Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <!-- COPY FROM HERE HERE --> | ||
<html> | <html> | ||
− | + | <body data-spy="scroll" data-target="#myScrollspy" data-offset="20"> | |
− | <body data-spy="scroll" data-target="#myScrollspy" data-offset="20"> | + | <div class="spcmkr"></div> |
− | + | <div class="container"> | |
− | <div class="container | + | <div class="text-center"> |
− | <div class="text-center | + | |
− | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/ | + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/a0/T--TUDelft--2018_ProjDesignhead.png" class="img-fluid img-top" alt="Responsive image"></div> |
</div> | </div> | ||
− | |||
− | + | ||
− | + | <!-- WRITE YOUR STUFF RIGHT HERE --> | |
+ | |||
− | + | ||
− | + | <div class="container-fluid"> | |
− | + | <div class="row"> | |
− | <div class="col-xs-12 col-sm-3 col-lg-3"> | + | |
+ | <div class="col-xs-12 col-sm-3 col-lg-3"> | ||
<nav id="myScrollspy" class="hidden-xs hidden-sm"> | <nav id="myScrollspy" class="hidden-xs hidden-sm"> | ||
<ul class="nav nav-pills nav-stacked" data-spy="affix"> | <ul class="nav nav-pills nav-stacked" data-spy="affix"> | ||
− | + | <li class="active"><a href="#adope" class="jnnbl">ADOPE</a></li> | |
+ | |||
+ | <li class="dropdown"> | ||
+ | <a class="dropdown-toggle jnnbl" data-toggle="dropdown" href="#">1. Sample Preparation<span class="caret"></span></a> | ||
+ | <ul class="dropdown-menu"> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#sampleprep" class="jnnbl">Sample Preparation</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#sp2" class="jnnbl">1.1 Kinetics Model</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#sp3" class="jnnbl">1.2 Extraction Verification</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#sp4" class="jnnbl">1.3 Gene Doping DNA Extraction</a></li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | <li class="dropdown"> | ||
+ | <a class="dropdown-toggle jnnbl" data-toggle="dropdown" href="#">2. Prescreening<span class="caret"></span></a> | ||
+ | <ul class="dropdown-menu"> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#prescreening" class="jnnbl">Prescreening</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#pr2" class="jnnbl">2.1 D-AuNPs: Prescreening with Visible Readout</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#pr3" class="jnnbl">2.2 D-AuNPs: SsDNAp effect on d-AuNPs’ stability</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#pr4" class="jnnbl">2.3 D-AuNPs: Visual difference between target and non-target DNA</a></li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | <li class="dropdown"> | ||
+ | <a class="dropdown-toggle jnnbl" data-toggle="dropdown" href="#">3. Fusion Protein -<br>dxCas9-Tn5<span class="caret"></span></a> | ||
+ | <ul class="dropdown-menu"> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#fusionprotein" class="jnnbl">Fusion Protein - dxCas9-Tn5</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#fp2" class="jnnbl">3.1 Fusion Protein Plasmid Construction</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#fp3" class="jnnbl">3.2 Protein Expression and Purification</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#fp4" class="jnnbl">3.3 <i>In Vivo</i> Functionality of <br>the Fusion Protein</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#fp5" class="jnnbl">3.4 <i>In Vitro</i> Functionality of <br>the Fusion Protein</a></li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | <li class="dropdown"> | ||
+ | <a class="dropdown-toggle jnnbl" data-toggle="dropdown" href="#">4. Targeted Sequencing <br>with dxCas9-Tn5<span class="caret"></span></a> | ||
+ | <ul class="dropdown-menu"> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#targetedseq" class="jnnbl">Targeted Sequencing with dxCas9-Tn5</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#ts2" class="jnnbl">4.1 sgRNA Array Determination <br>for Gene Doping Sequences</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#ts3" class="jnnbl">4.2 Barcode DNA for Nanopore Sequencing</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#ts4" class="jnnbl">4.3 Nanopore Targeted Sequencing</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#ts5" class="jnnbl">4.4 Data Analysis Software</a></li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | <li><a href="#references" class="jnnbl">References</a></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</nav> | </nav> | ||
− | + | </div> | |
+ | |||
− | <div class="col-lg-8 col-md-8 col-sm-12 col-xs-12 nowbg" style="margin- | + | |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | <div class="spcmkr" id=" | + | |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
+ | <div class="col-lg-8 col-md-8 col-sm-12 col-xs-12 nowbg" style="margin-left:30px;"> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div class="spcmkr" id="adope"></div> | ||
+ | <h1 class="jnnbl">ADOPE</h1> | ||
+ | <p>The aim of ADOPE is to develop a complete method for gene doping detection. The final method consists of four main steps: sample preparation, prescreening, targeted library preparation and DNA sequencing and analysis. </p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/3/37/T--TUDelft--2018_Figure3_DescriptionPage.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 1.</b> A flow diagram of our detection method ADOPE. With the four steps sample preparation, prescreening, library preparation and sequencing. </figcapture> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div class="spcmkr" id="sampleprep"></div> | ||
+ | <h1 class="jnnbl">1. Sample Preparation</h1> | ||
+ | <p>In the sample preparation module we developed a workflow to extract the target DNA from blood. As a proof of concept, we verified the extraction of the cell free DNA (cfDNA) from bovine serum. Finally, we successfully extracted gene doping DNA that we spiked to the serum, guided by the concentration value generated by the kinetic model. | ||
+ | </p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/5/5a/T--TUDelft--Design_2_sample_prep_overview.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="sample prep workflow"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 2.</b> Sample preparation workflow. The final process involves a two step PCR to verify the presence of the internal standard albumin gene. </figcapture></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="sp2"></span>1.1 Kinetics Model: Understanding Gene Doping </button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | We modeled the process of infection and degradation of gene doping DNA in blood to determine its concentration overtime. We use this model to provide approximate sensitivity requirement for DNA extraction. <br><br> | ||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Based on our model, we determined microdosing was the best doping method for doping athletes, as it avoids high EPO fluctuation, and hence avoids detection through the biological passport. Figure 2 displays the predicted amount of doping DNA fragments in the blood over time as a result of intramuscular (IM) injection every 20 days. Based on this model, we predicted that there will be 40,000 to 50,000 fragments of DNA per mL blood. We based the sensitivity requirement of DNA extraction on this value. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <figure><center> <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/e/e7/T--TUDelft--Doping_DNA.png" width="60%" height="auto" alt="Model Figure 2"></center> <br> | ||
+ | <figcapture class="figjnnbl"> <b>Figure 2.</b> Concentration of EPO gene doping DNA in the blood during intramuscular microdosing with an initial dose of 96 billion vectors followed by smaller doses of 27 billion vectors every 20 days. </figcapture></figure><br><br> | ||
+ | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | <div class=" | + | |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="sp3"></span>1.2 Extraction Verificattion</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> We extracted cfDNA from bovine serum and confirmed successful extraction with Qubit dsDNA HS assay and nested PCR. <br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | We performed cfDNA isolation from the serum using QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit. To verify extraction, we quantified cfDNA on the serum using Qubit. We obtained 0.394+/- 0.0149 ng/uL of cfDNA after extraction. To verify the extraction further, we performed nested PCR on albumin gene. Albumin gene is often used for verification of the presence of genomic mammalian DNA and was recommended by Sanquin. The nested albumin PCR consists of a first round of PCR using primers 091 and 092, amplifying an internal fragment of the bovine albumin gene of 229 bp. We deliberately chose to amplify a short fragment since cfDNA in blood is fragmented. The product of the first round of PCR was used as the template for the second round. We used internal primers 066 and 067 to amplify a 150 bp internal fragment of the first PCR product.The product of the first and second round of PCR are shown on Figure 3. The bands on Figure xx lane 2-7 confirmed the success of the extraction. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <figure><center> <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/0/09/T--TUDelft--SP_Albumin_pure_serum.png" width="65%" height="auto" alt="Model Figure 2"></center> <br> | ||
+ | <figcapture class="figjnnbl"> <b>Figure 3:</b> Albumin verification by nested PCR on extracted cfDNA. 2% Agarose gel. <b>A.</b> Round 1, expected band size 229 bp. <b>B.</b> Round 2, expected band size 153 bp. Both gels: Lane 1: Ladder (bp). Lane 2: Extraction Sample 1, non spiked serum. Lane 3: Extraction Sample 2, non spiked serum. Lane 4: Extraction Sample 3, linear intronless EPO spiked. Lane 5: Extraction Sample 4, linear intronless EPO spiked. Lane 6: Extraction Sample 5, BBa_K2643004 spiked. Lane 7: Extraction Sample 6, BBa_K2643004 spiked. Lane 8: Negative control using miliQ as template. Lane 9: Positive control extraction sample of 03/10</figcapture></figure><br><br> | ||
+ | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="sp4"></span>1.3 Gene Doping DNA Extraction</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> We spiked samples with artificial gene doping DNA and confirmed its extraction with PCR. | ||
+ | <br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Guided by our kinetic model, we spiked samples with 2x10^8 fragments/ml of either linear or plasmid EPO cDNA. We performed extraction, followed by PCR to verify it. Two EPO internal primer combinations were used. For the primer set 072 & 073 the expected band size was 297 bp and for the primer set 074 & 075 the expected band size was 140 bp. Figure xxx confirmed the successful extraction of gene doping EPO DNA. The difference in intensity between the linear DNA spiked (sample 3 & 4) and the plasmid spiked (sample 5 & 6) indicates that the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit has a lower extraction efficiency for plasmids, since the same amount of fragments were spiked. | ||
+ | |||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <figure><center> <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/a5/T--TUDelft--SP_EPO_yeah.png" width="65%" height="auto" alt="Model Figure 2"></center> <br> | ||
+ | <figcapture class="figjnnbl"> <b>Figure 4:</b> Artificial gene doping EPO DNA verification extraction of spiked EPO. 2% Agarose gel. Lane 1&11: Extraction Sample 1, non spiked serum. Lane 2&12: Extraction Sample 2, non spiked serum. Lane 3&13: Extraction Sample 3, linear intronless EPO spiked. Lane 4&14: Extraction Sample 4, linear intronless EPO spiked. Lane 5&15: Extraction Sample 5, BBa_K2643004 spiked. Lane 6&16: Extraction Sample 6, BBa_K2643004 spiked. Lane 7&17: Negative control, MilliQ template. Lane 8&18: Positive control, BBa_K2643004 template. Lane 9&19: Positive control, BBa_K2643004 spiked. Lane 10&20 Ladder</figcapture></figure><br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <h5 class="jnnbl">Conclusion</h5> | ||
+ | <p> We showed successful extraction of artificial gene doping DNA at concentration predicted by our model using the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit. Further extraction optimization is advisable to maximize extraction efficiency.</p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div class="spcmkr" id="prescreening"></div> | ||
+ | <h1 class="jnnbl">2. Prescreening</h1> | ||
+ | <p>In this module, we developed a high throughput screening method to detect gene doping. The method is based on the concept of color changes induced by d-AuNPs aggregation. In this module, we first analysed the stability of d-AuNPs upon introduction of NaCl with and without single stranded DNA probe. Finally, we were able to visually differentiate between samples where target DNA is presence or absence.</p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/9/9e/T--TUDelft--Design_7_gold_nanoparticles_overview.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="sample prep workflow"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 4.</b> Prescreening method for gene doping. A ssDNAp is added to the extracted DNA and when complementary strand are creating the secondary structure, the d-AuNPs are stabilized. </figcapture></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="pr2"></span>2.1 D-AuNPs: Generating a prescreening with visible readout</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | We generated batches of dextrin-capped gold nanoparticles and tested their aggregation upon NaCl introduction to determine the optimal NaCl concentration. <br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Upon increasing NaCl concentration, d-AuNPs destabilize and aggregate, changing the color of the solution from red to purple. We scanned the visual light spectra from 450nm to 650nm for a range of 0mM to 333mM NaCl. The important absorbance wavelengths are 520nm (red color) and 620 nm (purple color). We calculated the ratio of 620nm and 520nm to quantify the expect of color changes (red to purple) (figure 5). We observed an increase in the 620/520 with an increase in NaCl concentration, indicating a color change from red to purple. | ||
+ | </p><br> | ||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c7/T--TUDelft--d-AuNPs_saltaggregation.png" width="85%" height="auto" alt="sample prep workflow"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 5.</b>Influence of NaCl on d-AuNPs aggregation. At a concentration of 133 mM NaCl, the d-AuNPs start to aggregate; the peak in the spectra shift from 520nm to 620nm and the ratio 620/520 wavelengths start to increase indicating color change from red to purple. <b>A)</b> Spectrum of d-AuNPs solutions with NaCl concentrations 0, 167 and 333mM. <b>B)</b> Wavelength ratios of 620/520 of d-AuNPs solutions with NaCl concentrations ranging from 0 to 333mM.<b> C)</b> Visual outcome of the d-AuNPs solution with NaCl concentrations ranging from 0 to 333mM. | ||
+ | </figcapture> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="pr3"></span>2.2 SsDNAp effect on d-AuNPs’ stability</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | We tested the effect of single stranded DNA probe (ssDNAp) on d-AuNPs aggregation. <br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | ssDNAp are known to stabilize d-AuNPs from aggregating (Baetsen-Young, et al, 2018). We incubated the d-AuNP's with and without a ssDNAp and compared the d-AuNP aggregation at a range of NaCl concentrations. The stabilization effect can be observed on figure 6. The addition of ssDNAp causes a lower 620/520 ratio shift with increasing NaCl concentration. | ||
+ | |||
+ | </p><br> | ||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/0/0d/T--TUDelft--d-AuNPs_ssDNAp.png" class="img-responsive" width="65%" height="auto" alt="sample prep workflow"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 6.</b> Influence of ssDNAp on d-AuNPs aggregation. At a concentration of 133mM NaCl, the d-AuNPs start to destabilize while with presence of ssDNAp the destabilization occurs at higher NaCl concentrations. <b>A)</b> Wavelength ratios of 620/520 of d-AuNPs solutions with NaCl concentrations ranging from 0 to 333mM with and without ssDNAp. <b>B)</b> Visual outcome of the d-AuNPs solution with NaCl concentrations ranging from 0 to 333mM without (top) and with (bottom) ssDNAp. | ||
+ | </figcapture></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>To further evaluate the influence of ssDNAp concentration on the d-AuNPs stabilization, we measured the stability at different NaCl concentrations with varying ssDNAp concentrations. Increasing ssDNAp concentration stabilizes the d-AuNPs, reducing the aggregation and changing the color of the solution from red to purple.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/ce/T--TUDelft--d-AuNPs_ssDNAp_variation.png" class="img-responsive" width="75%" height="auto" alt="sample prep workflow"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 7.</b> Influence of ssDNAp concentration on stabilization of d-AuNPs. At higher primer concentrations, the d-AuNPs are more stabilized. <b>A)</b> Spectrum of d-AuNPs solutions with NaCl concentration of 333mM incubated with a ssDNAp concentration ranging from 0 nM to 2.5nM. <b>B)</b> Visual outcome of the d-AuNPs solution with NaCl concentration of 333mM with increasing ssDNAp concentrations. | ||
+ | </figcapture></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="pr4"></span>2.3 Visual difference between target and non-target DNA</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | We incubated DNA with targeting ssDNAp or non-targeting ssDNAp to show the visual difference between the two. <br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | The ssDNAp was incubated with the corresponding target gene doping DNA to let the ssDNAp anneal and form the secondary structure. Subsequently, the d-AuNPs were added and their aggregation was analysed. The ssDNAp targeting EPO was compared with a ssDNAp that is not targeting EPO. The on-target ssDNAp stabilized the d-AuNPs as the ratio 620/520 wavelength was lower compared to off-target ssDNAp (figure 8). | ||
+ | |||
+ | </p><br> | ||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/0/0c/T--TUDelft--d-AuNPs_ssDNAp%2Btarget.png" class="img-responsive" width="75%" height="auto" alt="sample prep workflow"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 8.</b> <b>A)</b>Wavelength ratios of 620/520 of d-AuNPs solutions with NaCl concentration of 333 mM with on and off target ssDNAp. <b>B)</b> Visual outcome of the d-AuNPs solution with ranging NaCl concentrations of 0 to 333mM with on- and off-target ssDNAp targeting EPO. </figcapture></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>After showing the functionality of the d-AuNPs to detect target DNA, we aimed to determine the sensitivity by using variations of target EPO DNA concentrations while keeping the total amount of DNA constant. We tested concentrations ranging from 1 pM to 1 nM comparing on- and off-target primers and determined our lower limit of detection is 1nM. To achieve comparable results to Baetsen-Young et al. 2018 (29fM) further optimization are required.<br><br> | ||
+ | Additionally, we evaluated the influence of background DNA present in the sample. We used 38 ng/µL background DNA, equal to the expected cfDNA extraced during sample preparation. We were able to show that the presence of background DNA does not affect the sensitivity of the prescreening method. Further sensitivity evaluation are required before implementing the prescreening method. </p><br><br> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <h5 class="jnnbl">Conclusion</h5> | ||
+ | <p> The functionality of the prescreen was proven. We were able to visually detect the presence of target EPO DNA. However, to implement this prescreening, protocol optimization is required to reach a lower detection limit of at least 9fM, based on data from our model. Thus, if the results of Baetsen-Young et al. 2018 can be reproduced, the detection limit can be lowered to 2.94fM. </p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div class="spcmkr" id="fusionprotein"></div> | ||
+ | <h1 class="jnnbl">3. Fusion Protein - dxCas9-Tn5</h1> | ||
+ | <p>In order to achieve targeted sequencing, we constructed a fusion protein by linking dxCas9 with Tn5 to be used in library preparation for sequencing platform. We constructed the strain that expressed our fusion protein, successfully purified them and tested their functionality in vivo and in vitro. We were able to show targeted integration by our fusion protein in vitro and sequence verified the integration products. | ||
+ | </p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/89/T--TUDelft--Design_8_fusion_protein_overview.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 3.</b> Design, construction, purification and functionality tests of fusion protein dxCas9-Tn5. </figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="fp2"></span>3.1 Fusion Protein Plasmid Construction</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | We constructed a fusion protein by linking dxCas9 cDNA to Tn5 cDNA with a linker coding for glycine helical peptide. <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | <p> The sequences encoding the dxCas9 (3.7) and Tn5 were obtained via Addgene with plasmid numbers #60240 from Picelli et al. (2014) and #108383 from Liu et al (2018) respectively. First, we introduced a linker coding for glycine helical peptide to Tn5 cDNA and cloned it to pACYCDuet. We screened colonies with the correct insert by colony PCR, followed by visualization of amplified insert on a 0.8% TAE agarose gel (figure 9). Plasmid was isolated from colony 8 and sequence verified. | ||
+ | </p><br><br> | ||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/7/71/T--TUDelft--Lin-Tn5.png" class="img-responsive" width="75%" height="auto" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 9.</b> Colony PCR of Linker-Tn5 in pACYCDuet-1 (1508 bp). The ladder represents the size of DNA in bps.</figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <p> Next, we introduce dxCas9 into pACYCDuet-1_Lin-Tn5. We screened colonies with the correct insert by colony PCR, followed by visualization of amplified insert on a 0.8% TAE agarose gel (figure 10, 11, 12). After plasmid isolation from positive colony 2, we sequence verified plasmid pACYCDuet-1_dxCas9-Lin-Tn5 (figure 10). | ||
+ | </p><br><br> | ||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/0/02/T--TUDelft--19_07_PCRfusion.png" class="img-responsive" width="75%" height="auto" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 10.</b> Colony PCR of dxCas9-Tn5 in pACYCDuet-1_dxCas9-Lin-Tn5, expected size 5924 bp. The ladder represents the size of DNA in bps. </figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/1/1b/T--TUDelft--19_07_PCR_fusionCas9.png" class="img-responsive" width="75%" height="auto" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 11.</b> Colony PCR of dxCas9 in pACYCDuet-1_dxCas9-Lin-Tn5, expected size 4172bp. The ladder represents the size of DNA in bps.</figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/a4/T--TUDelft--19_07_PCR_fusionTn5.png" class="img-responsive" width="75%" height="auto" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 12.</b> Colony PCR of Lin-Tn5 in pACYCDuet-1_dxCas9-Lin-Tn5, expected size 1452bp. The ladder represents the size of DNA in bps.</figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/9/94/T--TUDelft--FusionProtein_seq_ver.png" class="img-responsive" width="75%" height="auto" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 13.</b> The alignment of the sequencing results of the plasmid dxCas9-Lin-Tn5. This image shows the alignment of the sequencing results of plasmids from colony 2 with the original insert design in SnapGene. </figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="fp3"></span>3.2 Protein Expression and Purification</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | Text<br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Text<br><br></p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="fp4"></span>3.3 <i>In Vivo</i> Functionality of the Fusion Protein</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | Text.<br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | TText</p><br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/ac/T--TUDelft--2018_invivo.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 11.</b> Overview of the single-step genome editing mechanism in the <i> in vivo </i>assay. (A) The fusion construct is loaded with a sgRNA that targets lacZ and recognizes ME flanked kanamycin resistance cassette for (B) picking it up. (C) CRISPR-mediation drives the loaded complex to the genomic lacZ locus, where the transposase domain (D) integrates the donor DNA. (E) The host strain contains an integrated copy of kanamycin resistance, while the lacZ gene is disrupted.</figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="fp5"></span>3.4 <i>In Vitro</i> Functionality of the Fusion Protein</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | Text <br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | TExt</p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/7/76/T--TUDelft--Design_12_functionality_test_fp.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 12.</b> Experimental design of fusion protein in vitro integration assay. The fusion protein loads DNA adapter. The sgRNA directs the whole fusion protein to the target site (~200th bp of the EPO cDNA) and Tn5 performs the integration. Integration of DNA splits EPO cDNA into two fragments of ~248bp and ~486bp. To visualize this fragment, PCR is performed with primer sets that will specifically amplify the integration fragment. | ||
+ | </figcapture></center><br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <h5 class="jnnbl">Conclusion</h5> | ||
+ | <p> Conclusion</p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div class="spcmkr" id="targetedseq"></div> | ||
+ | <h1 class="jnnbl">4. Targeted Sequencing with dxCas9-Tn5</h1> | ||
+ | <p>Introduction </p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c4/T--TUDelft--Design_13_targeted_sequencing_fp.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 13.</b> Schematic scheme of the targeted adapter integration for Nanopore Sequencing. The fusion protein Tn5-dxCas9 (A) finds and binds to a specific DNA target (with use of a sgRNA), (B) adds sequencing adapters at this specific site that (C) are ligated to a motor protein attached adapter to undergo (D) Nanopore sequencing. </figcapture></center><br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="ts2"></span>4.1 sgRNA Array Determination for Gene Doping Sequences</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | TExt<br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Text | ||
+ | </p><br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="ts3"></span>4.2 Barcode DNA for Nanopore Sequencing</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | Text<br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Text.<br><br> | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="ts4"></span>4.3 Nanopore Targeted Sequencing</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design: TExt</b></p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p><b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Text <br><br> | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/7/74/T--TUDelft--Design_16_ADOPE_vs_ONT.png" class="img-responsive" style="width: 1000px" alt="Picture of Timeline of the relevance of gene doping"></center> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <center><figcapture class="jnnbl"><b>Figure 16.</b> Pipeline of library preparation to sequence DNA. (Left) Rapid adapter sequence integration with random transposase from ONT. (Right) Targeted adapter integration with fusion protein dxCas9-Tn5. | ||
+ | </figcapture></center><br> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <button class="collapsible cjnnbl"><span class="repositioner" id="ts5"></span>4.4 Data Analysis Software</button> | ||
+ | <div class="content"> | ||
+ | <p><br><b>Design:</b> | ||
+ | Text<br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Results and interpretation:</b> | ||
+ | Text<br><br></p> | ||
− | + | </div> | |
− | </body> | + | |
− | <html> | + | |
+ | <h5 class="jnnbl">Conclusion</h5> | ||
+ | <p>Conclusion</p><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div class="spcmkr" id="references"></div> | ||
+ | <h1 class="jnnbl">5. References</h1> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | <div class="col-lg-1 col-md-1 hidden-xs hidden-sm" nowbg> </div> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <!-- BETWEEN THESE TWO COMMENTS --> | ||
+ | </body> | ||
+ | <script> | ||
+ | |||
+ | var coll = document.getElementsByClassName("collapsible"); | ||
+ | var i; | ||
+ | |||
+ | for (i = 0; i < coll.length; i++) { | ||
+ | coll[i].addEventListener("click", function() { | ||
+ | this.classList.toggle("activedropdownjnnbl"); | ||
+ | var content = this.nextElementSibling; | ||
+ | if (content.style.maxHeight){ | ||
+ | content.style.maxHeight = null; | ||
+ | } else { | ||
+ | content.style.maxHeight = content.scrollHeight + "px"; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | }); | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | </script> | ||
+ | </html> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <!-- COPY UNTIL HERE --> |
Revision as of 21:23, 17 October 2018
ADOPE
The aim of ADOPE is to develop a complete method for gene doping detection. The final method consists of four main steps: sample preparation, prescreening, targeted library preparation and DNA sequencing and analysis.
1. Sample Preparation
In the sample preparation module we developed a workflow to extract the target DNA from blood. As a proof of concept, we verified the extraction of the cell free DNA (cfDNA) from bovine serum. Finally, we successfully extracted gene doping DNA that we spiked to the serum, guided by the concentration value generated by the kinetic model.
Design:
We modeled the process of infection and degradation of gene doping DNA in blood to determine its concentration overtime. We use this model to provide approximate sensitivity requirement for DNA extraction.
Results and interpretation:
Based on our model, we determined microdosing was the best doping method for doping athletes, as it avoids high EPO fluctuation, and hence avoids detection through the biological passport. Figure 2 displays the predicted amount of doping DNA fragments in the blood over time as a result of intramuscular (IM) injection every 20 days. Based on this model, we predicted that there will be 40,000 to 50,000 fragments of DNA per mL blood. We based the sensitivity requirement of DNA extraction on this value.
Design: We extracted cfDNA from bovine serum and confirmed successful extraction with Qubit dsDNA HS assay and nested PCR.
Results and interpretation:
We performed cfDNA isolation from the serum using QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit. To verify extraction, we quantified cfDNA on the serum using Qubit. We obtained 0.394+/- 0.0149 ng/uL of cfDNA after extraction. To verify the extraction further, we performed nested PCR on albumin gene. Albumin gene is often used for verification of the presence of genomic mammalian DNA and was recommended by Sanquin. The nested albumin PCR consists of a first round of PCR using primers 091 and 092, amplifying an internal fragment of the bovine albumin gene of 229 bp. We deliberately chose to amplify a short fragment since cfDNA in blood is fragmented. The product of the first round of PCR was used as the template for the second round. We used internal primers 066 and 067 to amplify a 150 bp internal fragment of the first PCR product.The product of the first and second round of PCR are shown on Figure 3. The bands on Figure xx lane 2-7 confirmed the success of the extraction.
Design: We spiked samples with artificial gene doping DNA and confirmed its extraction with PCR.
Results and interpretation:
Guided by our kinetic model, we spiked samples with 2x10^8 fragments/ml of either linear or plasmid EPO cDNA. We performed extraction, followed by PCR to verify it. Two EPO internal primer combinations were used. For the primer set 072 & 073 the expected band size was 297 bp and for the primer set 074 & 075 the expected band size was 140 bp. Figure xxx confirmed the successful extraction of gene doping EPO DNA. The difference in intensity between the linear DNA spiked (sample 3 & 4) and the plasmid spiked (sample 5 & 6) indicates that the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit has a lower extraction efficiency for plasmids, since the same amount of fragments were spiked.
Conclusion
We showed successful extraction of artificial gene doping DNA at concentration predicted by our model using the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit. Further extraction optimization is advisable to maximize extraction efficiency.
2. Prescreening
In this module, we developed a high throughput screening method to detect gene doping. The method is based on the concept of color changes induced by d-AuNPs aggregation. In this module, we first analysed the stability of d-AuNPs upon introduction of NaCl with and without single stranded DNA probe. Finally, we were able to visually differentiate between samples where target DNA is presence or absence.
Design:
We generated batches of dextrin-capped gold nanoparticles and tested their aggregation upon NaCl introduction to determine the optimal NaCl concentration.
Results and interpretation:
Upon increasing NaCl concentration, d-AuNPs destabilize and aggregate, changing the color of the solution from red to purple. We scanned the visual light spectra from 450nm to 650nm for a range of 0mM to 333mM NaCl. The important absorbance wavelengths are 520nm (red color) and 620 nm (purple color). We calculated the ratio of 620nm and 520nm to quantify the expect of color changes (red to purple) (figure 5). We observed an increase in the 620/520 with an increase in NaCl concentration, indicating a color change from red to purple.
Design:
We tested the effect of single stranded DNA probe (ssDNAp) on d-AuNPs aggregation.
Results and interpretation:
ssDNAp are known to stabilize d-AuNPs from aggregating (Baetsen-Young, et al, 2018). We incubated the d-AuNP's with and without a ssDNAp and compared the d-AuNP aggregation at a range of NaCl concentrations. The stabilization effect can be observed on figure 6. The addition of ssDNAp causes a lower 620/520 ratio shift with increasing NaCl concentration.
To further evaluate the influence of ssDNAp concentration on the d-AuNPs stabilization, we measured the stability at different NaCl concentrations with varying ssDNAp concentrations. Increasing ssDNAp concentration stabilizes the d-AuNPs, reducing the aggregation and changing the color of the solution from red to purple.
Design:
We incubated DNA with targeting ssDNAp or non-targeting ssDNAp to show the visual difference between the two.
Results and interpretation:
The ssDNAp was incubated with the corresponding target gene doping DNA to let the ssDNAp anneal and form the secondary structure. Subsequently, the d-AuNPs were added and their aggregation was analysed. The ssDNAp targeting EPO was compared with a ssDNAp that is not targeting EPO. The on-target ssDNAp stabilized the d-AuNPs as the ratio 620/520 wavelength was lower compared to off-target ssDNAp (figure 8).
After showing the functionality of the d-AuNPs to detect target DNA, we aimed to determine the sensitivity by using variations of target EPO DNA concentrations while keeping the total amount of DNA constant. We tested concentrations ranging from 1 pM to 1 nM comparing on- and off-target primers and determined our lower limit of detection is 1nM. To achieve comparable results to Baetsen-Young et al. 2018 (29fM) further optimization are required.
Additionally, we evaluated the influence of background DNA present in the sample. We used 38 ng/µL background DNA, equal to the expected cfDNA extraced during sample preparation. We were able to show that the presence of background DNA does not affect the sensitivity of the prescreening method. Further sensitivity evaluation are required before implementing the prescreening method.
Conclusion
The functionality of the prescreen was proven. We were able to visually detect the presence of target EPO DNA. However, to implement this prescreening, protocol optimization is required to reach a lower detection limit of at least 9fM, based on data from our model. Thus, if the results of Baetsen-Young et al. 2018 can be reproduced, the detection limit can be lowered to 2.94fM.
3. Fusion Protein - dxCas9-Tn5
In order to achieve targeted sequencing, we constructed a fusion protein by linking dxCas9 with Tn5 to be used in library preparation for sequencing platform. We constructed the strain that expressed our fusion protein, successfully purified them and tested their functionality in vivo and in vitro. We were able to show targeted integration by our fusion protein in vitro and sequence verified the integration products.
Design:
We constructed a fusion protein by linking dxCas9 cDNA to Tn5 cDNA with a linker coding for glycine helical peptide.
Results and interpretation:
The sequences encoding the dxCas9 (3.7) and Tn5 were obtained via Addgene with plasmid numbers #60240 from Picelli et al. (2014) and #108383 from Liu et al (2018) respectively. First, we introduced a linker coding for glycine helical peptide to Tn5 cDNA and cloned it to pACYCDuet. We screened colonies with the correct insert by colony PCR, followed by visualization of amplified insert on a 0.8% TAE agarose gel (figure 9). Plasmid was isolated from colony 8 and sequence verified.
Next, we introduce dxCas9 into pACYCDuet-1_Lin-Tn5. We screened colonies with the correct insert by colony PCR, followed by visualization of amplified insert on a 0.8% TAE agarose gel (figure 10, 11, 12). After plasmid isolation from positive colony 2, we sequence verified plasmid pACYCDuet-1_dxCas9-Lin-Tn5 (figure 10).
Design:
Text
Results and interpretation:
Text
Design:
Text.
Results and interpretation:
TText
Design:
Text
Results and interpretation:
TExt
Conclusion
Conclusion
4. Targeted Sequencing with dxCas9-Tn5
Introduction
Design:
TExt
Results and interpretation:
Text
Design:
Text
Results and interpretation:
Text.
Design: TExt
Results and interpretation:
Text
Design:
Text
Results and interpretation:
Text
Conclusion
Conclusion
5. References