Team:Technion/Project/Phage

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 23: Line 23:
Our solution for this problem is to divide the phage genome into eight  fragments. <br />
Our solution for this problem is to divide the phage genome into eight  fragments. <br />
<strong>Figure 1</strong> shows the whole  phage genome as divided into fragments.<br />
<strong>Figure 1</strong> shows the whole  phage genome as divided into fragments.<br />
-
[[File:phage_figure1.jpg|800px|thumb|center|<strong><em>Figure 1:</em></strong><em> <strong>A</strong> &ndash; phage  lambda genome with notations to the regulatory sequences (promoters and  operators), regulatory proteins, functional proteins and structural elements.  The colored frames represent the divided fragments, with no significance to the  different colors. Each letter or word above the sequence represents the  different genes. The colored genes consists the phage envelope, and their  location in illustrated in B. <strong>B</strong> &ndash; phage lambda structure illustration.  The proteins&rsquo; colors match the colored sequences in A. </em><br />
+
[[File:phage_figure1.jpg|950px|thumb|center|<strong><em>Figure 1:</em></strong><em> <strong>A</strong> &ndash; phage  lambda genome with notations to the regulatory sequences (promoters and  operators), regulatory proteins, functional proteins and structural elements.  The colored frames represent the divided fragments, with no significance to the  different colors. Each letter or word above the sequence represents the  different genes. The colored genes consists the phage envelope, and their  location in illustrated in B. <strong>B</strong> &ndash; phage lambda structure illustration.  The proteins&rsquo; colors match the colored sequences in A. </em><br />
   <em>The original figure  was taken from: <strong>S.V. Rajagopala1, S. Casjens. and P. Uetz,</strong> 2011,  &quot;The protein interaction map of bacteriophage lambda&quot;, BMC  Microbiology, <strong>1</strong>, pp. 213-228.</em>]]
   <em>The original figure  was taken from: <strong>S.V. Rajagopala1, S. Casjens. and P. Uetz,</strong> 2011,  &quot;The protein interaction map of bacteriophage lambda&quot;, BMC  Microbiology, <strong>1</strong>, pp. 213-228.</em>]]
 +
<p dir="ltr">Each fragment was inserted in the pSB1C3 plasmid, which was improved for our use by adding  a MCS, with unique restriction sites that do not appear in the phage native  genome ([http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K784023 BBa_K784023]).<br />
 +
  The main challenge with the phages genome division is to avoid putting  regulatory elements with their regulated sequences. By doing so, we can prevent  the expression of harmful and lytic associated proteins to the host bacteria.  For example, all the lytic associated  proteins are located together in fragment 8 (F8), without any promoter  (PR) or activating protein (Q). <br />
 +
  Moreover, due to the genome organization we can create function  correlated sequences, each containing several proteins with a specific purpose. For example, the phage head proteins are  located together in F1, and all the regulatory sequences are located in F6.</p>
 +
===Results===
 +
====pSB1C3+MCS====
 +
[[File:phage_figure2.png|400px|thumb|right|<strong><em>Figure 2: </em></strong><em>pSB1C3+MCS digested  with various unique restriction enzymes. The expected product is 2096bp.</em>]]
 +
<p>The MCS was constructed by DNA hybridization of two single stranded DNA  molecules. The hybridized product was cloned into pSB1C3 using the XbaI and  PstI1 sites. The MCS contains the following unique restriction sites: EcoRI, XbaI, BglII, HindIII, PacI,  BamHI, SpeI and PstI.<br />
 +
To test the MCS, we digested 500ng of  plasmid with each of the restriction enzymes. The restriction products were ran  on a gel along with an uncut plasmid. The results are presented in <strong><em>Figure  2</em></strong>.</p>
 +
<p>It can be noticed that all the enzymes cut efficiently except for XbaI.  After looking again at the sequence of the MCS it was found that the  combination of the overlapping XbaI and BglII sites created a GATC methylation  site. XbaI digestion is affected by this methylation. Therefore, to achieve  highest restriction efficiency with XbaI in this construct the plasmid should  be propagated in <em>dam-</em> <em>E. coli</em> strains. A future improvement to  this MCS would be restoring the original BioBrick prefix by inserting a G downstream  to the XbaI site. This will destroy the BglII site but it will also destroy the  GATC sequence, therefore, restoring the XbaI restriction site to a non  methylated state.</p>
 +
====Phage fragments====
 +
<p>Each fragment was amplified using PCR reaction, with the phage lambda's  genome as a template (The physical DNA was obtained from [http://www.neb.com/nebecomm/products/productn3011.asp NEB]. <br />
 +
This procedure needed a fine tuning, because  the amplification template was the phage's 48kb genome (which means more than  one band for most fragments&hellip;). The primers for this  reaction contained PacI and SpeI recognition sequences ([https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/e/ee/Phage_primers_for_wiki.xls  see the primers sequences file]). After gel purification, the products were  restricted using PacI and SpeI, and ligated to the pSB1C3 improved plasmid  [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K784023  BBa_K784023]. The ligation products were transformed into competent <em>Top10-Rb</em> (or <em>Top10-Ca</em>) bacteria, and were tested for the insert using colony PCR.  Most of the fragments were longer than the  plasmid backbone, the cloning wasn't as efficient as in shorter inserts. <br />
 +
We successfully cloned  four out of the eight fragments.</p>
 +
==The assembly strategy==
 +
<p>Our next goal is to reassemble the eight fragments into the whole 48kb  genome. We planned to use Gibson Assembly, with a few adjustments to the  assembly of long fragments, since the standard Gibson Assembly solution we use  is designed for shorter fragments.</p>
 +
===Calibration of fragments overlap length and  reassembly conditions===
 +
<p>The goal  of this experiment was to find the reaction conditions that allow the highest  assembling efficiency when assembling long fragments.<br />
 +
  Our  first step was to assemble two fragments, while using different lengths of  fragments' overlap and different concentrations of T5 exonuclease. We used  100bp, 250bp and 400bp overlap between F4 (8080bp) and F5 (6150bp). <br />
 +
  The  fragments with the different overlap length were amplified using PCR reaction, with the phage lambda genome as a template. The sense primers were  identical to all the fragments, and the anti-sense primers were moved along the  phage genome, in order to create the different overlaps ([https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/e/ee/Phage_primers_for_wiki.xls  see the primers sequences file]). This  procedure was created using the NEB Gibson assembly buffer, with an addition of  different concentrations of T5 exonuclease (1:100).</p>
 +
====Results====
 +
[[File:phage_figure3.png|600px|thumb|right|<strong><em>Figure 3:</em></strong><em> gel electroporation of the Gibson assembly of F4 and F5 using  different fragments overlap and different concentration of T5 exonuclease. The  number before the dot (.) represents the fragments overlap length (in bp). The  number after the dot represents the T5 exonuclease concentration (10<sup>4</sup>&times;U per  reaction). The electrophoresis was performed in a 0.4% agarose gel, in a 30V  for 5 hours. Different ladder volumes were loaded every three lanes, to ease to  length analysis. All the reactions contained ~150ng of each fragment DNA in a final  volume of 10&#956;l.</em><br />
 +
  <em>The T5 exonuclease  increases the assembly efficiency for all fragments, with the most efficient  reaction achieved in the 100bp fragment overlap with 0.5&#956;l addition of T5  exonuclease. </em>]]
 +
<p>All the reactions were performed with DNA  weight of ~150ng for each fragment in a 5 &#956;l volume. We added different T5  exonuclease concentration to each sample (0.25&times;10<sup>4</sup>U and 50&times;10<sup>4</sup>U per reaction)  and the volume was completed to 10&#956;l using NEB Gibson solution (5, 4.75  and 4.5 &#956;l, in accordance to the T5-exo addition). <br />
 +
  The  results are described in <strong><em>Figure 3</em></strong>. We succeeded in assembling F4  (8080bp) and F5 (6150bp) into one fragment (14230bp), in all the overlaps  lengths.
 +
<ul>
 +
  <li><span dir="ltr"> </span>When comparing lanes 1.0 (100bp overlap; no T5  addition), 2.0 (250bp overlap; no T5 addition) and 3.0 (400bp overlap; no T5  addition), it is visible that the 100bp fragment overlap reaction was the most  efficient, and the 400bp was the least efficient. </li>
 +
  <li><span dir="ltr"> </span>When comparing the three lanes at each fragments  overlap length, it is clear that the addition of the T5 exonuclease increases  the assembly efficiency for all fragments. In the 100bp fragments overlap the  lower &quot;source fragments&quot; were hardly visible (lane 1.2), especially  when compared to the control which didn't contain T5 exonuclease (lane 1.0). </li>
 +
  <li><span dir="ltr"> </span>It is possible that an increase in the T5  exonuclease concentration, will allow the assembly for the 400bp fragments  overlap. </li>
 +
</ul>
 +
<br clear="all" /></p>
 +
===Re-factoring the eight phage fragments together again===
 +
<p>After we concluded that the 100bp fragments  overlap yields the best fragments' assembly results, especially with the  addition of T5 exonuclease, the next step is to assemble more than two  fragments using these conditions. We chose to work with the following triple of  fragments: F4 (8080bp), F5 (6150bp) and F6 (5700bp) and F5, F6 and F7 (7300bp),  and the following four fragments: &nbsp;F4,  F5, F6 and F7. </p>
 +
====Results====
 +
[[File:phage_figure4.png|300px|thumb|right|<strong><em>Figure  4:</em></strong><em> this figure shows the expected fragments  length for each reaction. Only two adjacent fragments can be assembled  together. </em>]]
 +
<p>All the reactions were performed in DNA weight of  ~150ng for each fragment in a 5 &#956;l volume. We added 50&times;10<sup>4</sup>U T5  exonuclease per reaction and the volume was completed to 10&#956;l using NEB  Gibson solution. We  created a reference sample using the &quot;source fragment&quot; as a ladder  (marked in L). The expected length of the fragments described in <strong><em>Figure 4</em></strong></p>

Revision as of 14:20, 26 September 2012



Contents

Objective

The main objective of this project is to create phage lambda that goes through its lytic cycle only under specific conditions that are met in the bacterial host. The idea is to replace one phage protein location in the genome, under a new regulatory promoter. This will allow the phage lytic cycle only in inducible conditions, controlled by the engineered plasmids that express RNA-polymerases.
This project included planning the genetic manipulation of the phage genome. This includes:

  • Phage deviation into fragments that will ease the genetic manipulation, and re-factoring of the phages genome, after cutting it into fragments.
  • Planning of the Q gene deletion and re-insertion under the desirable regulation, the RNA-polymerase promoter.
  • The design of the antibiotic resistance gene insertion into the phage genome, in order to create additional selection to bacteria that contain the phage lysogenic genome.

The chosen phage lambda strain

The phage that was chosen as our working tool was phage lambda heat – inducible cI857s7. The phage genome contains four mutations:

  • Addition of HindIII restriction site at 37,589 (C -> T) [ind1].
  • Mutated S gene at 45,352 (G -> A), which leads to accumulation of infectious bacteriophage in the E. coli cells, the phage concentration increase when released from the cell [Sam7].
  • Temperature sensitive mutation that converts the CI gene into a thermo sensitive protein. This allows inducing the lysogenic phage cycle in 37˚C, and lysis induction in 42˚C, this mutation is created at 37,742 (C -> T) [cI857].
  • Additional point mutation at 43,082 (G -> A).

The phage genome sequence was taken from [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_001416.1 NCBI]
The physical DNA was obtained from [http://www.neb.com/nebecomm/products/productn3011.asp NEB]
We chose to work with this phage mainly because of the temperature sensitivity, and the ability to induce lysis in controlled conditions. Moreover, the phage concentration will be higher when the bacterial cell undergoes lysis, due to the Sum 7 mutation.

The division into fragments

When thinking on how to manipulate the phage genome and insert one or more genes under desire regulation (like RNA-pol promoters in our study), the first problem is how to manipulate a 48kb genome.
Our solution for this problem is to divide the phage genome into eight fragments.
Figure 1 shows the whole phage genome as divided into fragments.

Figure 1: A – phage lambda genome with notations to the regulatory sequences (promoters and operators), regulatory proteins, functional proteins and structural elements. The colored frames represent the divided fragments, with no significance to the different colors. Each letter or word above the sequence represents the different genes. The colored genes consists the phage envelope, and their location in illustrated in B. B – phage lambda structure illustration. The proteins’ colors match the colored sequences in A.
The original figure was taken from: S.V. Rajagopala1, S. Casjens. and P. Uetz, 2011, "The protein interaction map of bacteriophage lambda", BMC Microbiology, 1, pp. 213-228.

Each fragment was inserted in the pSB1C3 plasmid, which was improved for our use by adding a MCS, with unique restriction sites that do not appear in the phage native genome ([http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K784023 BBa_K784023]).
The main challenge with the phages genome division is to avoid putting regulatory elements with their regulated sequences. By doing so, we can prevent the expression of harmful and lytic associated proteins to the host bacteria. For example, all the lytic associated proteins are located together in fragment 8 (F8), without any promoter (PR) or activating protein (Q).
Moreover, due to the genome organization we can create function correlated sequences, each containing several proteins with a specific purpose. For example, the phage head proteins are located together in F1, and all the regulatory sequences are located in F6.

Results

pSB1C3+MCS

Figure 2: pSB1C3+MCS digested with various unique restriction enzymes. The expected product is 2096bp.

The MCS was constructed by DNA hybridization of two single stranded DNA molecules. The hybridized product was cloned into pSB1C3 using the XbaI and PstI1 sites. The MCS contains the following unique restriction sites: EcoRI, XbaI, BglII, HindIII, PacI, BamHI, SpeI and PstI.
To test the MCS, we digested 500ng of plasmid with each of the restriction enzymes. The restriction products were ran on a gel along with an uncut plasmid. The results are presented in Figure 2.

It can be noticed that all the enzymes cut efficiently except for XbaI. After looking again at the sequence of the MCS it was found that the combination of the overlapping XbaI and BglII sites created a GATC methylation site. XbaI digestion is affected by this methylation. Therefore, to achieve highest restriction efficiency with XbaI in this construct the plasmid should be propagated in dam- E. coli strains. A future improvement to this MCS would be restoring the original BioBrick prefix by inserting a G downstream to the XbaI site. This will destroy the BglII site but it will also destroy the GATC sequence, therefore, restoring the XbaI restriction site to a non methylated state.

Phage fragments

Each fragment was amplified using PCR reaction, with the phage lambda's genome as a template (The physical DNA was obtained from [http://www.neb.com/nebecomm/products/productn3011.asp NEB].
This procedure needed a fine tuning, because the amplification template was the phage's 48kb genome (which means more than one band for most fragments…). The primers for this reaction contained PacI and SpeI recognition sequences (see the primers sequences file). After gel purification, the products were restricted using PacI and SpeI, and ligated to the pSB1C3 improved plasmid [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K784023 BBa_K784023]. The ligation products were transformed into competent Top10-Rb (or Top10-Ca) bacteria, and were tested for the insert using colony PCR. Most of the fragments were longer than the plasmid backbone, the cloning wasn't as efficient as in shorter inserts.
We successfully cloned four out of the eight fragments.

The assembly strategy

Our next goal is to reassemble the eight fragments into the whole 48kb genome. We planned to use Gibson Assembly, with a few adjustments to the assembly of long fragments, since the standard Gibson Assembly solution we use is designed for shorter fragments.

Calibration of fragments overlap length and reassembly conditions

The goal of this experiment was to find the reaction conditions that allow the highest assembling efficiency when assembling long fragments.
Our first step was to assemble two fragments, while using different lengths of fragments' overlap and different concentrations of T5 exonuclease. We used 100bp, 250bp and 400bp overlap between F4 (8080bp) and F5 (6150bp).
The fragments with the different overlap length were amplified using PCR reaction, with the phage lambda genome as a template. The sense primers were identical to all the fragments, and the anti-sense primers were moved along the phage genome, in order to create the different overlaps (see the primers sequences file). This procedure was created using the NEB Gibson assembly buffer, with an addition of different concentrations of T5 exonuclease (1:100).

Results

Figure 3: gel electroporation of the Gibson assembly of F4 and F5 using different fragments overlap and different concentration of T5 exonuclease. The number before the dot (.) represents the fragments overlap length (in bp). The number after the dot represents the T5 exonuclease concentration (104×U per reaction). The electrophoresis was performed in a 0.4% agarose gel, in a 30V for 5 hours. Different ladder volumes were loaded every three lanes, to ease to length analysis. All the reactions contained ~150ng of each fragment DNA in a final volume of 10μl.
The T5 exonuclease increases the assembly efficiency for all fragments, with the most efficient reaction achieved in the 100bp fragment overlap with 0.5μl addition of T5 exonuclease.

All the reactions were performed with DNA weight of ~150ng for each fragment in a 5 μl volume. We added different T5 exonuclease concentration to each sample (0.25×104U and 50×104U per reaction) and the volume was completed to 10μl using NEB Gibson solution (5, 4.75 and 4.5 μl, in accordance to the T5-exo addition).
The results are described in Figure 3. We succeeded in assembling F4 (8080bp) and F5 (6150bp) into one fragment (14230bp), in all the overlaps lengths.

  • When comparing lanes 1.0 (100bp overlap; no T5 addition), 2.0 (250bp overlap; no T5 addition) and 3.0 (400bp overlap; no T5 addition), it is visible that the 100bp fragment overlap reaction was the most efficient, and the 400bp was the least efficient.
  • When comparing the three lanes at each fragments overlap length, it is clear that the addition of the T5 exonuclease increases the assembly efficiency for all fragments. In the 100bp fragments overlap the lower "source fragments" were hardly visible (lane 1.2), especially when compared to the control which didn't contain T5 exonuclease (lane 1.0).
  • It is possible that an increase in the T5 exonuclease concentration, will allow the assembly for the 400bp fragments overlap.

Re-factoring the eight phage fragments together again

After we concluded that the 100bp fragments overlap yields the best fragments' assembly results, especially with the addition of T5 exonuclease, the next step is to assemble more than two fragments using these conditions. We chose to work with the following triple of fragments: F4 (8080bp), F5 (6150bp) and F6 (5700bp) and F5, F6 and F7 (7300bp), and the following four fragments:  F4, F5, F6 and F7.

Results

Figure 4: this figure shows the expected fragments length for each reaction. Only two adjacent fragments can be assembled together.

All the reactions were performed in DNA weight of ~150ng for each fragment in a 5 μl volume. We added 50×104U T5 exonuclease per reaction and the volume was completed to 10μl using NEB Gibson solution. We created a reference sample using the "source fragment" as a ladder (marked in L). The expected length of the fragments described in Figure 4