Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
<p> Growth media is essential to any form of microbial culture, providing the nutrition required for optimal growth. There are a number of different options available, with Lysogeny Broth (LB) (Bertani 2004), Super Optimal Broth (SOB) (Hanahan 1983) and Terrific Broth (TBr) (Tartof 1987) being the most commonly used. However most are rich and undefined media, containing extracts such as yeast or beef that have an unquantifiable and highly variable composition. These extracts are also generally more expensive, complicate recovery and, due to their variable composition, result in significant batch-to-batch variation (Lee 1996; Moser et al. 2012). In the literature researched, TBr contributed to the highest amount of culture growth with Escherichia coli, with Losen et al. (2004) stating that TBr lead to an increase of 5x biomass when compared to LB. Islam (2007) produced similar results, with a significantly higher soluble protein yield in TBr than LB. This was put down to having glycerol as a defined carbon source. Furthermore, it is suggested that glucose is a poor choice due to E. coli excreting acetic acid as a by-product of glucose consumption, lowering pH and reducing growth (Islam et al. 2007; Losen et al. 2004; Marini et al. 2014). Glucose however is not the only issue. Singh et al. (2017) suggests that the carbon and nitrogen source are the most important components of the media as they can affect the type and amount of product produced. Other studies have concluded that E. coli develops a media history, adapting to different medias over time, showing variations in ribosome and RNA polymerase efficacy due to the medias amino acid makeup (Ehrenberg et al. 2013; Paliy and Gunasekera 2007). </p> | <p> Growth media is essential to any form of microbial culture, providing the nutrition required for optimal growth. There are a number of different options available, with Lysogeny Broth (LB) (Bertani 2004), Super Optimal Broth (SOB) (Hanahan 1983) and Terrific Broth (TBr) (Tartof 1987) being the most commonly used. However most are rich and undefined media, containing extracts such as yeast or beef that have an unquantifiable and highly variable composition. These extracts are also generally more expensive, complicate recovery and, due to their variable composition, result in significant batch-to-batch variation (Lee 1996; Moser et al. 2012). In the literature researched, TBr contributed to the highest amount of culture growth with Escherichia coli, with Losen et al. (2004) stating that TBr lead to an increase of 5x biomass when compared to LB. Islam (2007) produced similar results, with a significantly higher soluble protein yield in TBr than LB. This was put down to having glycerol as a defined carbon source. Furthermore, it is suggested that glucose is a poor choice due to E. coli excreting acetic acid as a by-product of glucose consumption, lowering pH and reducing growth (Islam et al. 2007; Losen et al. 2004; Marini et al. 2014). Glucose however is not the only issue. Singh et al. (2017) suggests that the carbon and nitrogen source are the most important components of the media as they can affect the type and amount of product produced. Other studies have concluded that E. coli develops a media history, adapting to different medias over time, showing variations in ribosome and RNA polymerase efficacy due to the medias amino acid makeup (Ehrenberg et al. 2013; Paliy and Gunasekera 2007). </p> | ||
− | <p> Inorganic ions can also play an important role in the growth of cultures. Studier (2005) carried out an exhaustive study on inducer effects in media, investigating a number of variables as well as the presence of inorganic ions. The data collected showed that phosphate promoted kanamycin resistance, while sulphate supported optimum growth. However, on the contrary limiting magnesium concentrations allowed the cell culture to grow to a higher | + | <p> Inorganic ions can also play an important role in the growth of cultures. Studier (2005) carried out an exhaustive study on inducer effects in media, investigating a number of variables as well as the presence of inorganic ions. The data collected showed that phosphate promoted kanamycin resistance, while sulphate supported optimum growth. However, on the contrary limiting magnesium concentrations allowed the cell culture to grow to a higher OD<sub>600</sub>. </p> |
<b> Effects on Protein Yield </b> | <b> Effects on Protein Yield </b> | ||
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
<div class="row about-desc" data-aos="fade-up"> | <div class="row about-desc" data-aos="fade-up"> | ||
<div class="col-full"> | <div class="col-full"> | ||
− | <p>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 | + | <p>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 OD<sub>600</sub> 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.</p> |
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/4/4e/T--Newcastle--IntProt.PNG"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/4/4e/T--Newcastle--IntProt.PNG"> | ||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
<div class="row about-desc" data-aos="fade-up"> | <div class="row about-desc" data-aos="fade-up"> | ||
<div class="col-full"> | <div class="col-full"> | ||
− | <p>All test devices produced growth to | + | <p>All test devices produced growth to OD<sub>600</sub> 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. </p> |
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/85/T--Newcastle--ABS600.PNG"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/85/T--Newcastle--ABS600.PNG"> | ||
Line 255: | Line 255: | ||
<div class="row about-desc" data-aos="fade-up"> | <div class="row about-desc" data-aos="fade-up"> | ||
<div class="col-full"> | <div class="col-full"> | ||
− | <p>The relatively poor growth and high fluorescence levels effectively cancelled each other out when readings were converted to Fluorescence per | + | <p>The relatively poor growth and high fluorescence levels effectively cancelled each other out when readings were converted to Fluorescence per OD<sub>600</sub> and MEFL per OD<sub>600</sub> measurements, resulting in TD4 transformants producing the highest expression levels (figure 3.1). The high fluorescence and MEFL per OD<sub>600</sub> 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 OD<sub>600</sub> 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).</p> |
<p>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).</p> | <p>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).</p> |
Revision as of 16:00, 15 October 2018