Difference between revisions of "Team:SHSBNU China/Improve"
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
<div class="second_classfication"> | <div class="second_classfication"> | ||
<a class="snd_class" href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:SHSBNU_China/Improve#ID">Improvement Details</a> | <a class="snd_class" href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:SHSBNU_China/Improve#ID">Improvement Details</a> | ||
| − | + | </div> | |
| + | |||
<div class="second_classfication"> | <div class="second_classfication"> | ||
<a class="snd_class" href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:SHSBNU_China/Improve#R">References</a> | <a class="snd_class" href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:SHSBNU_China/Improve#R">References</a> | ||
Revision as of 19:25, 17 October 2018
Improve
Overview
Previously, there was only CsgA part uploaded in iGEM parts website. Our Team improved part Part BBa_K1583000 by adding a SpyTag sequence. It fused to gene csgA, enabling CotA laccase to be fixed onto the biofilm to form a covalent bond--SpyTag-SpyCatcher.
Improvement Details
By using sfGFP-SpyCatcher protein, we tested the binding efficiency of the covalence SpyTag-SpyCatcher since sfGFP is a non-toxic and common used flurorescent protein. Gene csgA on the plasmid of pET28a was transferred into ΔMG1655 as control group. Gene csgA – spytag on the plasmid of pET28a was transferred into ΔMG1655 as experiment. The experiment was divided into 4 groups. The bateria in the Reaction Stock had neither csgA nor SpyTag in neither genome nor plasmid; the ones in Group 1 had csgA in the genome; the ones in Group 2 had sfGFP in the plasmid; the ones in Group 3 had csgA-SpyTag in the genome and the plasmid. The treatment of the experiment is followed by the procedure below:
The liquid after centrifugation was extracted and measured fluorescence.
As can be seen from the result, the experiment group showed the most decrease of sfGFP-SpyCatcher protein. The difference between the control group and experiment group was significant. Thus we could confirm our CsgA-SpyTag system was functional.