Team:Osaka/Tests

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Promoter assay)
 
(44 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
== Tests ==
== Tests ==
=== Damage tolerance assay ===
=== Damage tolerance assay ===
-
Radioresistance parts contain codon rarely used in <i>E.coli</i>, so we transformed plasmid DNA into <i>E.coli</i> Rosetta.
+
Radioresistance parts contain codon rarely used in <i>''E.coli''</i>. Codon optimization and a better expression system are needed to make our parts functional, so we transformed plasmid DNA into <i>''E.coli''</i> Rosetta.
-
To measure the DNA damage tolerance conferred by each part, we used DNA damaging agents (such as Mitomycin C and Hydrogen peroxide) as a source of DNA damage and then assayed the survival rates. Transformed ''E. coli'' was exposed to DNA damaging agents and then incubated for 2 hours. Cells were plated on agar plates at different dilutions and air dried. Plates were wrapped with aluminum foil and incubated in the dark. Colony-forming units were scored after 16h incubation at 37&deg;C. For detailed protocols, refer to the [https://2012.igem.org/Team:Osaka/Protocols Protocols page].
+
<br>
 +
To measure the DNA damage tolerance conferred by each part, we measured the survival rate in the presence of some DNA damaging agents (such as Mitomycin C and Hydrogen peroxide). Transformants ''E. coli'' were exposed to the DNA damaging agents and then incubated for 2 hours. Then, the  cells were spreaded on agar plates at different dilutions. The plates were wrapped with aluminum foil and incubated in the dark. Colony-forming units were scored after 16h incubation at 37&deg;C. For detailed protocols, refer to the [https://2012.igem.org/Team:Osaka/Protocols Protocols page].
The tolerance parts tested were as follows:
The tolerance parts tested were as follows:
Line 24: Line 25:
==== Discussion ====
==== Discussion ====
===== Single-gene parts =====
===== Single-gene parts =====
-
Mitomycine C
+
Against Mitomycine C
-
*
+
-
*
+
-
*
+
-
 
+
-
耐性を獲得したもの
+
-
PprM、RecA
+
-
 
+
-
singleで耐性の獲得が見られたのは、RecAとPprMの二種類
+
-
先行研究によるとRecAはNon-hornologous end-joing repair を行うタンパク質であるとあり、この結果は妥当であるといえよう。特筆すべきは、PprMを導入したE.coliで、統計的に有意義な耐性の獲得が見られたことである。先行研究によると、PprMはDNA修復機能を持つPprAとRecA(後者については意見が分かれる)を誘導する、等の報告があるが、それ自体が修復機能を持つという報告はない。この実験結果について考えられる可能性は二つある。一つはPprMがE.coli固有のRecAの発現を誘導したという可能性。もう一つはPprM自体が何らかの修復能を有しているという可能性である。今後はこの点についてさらに追及(ノックアウト実験とか)をしていく必要性がありそうだ。
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
Hydrogen peroxide
+
-
*
+
-
*
+
-
*
+
-
singleで耐性の獲得が見られたのは、PprIとRecAの二つ。先行研究によると、PprIは(ほかのRadiotolerance proteinsをInduce するだけでなく)Catalasesを活性化させる作用もある→実験結果は妥当。
+
 +
We found that
 +
* PprI did not increase the tolerance alone. PprI is a pleiotropic gene, which senses DNA lesions, regulates the downstream repair genes and also carries catalase activity. As <i>''E. coli''</i> lacks downstream proteins of <i>D. radiodurans</i>, it is expected that PprI would not be able to confer tolerance on its own. 
 +
* PprA, which repairs blunt-ended breaks in DNA lesions, also did not confer tolerance. PprA may not protect against interstrand crosslinks and single strand breaks induced by Mitomycin C.
 +
* In our previous experiment using UV irradiation, PprM showed to confer tolerance slightly. Though it is said that PprM is a modulator of the PprI-dependent damage response that depends on downstream effector such as PprA, our results indicates that it is protective for <i>''E.coli''</i> by itself.
 +
* In our previous experiments, RecA of <i>''D. radiodurans''</i> conferred the highest tolerance among the four radiotolerance genes (against UV irradiation). We showed that RecA much increased tolerance against DNA damaging agents, too. Maybe, it supports the effect of <i>''E.coli''</i>'s native RecA each other.
 +
Against Hydrogen peroxide
 +
* Actually, each PprA and PprM alone decreased tolerance. It may be due to the cost of their expression in the stressful cellular environment at least.
 +
* On the other hand, both PprI and RecA significantly increased tolerance, which agrees with the role of PprI as an enhancer of enzyme activities of catalases
===== Two-gene combinations =====
===== Two-gene combinations =====
-
Mitomycine C
+
Against Mitomycine C
-
*
+
*While PprI alone was unable to confer the tolerance to this agent, the combination of PprI and PprA somehow increased the tolerance. This is in accordance with the role of PprI as an inducer of PprA.
-
*
+
*The fact that this combination much increased the tolerance, agrees with the role of PprI as an inducer of <i>D. radiodurans</i> RecA.
-
*
+
* Though it is said that PprM is not a modulator of RecA, here we shiowed a significant increase in tolerance when these two genes are coupled. It could be explained by the fact that PprM is known to induce/modulate other, unknown proteins and some of these proteins may have homologs in <i>E. coli</i> that benefit from the presence of PprM.
-
 
+
-
耐性を獲得したもの
+
-
combination⇒RecA+PprM、RecA+PprI, PprM+PprA、PprI+PprA
+
-
combinationで耐性の獲得が見られたのは、PprI+PprA、RecA+PprM、RecA+PprI、PprM+PprAの4つの組み合わせである。このうち、RecA+PprM、RecA+PprI、PprM+PprAの組み合わせについては、singleでも耐性を獲得したRecA、PprMが含まれていることから、さほど、驚くこともない結果といえる。注目すべきは、それぞれ独立では耐性が獲得されなかったPprI+PprAの組み合わせが耐性を獲得したことである。先行研究では、PprIがPprAを誘導し、そしてそのうえで発現したPprAそれ自体がDNA鎖の切断を修復するという(アヤシイ)ことになっていた。この実験結果は、それに反して、PprAが修復能をもつには、PprIの存在が不可欠であるということに、たとえば、DNA修復の際にPprAとPprIが複合体として働くという可能性なども示唆するものであり、極めて重要であるといえる。
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
Hydrogen peroxide
+
-
*
+
-
*
+
-
*
+
-
singleで耐性の獲得が見られたのは、PprIとRecAの二つ。先行研究によると、PprIは(ほかのRadiotolerance proteinsをInduce するだけでなく)Catalasesを活性化させる作用もある→実験結果は妥当。
+
 +
Against Hydrogen peroxide
 +
* Though PprA or PprM alone did not increase tolerance, the combination of PprI and other radiotolerance genes somehow improved the tolerance. This agrees with the role of PprI as an enhancer of enzyme activities of catalases.
=====  Conclusion =====
=====  Conclusion =====
 +
In order to render <i>''E. coli''</i> tolrerant to DNA lesions, we tested possible exogenous radioresistance genes originally isolated from <i>''D.radiodurance''</i>. 
-
・MMC→DNA鎖に結合した後、分解され、ラジカル化。DNA鎖切断や架橋形成を引き起こす(遺伝情報を特異的に破壊する。)
+
First, PprM appears to protect against to interstrand crosslinks and/or single strand breaks induced by Mitomycin C. Perhaps its role as a mere modulator of the PprI-dependent DNA damage response needs to be revised, or perhaps it is capable of regulating certain <i>E. coli</i> genes to advantageous effect.
-
・H2O 2→それ自体が反応性が高く、E.coliのあらゆる組織にダメージを与える。(これは、MMCが遺伝情報を特異的に破壊するのと対照的)
+
<br>
-
仮説
+
In addition, our results indicated that PprI, as a global regulator of the DNA repair system, alone does not secure against Mitomycin C and UV irradiation. This is in contradiction to a previous report that PprI confers radiotolerance to <i>''E. coli''</i>.  
-
 
+
<br>
-
以上の前提を踏まえて、H2O2を用いたTolerance assayでE.coliの生存率を左右したのはH2O2がE.ciliのDNAにダメージをあたえたからというよりも、むしろH2O2がE.coliの諸組織を酸化し、生命機能を維持できなくさせたためだった可能性がある。
+
Finally, <i>''D. radiodurans''</i>'s RecA confer resistance to any mutagen despite past reports that this protein is lethal to <i>E. coli</i>.
-
 
+
-
根拠
+
-
 
+
-
・MMCとH2O2の間の作用機構の相違
+
-
・H2O2を用いたTolerance assay で、(Catalasisを活性化する)PprIをいれたすべてのE.coliについて耐性の上昇がみられた。
+
-
・MMCをもちいたassayにおいて耐性の上昇がみられたPprM、RecA+PprM、PprM+PprA導入体についてをH2O2用いたassayでは耐性の上昇がみられなかったこと。
+
-
→BUT、H2O2を用いたassayにおけるRecA singleでの耐性の上昇が説明不可
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
=== Promoter assay ===
=== Promoter assay ===
-
<p>We assayed the promoter of the SOS gene RecA ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_J22106 J22106]) and sulA ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K518010 K518010]).
+
[[File:Construction.png|300px]]
-
To measure the DNA damage detection, we used antibacterial agents as a source of DNA damage. To quantitatively and accurately evaluate the promoter activity, dual luciferase assay method was employed.  
+
<p>
-
Transformed ''E. coli'' was exposed to antibacterial agents and then incubated for 2 hours. For details check the [https://2012.igem.org/Team:Osaka/Protocols Protocols page].</p>
+
This is our goal of construct to detect and report the DNA damages. This construct needs responsive promoter to sense DNA damage and also needs reporter genes to produce a sort of color pigments.
-
 
+
<br>
 +
Last year, we assayed the promoter of the SOS gene RecA ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_J22106 J22106]) by attaching a lycopene biosynthesis gene cluster ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K274100 K274100]) downstream as a reporter. This construct successfully produce lycopene in response to DNA damage. However, it remains unclear in the quantitative relation between promoter activity and color intensity. In order to evaluate the promoter activity quantitatively and accurately, we also employed the Dual Luciferase Reporter Assay System as a control. Transformed ''E. coli'' was exposed to DNA damaging agents and then incubated for 2 hours. For details check the [https://2012.igem.org/Team:Osaka/Protocols Protocols page].
 +
</p>  
<html>
<html>
<font size="3" color="#ff0000">
<font size="3" color="#ff0000">
-
  We were going to assemble the Dual Luciferase Assay System from existing Biobrick parts, but did not make it.  
+
  We are trying to construct this promoter evaluation device utilizing firefly and renilla luciferase, but not yet finished.  
</font>
</font>
</html>
</html>
 +
 +
=== Future work ===
 +
===== 1, Complete the Dual Luciferase Assay System =====
 +
<p>We are trying to assemble  the Dual Luciferase Assay System from existing Biobrick parts, but have not finished it yet. So, we will go on to complete it. </p>
 +
===== 2, Quantification of damages to "Bio-dosimeter"  =====
 +
<p>One of the weak point of our "Bio-dosimeter" is difficulty to quantify the damages, so that, to quantify radiation. Therefore, for practical use, we have to evaluate the ovserved output and compare the dosed danage source to quantify the measurement by the "Bio-dosimeter".</p>

Latest revision as of 14:51, 21 October 2012


Tests

Damage tolerance assay

Radioresistance parts contain codon rarely used in E.coli. Codon optimization and a better expression system are needed to make our parts functional, so we transformed plasmid DNA into E.coli Rosetta.
To measure the DNA damage tolerance conferred by each part, we measured the survival rate in the presence of some DNA damaging agents (such as Mitomycin C and Hydrogen peroxide). Transformants E. coli were exposed to the DNA damaging agents and then incubated for 2 hours. Then, the cells were spreaded on agar plates at different dilutions. The plates were wrapped with aluminum foil and incubated in the dark. Colony-forming units were scored after 16h incubation at 37°C. For detailed protocols, refer to the Protocols page.

The tolerance parts tested were as follows:

Parts containing one gene each

CDS1.png

  • CDS: [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602005 PprI], [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602006 PprA], [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602007 PprM] or [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602008 RecA]
Parts containing two genes

CDS2.png

  • CDS1+2: [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602016 PprI+RecA], [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602017 PprA+RecA], [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602020 PprM+RecA], [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602015 PprI+PprA],[http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602018 PprI+PprM], [http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K602019 PprA+PprM],


Viability after exposure to Mitomycin C.png


Viability after exposure to Hydrogen peroxide.png

Discussion

Single-gene parts

Against Mitomycine C

We found that

  • PprI did not increase the tolerance alone. PprI is a pleiotropic gene, which senses DNA lesions, regulates the downstream repair genes and also carries catalase activity. As E. coli lacks downstream proteins of D. radiodurans, it is expected that PprI would not be able to confer tolerance on its own.
  • PprA, which repairs blunt-ended breaks in DNA lesions, also did not confer tolerance. PprA may not protect against interstrand crosslinks and single strand breaks induced by Mitomycin C.
  • In our previous experiment using UV irradiation, PprM showed to confer tolerance slightly. Though it is said that PprM is a modulator of the PprI-dependent damage response that depends on downstream effector such as PprA, our results indicates that it is protective for E.coli by itself.
  • In our previous experiments, RecA of D. radiodurans conferred the highest tolerance among the four radiotolerance genes (against UV irradiation). We showed that RecA much increased tolerance against DNA damaging agents, too. Maybe, it supports the effect of E.coli's native RecA each other.

Against Hydrogen peroxide

  • Actually, each PprA and PprM alone decreased tolerance. It may be due to the cost of their expression in the stressful cellular environment at least.
  • On the other hand, both PprI and RecA significantly increased tolerance, which agrees with the role of PprI as an enhancer of enzyme activities of catalases
Two-gene combinations

Against Mitomycine C

  • While PprI alone was unable to confer the tolerance to this agent, the combination of PprI and PprA somehow increased the tolerance. This is in accordance with the role of PprI as an inducer of PprA.
  • The fact that this combination much increased the tolerance, agrees with the role of PprI as an inducer of D. radiodurans RecA.
  • Though it is said that PprM is not a modulator of RecA, here we shiowed a significant increase in tolerance when these two genes are coupled. It could be explained by the fact that PprM is known to induce/modulate other, unknown proteins and some of these proteins may have homologs in E. coli that benefit from the presence of PprM.

Against Hydrogen peroxide

  • Though PprA or PprM alone did not increase tolerance, the combination of PprI and other radiotolerance genes somehow improved the tolerance. This agrees with the role of PprI as an enhancer of enzyme activities of catalases.
Conclusion

In order to render E. coli tolrerant to DNA lesions, we tested possible exogenous radioresistance genes originally isolated from D.radiodurance.

First, PprM appears to protect against to interstrand crosslinks and/or single strand breaks induced by Mitomycin C. Perhaps its role as a mere modulator of the PprI-dependent DNA damage response needs to be revised, or perhaps it is capable of regulating certain E. coli genes to advantageous effect.
In addition, our results indicated that PprI, as a global regulator of the DNA repair system, alone does not secure against Mitomycin C and UV irradiation. This is in contradiction to a previous report that PprI confers radiotolerance to E. coli.
Finally, D. radiodurans's RecA confer resistance to any mutagen despite past reports that this protein is lethal to E. coli.

Promoter assay

Construction.png

This is our goal of construct to detect and report the DNA damages. This construct needs responsive promoter to sense DNA damage and also needs reporter genes to produce a sort of color pigments.
Last year, we assayed the promoter of the SOS gene RecA ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_J22106 J22106]) by attaching a lycopene biosynthesis gene cluster ([http://partsregistry.org/wiki/index.php?title=Part:BBa_K274100 K274100]) downstream as a reporter. This construct successfully produce lycopene in response to DNA damage. However, it remains unclear in the quantitative relation between promoter activity and color intensity. In order to evaluate the promoter activity quantitatively and accurately, we also employed the Dual Luciferase Reporter Assay System as a control. Transformed E. coli was exposed to DNA damaging agents and then incubated for 2 hours. For details check the Protocols page.


We are trying to construct this promoter evaluation device utilizing firefly and renilla luciferase, but not yet finished.

Future work

1, Complete the Dual Luciferase Assay System

We are trying to assemble the Dual Luciferase Assay System from existing Biobrick parts, but have not finished it yet. So, we will go on to complete it.

2, Quantification of damages to "Bio-dosimeter"

One of the weak point of our "Bio-dosimeter" is difficulty to quantify the damages, so that, to quantify radiation. Therefore, for practical use, we have to evaluate the ovserved output and compare the dosed danage source to quantify the measurement by the "Bio-dosimeter".