Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<div class="contentbox"> | <div class="contentbox"> | ||
<h1 class="box-heading">Short Description</h1> | <h1 class="box-heading">Short Description</h1> | ||
− | <p>Worldwide, multidrug-resistant germs are on the rise and provoke the intensive search for novel effective compounds. To simplify the search for new antibiotics and to track the antibiotic pollution in water samples, whole-cell biosensors constitute a helpful investigative tool. In this | + | <p>Worldwide, multidrug-resistant germs are on the rise and provoke the intensive search for novel effective compounds. To simplify the search for new antibiotics and to track the antibiotic pollution in water samples, whole-cell biosensors constitute a helpful investigative tool. In this subproject, we developed a functional and complete heterologous Beta-lactam biosensor in Bacillus subtilis. By the time these specified cells sense a compound of the beta-lactam family, they will respond by producing a measurable luminescence signal. Thereby, we analyzed the detection range and sensitivity of the biosensor in response to six different Beta-lactam antibiotics from various subclasses. The evaluated Biosensor was then encapsulated into Peptidosomes to proof the concept of our project EncaBcillus. The trapping of engineered bacteria thus will allow for increased control and simplified handling, potentially raising the chances for their application in e.g. sewage treatment plants.</p> |
</div class="contentbox"> | </div class="contentbox"> | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-start; flex-wrap: wrap;"> | <div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-start; flex-wrap: wrap;"> | ||
− | <div class="makeresponsive" style="width: | + | <div class="makeresponsive" style="width:50%;"> |
<figure class="makeresponsive" style="padding-left:10%; padding-right:10%;"> | <figure class="makeresponsive" style="padding-left:10%; padding-right:10%;"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/46/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure2_mechanismbiosensor.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/46/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure2_mechanismbiosensor.png" | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | <div class="makeresponsive" style="width: | + | <div class="makeresponsive" style="width:50%;"> |
<figure class="makeresponsive floatleft" style="padding-left:10%; padding-right:10%;"> | <figure class="makeresponsive floatleft" style="padding-left:10%; padding-right:10%;"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/38/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure3_biosensorconstructs.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/38/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure3_biosensorconstructs.png" | ||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/f/f5/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure4_killingassay_novel.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/f/f5/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure4_killingassay_novel.png" | ||
alt="Figure 4: Results from growth inhibition experiment" class="zoom"> | alt="Figure 4: Results from growth inhibition experiment" class="zoom"> | ||
− | <figcaption><b>Figure 4: Growth curves of W168 <b>(1a-f)</b> and W168 <i><b>penP::kan<sup><b><i>R</i></b></sup></b></i> <b>(2a-f)</b> showing an effect after treatment with the tested antibiotics indicated in the legend above the graphs. </b>Samples were induced after 1 hour with <b>(a)</b> ampicillin 1 and 2, <b>(b)</b> carbenicillin 1 and 2, <b>(c)</b> cefoperazone 1 and 2, <b>(d)</b> cefalexin 1 and 2, <b>(e)</b> cefoxitin 1 and 2 as well as with <b>(f)</b> penicillin G 1 and 2. Every graph shows also the controls, where we induced with bacitracin 1 and 2 and dH<sub>2</sub>O. Number 1 and 2 represent the two different concentrations tested of each antibiotic. The concentrations refer to | + | <figcaption><b>Figure 4: Growth curves of W168 <b>(1a-f)</b> and W168 <i><b>penP::kan<sup><b><i>R</i></b></sup></b></i> <b>(2a-f)</b> showing an effect after treatment with the tested antibiotics indicated in the legend above the graphs. </b>Samples were induced after 1 hour with <b>(a)</b> ampicillin 1 and 2, <b>(b)</b> carbenicillin 1 and 2, <b>(c)</b> cefoperazone 1 and 2, <b>(d)</b> cefalexin 1 and 2, <b>(e)</b> cefoxitin 1 and 2 as well as with <b>(f)</b> penicillin G 1 and 2. Every graph shows also the controls, where we induced with bacitracin 1 and 2 and dH<sub>2</sub>O. Number 1 and 2 represent the two different concentrations tested of each antibiotic. The concentrations refer to table 3. |
</b></figcaption> | </b></figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
<figure> | <figure> | ||
<figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 40%"> | <figure class="makeresponsive floatright" style="width: 40%"> | ||
− | <figcaption><b> | + | <figcaption><b>Table4: Antibiotic concentrations in [µg µl<sup>-1</sup>] (final concentration in well) used in all further plate reader experiments. |
</b></figcaption> | </b></figcaption> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/ac/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Table4_finalconcentrations_correct.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/ac/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Table4_finalconcentrations_correct.png" | ||
alt="Table 2: Beta-Lactam concentrations tested all subsequent assays" class="zoom"> | alt="Table 2: Beta-Lactam concentrations tested all subsequent assays" class="zoom"> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
− | <p>As expected, the data from the pretest performed in triplicates in Figure 4 show, that the presence of the beta-lactamase PenP plays a key role in facilitating survival at higher antibiotic concentrations. The wild type strain B. subtilis W168 is therefore able to grow at higher antibiotic concentrations as the mutant W168 <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> when treated with ampicillin, carbenicillin, cefoperazone, cefoxitin and penicillin G (see Figure 4). However, this was not the case for cefalexin and bacitracin. Here, we could not observe any difference in growth inhibition between the wild type and the <i>penP</i> mutant in regard to the tested concentrations (see Figure 4). Cefalexin showed a very strong inhibitory effect on the growth of both wildtype and the mutant. For this reason, we chose a relatively weak final concentration (see Table 4 below). Furthermore, we noticed a growth inhibition of the mutant W168 <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> during the stationary phase, especially when treated with | + | <p>As expected, the data from the pretest performed in triplicates in Figure 4 show, that the presence of the beta-lactamase PenP plays a key role in facilitating survival at higher antibiotic concentrations. The wild type strain <i>B. subtilis</i> W168 is therefore able to grow at higher antibiotic concentrations as the mutant W168 <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> when treated with ampicillin, carbenicillin, cefoperazone, cefoxitin and penicillin G (see Figure 4). However, this was not the case for cefalexin and bacitracin. Here, we could not observe any difference in growth inhibition between the wild type and the <i>penP</i> mutant in regard to the tested concentrations (see Figure 4). Cefalexin showed a very strong inhibitory effect on the growth of both wildtype and the mutant. For this reason, we chose a relatively weak final concentration (see Table 4 below). Furthermore, we noticed a growth inhibition of the mutant W168 <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> during the stationary phase, especially when treated with Carbenicillin, Cefalexin and Penicillin G (data not shown). For this reason, we selected weaker antibiotic concentrations for the upcoming experiments with this mutant.</p> |
<p>From these first experiments, we selected the final antibiotic concentrations for the upcoming plate reader experiments with the biosensor strains (see Table 4)</p> | <p>From these first experiments, we selected the final antibiotic concentrations for the upcoming plate reader experiments with the biosensor strains (see Table 4)</p> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
alt="Table 4: Beta-Lactam concentrations tested all subsequent assays" class="zoom"> | alt="Table 4: Beta-Lactam concentrations tested all subsequent assays" class="zoom"> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
− | During this project, we generated several strains to investigate the functionality of the heterologous constructs constituting the biosensor in Bacillus subtilis [file strains?]. This result section though will focus on the evaluation of the strains shown in | + | During this project, we generated several strains to investigate the functionality of the heterologous constructs constituting the biosensor in <i>Bacillus subtilis</i> [file strains?]. 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 ( | + | <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 Beta-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 biosensor`s heterologous one-component system (data not shown). The control strain W168 (wild type) and control 1, will 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>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 biosensor`s 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 139: | Line 139: | ||
alt="Table 5: Genotype remarks of the Strains" class="zoom"> | alt="Table 5: Genotype remarks of the Strains" class="zoom"> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
− | <p>As the beta-lactamase PenP confers resistance to Beta-lactam antibiotics in B. subtilis, a rising luminescence signal is estimated for the P<sub><i>penP</i></sub>_<i>lux</i> constructs post induction. Generally, the P<sub><i>xyl</i></sub> promoter is activated by adding xylose as an inducer to the medium. In the plate reader experiments, 0.2% xylose was added to the cells (beginning with the day culture).</p> | + | <p>As the beta-lactamase PenP confers resistance to Beta-lactam antibiotics in <i>B. subtilis</i>, a rising luminescence signal is estimated for the P<sub><i>penP</i></sub>_<i>lux</i> constructs post induction. Generally, the P<sub><i>xyl</i></sub> promoter is activated by adding xylose as an inducer to the medium. In the plate reader experiments, 0.2% xylose was added to the cells (beginning with the day culture) to activate expression of <i>blaR1</i>.</p> |
− | <p>Further we propose biosensor strains carrying the genotype remark <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> to give a stronger signal in presence of | + | <p>Further we propose biosensor strains carrying the genotype remark <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i> to give a stronger signal in presence of Beta-lactam compounds, as they cannot be degraded by the PenP enzyme.</p></figure> |
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
− | <p>The bar charts in Figure 5 illustrate the best biosensor constructs identified in the plate reader experiments and | + | <p>The bar charts in Figure 5 illustrate the best biosensor constructs identified in the plate reader experiments and compare the RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> values of the strains 2 hours post induction with the antibiotics.</p> |
<figure> | <figure> | ||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/ab/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure5.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/ab/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure5.png" | ||
alt="Figure 5: Bar Charts showing the detection range of the Biosensors" class="zoom"> | alt="Figure 5: Bar Charts showing the detection range of the Biosensors" class="zoom"> | ||
− | <figcaption><b>Figure 5: RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> values of the different biosensors and the controls at 2 hours after induction with the 6 Beta-lactams, bacitracin and dH<sub><b>2</b></sub>O</b>. The legend above defines the coloration of the single bars in each chart. Error bars indicate the standard deviation. The text boxes | + | <figcaption><b>Figure 5: RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> values of the different biosensors and the controls at 2 hours after induction with the 6 Beta-lactams, bacitracin and dH<sub><b>2</b></sub>O</b>. The legend above defines the coloration of the single bars in each chart. Error bars indicate the standard deviation. The white text boxes contain the maximal RLU/OD<sub>600</i> that was reached reached 2 hours post induction.</figcaption> </figure> |
<p></p> | <p></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 | + | <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 Beta-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 Beta-lactam antibiotics tested, but also shows a higher basal activity in absence of the | + | <p>Biosensor 1 gives an overall good signal for all Beta-lactam antibiotics tested, but also shows a higher basal activity in absence of the Beta-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 Beta-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, 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> | <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 159: | Line 159: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/2/23/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure6.png" | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/2/23/T--TU_Dresden--P_Biosensor_Figure6.png" | ||
alt="Figure 6: Promoter activity of P<sub><i>penP</i></sub> in the Presence of antibiotics" class="zoom"> | alt="Figure 6: Promoter activity of P<sub><i>penP</i></sub> in the Presence of antibiotics" class="zoom"> | ||
− | <figcaption><b>Figure6: RLU/OD<sub><b>600</b></sub> 2 hours after induction of the P<sub><i><b>penP</b></i></sub> Promoter versions (P<sub><i><b>penP(long)</b></i></sub> (Strain 1) and P<sub><i><b>penP(short)</b></i></sub> (Strain 2) in W168 (a) and W168 <i | + | <figcaption><b>Figure6: RLU/OD<sub><b>600</b></sub> 2 hours after induction of the P<sub><i><b>penP</b></i></sub> Promoter versions (P<sub><i><b>penP(long)</b></i></sub> (Strain 1) and P<sub><i><b>penP(short)</b></i></sub> (Strain 2) in W168 (a) and W168 <i>penP::kan<sup>R</sup></i>(b)) with beta-lactam antibiotics and the controls. |
</figcaption> | </figcaption> | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
− | <p>The activity of biosensor 3 can be induced by adding xylose (0.2% final concentration) to the sample. In absence of xylose, the signal is very weak as can be seen in the bar with the dark blue stripes (see Figure 5). This is due to the fact, that without xylose, nearly no receptor molecules are localized | + | <p>The activity of biosensor 3 can be induced by adding xylose (0.2% final concentration) to the sample. In absence of xylose, the signal is very weak as can be seen in the bar with the dark blue stripes (see Figure 5). This is due to the fact, that without xylose, nearly no receptor molecules are localized in the bacteria`s inner cell membrane and the signal cannot be detected and amplified. For induction with cefoperazone though, the weak receptor density on the surface because of the leaky expression of <i>blaR1</i>, seems to be enough to cause a quite powerful signal already. From this can be concluded, that the receptor seems to have a high affinity to cefoperazone. In the bar charts of bacitracin and dH<sub>2</sub>O (see Figure 5), biosensor 3 shows the lowest basal promoter activity compared to the other two biosensors tested. Here, we could also observe a high sensitivity for penicillin G, cefoxitin, cefoperazone and ampicillin. In general, all biosensors show good performance in liquid MH-Medium. They able to detect the six beta-lactams reliably by giving a signal way stronger than the basal luminescence.</p> |
− | <p>Furthermore, the analysis of the induction of P<i><sub>penP</sub></i> by different | + | <p>Furthermore, the analysis of the induction of P<i><sub>penP</sub></i> by different Beta-lactam antibiotics unfolded that this promoter seems to be constitutively active during exponential phase (see Figure 6). As the exact promoter length and potential regulatory regions upstream are still unidentified, two versions (short and long) of the promoter have been examined.</p> |
− | <p>The RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> values shown in Figure 6 indicate a moderate promoter activity during exponential growth. There is no noticeable difference between the strains with a functional PenP enzyme <b>(a)</b> and the <i>penP</i> mutant <b>(b)</b> (see Figure 6). We could not observe a particular activation by | + | <p>The RLU/OD<sub>600</sub> values shown in Figure 6 indicate a moderate promoter activity during exponential growth. There is no noticeable difference between the strains with a functional PenP enzyme <b>(a)</b> and the <i>penP</i> mutant <b>(b)</b> (see Figure 6). We could not observe a particular activation by Beta-lactam antibiotics, which suggests that this enzyme is produced might have other functionalities, too.</p> |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<p>We would expect the controls to not cause any luminescence signal at the edge of the inhibition zones, while the beta-lactam antibiotics should lead to a glowing halo around the disks on the plates with the three biosensors. The wildtype strain and control 1 will not show any signal, while the luminescence signal of control 2 should be spread over the whole plate. In Figure 7 on the right, you can see the results of the disk diffusion assay where plates have been photographed after 24 hours of growth.</p> | <p>We would expect the controls to not cause any luminescence signal at the edge of the inhibition zones, while the beta-lactam antibiotics should lead to a glowing halo around the disks on the plates with the three biosensors. The wildtype strain and control 1 will not show any signal, while the luminescence signal of control 2 should be spread over the whole plate. In Figure 7 on the right, you can see the results of the disk diffusion assay where plates have been photographed after 24 hours of growth.</p> | ||
− | <p>For the wildtype and control 1, no luminescence signal was detected on the plate, while control 2 displays a strong luminescence signal on the whole plate (see Figure 7). While Biosensor 1 has a similar detection range like biosensor 2 in liquid medium, there is a huge difference in the detection range on agar plates. We could observe a luminescence signal for cefoperazone, cefoxitin and cefalexin on the lawn of | + | <p>For the wildtype and control 1, no luminescence signal was detected on the plate, while control 2 displays a strong luminescence signal on the whole plate (see Figure 7). While Biosensor 1 has a similar detection range like biosensor 2 in liquid medium, there is a huge difference in the detection range on agar plates. We could observe a luminescence signal for cefoperazone, cefoxitin and cefalexin on the lawn of Biosensor 1. Though the signal for cefalexin seems weaker, as for the other two compounds. Further, the luminescence halo around the cefoxitin disk is quite broad compared to the others, indicating a far diffusion of the compound into the lawn. Despite biosensor 1 seems to be activated by penicillin G in liquid medium, we could not observe an induction on plate.</p> |
<p>Biosensor 2 was activated by all of the beta-lactam compounds tested. 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 beta-lactam compounds tested. 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, all beta-lactams could be detected quite well in the presence of 0.2% xylose. In contrast to | + | On the plate with the lawn of Biosensor 3, all beta-lactams could be detected quite well in the presence of 0.2% xylose. In contrast to Biosensor 1 and 2, there is a very weak luminescence halo around the cefalexin disk. Also, this halo seems not to de directly at the edge where the cells have direct contact with the antibiotic, but rather a bit farer from the inhibition zone on the lawn. Without induction of Biosensor 3 with 0.2% xylose, we could not detect any luminescence signal, despite one very weak signal around the cefoperazone disk (data not shown). Again, these results are comparable to those seen before in the experiments in liquid medium.</p> |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
<p>Neither bacitracin, nor dH<sub>2</sub>O lead to an activation of the biosensor machinery in all strains.</p> | <p>Neither bacitracin, nor dH<sub>2</sub>O lead to an activation of the biosensor machinery in all strains.</p> | ||
− | <p>Figure 8 illustrates the results of the disk diffusion assay implemented with the | + | <p>Figure 8 illustrates the results of the disk diffusion assay implemented with the PpenP reporter strains. In comparison to the controls W168 and control 1 shown in figure 6, a slight luminescence signal was detected on these plates, that could not really be related to a specific antibiotic, but rather covered the whole lawn. In this figure, just the results for the long version of the promoter are depicted, as the short version reproduces these findings.</p> |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
Line 274: | Line 274: | ||
<td> Comella, N. and Grossman, A.D. (2005) Conservation of genes and processes controlled by the quorum response in bacteria: characterization of genes controlled by the quorum-sensing transcription factor ComA in <i>Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 57(4)</i>,1159-74</td> | <td> Comella, N. and Grossman, A.D. (2005) Conservation of genes and processes controlled by the quorum response in bacteria: characterization of genes controlled by the quorum-sensing transcription factor ComA in <i>Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 57(4)</i>,1159-74</td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
+ | </div class="contentbox"> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | |||
</main> | </main> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
{{TU_Dresden/Footer}} | {{TU_Dresden/Footer}} |
Revision as of 22:54, 29 October 2017
References
[1] | Goers, L., Freemont, P. and Polizzi, K.M. (2014) Co-culture systems and technologies: taking synthetic biology to the next level. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20140065 |
[2] | Mielich‐Suss, B. and Lopez, D. (2015) Molecular mechanisms involved in Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 555–565 |
[3] | Brenner, K., You, L. and Arnold, F.H. (2008) Engineering microbial consortia: a new frontier in synthetic biology. Trends Biotechnol. 26, 483-489 |
[4] | Hamoen, L.W., Venema G. and Kuipers O.P. (2003) Controlling competence in Bacillus subtilis: shared use of regulators. Microbiology. 149, 9-17 |
[5] | Wolf, D., Rippa, V., Mobarec, J.C., Sauer, P., Adlung, L., Kolb, P. and Bischofs, I.B. (2016) The quorum-sensing regulator ComA from Bacillus subtilis activates transcription using topologically distinct DNA motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 44(5), 2160-72 |
[6] | Griffith, K.L. and Grossman, A.D. (2008) A degenerate tripartite DNA-binding site required for activation of ComA-dependent quorum response gene expression in Bacillus subtilis. J Mol Biol. 381(2), 261-75 |
[7] | Comella, N. and Grossman, A.D. (2005) Conservation of genes and processes controlled by the quorum response in bacteria: characterization of genes controlled by the quorum-sensing transcription factor ComA in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 57(4),1159-74 |