(16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c5/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_at_a_glance.png" class="zoom"></figure> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c5/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_at_a_glance.png" class="zoom"></figure> | ||
<h4>Motivation:</h4> | <h4>Motivation:</h4> | ||
− | <p>Demonstrate that | + | <p>Demonstrate that encapsulated bacteria could respond to the environment that surrounds the peptidosomes.</p> |
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
<h4>Approach:</h4> | <h4>Approach:</h4> | ||
− | <p>Develop a | + | <p>Develop a novel whole-cell biosensor that responds to a variety of β-lactam antibiotics (input) with bioluminescence (output).</p> |
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
<h4>Achievements:</h4> | <h4>Achievements:</h4> | ||
− | <p>I) A functional | + | <p>(I) A fully functional <a href="#design" class="hashlink">BlaR1I-P<sub><i>blaZ</i></sub></a> system from <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> was heterologously established in <i>Bacillus subtilis</i>. (II) The resulting whole-cell biosensor responded specifically to the presence of a <a href="#detection" class="hashlink">diverse range of β-lactam antibiotics</a> in a dose-dependent manner. (III) <a href="#peptidosomes" class="hashlink">Encapsulated biosensor</a> cells could respond to antibiotics provided to the outside. (IV) 8 novel basic <a href="#BioBricks" class="hashlink">BioBrick parts</a> were generated and fully evaluated for functionality.</p> |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
alt="Figure 1 β-Lactam Compounds" class="zoom"> | alt="Figure 1 β-Lactam Compounds" class="zoom"> | ||
<figcaption><b>Figure 1: Commonly used β-lactam antibiotics and their chemical structure.</b> All of them share the so-called β-lactam ring structure (here shown as square structure containing nitrogen).<a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Β-lactam_antibiotic">[4]</a></td></figcaption></figure> | <figcaption><b>Figure 1: Commonly used β-lactam antibiotics and their chemical structure.</b> All of them share the so-called β-lactam ring structure (here shown as square structure containing nitrogen).<a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Β-lactam_antibiotic">[4]</a></td></figcaption></figure> | ||
− | <p>Antibiotics represent the most effective treatment against bacterial infections. Since the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, many new antibiotics have been constantly developed and were successfully applied to treat life-threatening diseases. This significant advancement in medicine saved millions of lives and still does today. However, fighting microorganisms has never been a completed task, but rather an ongoing race between drug discovery and pathogens developing resistances. Thus, multi-drug resistant bacteria still constitute a major threat for humanity, as infectious diseases represent the second leading cause of death worldwide. <a target="_blank" href ="https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/52563">[1]</a><a target="_blank" href ="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422635/">[2]</a></p> | + | <p>Antibiotics represent the most effective treatment against bacterial infections. Since the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, many new antibiotics have been constantly developed and were successfully applied to treat life-threatening diseases. This significant advancement in medicine saved millions of lives and still does today. However, fighting microorganisms has never been a completed task, but rather an ongoing race between drug discovery and pathogens developing resistances. Thus, multi-drug resistant bacteria still constitute a major threat for humanity, as infectious diseases represent the second leading cause of death worldwide.<a target="_blank" href ="https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/52563">[1]</a><a target="_blank" href ="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422635/">[2]</a></p> |
<figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 55%"> | <figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 55%"> | ||
<figcaption><b>Table 1: β-lactams and controls tested in this project and their respective classification.<a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Β-lactam_antibiotic">[4]</a></td></b></figcaption> | <figcaption><b>Table 1: β-lactams and controls tested in this project and their respective classification.<a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Β-lactam_antibiotic">[4]</a></td></b></figcaption> | ||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
</style> | </style> | ||
<figure class="jonathanstables" style="width:100%;"> | <figure class="jonathanstables" style="width:100%;"> | ||
− | <figcaption><b>Table 2: Overview of the basic parts designed for the biosensor project in the pSB1C3 backbone .</b></figcaption> | + | <figcaption id="BioBricks"><b>Table 2: Overview of the basic parts designed for the biosensor project in the pSB1C3 backbone .</b></figcaption> |
<table style="width:100%; display: table;"> | <table style="width:100%; display: table;"> | ||
<tbody style="max-width:inherit;"> | <tbody style="max-width:inherit;"> | ||
Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
<p>First, we investigated the detection range towards different β-lactam families as well as the sensitivity of the created biosensor. Therefore, we conducted plate reader experiments and disk diffusion assays to test our biosensor in liquid as well as on solid conditions. We recorded the luminescence signal and growth behavior (see <a href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">Experiments and Protocols</a> for details) of our biosensor strains in the presence of six different β-lactam antibiotics. We also included physiological controls that lack one or two of the genetic constructs of the complete biosensor machinery. | <p>First, we investigated the detection range towards different β-lactam families as well as the sensitivity of the created biosensor. Therefore, we conducted plate reader experiments and disk diffusion assays to test our biosensor in liquid as well as on solid conditions. We recorded the luminescence signal and growth behavior (see <a href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">Experiments and Protocols</a> for details) of our biosensor strains in the presence of six different β-lactam antibiotics. We also included physiological controls that lack one or two of the genetic constructs of the complete biosensor machinery. | ||
− | Furthermore, we analyzed the impact of deleting the <i>Bacillus subtilis</i> gene <i>penP</i> - encoding a β-lactamase (which has not been studied intensively yet) - on the luminescence output. The strain W168 <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> was created via Long-Flanking Homology PCR (see <a href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">Experiments and Protocols</a> for details). We also investigated, if the different β-lactam antibiotics induce the promoter driving | + | Furthermore, we analyzed the impact of deleting the <i>Bacillus subtilis</i> gene <i>penP</i> - encoding a β-lactamase (which has not been studied intensively yet) - on the luminescence output. The strain W168 <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> was created via Long-Flanking Homology PCR (see <a href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">Experiments and Protocols</a> for details). We also investigated, if the different β-lactam antibiotics induce the promoter driving <i>penP</i>.<a target="_blank" href ="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4684797/">[7]</a></p> |
<hr> | <hr> | ||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
− | <p>In pre-tests, we investigated the growth of <i>B. subtilis</i> wild type and the | + | <p>In pre-tests, we investigated the growth of <i>B. subtilis</i> wild type and the <i>penP</i> mutant, upon exposure to different concentrations of each tested β-lactam (data not shown). After that, we narrowed these down to two concentrations per antibiotic (see Table 3). Since we did not want to kill our biosensors, we focused on β-lactam concentrations which result in a slight inhibition of growth. These concentrations were used for all following experiments to further characterise our biosensors and the effect of the <i>B. subtilis</i> native β-lactamase (PenP) (see Figure 4). <a href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">Plate reader</a> experiments were performed in <a href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">Mueller Hinton</a> (MH) media, induction with the antibiotics was carried out after one hour of incubation at 37˚C in the plate reader. Growth was monitored every five minutes for at least 18h.</p> |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
<p>During this project, we generated several strains to investigate the functionality of the heterologous constructs constituting the biosensor in <i>Bacillus subtilis</i>. This result section though will focus on the evaluation of the strains shown in Table 5 as these represent the most interesting ones.</p> | <p>During this project, we generated several strains to investigate the functionality of the heterologous constructs constituting the biosensor in <i>Bacillus subtilis</i>. This result section though will focus on the evaluation of the strains shown in Table 5 as these represent the most interesting ones.</p> | ||
<p>In our first experiment, we performed plate reader assays in a 96 well plate format and measured growth (OD<sub>600</sub>) and luminescence output for 18 hours every 5 minutes. Induction with the β-lactam antibiotics occurred after 1 hour. All strains have been tested in triplicates under the same conditions. Strains with the genotype <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> have been induced with lower concentrations compared to the wild type strain W168 (see Table 4 above).</p> | <p>In our first experiment, we performed plate reader assays in a 96 well plate format and measured growth (OD<sub>600</sub>) and luminescence output for 18 hours every 5 minutes. Induction with the β-lactam antibiotics occurred after 1 hour. All strains have been tested in triplicates under the same conditions. Strains with the genotype <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> have been induced with lower concentrations compared to the wild type strain W168 (see Table 4 above).</p> | ||
− | <p>After induction, we anticipate a strong increase in luminescence signal for strains containing the full set of constructs (P<sub><i>blaZ</i></sub>_<i>lux</i> or P<sub><i>blaR1I</i></sub>_<i>lux</i>, P<sub><i>veg</i></sub>_<i>blaR1</i> or P<sub><i>xyl</i></sub>_<i>blaR1</i>, P<sub><i>lepA</i></i></sub>_<i>blaI</i>), thus representing functional biosensors. Besides the biosensor constructs, we also tested all physiological controls missing one essential composite of the | + | <p>After induction, we anticipate a strong increase in luminescence signal for strains containing the full set of constructs (P<sub><i>blaZ</i></sub>_<i>lux</i> or P<sub><i>blaR1I</i></sub>_<i>lux</i>, P<sub><i>veg</i></sub>_<i>blaR1</i> or P<sub><i>xyl</i></sub>_<i>blaR1</i>, P<sub><i>lepA</i></i></sub>_<i>blaI</i>), thus representing functional biosensors. Besides the biosensor constructs, we also tested all physiological controls missing one essential composite of the biosensors' heterologous one-component system (data not shown). The control strain W168 (wild type) and control 1, will presumably not show any luminescence output, while the positive control 2 is expected to show a steady luminescence signal regardless of the presence of any antibiotic compound.</p> |
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
<p>As shown in Figure 5, the wildtype W168 (black with white dots) shows no increase in RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> values when induced with the different β-lactam antibiotics and controls. Control 1 (black tight stripes) behaves similarly to the wild type strain. The slight decrease of control 2 (light grey) in the bar chart where induction with ampicillin and carbenicillin happened, is mostly explained by the high growth inhibition caused by the chosen concentrations for W168 (with functional PenP). Most of the times, the constitutive expression of the <i>lux</i> operon resulted in an RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> of over 1.3 million for control 2 (see Figure 5).</p> | <p>As shown in Figure 5, the wildtype W168 (black with white dots) shows no increase in RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> values when induced with the different β-lactam antibiotics and controls. Control 1 (black tight stripes) behaves similarly to the wild type strain. The slight decrease of control 2 (light grey) in the bar chart where induction with ampicillin and carbenicillin happened, is mostly explained by the high growth inhibition caused by the chosen concentrations for W168 (with functional PenP). Most of the times, the constitutive expression of the <i>lux</i> operon resulted in an RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> of over 1.3 million for control 2 (see Figure 5).</p> | ||
<p>Biosensor 1 gives an overall good signal for all β-lactam antibiotics tested, but also shows a higher basal activity in absence of the β-lactam compounds of 40.000- 90.000 RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> (see Figure 5, bar chart with bacitracin and dH<sub>2</sub>O). Further, we could observe a difference in signal intensity dependent on the β-lactam antibiotic tested. Therefore, biosensor 1 gives the highest signal in presence of penicillin G, cefoxitin and cefoperazone with up to 2.7 million RLU/OD<sub>600</sub>. Ampicillin and penicillin G again show a weaker increase in signal produced by biosensor 1, which could be due to the same reason as for control 2 (see Figure 5).</p> | <p>Biosensor 1 gives an overall good signal for all β-lactam antibiotics tested, but also shows a higher basal activity in absence of the β-lactam compounds of 40.000- 90.000 RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> (see Figure 5, bar chart with bacitracin and dH<sub>2</sub>O). Further, we could observe a difference in signal intensity dependent on the β-lactam antibiotic tested. Therefore, biosensor 1 gives the highest signal in presence of penicillin G, cefoxitin and cefoperazone with up to 2.7 million RLU/OD<sub>600</sub>. Ampicillin and penicillin G again show a weaker increase in signal produced by biosensor 1, which could be due to the same reason as for control 2 (see Figure 5).</p> | ||
− | <p>For biosensor 2, the detection range and sensitivity is comparable to biosensor 1 | + | <p>For biosensor 2, the detection range and sensitivity is comparable to biosensor 1. This strain strongly senses cefoxitin, ampicillin and cefoperazone reaching up to 2.4 million RLU/OD<sub>600</sub>. Even the basal activity of the P<sub><i>blaZ</i></sub> promoter in biosensor 2, as shown in the bar charts with bacitracin and dH<sub>2</sub>O, conforms with the one from biosensor 1.</p> |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
− | <h4><b>2.2 Analyzing the | + | <h4><b>2.2 Analyzing the biosensors' behavior on solid medium conducting Disk Diffusion assays</b></h4> |
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
<figure> | <figure> | ||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
<figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 55%"> | <figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 55%"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/d/d5/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure7.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/d/d5/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure7.png" | ||
− | alt="Figure 7: Disk Diffusion Assay showing the | + | alt="Figure 7: Disk Diffusion Assay showing the biosensors' activity on solid agar plates" class="zoom"> |
− | <figcaption><b>Figure 7: Photographs of the plates from the disk diffusion assay. </b>The upper rows (Panel A and C) show pictures of the plates with the strains under daylight conditions, while the row beneath (Panel B and D) shows the plate after detection of | + | <figcaption><b>Figure 7: Photographs of the plates from the disk diffusion assay. </b>The upper rows (Panel A and C) show pictures of the plates with the strains under daylight conditions, while the row beneath (Panel B and D) shows the plate after detection of bioluminescence (2 minutes exposure time). At the bottom in Panel E, the disk layout and the most important remarks of the genotype of all strains are indicated. |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
− | <p>We expected the control substances (water and bacitracin) to not cause any luminescence signal at the edge of the inhibition zones. The β-lactam antibiotics should lead to a glowing halo when tested with the three different biosensor versions. The wildtype strain and control 1 should not show any signal, since both strains are lacking the <i>lux</i> operon. In the case of control 2 a luminescence signal should be spread over the whole plate, due to the constitutive expression (P<sub><i>veg</i></sub>) of luciferase. Figure 7 sums up the results of the disk diffusion assay for all strains tested. After 24 hours of incubation at 37°C, plates were photographed under day light conditions and under a chemiluminescence dock (with two minutes exposure time).</p> | + | <p>We expected the control substances (water and bacitracin) to not cause any luminescence signal at the edge of the inhibition zones. The β-lactam antibiotics should lead to a glowing halo when tested with the three different biosensor versions. The wildtype strain and control 1 should not show any signal, since both strains are lacking the <i>lux</i> operon. In the case of control 2, a luminescence signal should be spread over the whole plate, due to the constitutive expression (P<sub><i>veg</i></sub>) of luciferase. Figure 7 sums up the results of the disk diffusion assay for all strains tested. After 24 hours of incubation at 37°C, plates were photographed under day light conditions and under a chemiluminescence dock (with two minutes exposure time).</p> |
<p>As expected, the wildtype and control 1, show no luminescence signal, while control 2 leads to a strong luminescence signal spread across the entire plate (Figure 7, Panel B). Neither bacitracin, nor dH<sub>2</sub>O lead to an detectable output, accounting for all strains tested. While in liquid medium biosensor 1 behaves similar compared to biosensor 2, there is a tremendous difference in the detection capability. Biosensor 2 showed detection for all β-lactams tested (Figure 7, Panel D). Au contraire, biosensor 1 only showed a luminescence signal for cefoperazone, cefoxitin and cefalexin (Figure 7, Panel D). Further, the luminescence halo around the cefoxitin disk is quite broad compared to the others, indicating an increased diffusion of the compound into the lawn. Although, biosensor 1 was activated by penicillin G in liquid medium, we could not observe an induction on plate (Figure 7, Panel D).</p> | <p>As expected, the wildtype and control 1, show no luminescence signal, while control 2 leads to a strong luminescence signal spread across the entire plate (Figure 7, Panel B). Neither bacitracin, nor dH<sub>2</sub>O lead to an detectable output, accounting for all strains tested. While in liquid medium biosensor 1 behaves similar compared to biosensor 2, there is a tremendous difference in the detection capability. Biosensor 2 showed detection for all β-lactams tested (Figure 7, Panel D). Au contraire, biosensor 1 only showed a luminescence signal for cefoperazone, cefoxitin and cefalexin (Figure 7, Panel D). Further, the luminescence halo around the cefoxitin disk is quite broad compared to the others, indicating an increased diffusion of the compound into the lawn. Although, biosensor 1 was activated by penicillin G in liquid medium, we could not observe an induction on plate (Figure 7, Panel D).</p> | ||
<p>Biosensor 2 was activated by all of the β-lactam compounds tested (Figure 7, Panel D). Ampicillin, cefoxitin, cefalexin and cefoperazone strongly activate the system, while penicillin G and carbenicillin just show a weak induction of the signal on plate. These findings go along with the results obtained in liquid medium in the previous experiments. | <p>Biosensor 2 was activated by all of the β-lactam compounds tested (Figure 7, Panel D). Ampicillin, cefoxitin, cefalexin and cefoperazone strongly activate the system, while penicillin G and carbenicillin just show a weak induction of the signal on plate. These findings go along with the results obtained in liquid medium in the previous experiments. | ||
− | On the plate with the lawn of biosensor 3 (Panel D), all β-lactams could be detected efficiently when 0.2% xylose was added. In contrast to biosensor 1 and 2, there is a very weak luminescence halo around the cefalexin disk. Also, this halo seems not to | + | On the plate with the lawn of biosensor 3 (Panel D), all β-lactams could be detected efficiently when 0.2% xylose was added. In contrast to biosensor 1 and 2, there is a very weak luminescence halo around the cefalexin disk. Also, this halo seems not to be directly at the edge where the cells are in contact with the antibiotic, but rather a bit further off the inhibition zone. Without induction of biosensor 3 with 0.2% xylose, we could not detect any luminescence signal, demonstrating that the receptor (BlaR1) is crucial for detection and signal transduction, standing in line with results obtained in liquid medium (data not shown). The following Table 7 contains the measured diameters of all inhibitions zones caused by the antibiotic. As expected, no inhibition zones around the negative control dH<sub>2</sub>O were observed.</p> |
<figure> | <figure> | ||
<figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 100%"> | <figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 100%"> | ||
Line 271: | Line 271: | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
− | <p>After evaluating our biosensor versions, we were also curious to follow up on the native <i>B. subtilis</i> β-lactamase PenP. Thus, we performed disk diffusion assays with the P<sub><i>PenP</sub></i> (short and long version) reporter strains and checked if any of the β-lactams would lead to a luminescence signal (Figure 8). Unfortunately, none of the tested substance lead to a notable luminescence. We again could only observe a weak basal promoter activity (as in liquid) with both reporter strains. The measured diameters of the inhibition zones are summarised in Table 8. Taking these results together with the observations in liquid (Figure 6), we can state that the native β-lactamase in <i>B. subtilis</i> dose not respond to any of our tested β-lactams. Yet, we could observe increased sensibility of our biosensors, when <i> | + | <p>After evaluating our biosensor versions, we were also curious to follow up on the native <i>B. subtilis</i> β-lactamase PenP. Thus, we performed disk diffusion assays with the P<sub><i>PenP</sub></i> (short and long version) reporter strains and checked if any of the β-lactams would lead to a luminescence signal (Figure 8). Unfortunately, none of the tested substance lead to a notable luminescence. We again could only observe a weak basal promoter activity (as in liquid) with both reporter strains. The measured diameters of the inhibition zones are summarised in Table 8. Taking these results together with the observations in liquid (Figure 6), we can state that the native β-lactamase in <i>B. subtilis</i> dose not respond to any of our tested β-lactams. Yet, we could observe increased sensibility of our biosensors, when <i>penP,</i> is knock-out, accounting for ampicillin in liquid conditions (Figure 5) and for all antibiotics tested on solid agar plates (Figure 7). We could also clearly demonstrate increased sensitivity in terms of resistance against β-lactams, when <i>B. subtilis</i> is lacking PenP (Figure 4).</p> |
<p> | <p> | ||
<figure class="makeresponsive floatleft" style="width: 100%"><figcaption><b>Table 8: Measured diameter of the inhibition zones in [mm] from the Disk Diffusion Assay with the P<sub><i><b>penP(long)</b></i></sub> reporter strains.</b> </figcaption> | <figure class="makeresponsive floatleft" style="width: 100%"><figcaption><b>Table 8: Measured diameter of the inhibition zones in [mm] from the Disk Diffusion Assay with the P<sub><i><b>penP(long)</b></i></sub> reporter strains.</b> </figcaption> | ||
Line 296: | Line 296: | ||
<h3 id="peptidosomes">3. Encapsulation of the Biosensor into Peptidosomes – Proving the Application Potential</h3> | <h3 id="peptidosomes">3. Encapsulation of the Biosensor into Peptidosomes – Proving the Application Potential</h3> | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
− | <p>After evaluation of the biosensor we probed its activity when encapsulated in Peptidosomes. An overnight culture was inoculated in Fmoc-FF-Solution with a final | + | <p>After evaluation of the biosensor we probed its activity when encapsulated in Peptidosomes. An overnight culture was inoculated in Fmoc-FF-Solution with a final OD<sub>600</sub>=10. Peptidosomes were prepare containing no bacteria (A), W168 (B), control 2 (C) and biosensor 2 (D) (see Figure 10 below) and underwent 3 washing steps. Afterwards, the Peptidosomes were transferred to a 12-well plate, incubated at 37˚C and luminescence was detected every hour. Induction with 0.2 µg µl<sup>-1</sup> cefoperazone happened after 1 hour of growth. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p>The Peptidosomes without cells and the wild type W168 are expected to show no luminescence signal at all times (A and B). We estimate control 2 to reach a luminescence signal under non-induced as well as under induced conditions (C). This signal should be weaker than that of the induced biosensor 2 (D, +AB). No signal is expected for the encapsulated biosensor in absence of cefoperazone (D, -AB).</p> | <p>The Peptidosomes without cells and the wild type W168 are expected to show no luminescence signal at all times (A and B). We estimate control 2 to reach a luminescence signal under non-induced as well as under induced conditions (C). This signal should be weaker than that of the induced biosensor 2 (D, +AB). No signal is expected for the encapsulated biosensor in absence of cefoperazone (D, -AB).</p> | ||
Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/90/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure10.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/90/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure10.png" | ||
alt="Figure 10: Encapsulation of the biosensor into peptidosomes" class="zoom"> | alt="Figure 10: Encapsulation of the biosensor into peptidosomes" class="zoom"> | ||
− | <figcaption><b>Figure 10: Encapsulation experiment with biosensor 2.</b> The pictures in the upper row show the distribution of the Peptidosomes at the time point of luminescence detection, which was immediately performed afterwards using a chemiluminescence dock (bottom row). Pink arrows indicate Peptidosomes with a luminescence signal deriving from the encapsulated biosensor. Upper row of well plates contain non-induced samples. Lower row of well plates were induced with cefoperazone (0.2µg µl<sup>-1</sup>). | + | <figcaption><b>Figure 10: Encapsulation experiment with biosensor 2.</b> The pictures in the upper row show the distribution of the Peptidosomes at the time point of luminescence detection, which was immediately performed afterwards using a chemiluminescence dock (bottom row). Pink arrows indicate Peptidosomes with a luminescence signal deriving from the encapsulated biosensor. Upper row of well plates contain non-induced samples. Lower row of well plates were induced with cefoperazone (0.2 µg µl<sup>-1</sup>). |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
− | <p>In this experiment, we successfully encapsulated biosensor 2 into Peptidosomes and demonstrated its ability to sense the β-lactam cefoperazone diffusing into the Peptidosome. Already 2 hours post induction, there is a luminescence signal detectable for control 2 and the encapsulated biosensor 2 (see Figure 10, middle, C and D). Thereby we could validate the hypothesis that antibiotic compounds can enter the Peptidosomes and trigger the activation of the biosensor. We also showed, that the performance of the biosensor is not compromised by the encapsulation. </p> | + | <p>In this experiment, we successfully encapsulated biosensor 2 into Peptidosomes and demonstrated its ability to sense the β-lactam cefoperazone diffusing into the Peptidosome. Already 2 hours post induction, there is a luminescence signal detectable for control 2 and the encapsulated biosensor 2 (see Figure 10, middle, C and D). Thereby, we could validate the hypothesis that antibiotic compounds can enter the Peptidosomes and trigger the activation of the biosensor. We also showed, that the performance of the biosensor is not compromised by the encapsulation. </p> |
<p></p><p></p> | <p></p><p></p> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:37, 13 December 2017