Team:UCSF/Toxin Data

From 2012.igem.org

Revision as of 22:41, 3 October 2012

iGEM 2012

UCSF Home

igem 2012

The Team

Team Background

Members

Advisors

Mentors

Our Projects

Overview

Split Pathway

Auxotrophs

Toxin System

Model:Auxtotrophs

Protocols

Our Results

Violacein Results

Auxotroph Results

Toxin Results

Modeling Results

Parts

Violacein Parts

Toxin/Antitox Parts

Bootcamp

Week 1 Schedule

Week 2 Schedule

Requisites

Safety Proposal

Gold Medal

Attributions

Work

Sponsors

Extras

Videos

Photos

Protocols

General Protocols

Project Protocols

We created constructs containing either the toxin, antitoxin in the pCDFDuet vector under control of an IPTG inducible T7 promoter.

We grew these strains in standard LB media at 37C, with a starting OD600 of 0.05. After two hours we added IPTG and looked for effects on growth. Measurements of OD600 were taken every hour and the results (below) show that the production of the toxin does have a negative effect on growth and the antitoxin does not.

We also performed a Ni++ bead his tag purification of our cultures and were able to see both proteins on a gel post-induction (data not shown).
Although we cloned three toxin/antitoxin pairs, the results were best with the YoeB/YefM pair. The data shown above is for this pair and the rest of our experiments were done using this set. As a side note, we found that the toxicity of the MazE/MazF pair was very strong and had a hard time even growing the cells!

We tried several different experiments to determine if the toxin an antitoxin pair could move between cells to cause an effect on growth. The final experiment we performed utilized protein induction at 30C which we believe helped maintain the stability of these small proteins.

1. A flask with 150ml LB+Spec was inoculated with either – Toxin strain, Antitoxin Strain, or BL21 (empty vector) control cells.
2. Each flask was started at an initial OD600nm of 0.05 and was grown for 2 hours at 37C before being induced with 0.5 ul/ml of 1M IPTG.
3. After the addition of IPTG, the flasks were transferred to 30C to promote stable protein production. These cultures were grown overnight, ~16 hours.
4. The next morning the cultures were centrifuged and the supernatant was filtered over a 0.2um filter to remove any cell debris, but retain any small proteins or molecules in the supernatant.
5. The filtered supernatant were then diluted (25ml supernatant + 75ml fresh LB) to provide a fresh supply of nutrients.
6. Then toxin, antitoxin, and control cells were inoculated into these filtered, diluted supernatents and induced with IPTG after 2 hours of growth at 37C.
7. The effect of supernatents potentially containing toxin or antitoxin proteins was observed in the growth of each strain and is shown in the graphs below.

The graphs shown below demonstrate growth of toxin (YoeB), antitoxin (YefM), and control cells in the media produced after step 5 above.

This first graph shows control cells that were grown in filtered supernatant from either Toxin, Antitoxin, or control cell growth. The inoculated control cells grow well in the supernatant from control and antitoxin cells but do not grow well in the presence of toxin supernatant. This indicates that the toxin supernatant actually contained toxins that had a growth effect on the control cells.
This graph shows YefM, the antitoxin, being grown in filtered supernatant from control, toxin, and antitoxin cells. It is observed that the antitoxin grows well in each condition, except when inoculated into the supernatant where toxin cells had previously grown (green line).




This graph shows YoeB, the toxin, being grown in filtered supernatant from control, toxin, and antitoxin cells. It is observed that the YoeB toxin does not grow as well as any of the strains in the above graphs. However, there is a slight rescue of growth only in the case when it is exposed to the antitoxin supernatant (pink line).


Retrieved from "http://2012.igem.org/Team:UCSF/Toxin_Data"