_Modifiedd_d0_-1.png" width=100%></center><br/><br/>	+	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/d/d1/Freiburg_RNA_Tools_Website_Modifiedd_d0_-1.png" width=100%><br/></center><br/>
	<b>Fig. 6.</b>		<b>Fig. 6.</b>
	The resulting scaffold of the changed sequence.		The resulting scaffold of the changed sequence.
Line 88:		Line 88:
-	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/d/d2/IDT_miniGene_Scaffold_-1_--4.png" height=75% width=75%></center><br/><br/>	+	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/d/d2/IDT_miniGene_Scaffold_-1_--4.png" height=75% width=75%><br/></center><br/>
	<b>Fig. 4.</b>		<b>Fig. 4.</b>
	The scaffold was further modified after research suggested that PUF binds best to nucleotides with an angle of curvature similar to its own of approximately 20o turn per repeat*. The hairpin loops were changed in order to accommodate this from 8 nucleotides to 18 nucleotides achieving a 20o turn per nucleotide effect. Sequences of the stem loop were further modified in order to keep GC content from being too high and to make a more stable structure. This DNA sequence was then synthesized through IDT’s miniGENE option.		The scaffold was further modified after research suggested that PUF binds best to nucleotides with an angle of curvature similar to its own of approximately 20o turn per repeat*. The hairpin loops were changed in order to accommodate this from 8 nucleotides to 18 nucleotides achieving a 20o turn per nucleotide effect. Sequences of the stem loop were further modified in order to keep GC content from being too high and to make a more stable structure. This DNA sequence was then synthesized through IDT’s miniGENE option.
Line 96:		Line 96:
-	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/c/c7/Freiburg_RNA_Tools_Website_Modifiedd_d0_-2.png" height=75% width=75%></center><br/><br/>	+	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/c/c7/Freiburg_RNA_Tools_Website_Modifiedd_d0_-2.png" height=75% width=75%><br/></center><br/>
	<b>Fig. 7.</b>		<b>Fig. 7.</b>
Line 102:		Line 102:
	<br/><br/><br/>		<br/><br/><br/>
-	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/0/03/Aptamer_Concept_third_last.png" height=75% width=75%></center><br/><br/>	+	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/0/03/Aptamer_Concept_third_last.png" height=75% width=75%><br/></center><br/>
	<b>Fig. 8.</b>		<b>Fig. 8.</b>
	The figure above shows an important theoretical concept of the RNA scaffold. Assuming that the RNA binding proteins bind specifically, a spatial control of “cargo” can be made to serve various functions. In our project, we envisioned enzymes of the piceatannol pathway to churn out product due to the spatial proximity of one enzyme next to another, yielding increased reaction kinetics. However, in order to prove that such a concept is possible, a few assays need to be done.		The figure above shows an important theoretical concept of the RNA scaffold. Assuming that the RNA binding proteins bind specifically, a spatial control of “cargo” can be made to serve various functions. In our project, we envisioned enzymes of the piceatannol pathway to churn out product due to the spatial proximity of one enzyme next to another, yielding increased reaction kinetics. However, in order to prove that such a concept is possible, a few assays need to be done.
Line 108:		Line 108:
	<br/><br/><br/>		<br/><br/><br/>
-	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/6/6b/Split-GFP_Binding_Assay_second_last.png" height=75% width=75%></center><br/><br/>	+	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/6/6b/Split-GFP_Binding_Assay_second_last.png" height=75% width=75%><br/></center><br/>
	<b>Fig. 9.</b>		<b>Fig. 9.</b>
Line 115:		Line 115:
	<br/><br/><br/>		<br/><br/><br/>
-	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/2/25/UNC_PUF-PIN_Endonuclease_Assay_last.png" height=30% width=30%></center><br/><br/>	+	<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/2/25/UNC_PUF-PIN_Endonuclease_Assay_last.png" height=30% width=30%><br/></center><br/>
	<b>Fig. 10.</b>		<b>Fig. 10.</b>

---

Revision as of 07:56, 3 October 2012

RNA Scaffold Overview

In order to provide a direct application for the RNA binding abilities of PUF, an RNA scaffold was designed with the idea of serving as a platform for an enzyme conveyor belt. The array of enzymatic pathways which could be enhanced by a scaffold are numerous, though, we projected to increase efficiency and production of a resveratrol derivative called piceatannol.

The project consists of a couple parts, each a proof of concept and build-up of previous ones. The start of the project consisted of designing an RNA scaffold which is best tailored to PUF binding in a spatially specific manner. Once the scaffold was designed, synthesized, and purified it was important to show not only that PUF can bind specifically to its designated sites, but that the scaffold can support a concept such as a biological conveyor belt.

One assay which was designed to prove this was incubation of the RNA scaffold with non-specific endonucleases bound to PUF. The length of digested RNA parts would prove that PUF was binding specifically and appropriately to the designated sequences. Another assay would include tethering a split-fluorescent protein to wild-type and mutant PUF. An in-vitro gel-shift assay, or EMSA, would once again prove that PUF is binding the the appropriate sites. More importantly, an in-vivo experiment which shows fluorescence with presence of the scaffold and darkness without the scaffold would prove efficient enzymatic pathways could be achieved.

RNA Scaffold Design

Fig. 1. The design of our RNA scaffold was based upon a scaffold created by the Pam Silver research lab at Harvard. This group was the only one to develop such a construct (pictured above) and prove its effectiveness so it was built upon in order to serve as the application for our own RNA binding proteins.

The d0 scaffold which is shown above has two hairpin loops with binding sites for two distinct RNA binding proteins, MS2 and PP7. Although the Silver group developed even more complicated scaffolds, we decided to work with the simplest (d0) as a way to prove not only that PUF can bind specifically, but that the scaffold can be used for efficient production of compounds in bacterial cells.




Fig. 2. The sequence in Fig. 2 is the DNA sequence coding for the d0 scaffold. The first highlighted potion is the T7 promoter followed by the MS2 binding site. The next highlighted region shows the PP7 binding site followed by the T7 terminator.




Fig. 5. The corresponding image of the d0 RNA secondary structure as predicted by the LocARNA tool of Freiburg RNA Tools. The software accurately depicts what the d0 structure looks like in the literature, therefore it was a reliable program which could be used to modify and visualize RNA secondary structures.




Fig. 3. Modifications to the d0 sequence were made by replacing the PP7 and MS2 binding sites with WT PUF-PIN and 6-2/7-2 PUF-PIN binding sites.




Fig. 6. The resulting scaffold of the changed sequence.




Fig. 4. The scaffold was further modified after research suggested that PUF binds best to nucleotides with an angle of curvature similar to its own of approximately 20o turn per repeat*. The hairpin loops were changed in order to accommodate this from 8 nucleotides to 18 nucleotides achieving a 20o turn per nucleotide effect. Sequences of the stem loop were further modified in order to keep GC content from being too high and to make a more stable structure. This DNA sequence was then synthesized through IDT’s miniGENE option.




Fig. 7. The final structure of the scaffold used in the project.




Fig. 8. The figure above shows an important theoretical concept of the RNA scaffold. Assuming that the RNA binding proteins bind specifically, a spatial control of “cargo” can be made to serve various functions. In our project, we envisioned enzymes of the piceatannol pathway to churn out product due to the spatial proximity of one enzyme next to another, yielding increased reaction kinetics. However, in order to prove that such a concept is possible, a few assays need to be done.




Fig. 9. A gel-shift in-vitro assay as the one pictured would properly demonstrate that distinct RNA binding proteins are binding to the scaffold and thus proper scaffold functioning. With addition of the scaffold, each separate binding protein causes a change in overall size resulting in a different band from each protein by itself. Due to assay shown being ran on a native gel, secondary structures and changes in electronegative affinities might explain the unusual effect of larger constructs being localized further down the gel.




Fig. 10. This figure is shown from the Prof. Wang’s lab in UNC which characterized PUF-PIN (PIN being a non-specific endonuclease) functioning at various pH levels. A similar assay with our scaffold would show specific binding of PUF to its destined sites on the scaffold due to the presence of RNA fragments of expected lengths.

PUF Tether Design

Fig. 1.


Fig. 2.


Fig. 3.