Difference between revisions of "Team:UI Indonesia/Model"

Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Template:UI_Indonesia/css}}
 
{{Template:UI_Indonesia/css}}
  
<html lang="en">
+
<html lang="en">OD
  
 
<head>
 
<head>
Line 69: Line 69:
 
       }
 
       }
 
   }
 
   }
 
 
  
 
   .container {
 
   .container {
Line 116: Line 114:
 
     text-align: center;
 
     text-align: center;
 
   }
 
   }
 
table {
 
    font-family: arial, sans-serif;
 
    border-collapse: collapse;
 
 
}
 
 
td, th {
 
    border: 1px solid #dddddd;
 
    text-align: left;
 
    padding: 8px;
 
}
 
 
tr:nth-child(even) {
 
    background-color: #dddddd;
 
}
 
 
   <!---- MT NAVBAR --->
 
   <!---- MT NAVBAR --->
 
.sidebar-nav {
 
.sidebar-nav {
Line 255: Line 237:
 
           </ul>
 
           </ul>
 
         </li>
 
         </li>
<li class="navbar-model current"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Model">Model</a></li>
+
<li class="navbar-model"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Model">Model</a></li>
 
<li class="dropdown navbar-humanpractice">
 
<li class="dropdown navbar-humanpractice">
 
           <a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/HumanPractices">Human Practices<span class="caret"></span></a>
 
           <a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/HumanPractices">Human Practices<span class="caret"></span></a>
Line 265: Line 247:
 
           </ul>
 
           </ul>
 
         </li>
 
         </li>
<li class="navbar-improve"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Improve">Improve</a></li>
+
<li class="navbar-improve current"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Improve">Improve</a></li>
 
<li class="navbar-team"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Team">Team</a></li>
 
<li class="navbar-team"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Team">Team</a></li>
 
<li class="navbar-collaborations"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Collaborations">Collaborations</a></li>
 
<li class="navbar-collaborations"><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UI_Indonesia/Collaborations">Collaborations</a></li>
Line 275: Line 257:
 
</nav>
 
</nav>
  
<!-- Container (Introduction Section) -->
+
<!-------------------------TEST------------------------------------------->
<div class="bgimg-1 w3-display-container w3-opacity-min" id="intro">
+
<style>
  <div class="w3-display-middle" style="white-space:nowrap;">
+
.headerTestDiv{
    <span class="w3-center w3-padding-large w3-black w3-xlarge w3-wide w3-animate-opacity">INTRODUCTION</span>
+
border-right:4px solid lime;
  </div>
+
border-bottom:4px solid lime;
</div>
+
}
 +
.headerTest{
 +
    text-align: right !important;
 +
    font-size: 100px !important;
 +
    line-height: 100px !important;
 +
    text-transform: uppercase;
 +
    font-family: sans-serif !important;
 +
    font-weight: 700 !important;
 +
    color:#4CAF50;
 +
}
 +
.header2ndTest{
 +
    text-align: right !important;
 +
    font-size: 50px !important;
 +
    line-height: 50px !important;
 +
    text-transform: uppercase;
 +
    font-family: sans-serif !important;
 +
    font-weight: 700 !important;
 +
color:#216869;
 +
}
 +
@media only screen and (max-width: 600px) and (min-width: 100px){
 +
.headerTest{
 +
    font-size: 50px !important;
 +
    line-height: 50px !important;
 +
}
 +
.header2ndTest{
 +
    font-size: 30px !important;
 +
    line-height: 30px !important;
 +
color:#216869;
 +
}
 +
}
 +
.panel-default{
 +
border:none;
 +
background-color:white;
 +
border-left:4px solid lime;
 +
}
 +
.panel-default>.panel-heading{
 +
background-color:white;
 +
}
 +
.panel-group .panel-heading+.panel-collapse>.list-group, .panel-group .panel-heading+.panel-collapse>.panel-body{
 +
border:none;
 +
}
 +
.panel-title{
 +
    text-align: center !important;
 +
    font-size: 30px !important;
 +
    line-height: 30px !important;
 +
    text-transform: uppercase;
 +
    font-family: sans-serif !important;
 +
    font-weight: 700 !important;
 +
color:#4CAF50;
 +
}
 +
h5{
 +
    font-size:18px;
 +
}
 +
</style>
 +
<!----------------HEADER---------->
 +
<div class="w3-content w3-container w3-padding-48"></div>
 +
<div class="w3-content w3-container w3-padding-64 headerTestDiv"">
 +
<div class="headerTest">Improve</div>
 +
<div class="header2ndTest">Overview</div>
 +
</div>
 +
 +
<!-------------------Accordion--->
 +
 +
<div class="w3-content w3-container" style="padding:0px;">
 +
<div class="panel-group" id="accordion">
 +
<div class="panel panel-default">
 +
  <div class="panel-heading">
 +
<h4 class="panel-title">
 +
  <a data-toggle="collapse" data-parent="#accordion" href="#collapse1">Introduction</a>
 +
</h4>
 +
  </div>
 +
  <div id="collapse1" class="panel-collapse collapse">
 +
<div class="panel-body">
 +
<h5>As a contribution of iGEM UI 2018 team to improve existing parts in iGEM Registry, we decided to assemble “Improved Blue Fluorescent Protein (BFP)” (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K2607002">BBa_K2607002</a>, <b>Figure 1</b>) as improvement of B0034-BFP (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K592024">BBa_K592024</a>). Our established part consists of these following additional features:</h5>
 +
<br>
 +
<div class="w3-row w3-center">
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/9/99/T--UI_Indonesia--Figure1Improve.png" class="w3-image" width="700">
 +
<h6><b>Figure 1.</b> Original designed “Improved BFP” (BBa_K2607002) gBlock we ordered from Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (IDT) with length of 1151 basepairs (bp). Note that extra 42 bases in the upstream and 41 bases in the downstream are BioBrick prefix and suffix and for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification purpose. The part itself consists of 1068 bp. Range number in red indicates the position of each component in the gBlock. Rbs = ribosome binding site.</h6></div>
  
<div class="w3-content w3-container w3-padding-64">
+
<h5><ul>
  <h5>Our first steps in modelling the subsequent parts of <i>Finding Diphthy</i> iGEM-UI 2018 <i>in silico</i> is by
+
<li>lacI regulated promoter (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_R0010">BBa_R0010</a>) in the upstream</li>
  constructing all 3D models via <i>I-Tasser</i> server.<sup>1,2,3</sup> The extension of the product file is <i>.pdb</i>, that
+
<li>Double terminator (<a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_B0010">BBa_B0010</a> and <a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_B0012">BBa_B0012</a>) in the downstream</li>
  could be read by the server. The chimera molecules which we need to predict their modelling are HBEGF-TAR
+
<li>SalI restriction site between the promoter and ribosome binding site</li>
  (<i>Heparin Binding Epidermal Growth Factor-</i> TAR chemotaxis), CheA signalling protein, Che-Y signalling protein,
+
<li>NdeI restriction site between the ribosome binding site and coding sequence</li>
  LuxAB dimerized luciferase subunits, and eYFP (<i>enhanced yellow fluorescent protein</i>), as well as Affitoxin
+
<li>Modified blue fluorescence protein coding sequence to eliminate SalI restriction site in the middle without altering amino acid sequence.</li></ul></h5>
  (modified diphtheria exotoxin). Since CheA and CheY are required to be linked with LuxB or eYFP,  
+
<h5>This part can be used as reporter when combined with other parts. Because this part has its own promoter, ribosome binding site, and terminator, addition of these components is basically unnecessary. In addition, appropriate restriction enzyme (NdeI or SalI) can also be used to replace the promoter or ribosome binding site with the desired one.</h5>
  we have cited one of the universal linker, that is ‘GGGSGGGGSGGGGSG’ peptides, according to <i>Sun S et al</i>.
+
 
+
  <br><br>
+
  
  Our signalling part of the project is referred these sequences of all chimera combinations.
+
</div>
  <ol type="i">
+
  </div>
<li>LuxB-CheY</li>
+
</div>
<li>LuxB-CheA</li>
+
<div class="panel panel-default">
<li>CheY-eYFP</li>
+
<div class="panel-heading">
<li>CheA-eYFP</li>
+
<h4 class="panel-title">
  </ol>
+
<a data-toggle="collapse" data-parent="#accordion" href="#collapse2">Methods</a>
 
+
</h4>
  <br><br>
+
</div>
  In choosing the best combination, we use <i>FoldX</i> option via <i>YASARA molecules viewer</i>
+
<div id="collapse2" class="panel-collapse collapse">
  to calculate the ∆G of each molecule, searching for the smallest free energy
+
<div class="panel-body">
  (regarding its stability in <i>vivo</i>). All those sequences are also submitted to
+
<h5><b>Figure 2</b> shows the original plan of how we conducted the experiment with our established and existing parts.</h5>
  <i>I-Tasser</i> server for projecting their 3D models qualitatively. The following
+
<br>
  results would conclude that our <i>cytoplasmic</i> signalling combinations are
+
<div class="w3-row w3-center">
  CheY-eYFP and LuxB-CheA.
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/f/f6/T--UI_Indonesia--Figure2Improve.png" class="w3-image" width="700">
 
+
<h6><b>Figure 2.</b> Original plan workflow with newly-established (BBa_K2607002) and existing (BBa_K592024) parts of BFP.</h6></div>
  <br><br>
+
<h5><b><i>Part I: Gel Electrophoresis Confirmation</i></b></h5>
 
+
<h5>Upon receiving our “Improved BFP” gBlock from IDT, we performed PCR to amplify it until sufficient quantity (about 100 ng/uL). We then created two restriction digestion reactions, one with NdeI restriction enzyme and one with SalI restriction enzyme. Each reaction comprised of 100 uL PCR-amplified “Improved BFP” gBlock, 6 uL restriction enzyme, 15 uL CutSmart<sup>®</sup> restriction buffer, and 29 uL nuclease-free water. The reaction was subsequently incubated for four hours at 37<sup>o</sup>C incubator. The digestion products were then run for electrophoresis in 1% agarose gel with tris-acetic acid-EDTA (TAE) buffer 1x, power supply 50 volt for 70 minutes. Visualization was performed with Bio-Rad Gel Doc<sup>TM</sup> XR+ Gel Documentation System.</h5>
  <div align="center"><!-------TABLE 1-------TABLE 1-------TABLE 1------->
+
<br>
  <h6><b>Table 1.</b> Specific Gibbs Energy within Each Protein Combination.</h6>
+
<h5><b><i>Part II: Ultraviolet (UV) Check</i></b></h5>
  <table >
+
<h5>First, we acquired BBa_K592024 by transforming wild-type <i>Escherichia coli</i> K-12 with plasmid in well 17C of Distribution Kit Plate 1, isolating the plasmid, and performing restriction with EcoRI and PstI restricton enzymes. Our “Improved BFP” and BBa_K592024 were separately cloned into plasmid pQE80L using EcoRI and PstI according to our laboratory protocol. The resultant ligation products were subsequently transformed into wild-type <i>E. coli</i> K-12, along with empty pQE80L as control. Transformation products were spread into Luria-Bertani (LB) agar medium containing ampicillin with ratio 1000:1. On the following day, the fluorescence was assessed qualitatively under ultraviolet (UV) light.</h5>
<tr>
+
<br>
<th width="120px">Combination</th>
+
<h5><b><i>Part III: Fluorescence Assay</i></b></h5>
<th width="120px"><p align="center">∆G</p></th>
+
<h5>Fluorescence assay was conducted according to 5<sup>th</sup> InterLab protocol with some modifications. From each transformation plates, two colonies were picked and let to be grown in LB medium with ampicillin (1000:1). Two colonies of <i>E. coli</i> containing empty plasmid pQE80L were also inoculated for control. After 18 hours, each overnight culture was diluted until optical density at 600 nm (OD<sub>600</sub>) of 0.02 and final volume of 12 mL in 50 mL centrifuge tube covered with foil. At t = 0 hour, 1 mL from each tube was sampled to be measured for its OD<sub>600</sub> and fluorescence. The measurement was conducted with GloMax<sup>®</sup> - Multi Detection System with “UV” settings: 365 nm excitation and 410-460 nm emission. The data obtained were recorded and analyzed in Excel. The rest of dilutions were incubated in shaker under 37<sup>o</sup>C, 220 rotations per minute (rpm). We repeated the same procedure after t = 6 hour and overnight (t = 14 hour) incubation.</h5>
</tr><tr>
+
</div>
<td><b>LuxB-CheY</b></td>
+
</div>
<td><p align="right">58.15 kcal/mol</p></td>
+
</div>
</tr><tr>
+
<div class="panel panel-default">
<td><b>LuxB-CheA</b></td>
+
<div class="panel-heading">
<td><p align="right">1355.46 kcal/mol</p></td>
+
<h4 class="panel-title">
</tr><tr>
+
<a data-toggle="collapse" data-parent="#accordion" href="#collapse3">Results and Discussions</a>
<td><b>CheY-eYFP</b></td>
+
</h4>
<td><p align="right">36.48 kcal/mol</p></td>
+
</div>
</tr><tr>
+
<div id="collapse3" class="panel-collapse collapse">
<td><b>CheA-eYFP</b></td>
+
<div class="panel-body">
<td><p align="right">36.48 kcal/mol</p></td>
+
<h5><b><i>Part I: Gel Electrophoresis Confirmation</i></b></h5>
</tr>
+
<br>
  </table>
+
<div class="w3-row w3-center">
  </div>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/b/bb/T--UI_Indonesia--Figure3Improve.png" class="w3-image">
 
+
<h6><b>Figure 3.</b> Gel electrophoresis of restriction of “Improved BFP” gBlock with 1% agarose gel, TAE 1x, 50 V, and 70 minutes. Lane 1 = BioLabs, Inc. 100 bp DNA ladder (#N3231L) with size range 100-1517 bp. Lane 2 = uncut PCR-amplified “Improved BFP” gBlock (expected size 1151 bp). Lane 3 = “Improved BFP” gBlock cut with NdeI. Lane 4 = “Improved BFP” gBlock cut with SalI.</h6>
  <!-------PAGE 2----------PAGE 2----------PAGE 2----------PAGE 2------->
+
</div>
 
+
<h5>Restriction result of PCR-amplified “Improved BFP” gBlock is shown in <b>Figure 3</b>. At lane 2 consisting of uncut “Improved BFP” gBlock (size 1151 bp), only single band is observed. The band is located between 1000-1200 bp marker at lane 1, which is consistent to the gBlock original size. Upon restriction with NdeI, the expected bands are 271 bp and 880 bp in size, while restriction with SalI will yield expected bands of 249 bp and 902 bp. At lane 3 and 4, there are three bands observed, indicating that the gBlocks were partially digested with respective enzymes, NdeI and SalI. The heaviest bands in lane 3 and 4 were parallel with the band in lane 2, indicating that the bands were uncut "Improved BFP" gBlocks. The middle bands in lane 3 and 4 were similar in size (around 900 bp in size), representing the larger fragments of digestion products with their respective enzymes. The lightest bands in lane 3 and 4 were also similar in size, located between 200-300 bp marker at lane 1. They represent the smaller fragments of digestion products. The smaller fragment upon NdeI digestion is 271 bp, while upon SalI digestion is 249 bp. The lightest band in lane 3 migrated slightly slower than lightest band in lane 4, denoting larger size of smaller fragment in lane 3 than lane 4, which is consistent to the expected restriction results.</h5>
  <br><br>
+
<br>
 
+
<h5><b><i> Part II: Ultraviolet (UV) Check</i></b></h5>
  Characterisation or purification of those proteins would promote the usage
+
<br>
  of <i>His-tag</i>; therefore, insertion of His-tag inside the sequence is essential.  
+
<div class="w3-row w3-center">
  To ensure the slightest change of tertiary structures of each protein,  
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/a1/T--UI_Indonesia--Figure4Improve.png" class="w3-image" width="700">
  we would need to find out the secondary structure and surface accesibility
+
<h6><b>Figure 4</b>. Colony of transformed wild-type <i>Escherichia coli</i> K-12 with empty pQE80L (yellow arrow), pQE80L with “Improved BFP” (green arrow), and pQE80L with BBa_K592024 (orange arrow) in plasmid pQE80L under ultraviolet (UV) illumination.</h6>  
  via <i>NetSurfP ver. 1.1</i> analyser (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetSurfP/).  
+
</div>
  We would insert <i>His-tag</i> sequence in either no available specific protein
+
<h5>Transformation results of wild-type <i>E. coli</i> K-12 with empty pQE80L, pQE80L with “Improved BFP”, and pQE80L with BBa_K592024 under ultraviolet (UV) light is shown in <b>Figure 4</b>. Qualitatively, higher fluorescence was observed in transformed <i>E. coli</i> with “Improved BFP” compared with others. The probable explanation is that our “Improved BFP” has its own promoter. When our part is cloned into pQE80L with EcoRI and PstI, there are two promoters in the upstream of BFP coding region, theoretically leading to more BFP mRNA and protein being produced. However, to further investigate this hypothesis, we performed quantitative BFP fluorescence measurement from three samples (<i>E. coli</i> K-12 with empty pQE80L, pQE80L + “Improved BFP", and pQE80L + BBa_K592024), as will be explained in Part III.</h5>
  domain or the coiled secondary structure of protein to minimize any
+
<br>
  interruptions. Here is our affitoxin data from <i>NetSurfP</i> server.
+
<h5><b><i> Part III: Fluorescence Assay</i></b></h5>
 
+
<div class="w3-row w3-center">
  <br><br>
+
<h6><b>Table 1</b>. Fluorescence and OD<sub>600</sub> measurement of transformed <i>E. coli</i> K-12 with one of three plasmids: empty pQE80L, pQE80L with Improved BFP”, and pQE80L with BBa_K592024. Replicate 1 and 2 were from first colony of respective sampled transformed <i>E. coli</i>, while replicate 3 and 4 were from second colony. Fl = fluorescence in arbitrary unit.</h6>
 
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/d/d5/T--UI_Indonesia--Table1Improve.jpeg" class="w3-image" width="700">
  <div align="center"><!-------TABLE 2-------TABLE 2-------TABLE 2------->
+
</div>
  <h6><b>Table 2.</b> Coiling probability of Affitoxin’s specific domain.</h6>
+
<br>
  <table >
+
<div class="w3-row w3-center">
<tr>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/f/fa/T--UI_Indonesia--Figure5Improve.png" class="w3-image">
<th>Class assignment</th>
+
<h6><b>Figure 5</b>. Fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub> measurement (in mean arbitrary units ± standard deviation) of transformed <i>E. coli</i> with one of three plasmids (empty pQE80L, pQE80L with “Improved BFP”, and pQE80L with BBa_K592024) at t = 0 hour, 6 hour, and 14 hour. * and ** indicate statistically significant differences (p = 0.005 and < 0.001, respectively).</h6>
<th>Amino acid</th>
+
</div>
<th><p align="right">Amino acid<br>number</p></th>
+
<h5>Complete data of fluorescence assay is shown in <b>Table 1</b>, while the overall result is visualized in <b>Figure 5</b>. At t = 0, 6, and 14 hour, although not shown in Figure 5, fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub> of transformed <i>E. coli</i> with pQE80L + “Improved BFP” and pQE80L + BBa_K592024 were significantly higher than negative control (transformed <i>E. coli</i> with empty pQE80L). At t = 6 hour, fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub> of <i>E. coli</i> with “Improved BFP” was significantly higher than <i>E. coli</i> with BBa_K592024 (p = 0.005). Similar result was found after overnight incubation (p < 0.001). These results support previous qualitative observation of fluorescence and may be explained by ‘double promoter’ of “Improved BFP” in pQE80L. In addition, from Figure 5 it is also observed that fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub> was decreasing along with time. The probable explanation of this result is higher bacterial concentration in medium over time, resulting in larger denominator and reducing fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub>. Moreover, it is also probable that the bacteria underwent cessation, causing decline in BFP production and resulting in lower fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub>. Nevertheless, from this experiment, it can be inferred that <i>E. coli</i> transformed with “Improved BFP” retains significantly higher fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub> than BBa_K592024 under plasmid pQE80L expression system.</h5>
<th><p align="right">Probability<br>for Coil</p></th>
+
</div>
</tr><tr>
+
</div>
<td><b>B</b></td>
+
</div>
<td>I</td>
+
</div>
<td><p align="right">54</p></td>
+
<div class="panel panel-default">
<td><p align="right">0.223</p></td>
+
<div class="panel-heading">
</tr><tr>
+
<h4 class="panel-title">
<td><b>E</b></td>
+
<a data-toggle="collapse" data-parent="#accordion" href="#collapse4">Conclusions</a>
<td>K</td>
+
</h4>
<td><p align="right">55</p></td>
+
</div>
<td><p align="right">0.669</p></td>
+
<div id="collapse4" class="panel-collapse collapse">
</tr><tr>
+
<div class="panel-body">
<td><b>E</b></td>
+
<h5>To conclude, through experiment with “Improved BFP”, we demonstrated that our improved part can be cut between promoter and ribosome binding site, also between ribosome binding site and coding region with SalI and NdeI restriction enzyme, respectively. Therefore, appropriate restriction enzyme can be utilized to replace promoter or ribosome binding site with the desired ones. When we conducted experiment to compare “Improved BFP” and previous part (BBa_K592024) under pQE80L expression system, it was observed that “Improved BFP” yield more fluorescence/OD<sub>600</sub>, probably due to intrinsic promoter it owned.  </h5>
<td>S</td>
+
</div>
<td><p align="right">56</p></td>
+
</div>
<td><p align="right">0.994</p></td>
+
</div>
</tr>
+
  </div>  
</table>
+
</div>
  </div>
+
 
+
  <br><br>
+
 
+
Result from the <i>NetSurf server</i>, we choose C-terminus side,  
+
because it most likely turns/coils around (indicated by
+
has high number on the most right column is closest to 1),  
+
and it is freely exposed (indicated by most left column has E alphabet)
+
  <br><br>
+
Performing structural similarity between original molecule and
+
the one inserted with <i>His-tag</i> sequence have been done by <i>MUSTANG</i>  
+
server that built in via <i>YASARA molecule viewer.<sup>5<sup></i> The output would be
+
distance calculation between interacting atoms called RMSD
+
(Root-mean-square deviation). Following tables are summaries of the
+
molecular similarity analysis
+
  
  <br><br>
 
 
 
  <div align="center">
 
  <h6><b>Table 1.</b> RMSD Calculation within Several Protein Linked with His-tag.</h6>
 
  <table ><!-------TABLE 3-------TABLE 3-------TABLE 3------->
 
<tr>
 
<th width="300px"><p align="center">Similarities between</th>
 
<th width="120px"><p align="center">RMSD</p></th>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>LuxA with LuxA + His</b></td>
 
<td>2.203 Å</td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>LuxC with LuxC + His</b></td>
 
<td>0.985 Å</td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>LuxD with LuxD + His</b></td>
 
<td>0.1777 Å</td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>LuxE with LuxE + His</b></td>
 
<td>0.800 </td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>CheY-eYFP with CheY-eYFP+his</b></td>
 
<td>0.108 Å</td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>eYFP with eYFP + His</b></td>
 
<td>0.315 Å</td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>CheA with CheA + His</b></td>
 
<td>0.134 Å</td>
 
</tr>
 
  </table>
 
  </div>
 
 
 
  <br><br>
 
 
 
From the data that described above, all the combinations are acceptable,
 
except LuxA, since its possible combination has high RMSD. The threshold
 
is relative, but several literatures define the RMSD value of 2 as
 
threshold for structure similarity.<sup>5,6,7</sup>
 
  <br><br>
 
To ensure that the chimeric protein functions as both diphtheria’s
 
toxin receptor and Tar-mediated intracellular signaller, we chose
 
specific site of HB-EGF and Tar protein selectively for functional
 
combination. The chimera was designed by replacing parts of extracellular
 
domain of Tar receptor with binding domain of HB-EGF.
 
  <br><br>
 
In HB-EGF, the part that serves as binding domain for diphtheria exotoxin
 
predominantly located in the extracellular environment. Therefore,
 
the domain, expands between 20<sup>th</sup> – 160<sup>th</sup> amino acid, was selected from
 
natural HB-EGF protein. On the other hand, the Tar domain that are
 
functions to establish intracellular chemotactic signalling includes
 
NdeI cutting-site (around 257<sup>th</sup> amino acid) until the utmost C-terminal
 
of the protein (the 553<sup>rd</sup> amino acid).8-11 By those factors, our team also
 
selected Tar domains involving the 1st – 33<sup>rd</sup> and 191<sup>st</sup> –
 
553<sup>rd</sup> amino acid as part of chimeric protein.
 
 
 
  <br><br>
 
 
 
  <img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/5/5d/T--UI_Indonesia--fig1.jpg" class="w3-image" width="500""></img>
 
 
 
  <br><br>
 
 
 
<h6><b>Figure 1.</b> The selected segment of Tar protein. The functional
 
intracellular domain of Tar is shown as yellow box, blue box is
 
transmembrane domain and orange box is periplasmic domain. Selected Tar
 
domain expands from 1st -33<sup>rd</sup> amino acids and 191<sup>st</sup> -553<sup>rd</sup> amino acids.
 
Modification of binding domain is located between 33<sup>rd</sup> – 191<sup>st</sup> amino acids</h6>
 
 
  <br><br>
 
 
 
<h5>Our team have predicted the HB-EGF/Tar protein orientation in the
 
<i>Escherichia coli</i> membrane. For this purpose, server <i>TMHMM</i> and <i>OPM Membrane</i>,
 
are utilized to predict protein orientation.<sup>12,13</sup> Conceptual hypothesis
 
about the chimera protein is that it should begin its orientation of
 
C-terminus in cytoplasm, then continued to fold into transmembrane and
 
extracellular sites, as well as re-folding towards cytoplasm.
 
 
 
  <!-------PAGE 3----------PAGE 3----------PAGE 3----------PAGE 3------->
 
  <img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/e/e8/T--UI_Indonesia--fig2.jpg" class="w3-image" width="500""></img>
 
  <br><br>
 
 
 
<h6><b>Figure 2.</b> The graph above explains the result of HB-EGF/Tar
 
orientation, which began from C-terminus (left) to N-terminus (right).<sup>12</sup>
 
Y-axis pictured the possibility of n<sup>th</sup> amino acid on protein located somewhere
 
between transmembrane (red part), intracellular (blue line), and
 
extracellular (pink line). There is also a diagram located above the graph
 
that represent the most possible location of each domain (with elongated box).</h6>
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
<h5>From the results, it could be concluded that the protein was oriented
 
as expected in the hypothesis. Therefore, the usage of chimera protein is
 
predicted to be functional anatomically.
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
  <img></img><!----Figure 2 Image----->
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
  <img></img><!----Figure 3 Image----->
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
<h6><b>Figure 3.</b>Molecular comparation of HB-EGF native protein (left)
 
with the HB-EGF/Tar fusion (right).<sup>13,14</sup> The pink-coloured
 
domain is intracellularly located as the N-terminus, yellow-coloured
 
domain for the transmembrane one. Then, purple-coloured could be a sign
 
as the extracellular domain, finally folding into transmembrane and back
 
to cytoplasm with orange-coloured and cyan-coloured domain respectively.</h6>
 
 
 
  <!-------PAGE 4----------PAGE 4----------PAGE 4----------PAGE 4------->
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
After deciding sequence combination of amino acids in modelled chimera
 
HB-EGF/Tar protein, analyzing the interaction of both fusion protein and
 
diphtheria exotoxin is extremely important to ensure functional
 
ligand-receptor system. The basic concept of interaction modelling is
 
that the protein will be bound to each other well if it causes the
 
‘environment’ energy (termed by E parameter; calculated by formula below)
 
being lowered down. In this part, our team sent the respective sequence to
 
ClusPro website for further analyzing.15
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
  <div><h4 align="center">
 
E = 0.4E<sub>rep</sub> + -0.40E<sub>att</sub> + 600E<sub>elec</sub> + 1.00E<sub>DARS</sub>
 
  </h4></div>
 
 
<h6>Note: E<sub>rep</sub> and E<sub>attr</sub> denote as repulsive and attractive contributions
 
to the <i>van der Waals</i> interaction energy. Additionally, E<sub>elec</sub> means an
 
electrostatic energy that occur during both protein interaction. E<sub>DARS</sub>
 
is a pairwise structure-based potential constructed by the Decoys of
 
the Reference State (DARS) approach, and it primarily represents
 
desolvation contributions, i.e., the free energy change due to the
 
removal of the water molecules from the interface.<sup>15</sup><h6>
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
  <div align="center">
 
  <h6><b>Table 4.</b> Comparation of E parameter of native and chimera protein of HB-EGF interacted with affitoxin.</h6>
 
  <table ><!-------TABLE 4-------TABLE 4-------TABLE 4------->
 
<tr>
 
<th><p align="center">HB-EGF<br>Protein</th>
 
<th><p align="center">Median Energy (kcal/mol)</p></th>
 
<th><p align="center">Lowest Energy (kcal/mol)</p></th>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>Native</b></td>
 
<td><p align="center">-944.3</p></td>
 
<td><p align="center">-994.3</p></td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>Chimera</b></td>
 
<td><p align="center">858.2</p></td>
 
<td><p align="center">934.4</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
  </table>
 
  </div>
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
  <img></img><!----Figure 4 Image----->
 
 
 
<h6><b>Figure 5.</b>HB-EGF natural receptor and Affitoxin 3D interaction modelling result.</h6>
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
The result of interaction modelling is quantified as energy score based on
 
the formula above. Referring to figure 4 and 5, we might expect that the
 
affitoxin (cyan) would bind to both native and chimeric HB-EGF receptor that
 
are both located in the extracellular (green). It is indicated by higher
 
energy score of interaction between chimeric HB-EGF/Tar receptor-Affitoxin
 
than that of to HB-EGF natural receptor-Affitoxin (Table 4). This means
 
that the chimeric receptor could bind towards affitoxin as good
 
(or even better) than the original one.
 
 
 
  <br><br>
 
 
 
Beside the cell’s ability to detect toxin, our team also need to ensure
 
the signaling machine works well. Our team also modelled the interaction
 
between LuxA dan LuxB (that we fused with CheA). From figure 6 and 7,
 
we might expect that both proteins are still able to interact normally
 
after combining them with FRET unit (CheA or CheY protein).
 
 
  <!-------PAGE 5----------PAGE 5----------PAGE 5----------PAGE 5------->
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
  <div align="center">
 
  <h6><b>Table 5.</b> Comparation of E parameter of native and His-tagged protein of LuxB-CheA.</h6>
 
  <table ><!-------TABLE 5-------TABLE 5-------TABLE 5------->
 
<tr>
 
<th><p align="center">LuxAB</th>
 
<th><p align="center">Median Energy (kcal/mol)</p></th>
 
<th><p align="center">Lowest Energy (kcal/mol)</p></th>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>Native</b></td>
 
<td><p align="center">-1515.4.3</p></td>
 
<td><p align="center">-1553.2</p></td>
 
</tr><tr>
 
<td><b>Chimera</b></td>
 
<td><p align="center">-1220.9</p></td>
 
<td><p align="center">-1290.7</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
  </table>
 
  </div>
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
 
  <img></img><!----Figure 6 Image----->
 
 
 
<h6><b>Figure 6.</b>LuxA and LuxB-CheA (LuxAB-CheA) 3D interaction modelling result.</h6>
 
 
 
  <img></img><!----Figure 7 Image----->
 
 
 
<h6><b>Figure 7.</b>.LuxA and LuxB 3D interaction modelling result.</h6>
 
 
 
  <!-------PAGE 6----------PAGE 6----------PAGE 6----------PAGE 6------->
 
 
 
  <br>
 
 
  <div>
 
Reference :
 
<ol align="justify">
 
<li>J Yang, R Yan, A Roy, D Xu, J Poisson, Y Zhang. The I-TASSER Suite: Protein structure and function prediction. Nature Methods, 12: 7-8 (2015)</li>
 
<li>A Roy, A Kucukural, Y Zhang. I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nature Protocols, 5: 725-738 (2010)</li>
 
<li>Y Zhang. I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction. BMC Bioinformatics, vol 9, 40 (2008)</li>
 
<li>Sun, S., Yang, X., Wang, Y., Shen, X., 2016. In Vivo Analysis of Protein–Protein Interactions with Bioluminescence Resonance Energy Transfer (BRET): Progress and Prospects. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 17, 1704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17101704</li>
 
<li>MUSTANG: A multiple structural alignment algorithm Konagurthu AS, Whisstock JC, Stuckey PJ, Lesk AM (2006) Proteins 64,559-574</li>
 
<li>Bordogna, A., Pandini, A., Bonati, L., 2010. Predicting the accuracy of protein-ligand docking on homology models. Journal of Computational Chemistry 32, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21601</li>
 
<li>Carugo, O., 2003. How root-mean-square distance (r.m.s.d.) values depend on the resolution of protein structures that are compared. Journal of Applied Crystallography 36, 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1107/s0021889802020502</li>
 
<li>Kanchan, K., Linder, J., Winkler, K., Hantke, K., Schultz, A. and Schultz, J. (2009). Transmembrane Signaling in Chimeras of the Escherichia coli Aspartate and Serine Chemotaxis Receptors and Bacterial Class III Adenylyl Cyclases. <i>Journal of Biological Chemistry</i>, 285(3), pp.2090-2099.</li>
 
<li>Ward, S., Delgado, A., Gunsalus, R. and Manson, M. (2002). A NarX-Tar chimera mediates repellent chemotaxis to nitrate and nitrite. <i>Molecular Microbiology</i>, 44(3), pp.709-719.</li>
 
<li><Melchers, L. S., Regensburg-Tuïnk, T. J., Bourret, R. B., Sedee, N. J., Schilperoort, R. A. and Hooykaas, P. J. (1989). Membrane topology and functional analysis of the sensory protein VirA of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The <i>EMBO Journal</i>, 8(7), pp.1919-1925.</li>
 
<li>Weerasuriya, S., Schneider, B. M. and Manson, M. D. (1998). Chimeric Chemoreceptors in <i>Escherichia coli</i>: Signaling Properties of Tar-Tap and Tap-Tar Hybrids. <i>Journal of Bacteriology</i>, 180(4), pp.914-920.</li>
 
<li>Cbs.dtu.dk. (2018). <i>TMHMM Server</i>, v. 2.0. [online] Available at: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TMHMM/ [Accessed 22 Jul. 2018].</li>
 
<li>Lomize M.A., Pogozheva I,D, Joo H., Mosberg H.I., Lomize A.L. OPM database and PPM web server: resources for positioning of proteins in membranes. Nucleic Acids Res., 2012, 40(Database issue):D370-6</li>
 
<li>Kelley LA et al. (2015). The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. <i>Nature Protocols</i> 10, pp.845-858 </li>
 
<li>Kozakov D, Hall DR, Xia B, Porter KA, Padhorny D, Yueh C, Beglov D, Vajda S. The ClusPro web server for protein-protein docking. <i>Nature Protocols</i>.2017 Feb;12(2):255-278 ; pdf </li>
 
<li>Kozakov D, Beglov D, Bohnuud T, Mottarella S, Xia B, Hall DR, Vajda, S. How good is automated protein docking? <i>Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics</i>, 2013 Aug ;  pdf </li>
 
<li>Kozakov D, Brenke R, Comeau SR, Vajda S. PIPER: An FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials. <i>Proteins</i>. 2006 Aug 24;  pdf </li>
 
<li>Comeau SR, Gatchell DW, Vajda S, Camacho CJ. ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes.<i>Bioinformatics</i>. 2004 Jan 1;  pdf </li>
 
<li>Comeau SR, Gatchell DW, Vajda S, Camacho CJ. ClusPro: a fully automated algorithm for protein-protein docking <i>Nucleic Acids Research</i>. 2004 Jul 1;  pdf </li>
 
<li>Högbom, M., Eklund, M., Nygren, P. Å., & Nordlund, P. (2003). Structural basis for recognition by an in vitro evolved affibody. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(6), 3191-3196.</li>
 
<li>2015.igem.org. (2018). <i>Team:Stockholm/Description - 2015.igem.org</i>. [online] Available at: https://2015.igem.org/Team:Stockholm/Description [Accessed 22 Jul. 2018].</li>
 
</ol></div>
 
 
  <br>
 
 
   <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
 
   <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
 
   <script src="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.7/js/bootstrap.min.js"></script>
 
   <script src="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.7/js/bootstrap.min.js"></script>
 +
<!-- Footer -->
 +
<footer class="w3-center w3-green w3-padding-64 w3-opacity w3-hover-opacity-off">
 +
  <div class="w3-xlarge w3-section">Team UI Indonesia<br>
 +
    <i class="fa fa-envelope w3-hover-opacity"></i>&ensp; igemui2018@gmail.com
 +
  </div>
 +
</footer>
 +
</body>
 +
</html>

Revision as of 14:01, 10 October 2018

OD

Improve
Overview
As a contribution of iGEM UI 2018 team to improve existing parts in iGEM Registry, we decided to assemble “Improved Blue Fluorescent Protein (BFP)” (BBa_K2607002, Figure 1) as improvement of B0034-BFP (BBa_K592024). Our established part consists of these following additional features:

Figure 1. Original designed “Improved BFP” (BBa_K2607002) gBlock we ordered from Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (IDT) with length of 1151 basepairs (bp). Note that extra 42 bases in the upstream and 41 bases in the downstream are BioBrick prefix and suffix and for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification purpose. The part itself consists of 1068 bp. Range number in red indicates the position of each component in the gBlock. Rbs = ribosome binding site.
  • lacI regulated promoter (BBa_R0010) in the upstream
  • Double terminator (BBa_B0010 and BBa_B0012) in the downstream
  • SalI restriction site between the promoter and ribosome binding site
  • NdeI restriction site between the ribosome binding site and coding sequence
  • Modified blue fluorescence protein coding sequence to eliminate SalI restriction site in the middle without altering amino acid sequence.
This part can be used as reporter when combined with other parts. Because this part has its own promoter, ribosome binding site, and terminator, addition of these components is basically unnecessary. In addition, appropriate restriction enzyme (NdeI or SalI) can also be used to replace the promoter or ribosome binding site with the desired one.
Figure 2 shows the original plan of how we conducted the experiment with our established and existing parts.

Figure 2. Original plan workflow with newly-established (BBa_K2607002) and existing (BBa_K592024) parts of BFP.
Part I: Gel Electrophoresis Confirmation
Upon receiving our “Improved BFP” gBlock from IDT, we performed PCR to amplify it until sufficient quantity (about 100 ng/uL). We then created two restriction digestion reactions, one with NdeI restriction enzyme and one with SalI restriction enzyme. Each reaction comprised of 100 uL PCR-amplified “Improved BFP” gBlock, 6 uL restriction enzyme, 15 uL CutSmart® restriction buffer, and 29 uL nuclease-free water. The reaction was subsequently incubated for four hours at 37oC incubator. The digestion products were then run for electrophoresis in 1% agarose gel with tris-acetic acid-EDTA (TAE) buffer 1x, power supply 50 volt for 70 minutes. Visualization was performed with Bio-Rad Gel DocTM XR+ Gel Documentation System.

Part II: Ultraviolet (UV) Check
First, we acquired BBa_K592024 by transforming wild-type Escherichia coli K-12 with plasmid in well 17C of Distribution Kit Plate 1, isolating the plasmid, and performing restriction with EcoRI and PstI restricton enzymes. Our “Improved BFP” and BBa_K592024 were separately cloned into plasmid pQE80L using EcoRI and PstI according to our laboratory protocol. The resultant ligation products were subsequently transformed into wild-type E. coli K-12, along with empty pQE80L as control. Transformation products were spread into Luria-Bertani (LB) agar medium containing ampicillin with ratio 1000:1. On the following day, the fluorescence was assessed qualitatively under ultraviolet (UV) light.

Part III: Fluorescence Assay
Fluorescence assay was conducted according to 5th InterLab protocol with some modifications. From each transformation plates, two colonies were picked and let to be grown in LB medium with ampicillin (1000:1). Two colonies of E. coli containing empty plasmid pQE80L were also inoculated for control. After 18 hours, each overnight culture was diluted until optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 0.02 and final volume of 12 mL in 50 mL centrifuge tube covered with foil. At t = 0 hour, 1 mL from each tube was sampled to be measured for its OD600 and fluorescence. The measurement was conducted with GloMax® - Multi Detection System with “UV” settings: 365 nm excitation and 410-460 nm emission. The data obtained were recorded and analyzed in Excel. The rest of dilutions were incubated in shaker under 37oC, 220 rotations per minute (rpm). We repeated the same procedure after t = 6 hour and overnight (t = 14 hour) incubation.
Part I: Gel Electrophoresis Confirmation

Figure 3. Gel electrophoresis of restriction of “Improved BFP” gBlock with 1% agarose gel, TAE 1x, 50 V, and 70 minutes. Lane 1 = BioLabs, Inc. 100 bp DNA ladder (#N3231L) with size range 100-1517 bp. Lane 2 = uncut PCR-amplified “Improved BFP” gBlock (expected size 1151 bp). Lane 3 = “Improved BFP” gBlock cut with NdeI. Lane 4 = “Improved BFP” gBlock cut with SalI.
Restriction result of PCR-amplified “Improved BFP” gBlock is shown in Figure 3. At lane 2 consisting of uncut “Improved BFP” gBlock (size 1151 bp), only single band is observed. The band is located between 1000-1200 bp marker at lane 1, which is consistent to the gBlock original size. Upon restriction with NdeI, the expected bands are 271 bp and 880 bp in size, while restriction with SalI will yield expected bands of 249 bp and 902 bp. At lane 3 and 4, there are three bands observed, indicating that the gBlocks were partially digested with respective enzymes, NdeI and SalI. The heaviest bands in lane 3 and 4 were parallel with the band in lane 2, indicating that the bands were uncut "Improved BFP" gBlocks. The middle bands in lane 3 and 4 were similar in size (around 900 bp in size), representing the larger fragments of digestion products with their respective enzymes. The lightest bands in lane 3 and 4 were also similar in size, located between 200-300 bp marker at lane 1. They represent the smaller fragments of digestion products. The smaller fragment upon NdeI digestion is 271 bp, while upon SalI digestion is 249 bp. The lightest band in lane 3 migrated slightly slower than lightest band in lane 4, denoting larger size of smaller fragment in lane 3 than lane 4, which is consistent to the expected restriction results.

Part II: Ultraviolet (UV) Check

Figure 4. Colony of transformed wild-type Escherichia coli K-12 with empty pQE80L (yellow arrow), pQE80L with “Improved BFP” (green arrow), and pQE80L with BBa_K592024 (orange arrow) in plasmid pQE80L under ultraviolet (UV) illumination.
Transformation results of wild-type E. coli K-12 with empty pQE80L, pQE80L with “Improved BFP”, and pQE80L with BBa_K592024 under ultraviolet (UV) light is shown in Figure 4. Qualitatively, higher fluorescence was observed in transformed E. coli with “Improved BFP” compared with others. The probable explanation is that our “Improved BFP” has its own promoter. When our part is cloned into pQE80L with EcoRI and PstI, there are two promoters in the upstream of BFP coding region, theoretically leading to more BFP mRNA and protein being produced. However, to further investigate this hypothesis, we performed quantitative BFP fluorescence measurement from three samples (E. coli K-12 with empty pQE80L, pQE80L + “Improved BFP", and pQE80L + BBa_K592024), as will be explained in Part III.

Part III: Fluorescence Assay
Table 1. Fluorescence and OD600 measurement of transformed E. coli K-12 with one of three plasmids: empty pQE80L, pQE80L with Improved BFP”, and pQE80L with BBa_K592024. Replicate 1 and 2 were from first colony of respective sampled transformed E. coli, while replicate 3 and 4 were from second colony. Fl = fluorescence in arbitrary unit.

Figure 5. Fluorescence/OD600 measurement (in mean arbitrary units ± standard deviation) of transformed E. coli with one of three plasmids (empty pQE80L, pQE80L with “Improved BFP”, and pQE80L with BBa_K592024) at t = 0 hour, 6 hour, and 14 hour. * and ** indicate statistically significant differences (p = 0.005 and < 0.001, respectively).
Complete data of fluorescence assay is shown in Table 1, while the overall result is visualized in Figure 5. At t = 0, 6, and 14 hour, although not shown in Figure 5, fluorescence/OD600 of transformed E. coli with pQE80L + “Improved BFP” and pQE80L + BBa_K592024 were significantly higher than negative control (transformed E. coli with empty pQE80L). At t = 6 hour, fluorescence/OD600 of E. coli with “Improved BFP” was significantly higher than E. coli with BBa_K592024 (p = 0.005). Similar result was found after overnight incubation (p < 0.001). These results support previous qualitative observation of fluorescence and may be explained by ‘double promoter’ of “Improved BFP” in pQE80L. In addition, from Figure 5 it is also observed that fluorescence/OD600 was decreasing along with time. The probable explanation of this result is higher bacterial concentration in medium over time, resulting in larger denominator and reducing fluorescence/OD600. Moreover, it is also probable that the bacteria underwent cessation, causing decline in BFP production and resulting in lower fluorescence/OD600. Nevertheless, from this experiment, it can be inferred that E. coli transformed with “Improved BFP” retains significantly higher fluorescence/OD600 than BBa_K592024 under plasmid pQE80L expression system.
To conclude, through experiment with “Improved BFP”, we demonstrated that our improved part can be cut between promoter and ribosome binding site, also between ribosome binding site and coding region with SalI and NdeI restriction enzyme, respectively. Therefore, appropriate restriction enzyme can be utilized to replace promoter or ribosome binding site with the desired ones. When we conducted experiment to compare “Improved BFP” and previous part (BBa_K592024) under pQE80L expression system, it was observed that “Improved BFP” yield more fluorescence/OD600, probably due to intrinsic promoter it owned.
Team UI Indonesia
  igemui2018@gmail.com