Line 535: | Line 535: | ||
<div class="block full"> | <div class="block full"> | ||
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Confinement</h2> | <h2 style="text-align: left;">Confinement</h2> | ||
− | <p> | + | <p> The first requirement for the membrane is that it needs to meet is the ability to retain bacteria of the size of <i>E. coli</i> (1-2 micrometers). Theoretically, confinement should be garanteed because the membrane's pore size is smaller than <i>E. coli</i>. Three experiments were conducted on membrane microchannel chips to prove that the gold-coated membranes can retain bacteria. </p> |
<h3> First experiment </h3> | <h3> First experiment </h3> | ||
<p> The optical density of an <i>E. coli</i> liquid culture was measured. Liquid culture was poured in a microchannel chip on one side, and optical density of the liquid that flowed to the other side of the microchannnels was measured. </p> | <p> The optical density of an <i>E. coli</i> liquid culture was measured. Liquid culture was poured in a microchannel chip on one side, and optical density of the liquid that flowed to the other side of the microchannnels was measured. </p> | ||
Line 542: | Line 542: | ||
<p> OD (600 nm) of liquid after flowing through the chip: 0.41. </p> | <p> OD (600 nm) of liquid after flowing through the chip: 0.41. </p> | ||
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | ||
− | <p> We expected a much lower OD after liquid flow through the chip, so this suggests the presence of a leak in the chip, that | + | <p> We expected a much lower OD after liquid flow through the chip, so this suggests the presence of a leak in the chip, that allowed the liquid culture to flow without retaining the bacteria.</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 549: | Line 549: | ||
<p> A few drops of RFP expressing DH5alpha <i>E. coli</i> liquid culture were poured in a membrane microchannel chip. The chip was then observed under a microscope. </p> | <p> A few drops of RFP expressing DH5alpha <i>E. coli</i> liquid culture were poured in a membrane microchannel chip. The chip was then observed under a microscope. </p> | ||
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | ||
− | <p> Membrane is located on the right side, and liquid culture was poured on that side, before the membrane. Bacteria was still able to flow to the left side, but they were not following the microchannels, instead they were just flowing in a single direction, suggesting the membrane | + | <p> Membrane is located on the right side, and liquid culture was poured on that side, before the membrane. Bacteria was still able to flow to the left side, but they were not following the microchannels, instead they were all just flowing in a single direction, suggesting the membrane lifted the microfluidic chip from below and thus caused massive leakings in the microfluidic circuitry. </p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 650: | Line 650: | ||
<div class ="block full"> | <div class ="block full"> | ||
<h3>Platinum wire</h3> | <h3>Platinum wire</h3> | ||
− | <p>As in the end we | + | <p>As in the end we were going to measure the conductivity of the system biofilm+membrane+platinum wire, we wanted to simplify the measurements and neglect the impact of the platinum wire. Function generator was set on sine. The physical quantities measured here are Eg, the generator's tension amplitude and Ep, the voltage difference between the two extremities of a platinum wire. the quantity calculated here is 20*log(Ep/Eg) for different frequencies. </p> |
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Results </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Results </h4> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c4/T--Pasteur_Paris--Conductivity-platinum-wire.jpg" style="width:500px"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c4/T--Pasteur_Paris--Conductivity-platinum-wire.jpg" style="width:500px"> | ||
<div class="legend"><b>Figure 33: </b> Conductivity of a platinum wire for different frequencies </div> | <div class="legend"><b>Figure 33: </b> Conductivity of a platinum wire for different frequencies </div> | ||
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | ||
− | <p> Voltage difference calculated is extremely low, indicating a very good conductivity for the platinum wires, so its resistance (in low frequencies) | + | <p> Voltage difference calculated is extremely low, indicating a very good conductivity for the platinum wires, so its resistance (in low frequencies) could be neglected at first glance when it would be used in PDMS well chips. Resistance increases in higher frequencies, because of the skin-effect in metals: the strip transforms into an antenna. But as we were going to use only low frequencies, this didn't affect us. </p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 662: | Line 662: | ||
<div class ="block full"> | <div class ="block full"> | ||
<h3>Frequency impact on membrane conductivity</h3> | <h3>Frequency impact on membrane conductivity</h3> | ||
− | <p> Before measuring the conductivity of multiple membranes, we | + | <p> Before measuring the conductivity of multiple membranes, we needed to have an overview of the impact of the frequency on the conductivity of a membrane. We tested two gold-coated membranes.Function generator was set on sine. The physical quantities measured here are Eg, the generator's tension amplitude and Ep, the voltage difference between the extremity of the platinum wire outside the well chip and a point on the edge of the membrane of the chip. the quantity calculated here is 20*log(Ep/Eg) for different frequencies. </p> |
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Results </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Results </h4> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/6/6e/T--Pasteur_Paris--Gold-membrane-well-chip-conductivity.jpg" style="width:500px"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/6/6e/T--Pasteur_Paris--Gold-membrane-well-chip-conductivity.jpg" style="width:500px"> | ||
<div class="legend"><b>Figure 34: </b> Conductivity of a platinum wire for different frequencies </div> | <div class="legend"><b>Figure 34: </b> Conductivity of a platinum wire for different frequencies </div> | ||
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | ||
− | <p> Voltage difference calculated is very low, indicating a very good conductivity for the gold-coated membrane. Technically, we measured the conductivity of the system membrane+platinum wire, but we showed that the wire's conductivity could be neglected. Resistance increases in higher frequencies, again because of the skin-effect in metals. But as we | + | <p> Voltage difference calculated is very low, indicating a very good conductivity for the gold-coated membrane. Technically, we measured the conductivity of the system membrane+platinum wire, but we showed that the wire's conductivity could be neglected. Resistance increases in higher frequencies, again because of the skin-effect in metals. But as we were going to use only low frequencies, this doesn't affect us, and moreover, the frequency response is flat for wide range of low frequencies. </p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 683: | Line 683: | ||
<div class="legend"><b>Figure 36: </b> Conductivity of a platinum wire for different frequencies (mean value and standard deviation for each membrane) </div> | <div class="legend"><b>Figure 36: </b> Conductivity of a platinum wire for different frequencies (mean value and standard deviation for each membrane) </div> | ||
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | ||
− | <p> Bare alumina oxide and PEDOT:PSS-coated membranes show similar conductivies, indicating the incomplete coating of PEDOT:PSS on alumina oxide membranes. On the opposite, PEDOT:Cl and PEDOT:Ts | + | <p> Bare alumina oxide and PEDOT:PSS-coated membranes show similar conductivies, indicating the incomplete coating of PEDOT:PSS on alumina oxide membranes. On the opposite, PEDOT:Cl and PEDOT:Ts exhibit on average better conductivities, but in the same time, the coating of these membranes revealed by electron microscopy seemed to have covered the alumina oxide membranes in a more uniform way, ensuring enhanced conductive capabilities. These results can be criticized because of the high deviation and because the membranes conductivity was measured after several biofilms were grown on them, which may have affected the measurements. </p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 692: | Line 692: | ||
<div class="block full"> | <div class="block full"> | ||
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Biocompatibility and biofilm conductivity</h2> | <h2 style="text-align: left;">Biocompatibility and biofilm conductivity</h2> | ||
− | <p> One last important property of the membranes to measure | + | <p> One last important property of the membranes to measure was the capability of bacteria to form a biofilm on them, as in our prosthesis system, the membrane is going to be directly in contact with the genetically modified biofilm, as well as the human body. </p> |
<p> We used the last section of the following <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/b/b5/T--Pasteur_Paris--PDMS-well-chip.pdf">protocol</a> to form biofilms in our PDMS well chips and to measure the biofilm growth.</p> | <p> We used the last section of the following <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/b/b5/T--Pasteur_Paris--PDMS-well-chip.pdf">protocol</a> to form biofilms in our PDMS well chips and to measure the biofilm growth.</p> | ||
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Results: biofilm growth </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Results: biofilm growth </h4> | ||
Line 706: | Line 706: | ||
<div class="legend"><b>Figure 39: </b>Estimated biofilm conductivity </div> | <div class="legend"><b>Figure 39: </b>Estimated biofilm conductivity </div> | ||
<h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | <h4 style="text-align: left;"> Interpretation </h4> | ||
− | <p> As told by the membrane manufacturer, biofilm formation on gold membranes seems indeed to be more difficult than on other membranes. However we expected PEDOT:PSS-coated membranes to stimulate more the growth of biofilm, but perhaps | + | <p> As told by the membrane manufacturer, biofilm formation on gold membranes seems indeed to be more difficult than on other membranes. However we expected PEDOT:PSS-coated membranes to stimulate more the growth of biofilm, but perhaps this may be just another indicator of the incomplete coating. Surprisingly, PEDOT:Cl tends to allow better formation of biofilms. We realized only after the experiments the need for a control biofilm culture without membrane. </p> |
<p> Conductivity with a biofilm is better with gold membranes, although the conductivity of gold membranes themselves isn't the best. This may be explained by the fact, that because of the thinner biofilm formation on gold membranes, the electrical wires touched not only the biofilm, but also the membrane, bypassing the biofilm and leading to imprecise measurements. </p> | <p> Conductivity with a biofilm is better with gold membranes, although the conductivity of gold membranes themselves isn't the best. This may be explained by the fact, that because of the thinner biofilm formation on gold membranes, the electrical wires touched not only the biofilm, but also the membrane, bypassing the biofilm and leading to imprecise measurements. </p> | ||
<p> Approximate biofilm conductivity is therefore probably wrong for the gold membrane. However, it is interesting to notice that the biofilm conductivity measured for the bare alumina oxyde, PEDOT:Ts-coated one and PEDOT:PSS-coated give more or less the same value, suggesting that with more measurements, adapted equipement and better methods it would be indeed possible to measure the biofilm's conductivity with our PDMS well chips. </p> | <p> Approximate biofilm conductivity is therefore probably wrong for the gold membrane. However, it is interesting to notice that the biofilm conductivity measured for the bare alumina oxyde, PEDOT:Ts-coated one and PEDOT:PSS-coated give more or less the same value, suggesting that with more measurements, adapted equipement and better methods it would be indeed possible to measure the biofilm's conductivity with our PDMS well chips. </p> |
Revision as of 00:53, 18 October 2018
RECONNECT NERVES
Click to see more
Summary
Achievements:
- Successfully cloned a biobrick coding for secretion of NGF in pET43.1a and iGEM plasmid backbone pSB1C3, creating a new part BBa_K2616000.
- Successfully sequenced BBa_K2616000 in pSB1C3 and sent to iGEM registry.
- Successfully co-transformed E. coli with plasmid secreting proNGF and plasmid expressing the secretion system, creating bacteria capable of secreting NGF in the medium.
- Successfully characterized production of proNGF thanks to mass spectrometry and western blot.
- Successfully observed axon growth in microfluidic chip in presence of commercial NGF.
- Successfully observed activity of our proNGF in invitro cellular culture compared to commercial NGF with a concentration between 500 ng/mL and 900 ng/mL.
Next steps:
- Purify secreted proNGF, and characterize its effects on neuron growth thanks to our microfluidic device.
- Global proof of concept in a microfluidic device containing neurons in one of the chamber, and our engineered bacteria in the other.
CELL CULTURE
Click to see more
FIGHT INFECTIONS
Click to see more
Summary
Achievements:
- Successfully cloned a biobrick coding for RIP secretion in pBR322 and in pSB1C3, creating a new part Bba_K2616001 .
- Successfully sequenced Bba_K2616001 in pSB1C3 and sent to iGEM registry.
- Successfully cultivated S. aureus biofilms in 96-well plates with different supernatants. Although there was a high variability in our results, and we used several protocols to overcome it, in one case, we were able to observe a reduction in biofilm formation in the presence of our RIP.
Next steps:
- Clone the sensor device with inducible RIP production upon S. aureus detection.
- Improve the characterization of RIP effect on biofilm formation with a more standardized assay.
KILL SWITCH
Click to see more
Summary
Achievements:
- Successfully cloned the biobrick Bba_K2616002 coding for toxin/antitoxin (CcdB/CcdA) system in pSB1C3, creating a new part.
- Successfully sequenced BBa_K2616002 in pSB1C3 and sent it to iGEM registry.
- Successfully observed normal growth of our engineered bacteria at 25°C and 37°C and absence of growth at 18°C and 20°C, showing the efficiency of the kill switch.
Next steps:
- Find a system that kills bacteria when released in the environment rather than just stopping their growth.