Team:Peking/Project

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 39: Line 39:
<li>
<li>
<p>1. Low sensitivity<br/>
<p>1. Low sensitivity<br/>
-
To minimize the influence on cell growth, strong light needs to be avoided for practical applications. Near 50% of current 15 optogenetic tools employ lasers as the light source. We demonstrated the lethal effect of lasers by illuminating a lawn of <i>E.coli</i> with a laser pointer. As clearly shown in Figure 3, no bacterial growth could be found on the spot that was illuminated. Only about 25% of the 15 optogenetics tools are able to sense natural light (~1W/m<sup>2</sup>), an obviously biologically friendly and much more sustainable source of light (Figure 4).  
+
To minimize the influence on cell growth, strong light needs to be avoided for practical applications. Near 50% of current 15 optogenetic tools employ lasers as the light source. We demonstrated the lethal effect of lasers by illuminating a lawn of <i>E.coli</i> with a laser pointer. As clearly shown in Figure 3, no bacterial growth could be found on the spot that was illuminated. Only about 25% of the 15 optogenetics tools are able to sense natural light (~1W/m<sup>2</sup>), a biologically friendly and much more sustainable source of light (Figure 4).  
</p>
</p>
<div class="floatC">
<div class="floatC">
Line 49: Line 49:
   <img src="" alt="[Fig 4.]" />
   <img src="" alt="[Fig 4.]" />
   <p class="description">
   <p class="description">
-
   Figure 4. The sensitivity of the 15 optogeneticsmethods.</p>
+
   Figure 4. The sensitivity of 15 optogenetic methods.</p>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</li>
<li>
<li>
-
<p>Narrow dynamic range<br/>Many cross-species optogenetics methods require the addition of exogenous chromophores, e.g. phycocyanobilin (PCB) and caged amino acids. This leads to two major problems: (1) the exogenous chromophores may be incompatible with the endogenous components, and observed in some cases, may even have some influence on the bacterial growth; (2) the inhomogeneity caused by the diffusion of chromophores, an undesired AND gate, is constructed in these methods (Figure 6), which makes the output unpredictable.  
+
<p>2. Narrow dynamic range<br/>For a control system, the dynamic range (fold change of output in response to input signal) is an essential parameter used to evaluate the control efficiency. Among the 15 optogenetic methods, few have a dynamic range that reaches 100-fold (Figure 5). In application, systems with narrow dynamic ranges will be easily interfered by the intrinsic and extrinsic noises. The main motive for having narrow dynamic range is because most of the methods utilize a complex signal cascade where  high basal level is inevitable.
</p>
</p>
<div class="floatC">
<div class="floatC">
   <img src="" alt="[Fig 5.]" />
   <img src="" alt="[Fig 5.]" />
   <p class="description">
   <p class="description">
-
Figure 5. The dynamic range of the 15 optogenetics methods.</p>
+
Figure 5. The dynamic range of the 15 optogenetic methods.</p>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</li>
<li>
<li>
-
<p>Dependency on exogenous chromophores<br/>Many cross-species optogenetics methods require the addition of exogenous chromophores, e.g. phycocyanobilin (PCB) and caged amino acids. This leads to two major problems: (1) the exogenous chromophores may be incompatible with the endogenous components, and observed in some cases, may even have some influence on the bacterial growth; (2) the inhomogeneity caused by the diffusion of chromophores, an undesired AND gate, is constructed in these methods (Figure 6), which makes the output unpredictable.
+
<p>3. Dependency on exogenous chromophores<br/>Many optogenetic methods require the supplement of exogenous chromophores, e.g. phycocyanobilin (PCB) and caged amino acids. This leads to two major problems: (1) the exogenous chromophores may be incompatible with the endogenous components, and observed in some cases, even have cytotoxity; (2) the uneven diffusion of chromophores, in many cases, makes the output unpredictable.
</p>
</p>
<div class="floatC">
<div class="floatC">

Revision as of 08:03, 20 September 2012

Synthetic Biology: What's Hindering?

Viewing cells as programmable entities, efforts in synthetic biology have focused on the creation and perfection of biological modules and systems in order to achieve specific functions. Since first demonstrated by the bacterial toggle switch and the repressilator in 2000, synthetic biologists now own the ability to engineer genetic circuits, metabolic pathways, and even genomes.

During genetic engineering, chemicals are frequently employed as signals to control molecular and cellular behavior. However, because chemicals deliver information only by diffusion (Figure 1), chemical signals are seriously limited by the short-range interaction. Another serious issue regarding chemical signals is the difficulty to erase them, which makes it difficult for the system to reset. Additionally, the cytotoxicity, high cost and narrow dynamic range of chemicals urge synthetic biologists to find more spatiotemporally specific and environmental friendly alternatives.

[Fig 1.]

Figure 1. The diffusion of chemicals.

Optogenetics: Inspire Synthetic Biology

Literally, optogenetics refers to the genetic strategies which employ light as the input signal in the place of chemical signals. During the last decade, optogenetics has made significant impacts on life sciences and other practices. It has evolved rapidly: light-switchable promoters, light-induced protein-protein interaction, light-activated ion channels and eventually, light-controlled animal behavior (Figure 2). The spatiotemporal specificity of light signals allows for precise manipulation and long range interaction without physical contact. Besides, light resources are cheaper, more sustainable and environmentally friendly. These properties together make optogenetic tools attractive for synthetic biologists.

[Fig 2.]

Figure 2. Revolution of Optogenetics.

However, current optogenetic tools are far from satisfactory for synthetic biology application. In next section, we will systematically analyze the current optogenetic methods and raise issues that our Luminesensor needs to circumvent.

Issues of Current Optogenetic Methods

We carefully selected 15 representative optogenetic methods, ranging from those in prokaryotes to those in eukaryotes. By statistically evaluating the modularity, sensitivity, and dynamic range of these optogenetics methods, we have come to a conclusion to address four issues of current optogenetics approaches:

  • 1. Low sensitivity
    To minimize the influence on cell growth, strong light needs to be avoided for practical applications. Near 50% of current 15 optogenetic tools employ lasers as the light source. We demonstrated the lethal effect of lasers by illuminating a lawn of E.coli with a laser pointer. As clearly shown in Figure 3, no bacterial growth could be found on the spot that was illuminated. Only about 25% of the 15 optogenetics tools are able to sense natural light (~1W/m2), a biologically friendly and much more sustainable source of light (Figure 4).

    [Fig 3.]

    Figure 3. The inhibitory effect of lasers on bacterial growth.

    [Fig 4.]

    Figure 4. The sensitivity of 15 optogenetic methods.

  • 2. Narrow dynamic range
    For a control system, the dynamic range (fold change of output in response to input signal) is an essential parameter used to evaluate the control efficiency. Among the 15 optogenetic methods, few have a dynamic range that reaches 100-fold (Figure 5). In application, systems with narrow dynamic ranges will be easily interfered by the intrinsic and extrinsic noises. The main motive for having narrow dynamic range is because most of the methods utilize a complex signal cascade where high basal level is inevitable.

    [Fig 5.]

    Figure 5. The dynamic range of the 15 optogenetic methods.

  • 3. Dependency on exogenous chromophores
    Many optogenetic methods require the supplement of exogenous chromophores, e.g. phycocyanobilin (PCB) and caged amino acids. This leads to two major problems: (1) the exogenous chromophores may be incompatible with the endogenous components, and observed in some cases, even have cytotoxity; (2) the uneven diffusion of chromophores, in many cases, makes the output unpredictable.

    [Fig 6.]

    Figure 2. Both chromophores AND light are required to activate/inactivate the system.

  • Limited application in prokaryotes
    Another serious issue concerns the limited application of optogenetics methods in prokaryotes. The rapidly reproducing prokaryotes play a very significant role in both fundamental research and industrial application. In many methods, only proof of concept is provided, without practical application concerned. The low sensitivity, narrow dynamic range, and need for exogenous chromophores, as mentioned above, are the main blocks of a broader and more practical application of these methods.

A New Generation of Optogenetics

By gaining insight into the current optogenetics methods, the Peking iGEM team speculates that rationally designing a robust and ultrasensitive transcription factor may circumvent all the potential problems mentioned above: high sensitivity allows dimmer, cheaper and safer light as the source of signals; because the light sensitive transcription factor functions directly on the gene expression, the basal level may be low enough to allow a high dynamic range.

Now that such an ultrasensitive and efficient optogenetics module has been successfully designed, the Peking iGEM endeavors to explore the full proficiency of optogenetics and raise a new generation of optogenetics with broader applications on the cellular behavior level, the intercellular communication level, and the industrial level.