|
|
Line 158: |
Line 158: |
| | | |
| </div> | | </div> |
| + | |
| </div> | | </div> |
| + | <div class="contentbox"> |
| + | <div class="content"> |
| + | |
| + | |
| + | <h3>PCR with UBPs</h3> |
| + | |
| + | <article> |
| + | <br>Based on Sismour  <i>et al.</i> (Sismour and Benner, 2005) and Johnson <i>et al.</i> (Johnson et al., 2004), we designed a novel protocol for PCR with the unnatural base pair isoG and isoC<sup>m</sup>. We first started to reproduce positive results with Titanium Taq (TiTaq) polymerase. While Johnson et al. presented an efficiency of 96 % ± 3 %, Sismour <i>et al.</i> showed a reduced fidelity using the klenow fragment of TiTaq polymerase. Without thymidine analogues, the fidelity per round PCR decreases rapidly to less than 60 % after 20 rounds of PCR. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <br>For endpoint determination, we performed PCR reactions with 30 rounds to find out if there is any polymerase activity with template DNA containing the unnatural bases isoG and isoC<sup>m</sup>. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <br> The PCR templates were prepared by ligating each of the annealed 80 bp M.A.X targets mutA, mutT, mutG and mutC into pSB1C3_RuBisCo . For this purpose, the plasmid backbone was linearized by digestion with <i>Bmt</i>I and <i>Xba</i>I. For complementary sticky ends, the annealed oligos were digested with <i>Bmt</i>I and <i>Spe</i>I. After ligation, subsequent digestion with <i>Xba</i>I, lambda exonuclease and exonuclease I was performed to reduce the amount of unintended DNA template. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <!-- Grosses zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure large"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/f/fa/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--pSB1C3_Rubisco_Fig6.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 6: </b> Plasmidcard of pSB1C3_Rubisco which is used as backbone for M.A.X targets and UBP_target during PCR.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | <br>To increase the possibility of the insertion of the unnatural bases, we used 100 µM dNTPs and 200 µM isoG and 200 µM isoC<sup>m</sup> for each reaction. After variations of template concentrations from 1 ng µL<sup>-1</sup> to 50 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>, the best concentrations to acquire high-quality bands were 1 ng µL<sup>-1</sup> for the M.A.X targets and 25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup> for the UBP_target template. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/1/17/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig7.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 7: </b> PCR with Titanium Taq polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) (FLTR). The expected fragment is 351 bp long. </p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | <br>To quantify the efficiency of the incorporation of isoG and isoC<sup>m</sup>, all PCR products were tested/restricted with the M.A.X system. In order to achieve complete digestion, different incubation times from 1 h to 15 h were tested. The best results with <i>Bsa</i>I and <i>Mnl</i>I were achieved with an incubation of 15 h overnight. For the less stable enzymes <i>Eci</i>I and <i>Sap</i>I, a 2 h digestion with an addition of further enzyme after 1 h turned out to be optimal. Nevertheless, <i>Eci</i>I and <i>Sap</i>I could not digest the complete sample even if the concentrations are lowered. Therefore we expected undigested bands in the M.A.X targets mutA and mutG for the whole experiment. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <br>After the first successful PCR, we tested if the presence of isoG and isoC<sup>m</sup> has any influence on the efficiency of the polymerase. So we added both unnatural bases to every PCR reaction with the M.A.X targets as template to see if the intensity of the bands decreases. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/d/d4/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig8.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 8: </b>Digested PCR with Titanium Taq polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with all M.A.X targets and the UBP_target insert with isoG and isoCm in each reaction of the M.A.X targets and no UBPs in the reactions with the UBP_target insert. There seems to be no efficiency difference to reactions without the unnatural base pairs. All samples are digested to the same fragment size so no UBPs are incorporated.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | <br>In comparison to fig.7, the intensity is the same. In contrast, we did not add UBPs to the reaction with the UBP_target fragment as template. The restriction digest shows the same bands for every sample so the presence of UBPs does not influence the polymerase activity. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <br>The next step was to test if different polymerases can incorporate the unnatural bases. Therefore we tested 7 other polymerases from different manufacturers. |
| + | </br> |
| + | Titanium Taq Polymerase (Clontech) lacks 5’-exonuclease activity of wild-type DNA. |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/8/88/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig9.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 9: </b> PCR with Titanium Taq of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (muttT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | GoTaq G2 polymerase (Promega) with 5’-3’ exonuclease activity. |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c1/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig10.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 10:</b> PCR with Go Taq G2 of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (mutT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | Allin HiFi DNA Polymerase (highQu) is derived from <i>Pfu</i> polymerase with several mutations and proof reading function. |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/90/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig11.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 11:</b>PCR with Allin HiFi DNA Polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25&ngbspng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (muttT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | innuDRY polymerase is a specific hot-start Taq DNA polymerase. |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c7/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig12.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 12:</b> PCR with innuDRY polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (muttT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | BioMaster-HS Taq PCR polymerase (Biolabmix) is also a hot-start Taq DNA polymerase. |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c3/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig13.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 13: </b> PCR with BioMaster-HS Taq PCR polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (muttT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | <br>FirePol DNA polymerase (Solis Biodyne) had genetic modifications, such that it is stable at room temperature for 1 month. It has a 5’-3’ polymerization-dependent exonuclease replacement, but lacks 3’-5’ exonuclease activity. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/b/be/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig14.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 14: </b> PCR with FirePol DNA polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (muttT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | <br>The Phusion DNA polymerase (NEB) is a derived <i>Pyrococcus</i> enzyme fused with a processivity-enhancing domain. It possesses 5’-3’ polymerase activity and 3’-5’ exonuclease activity so blunt-ended products are generated. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/2/2c/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig15.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 15: </b> PCR with Phusion DNA polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (muttT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | <br>The Q5 DNA polymerase (NEB) is a polymerase that is fused to the processivity-enhancing Sso7d DNA binding domain with an error rate ~280-fold lower than of Taq DNA polymerase. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <!-- Mittleres zentriertes Bild --> |
| + | <div class="figure medium"> |
| + | <img class="figure image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/9b/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--UBP_PCR_Fig16.png"> |
| + | <p class="figure subtitle"><b>Figure 16:</b> PCR with Q5 DNA polymerase of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with of pSB1C3_RuBisCo with the inserts mutA, mutT, mutG, mutC (5 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) and UBP_target (25 ng µL<sup>-1</sup>) after the restriction digest with <i>Eci</i>I (mutA) and <i>Sap</i>I (mutG) for 2 h and <i>Bsa</i>I (mutT) and <i>Mnl</i>I (mutC) for 15 h.</p> |
| + | </div> |
| + | <br>We always used the same template concentration and the same primers to ensure the comparability between the DNA polymerases. As can be seen in the figures above, all Taq based polymerases are able to incorporate the unnatural base pair in the DNA. The best results were apparently achieved with the Go Taq G2 DNA polymerase. All lanes with the UBPs show clear bands and no mutations to T or A. The M.A.X restriction digest showed there are some mutations to C. The PCR product of the UBP_target fragment was digested because of the second <i>Mnl</i>I restriction site, but one can see a difference between the M.A.X target mutC and the UBP_target PCR product. The digested PCR products of the BioMaster-HS Taq PCR polymerase and the Allin HiFi DNA Polymerase show more mutations to A than the other polymerases. But also the TiTaq polymerase seems to miss incorporate the A instead of isoG. Moreover, the Phusion DNA polymerase proceeds to miss the incorporated G while the Q5 DNA polymerase does not show any bands containing the UBPs. Both polymerases have a proofreading function in contrast to the other polymerases. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <br>In the final analysis, the faster and the stronger the poof reading function of a polymerase is, the worse is the incorporation of the UBPs. |
| + | </br> |
| + | <br>The M.A.X system seems to be a good method for the first review of the efficiency of the polymerases. One can see if there is any incorporation of UBPs, so that sequencing is worthwhile. Minor deviations are not detectable by gel electrophoresis. It is also difficult to make a clear statement about the proportion of correctly or incorrectly incorporated unnatural bases, because the digested fragments seem to be less intensive than intact sequences. |
| + | </br> |
| | | |
| + | </article> |
| + | </div> |
| + | </div> |
| | | |
| | | |