"
Team:UC Davis/Project/Our Strain
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 1,229: | Line 1,229: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/0/04/UCDavis_Construct1.png" width="600"></a><br><br> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/0/04/UCDavis_Construct1.png" width="600"></a><br><br> | ||
Our second approach separates the genes, allowing us to see if the genes can be expressed more efficiently when they are under the control of one promoter each. The separation also permits us to induce one promoter and therefore express one gene at a time. With the genes expressed independently, we are able to control the production of each enzyme and ensure equal amounts are expressed. The glycolaldehyde reductase enzyme will be under the control of the pBAD promoter; the glycolaldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme will be under the control of the pLAC promoter. Because we are employing the lac promoter, we must have the lacI operon to act as the repressor. The diagrams below depict the cassette orientation within each plasmid. For each of these set-ups, we will use restriction enzymes, gel purifications, and then ligations to piece together each sub-construct. The process is lengthy in time because of the time involved for transformations, liquid cultures, and enzymatic digests. | Our second approach separates the genes, allowing us to see if the genes can be expressed more efficiently when they are under the control of one promoter each. The separation also permits us to induce one promoter and therefore express one gene at a time. With the genes expressed independently, we are able to control the production of each enzyme and ensure equal amounts are expressed. The glycolaldehyde reductase enzyme will be under the control of the pBAD promoter; the glycolaldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme will be under the control of the pLAC promoter. Because we are employing the lac promoter, we must have the lacI operon to act as the repressor. The diagrams below depict the cassette orientation within each plasmid. For each of these set-ups, we will use restriction enzymes, gel purifications, and then ligations to piece together each sub-construct. The process is lengthy in time because of the time involved for transformations, liquid cultures, and enzymatic digests. | ||
| - | <br> | + | <br><br> |
We wanted to test if ethylene glycol is toxic to <I>E. coli</I> by mixing it in various concentrations of ethylene glycol into LB media. The set up of the Tecan experiment is pictured below.<br><br> | We wanted to test if ethylene glycol is toxic to <I>E. coli</I> by mixing it in various concentrations of ethylene glycol into LB media. The set up of the Tecan experiment is pictured below.<br><br> | ||
<center> | <center> | ||
Revision as of 23:13, 26 September 2012
UCDavis iGEM Tweets
Our Sponsors
Rational Engineering
What we're doing
Our second approach separates the genes, allowing us to see if the genes can be expressed more efficiently when they are under the control of one promoter each. The separation also permits us to induce one promoter and therefore express one gene at a time. With the genes expressed independently, we are able to control the production of each enzyme and ensure equal amounts are expressed. The glycolaldehyde reductase enzyme will be under the control of the pBAD promoter; the glycolaldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme will be under the control of the pLAC promoter. Because we are employing the lac promoter, we must have the lacI operon to act as the repressor. The diagrams below depict the cassette orientation within each plasmid. For each of these set-ups, we will use restriction enzymes, gel purifications, and then ligations to piece together each sub-construct. The process is lengthy in time because of the time involved for transformations, liquid cultures, and enzymatic digests.
We wanted to test if ethylene glycol is toxic to E. coli by mixing it in various concentrations of ethylene glycol into LB media. The set up of the Tecan experiment is pictured below.
The Tecan experiments with MG1655 and DH5a show us that the ethylene glycol does not hinder the growth and development of the strains, as long as it is mixed with LB media. The growth curves all had the same shape, independent of the amount of ethylene glycol in solution. We chose a broad, nearly exponential range of ethylene glycol concentrations to allow a broad range to test the toxicity. We attempted to find the lower limit of toxicity due to a saturation of ethylene glycol. However, we had not reached it. In our engineered strain, we will not expect to see a concentration of ethylene glycol above 150mM, so we can expect our strain to be able to live in an environment with a concentration as high as that.
After seeing that ethylene glycol does not pose a threat to MG1655 and DH5a, we subjected the Barcelona strain to the same broad range of ethylene glycol. We sought out to find the most efficient concentration of ethylene glycol for this strain, as a guideline for the efficient concentration of EG for our engineered strain. While analyzing the data, we realized that we have to define efficiency more clearly. Efficiency can mean faster growth on low amounts of ethylene glycol or it could mean a higher optical density after a certain amount of time, where it reaches the stationary phase. We saw that once the ethylene glycol concentration reaches a certain threshold (49.34 mM), the growth curves are all the same in terms of time when the stationary phase has been reached. We saw that some of the E. coli were efficient at low concentrations, making us focus on the fast growth efficiency at lower concentrations of EG because the LC-cutinase will not degrade quickly enough to produce 49.34 mM in a cell’s solution. Now, we have an ongoing experiment where we re-passage cells between ethylene glycol media at 30 mM. We discuss this in more detail in our directed evolution section.
