Team:ZJU-China/project.htm
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
align: justify; | align: justify; | ||
} | } | ||
+ | p.ref{ | ||
+ | color: black; | ||
+ | padding: 15px 15px; | ||
+ | font-size: 15.5px; | ||
+ | font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; | ||
+ | align: justify; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
h5{ | h5{ | ||
Line 647: | Line 655: | ||
<p>Contrasted to the fluorescence intensity (FI) of the E.coli which only express FA-MS2 and FB-PP7 fusion proteins, the fluorescence intensity of the E.coli with scaffold D0 was obviously increased. Thus, it was possible for us to carry out our development and reformation of RNA scaffold.</p> | <p>Contrasted to the fluorescence intensity (FI) of the E.coli which only express FA-MS2 and FB-PP7 fusion proteins, the fluorescence intensity of the E.coli with scaffold D0 was obviously increased. Thus, it was possible for us to carry out our development and reformation of RNA scaffold.</p> | ||
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
- | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/5/53/ZJU_PROJECT_S0_Confocal.jpg" width=" | + | <div class="floatC"> |
- | <p>Fig.1 FI of Split GFPs without or with RNA scaffold. A. BL21*(DE3) transformed with pCJDFA and pCJDFB. B. BL21*(DE3) transformed with pCJDFA, pCJDFB and pCJDD0. The contrast of FI obviously shown that RNA scaffold D0 could bind split GFPs together, so that split GFPs could fluoresce. (Pictures were obtained with Olympus fluoview fv1000 confocal laser scanning microscope, using a 60X objective.)</p> | + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/5/53/ZJU_PROJECT_S0_Confocal.jpg" width="500px" /> |
+ | </div> | ||
+ | <p class="fig"><b>Fig.1</b> FI of Split GFPs without or with RNA scaffold. A. BL21*(DE3) transformed with pCJDFA and pCJDFB. B. BL21*(DE3) transformed with pCJDFA, pCJDFB and pCJDD0. The contrast of FI obviously shown that RNA scaffold D0 could bind split GFPs together, so that split GFPs could fluoresce. (Pictures were obtained with Olympus fluoview fv1000 confocal laser scanning microscope, using a 60X objective.)</p> | ||
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
- | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/3/32/ZJU_PROJECT_S0_FI.png" width=" | + | <div class="floatC"> |
- | <p>Fig.2 FI/OD of different transformation groups. There exist significant differences among three groups. And as expected, split GFPs with scaffold D0 together can fluoresce stronger than those without scaffold. </p> | + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/3/32/ZJU_PROJECT_S0_FI.png" width="500px" /> |
- | + | </div> | |
+ | <p class="fig"><b>Fig.2</b> FI/OD of different transformation groups. There exist significant differences among three groups. And as expected, split GFPs with scaffold D0 together can fluoresce stronger than those without scaffold. </p> | ||
+ | </br> | ||
<h3>Reference:</h3> | <h3>Reference:</h3> | ||
- | <p | + | <p class="ref">1. Thodey, K. & Smolke, C.D. Bringing It Together with RNA. Science 333, 412-413 (2011).</br> |
- | + | 2. Delebecque, C.J., Lindner, A.B., Silver, P.A. & Aldaye, F.A. Organization of Intracellular Reactions with Rationally Designed RNA Assemblies. Science 333, 470-474 (2011).</p> | |
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
<h2>S1: RIBOSCAFFOLD</h2> | <h2>S1: RIBOSCAFFOLD</h2> | ||
<p align="justify"> </p> | <p align="justify"> </p> | ||
- | <h3>Scaffold</h3 | + | <h3>1. Scaffold</h3> |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
<p align="justify"> </p> | <p align="justify"> </p> | ||
- | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/d/df/Riboscaffold_fig_13.jpg" width=" | + | <div class="floatC"> |
- | <p align="justify">Fig.4 Biotek Synergy H1 Hybrid Reader controlled experiments. The BL21*DE3 of the E. coli were transformed with figure showing plasmids. (0.5 mM theophylline was adding in strains containing clover 2). </p> | + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/5/5b/Riboscaffold_fig_12.jpg" width="600px" /> |
+ | </div> | ||
+ | <p class="fig" align="justify"><b>Fig.3</b> Different RNA scaffold’s effect on split GFP showing by fluorescence microscopy. The BL21*DE3 of the E. coli were transformed with pCJDFA+pCJDFB, pCJDFA+pCJDFB + pCJDD0, and pCJDFA+pCJDFB + pZCCOV 2 (0.5 mM theophylline adding). As expected, strains without RNA scaffold did not fluoresce. Upon the existence of RNA scaffold, many of the cells emitted fluorescence indicating a substantial amount of split GFP combination is permitted because of the function of RNA scaffold. The brightfield images in the right column depict all bacterial cells. The GFP images in the left column depict bacterial cells which emitted fluorescence. </p> | ||
+ | <p align="justify"> </p> | ||
+ | <div class="floatC"> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/d/df/Riboscaffold_fig_13.jpg" width="600px" /> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | <p class="fig" align="justify"><b>Fig.4</b> Biotek Synergy H1 Hybrid Reader controlled experiments. The BL21*DE3 of the E. coli were transformed with figure showing plasmids. (0.5 mM theophylline was adding in strains containing clover 2). </p> | ||
+ | </br> | ||
<p align="justify">`luminescence \quad efficiency \quad of \quad clover 2=\frac{\frac{FI}{OD(FA+FB+clover 2)}-\frac{FI}{OD(FA+FB)}}{\frac{FI}{OD(FA+FB)}}=\frac{53425-23779}{23779}=125\%`</p> | <p align="justify">`luminescence \quad efficiency \quad of \quad clover 2=\frac{\frac{FI}{OD(FA+FB+clover 2)}-\frac{FI}{OD(FA+FB)}}{\frac{FI}{OD(FA+FB)}}=\frac{53425-23779}{23779}=125\%`</p> | ||
<p align="justify"> </p> | <p align="justify"> </p> | ||
Line 674: | Line 691: | ||
<p align="justify">One possible reason is in clover version 2, distance between MS2 aptamer and PP7 aptamer is closer than in D0 (showing in 04 S1 Rboscaffold Fig.4 and Fig.6), so that when binding phage coat proteins, FA and FB on clover version 2 were set closer than on D0. We submit the inference that when RNA scaffold binds enzymes, clover version 2 draws two enzymes nearer than D0 thus has more ability to accelerate the enzymatic reaction.</p> | <p align="justify">One possible reason is in clover version 2, distance between MS2 aptamer and PP7 aptamer is closer than in D0 (showing in 04 S1 Rboscaffold Fig.4 and Fig.6), so that when binding phage coat proteins, FA and FB on clover version 2 were set closer than on D0. We submit the inference that when RNA scaffold binds enzymes, clover version 2 draws two enzymes nearer than D0 thus has more ability to accelerate the enzymatic reaction.</p> | ||
+ | </br> | ||
- | + | <h3>2. Regulate and control by Theophylline</h3> | |
- | <h3>Regulate and control by Theophylline</h3> | + | |
<p align="justify">When the concentration of Theophylline is in the range from 0mM to 0.5mM, the concentration of Theophylline and the resulting fluorescence intensity are directly proportional. </p> | <p align="justify">When the concentration of Theophylline is in the range from 0mM to 0.5mM, the concentration of Theophylline and the resulting fluorescence intensity are directly proportional. </p> | ||
<p align="justify">Theophylline concentration beyond certain extent will be hazardous to cells and how it affects cells depends on strain type. The study by NYMU Taipei 2010 alerted adding more than 4mM of Theophylline would cause E. coli to die. In our experiments, we find that after adding more than 0.5mM, the Theophylline spectrum curve would be invalid. As a result, we pick up data with concentrations below 0.5mM to analyze as the E. coli cell would be unstable or the regulation of the Theophylline aptamer would not be accurate. </p> | <p align="justify">Theophylline concentration beyond certain extent will be hazardous to cells and how it affects cells depends on strain type. The study by NYMU Taipei 2010 alerted adding more than 4mM of Theophylline would cause E. coli to die. In our experiments, we find that after adding more than 0.5mM, the Theophylline spectrum curve would be invalid. As a result, we pick up data with concentrations below 0.5mM to analyze as the E. coli cell would be unstable or the regulation of the Theophylline aptamer would not be accurate. </p> | ||
Line 682: | Line 699: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/2/20/Screen_Shot_2012-09-26_at_%E4%B8%8B%E5%8D%885.27.52.png" width="700px" /> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/2/20/Screen_Shot_2012-09-26_at_%E4%B8%8B%E5%8D%885.27.52.png" width="700px" /> | ||
- | <p align="justify">Fig.5 origin data of clover 2 regulatory tests. First line of each form is different treatments of Theophylline concentration and data in table cells are fluorescence intensity/ OD.</p> | + | <p class="fig" align="justify"><b>Fig.5</b> origin data of clover 2 regulatory tests. First line of each form is different treatments of Theophylline concentration and data in table cells are fluorescence intensity/ OD.</p> |
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/2/25/Riboscaffold_fig_15_上.jpg" width="700px" /> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/2/25/Riboscaffold_fig_15_上.jpg" width="700px" /> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/2/2d/Riboscaffold_fig_15_下.jpg" width="700px" /> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/2/2d/Riboscaffold_fig_15_下.jpg" width="700px" /> | ||
- | <p align="justify">Fig.6 7 tests of fluorescence/ OD change over theophylline concentration. There’s evident positive correlation in between.</p> | + | <p class="fig" align="justify"><b>Fig.6</b> 7 tests of fluorescence/ OD change over theophylline concentration. There’s evident positive correlation in between.</p> |
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
<p align="justify">Then we build several SAS models to analyze data with SAS software GLM procedure between 0-0.5mM Theophylline concentrations of treatments, choosing” clover version 2: different treatments versus blocks” test 5-7 to run a SAS model.</p> | <p align="justify">Then we build several SAS models to analyze data with SAS software GLM procedure between 0-0.5mM Theophylline concentrations of treatments, choosing” clover version 2: different treatments versus blocks” test 5-7 to run a SAS model.</p> |