Three calibration steps were carried out prior to experimental measurements being taken: 

  First, a LUDOX CL-X 45 % colloidal silica suspension was used to calculate a conversion factor for the Abs600 value measured by the plate reader to a comparable OD600 value, considering path length and well volume. Abs600 of 1:2 dilutions of LUDOX silica suspension were taken in triplicate and a reference OD600 of 0.063 (the reference value for 100 µL of LUDOX CL-X in a well of a standard 96-well flat-bottom black with clear bottom plate) divided by the mean measured value to give a conversion factor.

Table 1 – Optical density readings for LUDOX CL-X 45% colloidal silica suspension and water used to calculate the conversion factor for absorbance readings to OD600 readings for plate reader measurements.

Secondly, a standard curve was prepared by measuring the OD600 of serial dilutions of monodisperse silica microspheres, with similar light scattering properties to E. coli cells, used to estimate cell numbers (Figure 1 A). 

Thirdly, a fluorescence standard curve was created by measuring the fluorescence of serial dilutions of the small molecule fluorescein, which has similar excitation and emission characteristics to GFP. This allowed conversion of fluorescence readings to an equivalent fluorescein concentration. Calibrations allowed expression measurement in units of fluorescence per OD and molecules of equivalent fluorescein (MEFL) per cell (Figure 1B).

Following calibrations, two transformed colonies for each test device and both controls were used to inoculate LB medium containing chloramphenicol (CAM) and incubated overnight at 37 °C with shaking at 220 rpm. Overnight cultures were diluted 1:10 and the OD600 adjusted to 0.02 with LB with CAM to a final volume of 12 ml. Fluorescence and Abs600 were taken at 0h and 6 hours of incubation at 37 °C with 220 rpm shaking. Test devices, plasmid backbone and protocol workflow are shown in figure 2.

All test devices produced growth to OD600 reading in excess of 0.3, except test device (TD) 4. Despite lower growth than other transformants, TD4 produced the highest mean fluorescence reading of 79.1 a.u., as was expected as the strongest promoter of the Anderson collection (parts.igem.org/Promoters/Catalog/Anderson). Figure 3A and 3B show the colony 1 and colony 2 Abs600 values for the controls and each test device at 0 hours and 6 hours respectively.

The relatively poor growth and high fluorescence levels effectively cancelled each other out when readings were converted to Fluorescence per OD600 and MEFL per OD600 measurements, resulting in TD4 transformants producing the highest expression levels (figure 3.1). The high fluorescence and MEFL per OD600 reading for TD4 despite lowest growth suggests expression of TD4 is not fully representative of the relative promoter strength; expression levels are interdependent with growth rate, with higher growth rates expected to produce higher expression levels (Scott et al. 2010). Expected fluorescence levels based on relative promoter strength reported for the Anderson collection of promoters did not match entirely the results produced here. In particular, TD5 utilising the promoter J23104 was expected to be the second strongest but yielded only the fourth highest fluorescence reading of 22.14 and 21.42 for colonies 1 and 2 respectively. Similarly, the highest fluorescence reading was recorded by TD1 (expected strength: third), though this test device produced the widest range in fluorescence reading between the two colonies (r = 36.2), despite both colonies having the closest OD600 reading of any of the test devices (r = 0.007). In addition to the iGEM repository documentation for relative strengths of the Anderson promoter collection, previous literature has also demonstrated that the J23101 and J23104 promoters should have almost equal strength (He et al. 2017).

While TD5 appeared to underperform compared to promoter activity previously reported in the literature, subsequent sequencing of test devices revealed that colonies labelled as TD5 had in fact been transformed with the positive control device. This may have simply been the result of human error when pipetting or labelling over the process of the study. The consistence of TD5 underperformance across multiple replications of the study suggests that this occurred early on. The variation in expression visible is particularly alarming for the J23101 promoter, which has been proposed and utilised in the literature as a reference promoter to characterise relative strengths of other promoters as relative promoter units (Kelly et al. 2009).