Revision as of 03:03, 1 November 2017

PowerLeaf - A Bacterial Solar Battery

ENERGY MADE BEAUTIFUL

Abstract

With the PowerLeaf, iGEM SDU is introducing a novel solution for long-term storage of solar energy, becoming an alternative to solar cells, without using environmentally harmful resources. We aim to accomplish this through the creation of a device visually shaped to resemble a leaf, thus providing a nature-in-city ambience. The team invested heavily in public engagement and collaborations to investigate how the device hypothetically could be implemented into an urban environment. From a technical perspective, the bacterial solar battery is composed of an energy storing unit and an energy converting unit. The energy storing unit is defined by a genetically engineered Escherichia coli, that fixates carbon dioxide into the chemically stable polymer cellulose, while the energy converting unit uses genetically engineered E. coli to consume the stored cellulose. Electrons retrieved from this process, are transferred to an anode by optimised nanowires, thereby creating an electrical current. Last but not least; the energy storing unit has a light-dependent system which activates dormancy during nighttime to reduce energy lost by metabolism.

A green project, a green wiki, and the best performance in the iGEM Goes Green initiative! Green just got greener.

“It’s not easy being green”

Kermit the Frog

The Collaboration

As part of a Human Practices collaboration project the iGEM team of TU Dresden invited us to participate in iGEM Goes Green. The main idea of the collaboration is to calculate and consider the emission of CO₂ related to iGEM.
We are grateful for the opportunity to be play a part in a collaboration which focuses on the green aspects of GMO, as it corresponds with a main focus of our project.

Our Carbon Footprint

Much like the coastline paradox presented by Mandelbrot, our total carbon footprint is hard to measure since we cannot take the following into account: Every single kilometer we have driven, the exact size of our trees and so forth.
The estimated carbon footprint of a flight from Copenhagen, Denmark, to Boston, Massachusetts, USA and back again is 3.430 kg/person Flight emission calculator . With a team of 14 individuals, this culminates in a total of 48.020 kg or roughly 48 tonnes of carbon dioxide for our team - just from flying intercontinental. Added to this is the carbon footprint of the Danish trains at 30 g/km/person DSB environmental report. With the same 14 individuals and 175 km to Copenhagen from Odense this yields a total of 147 kg. We have been on a total of three trips, one to Langeland, Denmark, two to Copenhagen, Denmark, and one to Delft, Holland. We have travelled to these destinations in two Volkswagen Transporter vans. The carbon footprint of these is 188 kg/km/car Volkswagen automobile details. With a total of 2320 km travelled our trips yield a total of 844.5 kg of CO₂.
Thus our total carbon footprint of travelling is roughly 49 tonnes of CO₂.
Regarding our wiki, we have received help from our sponsors CO₂ Neutral Website in calculating the carbon footprint. They estimated roughly 10,000 views during the next year, but sponsored carbon elimination equivalent to 120,000 views. All in all the sponsorship from CO₂ Neutral Website has made our wiki net CO₂ negative.
We received a spreadsheet from TU-Dresden to estimate our carbon footprint from our lab Go Green Guide. The carbon footprint calculated from our lab is estimated at a total of 1 tonne of CO₂.
Thus our total carbon footprint is roughly 50 tonnes CO₂

Our Solution

To reduce our net carbon footprint we have made some local and one global initiative. The local initiatives are planting trees, buying green and travelling green. After thorough systematic research we could conclude that in general planting grass and most trees would increase our net carbon footprint, so we planted a few apple trees Carbon sequestration of trees Global warming and lawns Carbon sequestration in turfgrass.
Acknowledging this is not even cents on the dollar, we had to do more. Therefore some of the team changed their eating habits into a more local, organic and sustainable diet. The main focus of this diet was that a majority of the vegetables had to be local and should be picked up on nearby farms. For this reason one of the teammates signed up for “Odense Food Community” Odense Food Community (translated) .
The last element of the local initiatives was to travel green. In general the team has been travelling by bike or public transport when going to and from the university. For the purpose of travelling to every meetup, we have been driving in vans, leaving very little carbon footprint. Had we been able to go to Boston in a more eco-friendly way, we of course would.
Regarding global initiatives we started a partnership with CO₂ Neutral Website, which ended up in a sponsorship from them. What they have done in our name is

Build energy efficient stoves for families in Africa, reducing CO₂ emissions as less trees are logged. It also creates local jobs and creates a healthier life. Certified and audited through the Gold Standard.
Build boreholes for clean water instead of families boiling water. This also improves quality of life and reduces CO₂ emission. Certified and audited through the Gold Standard.
Build new, renewable energy sources. So far we are involved in several windmill parks.
Help protect rainforest from devastating deforestation. Certified and audited through the Redd+.
Help companies reduce their climate impact through energy efficiency.

Thus we have had a global impact on climate, which cannot be estimated precisely.

Conclusion

In conclusion we would like to highlight the following

Due to flying being a necessity for us when going to Boston we have a massive carbon footprint.
We acknowledge that any local initiative we have made are pennies on the dollar in regards to CO₂ emission and reduction.
The main initiative from us is the partnership with CO₂ Neutral Website, which has had a global impact.

Introduction

Welcome to our wiki! We are the iGEM team from the University of Southern Denmark. We have been waiting in great anticipation for the chance to tell you our story.
Our adventure began with a meeting between strangers from eight different studies. Despite our different backgrounds, we had one thing in common; a shared interest in synthetic biology. Soon after this first meeting, we were herded off to a weekend in a cottage - far away from our regular lives. The cottage was a place to bond and discuss project ideas. It immediately became apparent that being an interdisciplinary team was going to be our strength. Each member had unique qualities that enabled them to efficiently tackle different aspects of the iGEM competition. So, we made it our goal to take advantage of these qualities.
We decided to make a proof-of-concept project. Specifically, we wanted to use bacteria as a novel and greener solution for solar energy storage. This project was later dubbed the PowerLeaf – a bacterial solar battery.
Since it is a one-page wiki, you can just keep on scrolling, and you will be taken on a journey through our iGEM experience.

Achievements

Bronze Medal Requirements

Register and attend – Our team applied on the 30^th of March 2017 and got accepted the 4^th of May 2017. We had an amazing summer and are looking forward to attend the Giant Jamboree!
Meet all the deliverables requirements – You are reading the team wiki now, so that is one cat in the bag. You can find all attributions made to the project in the credits section of the wiki. The team poster and team presentation are ready to be presented at the Giant Jamboree. We also filled the safety form, the judging form and all our parts were registered and submitted in time.
Clearly state the Attributions – All attributions made to our project have been clearly credited in the credits section.
Improve and/or characterise an existing Biobrick Part or Device – The characterisation of the OmpR-regulated promoter BBa_R0082 was improved, as the level of noise was studied on different vectors.
Induction and inhibition of the pBAD promoter, BBa_I0500, were studied, whereby the characterisation of this part was improved.
Furthermore, we characterized if the periplasmic beta-glucosidase could make E. coli live on cellobiose in fluid medium BBa_K523014, submitted by the 2011 iGEM Edinburgh Team. The data obtained in these experiments are presented in the demonstration and results section.

Silver Medal Requirements

Validated part/contribution – We created the part BBa_K2449004, containing a cellobiose phosphorylase. This enzyme enables E. coli to survive on cellobiose, which we validated by growth experiments. The data obtained in these experiments are presented in the demonstration and results section.
Collaboration – We have collaborated with several teams throughout our project by taking part in discussions, meetups, and answering questionnaires - we even hosted our first meetup for our fellow Danish iGEM teams. You will get to read all about this in the credits section.
Human Practices – Our philosopher, historian, and biologist have discussed the ethical and educational aspects of our project in great detail. In extension to their work, we have been working extensively with public engagement and education.

Gold Medal Requirements

Integrated Human Practices – Regarding the development and implementation of the device, we reached out to and remained in contact with city planners from our hometown throughout our project. This regarded advice and conversations on anything from the possible design, value, safety, use, placement, and plastic type of our device. We also made sure to integrate the findings of said conversations into our overall project. Last but not least, we focused on demonstrating this process on our wiki in order to inspire future iGEM teams.
Model your project – Through extensive modelling, we have learned that it is possible to regulate bacterial dormancy. However, the modelling showed that it would be inadequate to only regulate the toxin RelE, as this would make the bacteria unable to exit dormancy. To regulate dormancy properly, it would also require tight regulation of the antitoxin RelB. This information was used to shape the entire approach of the light-dependent dormancy system.

World Situation

A Global Problem

In the world of today, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure a sustainable future Green Growth Papers (Myriam Linster). Material Resources, Productivity and the Environment. 2013.. Not just for our generation, but especially for the generations to come, as their possibilities should not be limited by our choices. Our solution, is the development of a green and renewable technology, which offers new advantages to the field of sustainable energy. There are currently certain limitations to the existing options for renewable energy, namely the intermittency and the diluteness problem Alexandre Chagnes JS. Global Lithium Resources and Sustainability Issues. Lithium Process Chemistry: Elsevier; June 2015. p. pp.1-40.. The intermittency problem describes the discontinuous energy production, along with inefficient storage. On the other hand, the diluteness problem is characterised as the resource-demanding production of technical devices, such as solar cells and batteries. This means that a lack of resources eventually would eliminate the current forms of green technology. As such, we need to introduce a new and sustainable approach to green energy to ensure the continuation of our beautiful world for the coming generations.

In a Local Environment

We are a team of young adults raised with an awareness of climate changes and the potential limitations to our ways of life. As a generation that appreciates open source and shared information, we have been encouraged to constantly challenge the ideas of yesterday. With this in mind, we decided the best solution to the eventual energy crisis would be to seek out experts and the general public, even children, in order to rethink the current notion; that the only way to save our planet is to compromise our living standards.
Fortunately, we learned through interaction with local agents that a great deal of people share our belief; that we ought to pursue the development of low energy cities with a high quality of life. In fact, we even discovered that our own hometown Odense wants to be the greenest, most renewable city in Denmark by 2050 Odense Municipality’s website, regarding their politics on the current climate changes..
In the pursuit of this goal, rose to the challenge of creating a truly green solution, which would provide an environmental friendly source of energy.
Please keep scrolling if you wish to read more about our solution, or go straight to bioethics if you are curious why we not only could, but ought to do something about the current and forthcoming energy crisis.

Inspiration

Our early ideas were reviewed after attending the Danish Science Festival, where we met several young minds with creative and inspiring ideas. The children came to our workshop with their parents to learn about bacteria, the history of GMO, ethics, and iGEM. They attended our “Draw-a-Bacteria”-competition, where they designed their own bacteria, some even with detailed stories. From this the children taught us a thing or two about the endless possibilities of GMO.

See a selection of their amazing drawings here.

Our Solution

Our Solution

The vision for our bacterial solar battery is to combine two aspects: energy storage and energy conversion, by which we will produce a new and improved type of solar battery. We have named this vision The PowerLeaf. The PowerLeaf consist of two chambers that will be referred to as the outer chamber or energy storing unit and the inner chamber or energy converting unit.

The energy storing unit comprises genetically engineered Escherichia coli, which uses solar energy for ATP production to fixate carbon dioxide into the chemically stable polymer cellulose. The cellulose works as the battery in the PowerLeaf, storing the chemical energy. A light sensing system activates dormancy during nighttime, leading to a reduced loss of energy through metabolism.
The energy converting unit uses genetically engineered E. coli to consume the stored cellulose by using an inducible switch. Retrieved electrons are transferred by extracellular electron carriers to an anode, resulting in an electrical current.

The complete system will be combined into a single device containing a compartment for each of the two units. Details about the construction and device will be discussed in the Integrated Practices section.
The device was originally designed to resemble a plant leaf aimed to provide a nature-in-city ambience. This hypothetical implementation of the PowerLeaf in an urban environment was developed through careful consideration, public engagement, and collaborations. We worked with local city planners from our hometown Odense, along with a plastic specialist from SP Moulding, the purpose of which was to advance our pre-established design, as well as attaining other changeable designs.
Our vision was clear and ambitions were high. As it turned out though, we had aimed too high, considering the limited timeframe, so at an early stage, we decided to focus on the following features:

Light-dependent dormancy system
Converting CO₂ into glucose
Biosynthesis and secretion of cellulose produced from glucose
Converting cellulose to glucose
Extracellular electron transfer

It will then be up to future iGEM teams to continue on the development of the PowerLeaf. We would love to see our project become a reality one day, and so we have created a special page for future iGEM teams, which includes suggestions for a further development of the project.

Project & Results

We have throughout the project worked on the development of 2 units for our device, an energy storing and an energy converting unit. Each of the systems we worked on for the units can be seen here:
Energy storing (E. Coli)

Light-dependent dormancy system
Carbon fixation
Cellulose biosynthesis and secretion

Energy converting (G. Sulfurreducens)

Breakdown of cellulose
Extracellular electron transfer

Once you reach each of the 5 systems in the 'Project Design'-section, you will first be given a short introduction to the underlying theory, which you will be able to expand on, by pressing “read more”. After the theory, you will be given the approach used in each of the respective systems for the project. Before continuing on to the next system. To make things easier on you, we have developed icons to each of the above systems which will be used throughout the rest of the wiki.

Project Design

Dormancy System

Project Overview

Theory

Cyanobacteria contain signal transduction systems, thereby making them capable of sensing and responding to light Bussell AN, Kehoe DM. Control of a four-color sensing photoreceptor by a two-color sensing photoreceptor reveals complex light regulation in cyanobacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013;110(31):12834-9.. This ability gives the organisms the opportunity, to adapt and optimize their metabolism to a circadian rhythm. Photoreceptors in the plasma membrane, of which phytochromes are especially abundant and well described, are responsible for this property Vierstra RD, Davis SJ. Bacteriophytochromes: new tools for understanding phytochrome signal transduction. Seminars in cell & developmental biology. 2000;11(6):511-21.. In 2004, the UT Austin iGEM team made a light response system consisting of a photoreceptor combined with an intracellular indigenous regulator system Levskaya A, Chevalier AA, Tabor JJ, Simpson ZB, Lavery LA, Levy M, et al. Synthetic biology: engineering Escherichia coli to see light. Nature. 2005;438(7067):441-2.. EnvZ and OmpR makes up the two-component system naturally found in E. coli. The photoreceptor known as Cph1 was isolated from the cyanobacteria Synechocytis PCC6803. Cph1 has functional combination sites, which combined with the kinase EnvZ forms a two-domain receptor, known as Cph8. Activation of Cph8 is mediated by the chromophore phycocyanobilin, PCB that is sensitive to red light with maximal absorbance at 662 nm Lamparter T, Esteban B, Hughes J. Phytochrome Cph1 from the cyanobacterium Synechocystis PCC6803. Purification, assembly, and quaternary structure. European journal of biochemistry. 2001;268(17):4720-30..
When not exposed to light, PCB activates the phytochrome Cph1, thereby promoting kinase activity through the EnvZ kinase. When the transcription factor OmpR is phosphorylated by EnvZ, expression of genes regulated by the OmpR-regulated promoter is initiated. Excitation of PCB by red light results in a situation where the transcription factor OmpR is not regulated. The absence of phosphorylated OmpR leads to no activation of the OmpR-regulated promoter, thereby preventing gene expression.

Figure #. Left: Red light activates PCB, which in turn inactivates the photoreceptor complex Cph8, preventing gene expression from the OmpR-regulated promoter. Right: In absence of light, PCB is inactive, which enables the Cph8 to phosphorylate the transcription factor OmpR. This promotes gene expression from the OmpR-regulated promoter.

Using the photocontrol device to control a toxin-antitoxin system is a system composed of two gene products, of which one specifies a cell toxin and the other an antitoxin, which neutralizes the toxic effect caused by the toxin. In E. coli K-12 the cytotoxin RelE and antitoxin RelB comprise such a system Gotfredsen M, Gerdes K. The Escherichia coli relBE genes belong to a new toxin-antitoxin gene family. Molecular microbiology. 1998;29(4):1065-76.. Expression of the cytotoxin RelE inhibits translation in the cells, due to its ability to cleave mRNA found in the A-site of the ribosome. RelB neutralizes the toxic effect of RelE through interaction between the two proteins. Whether the cell lie dormant in response to expression of RelE depends on the ratio of antitoxin RelB and RelE present in the cell. Several studies have shown that RelB and RelE form a complex with RelB:RelE stoichiometry of 2:1 Overgaard M, Borch J, Gerdes K. RelB and RelE of Escherichia coli form a tight complex that represses transcription via the ribbon-helix-helix motif in RelB. Journal of molecular biology. 2009;394(2):183-96.Overgaard M, Borch J, Jorgensen MG, Gerdes K. Messenger RNA interferase RelE controls relBE transcription by conditional cooperativity. Molecular microbiology. 2008;69(4):841-57.. When the RelB:RelE stoichiometric-ratio is lowered to 1:1, studies show that RelB is not able to protect the cells against the RelE-caused translational inhibition Overgaard M, Borch J, Jorgensen MG, Gerdes K. Messenger RNA interferase RelE controls relBE transcription by conditional cooperativity. Molecular microbiology. 2008;69(4):841-57.. For further information about the theory behind the light-dependent dormancy system, read here.

Modelling

Modelling of the RelE-RelB System is Essential to Avoid Irrevocable Dormancy

Controllable dormancy is a feature that holds the potential to be applied in many different situations. However, inducing dormancy and bringing the bacteria back to a metabolic active state is like balancing on a tightrope, and to establish the basis of future implementations, the properties of this system would have to be investigated further. In an endeavour to provide this basic knowledge, stochastic modelling utilising the Gillespie algorithm was performed in an attempt to prognosticate the system and simulate the interactions between the toxin and antitoxin. The toxin RelE is inhibited by the antitoxin RelB through complex formation, and both proteins interact with their promoter in a feedback mechanism. To consolidate the model, the capacity of the toxin-antitoxin system was assessed in an experiment, as the controllability of the dormancy system was studied through manual regulation of RelE and RelB expression.
You can read more about the modelling here.

Figure #. Left: The time required for the bacteria to enter dormancy varies with the expression level of RelB. Right: Only one of the tested configurations, RelB₂:50-RelE:35, causes the bacteria to regain their activity within the modelled time. The data is based on the simulation of 1000 independent bacteria.

The simulated data revealed, that when enhanced RelE production is implemented in order to induce dormancy in E. coli, the effect come easily. However, implementation of RelB expression is also found necessary to ensure that the bacteria are able to enter an active state again.
The model showed that the system is sensitive to the RelE:RelB ratio as well as the total amount of produced toxin. As seen in figure #, implementation with production rates in the vicinity of 50 and 35 molecules per minute for RelB and RelE respectively was found to be suitable for balancing our system; the bacteria lay dormant within the computed time and re-enter an active state within minutes.
The simulated data made it evident, that implementing an optimised dormancy system comprises a challenge, as the individual expression levels of RelE and RelB, as well as their interaction, has a crucial impact on the regulation of dormancy. Thus, controlled gene expression of both RelE and RelB is required to implement a controllable dormancy system in the PowerLeaf. If you want to dig deeper into this crucial part of our system, read the full results here.

RelE and RelB Regulate Dormancy and Influence Their Own Expression

Modelling of the effects of different RelE and RelB expression levels were performed as an important aspect in the implementation of the RelE-RelB toxin-antitoxin system. The toxin RelE constrains bacterial growth by mRNA degradation, thereby inhibiting translation, whereas the antitoxin RelB inhibits this toxic effect by forming complexes with RelE. As seen in figure #a, three different protein complexes are formed, namely RelB₂, RelB₂RelE, and RelB₂RelE₂, containing zero, one, and two RelE molecules respectively [8].

Figure #. The three toxin-antitoxin complexes RelB₂, RelB₂RelE, and RelB₂RelE₂.

The expression of both RelE and RelB is regulated by the relBE promoter, which is influenced differently by each of the complexes, as seen in figure #b. When small amounts of RelE is present, RelB₂ and RelB₂RelE repress transcription through relBE by binding to the operator sequence. However, when high amounts of RelE are present, the toxin mitigates this repression by reacting with complexes bound to the operator sequence [1].

Figure #. The interactions between the toxin-antitoxin complexes and the relBE promoter controlling the expression of RelE and RelB. RelE mediates the degradation of mRNA, thereby inhibiting translation.

During starvation, the half-life of RelB decreases significantly due to a Lon-protease [6], causing a shift in the equilibrium of RelB and RelE to a higher level of RelE. In a non-starvation situation, the interactions with the operator sequence keeps the amount of free RelE at a low level, thereby stabilising the system [1]. In our simulation, the shift in equilibrium is made by introducing additional expression of RelE.
Two different models were used with two different approaches:

How a given configuration of RelB and RelE production increases the RelE concentration and whether it could induce dormancy within 2 hours.
The time required for the bacteria to exit dormancy for each of the configurations, that is, how long it takes the levels of free RelE to decrease again.

Rates and Reactions

The skeleton of toxin-antitoxin system inherent to E. coli in the model was based on the study by Cataudella et al. 2012 [1]. In an E. coli cell with a size of 1-2 μm, each nM of concentration can be approximated to 1 molecule. Thus all units are converted to molecules^-1, as this fits the premises of the Gillespie algorithm. To simplify the model, the high affinity of RelE and RelB was used to ignore single RelB and only consider the dimer, RelB₂ [1,9]. Thus, all mentions of RelB in the model refers to its dimer.
Whilst RelB has a relatively low half-life at about 3-5 minutes [6], RelE is rather stable and its half-life, here set to 43 min, is primarily an effect from dilution caused by the bacterial growth [1]. However, when growth is restricted during dormancy, the half-life of RelE is increased to 2000 min, corresponding to approximately one day, as the dilution effect is no longer applicable. As the protein complexes are relatively stable, their half-life was set to the same as RelE. However, for RelE to become active in the inherent system under starvation, RelB in complexes must decay [1], for which reason the rate was set to a fourth of free RelB.
The transcription rates of RelE and RelB are based on the concentration of RelE and RelB under stable conditions where RelB is ten times more prevalent than RelE [2]. Consequently, RelB has been given a transcription rate 100 times higher than RelE to make up for the higher half-life of RelE.
For the full set of reactions, read here
Each bacterial chromosome has two operators, each of which can bind one RelB₂ dimer (O(RelB₂)) or either one or two RelB₂RelE complexes (O(RelB₂RelE) and O(RelB₂RelE)₂) [6]. Each cell is assumed to have four chromosomes with one relBE promoter each, as this is an average number of chromosomes for an exponentially growing E. coli cell [6]. This was found to stabilise the inherent system considerably compared to a system containing one chromosome per cell, as the systems exhibited similar behaviour but with different amounts of noise [1, 6]. The initial values in the model are listed below.

Molecule	Initial number of copies
mRNA	7
RelB₂	410
RelE	0
RelB₂RelE	65
RelB₂RelE₂	11
Free operator sites	0
O(RelB₂)	2
O(RelB₂RelE)	0
O(RelB₂RelE)₂	2

All values are integers as the Gillespie algorithm works with discrete numbers of molecules. The values were chosen based on a stable equilibrium found by letting the model run a simulation of the inherent system over 450 minutes with different starting values.
Ranging from 1-350 molecules per minute, the implemented expression rates of RelE and RelB in the model might seem too high, as the rates in the inherit system is effectively around 80-100 for RelB and 2-5 for RelE. However, the possibility of placing the relE and relB genes under regulation of controllable promoters makes the high total production values reasonable.
When the inherent toxin-antitoxin system is activated under starvation, 40-70 molecules of free RelE are found in each cell, making it reasonable to believe that the cells enter dormancy when a few tens of free RelE copies are present. This result obtained from the model is in agreement with literature [1].
For the full list of constants, see the attached Table 1 at the bottom of this page.

Running the Model

To give a stochastic view of the system, the Gillespie algorithm was run in the computer programming language MATLAB, utilising an implementation made by MATLAB user Nezar.
For the runs simulating dormancy, deterministic initial values were used and the system was run for 30 minutes without activation of the inserted toxin promoter. This resulted in a stochastic distribution of initial values mimicking variations between cells. Analysis showed, that 30 minutes was enough for the model to find a stable distribution, which is realistic considering the growth cycle of an E. coli cell.
For the runs simulating activation, the data generated at the end of a dormancy run was used as initial value and deactivated expression of RelE. When the concentration of free RelE decreases to below 15 copies, a cell is considered active. This value was probably set too low, but tests displayed marginal difference between 15 and 45 copies, where the lower limit was chosen to decrease uncertainty of the cell state.
All runs simulated 1000 cells, which should be sufficient to get stable averages and the model assumed well-mixed conditions in every cell and considered each cell independently. Furthermore, the model has no cut-off for maximum values of RelE, as the exact relation between RelE concentration and dormancy state is unknown, yet a functional cut-off was found through activation times.
Download of Matlab-scripts

Table 1

Constant	Identifier	Units	Value
mrna transcription rateCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	α₀	1/min	154.665
mrna half-lifeCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	τ_m	min	7.2
RelB half-lifeCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297Overgaard M., Borch J., Gerdes K. RelB and RelE of Escherichia coli form a tight complex that represses transcription via the ribbon-helix-helix motif in RelB. J. Mol. Biol. 2009;394:183–196. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.09.006	τ_B	min	4.3
RelE half-lifeCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	τ_E	min	43 (growing) 2000 (dormant)
Bound RelB half-lifeCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297Overgaard M., Borch J., Gerdes K. RelB and RelE of Escherichia coli form a tight complex that represses transcription via the ribbon-helix-helix motif in RelB. J. Mol. Biol. 2009;394:183–196. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.09.006	τ_c	min	17
RelB transcription rateCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	trans_B	1/min	15
RelE transcription rateCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	trans_E	1/min	0.3
Binding rateSneppen K, Zocchi G. Physics in Molecular Biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.	k _b	1/min	3.8
Dissociation rate B₂EOvergaard, M., Borch, J., Jørgensen, M. G. and Gerdes, K. (2008), Messenger RNA interferase RelE controls relBE transcription by conditional cooperativity. Molecular Microbiology, 69: 841–857. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06313.x	K_D (B₂E)	molecules	0.3
Dissociation rate B₂E₂Overgaard, M., Borch, J., Jørgensen, M. G. and Gerdes, K. (2008), Messenger RNA interferase RelE controls relBE transcription by conditional cooperativity. Molecular Microbiology, 69: 841–857. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06313.x	K_D(B₂E₂)	molecules	0.3
Dissociation rate O.B_fGotfredsen, M. and Gerdes, K. (1998), The Escherichia coli relBE genes belong to a new toxin–antitoxin gene family. Molecular Microbiology, 29: 1065–1076. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.00993.xCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	K_D1	molecules	10
Dissociation rate O.B₂EGotfredsen, M. and Gerdes, K. (1998), The Escherichia coli relBE genes belong to a new toxin–antitoxin gene family. Molecular Microbiology, 29: 1065–1076. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.00993.xCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	K_D2	molecules	0.04
Dissociation rate O.(B₂E)₂Gotfredsen, M. and Gerdes, K. (1998), The Escherichia coli relBE genes belong to a new toxin–antitoxin gene family. Molecular Microbiology, 29: 1065–1076. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.00993.xCataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	K_D3	molecules	30
Cleavage ratePedersen K, et al. The bacterial toxin RelE displays codon-specific cleavage of mRNAs in the ribosomal A site. Cell. 2003;112:131–140. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)01248-5 Cataudella I., Trusina A., Sneppen K., Gerdes K., Mitarai N. Conditional cooperativity in toxin-antitoxin regulation prevents random toxin activation and promotes fast translational recovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6424–6434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks297	k_c	1/min 1/molecules	2.0

Results

As the bacteria only require a few tens of RelE molecules to enter dormancy, the threshold was placed at 40 copies to allow for lag in activation. This is of course an oversimplification, but it is not a problem that activation and dormancy are defined at different levels, since the exact number of RelE molecules required to induce dormancy is unknown.

The Impact of Promoters with Different Production Rates on RelE Expression
During the implementation of RelE, gene expression was simulated for promoters with different strengths, which were chosen through an iterative process. Promoters with production rates of 3.5 and 10.5 molecules per minute, both induce dormancy rather slowly, with the latter inducing dormancy in approximately 50 minutes. In cells cloned with a promoter producing 35 molecules per minute, the cells will enter dormancy in about 10 minutes, while promoters producing 105 and 350 molecules per minute both have a negligible timeframe. In the simulated dormancy system, the three strongest promoters exhibited similar results, indicating that a certain threshold value had been transcended. This means, that not only was the gene expression disproportional to the promoter strength, but the risk of overshooting was also increased tremendously.

Figure #. The increase of free RelE molecules in E. coli cells, after activation of the artificial RelE production. The condition for induced dormancy is an amount of free RelE molecules around tens of copies. The three highest levels of RelE production, correlating with the highest promoter strengths, show little difference in the time at which dormancy occurs. When the RelE production is set to 10.5 molecules per minute, dormancy is induced more slowly and stabilises at lower concentrations. The lowest RelE production value does not trigger dormancy, and has only little effect on the system.

RelB is Required for Activation of Bacteria after Dormant State
If RelB was not expressed, the bacteria remained dormant for hours after RelE production had ceased, making it clear, that production of the antitoxin RelB was necessary for activation. Considering the stability of RelE in non-growing conditions, it was not surprising to find that RelB production would be the primary element in sequestering free RelE.

Figure #. The decrease in free RelE in dormant bacteria is low without artificial expression of RelB. None of the simulated bacteria reentered an active state within the modelled time.

Appropriate Ratio of RelE and RelB Expression is Essential
Different expression rates of RelB were combined with production rates of RelE at 35 and 100 molecules per minute, corresponding to relatively medium and strong expression levels respectively. This revealed that variation in RelB had a higher impact on the time required before the dormant state was reached when the RelE production is lowered. Out of the established configurations, the RelB₂:50-RelE:35 configuration showed promising results. Compared to the RelB₂:35-RelE:35 configuration, where only few bacteria reenter an active state within the modelled time set to 2.5 hours, the RelB₂:50-RelE:35 configuration revealed a high sensitivity to the expression level of RelB. This indicated a need for the expression of RelB to be higher than RelE, but as the best results were achieved at low production rates of RelE, it is important to stringently control the expression of RelB to ensure that the bacteria are able to enter dormancy.

Figure #. The variation in time required for the bacteria to enter an active state for different expression levels of RelB is dependent on the level of RelE expression. All configurations achieve dormancy within the modelled time.

Figure #. RelB₂:50-RelE:35 induces an active state within minutes, whereas RelB:35-RelE:35 only causes few of the bacteria to enter an active state. In the remaining configurations all bacteria remained dormant.

Discussion of Model Regarding the Artificial Dormancy System

Model Limitations
As the model only simulates the dormancy for 2 hours, not all configurations have reached equilibrium, therefore these configurations might attain a higher concentration of free RelE than modelled. This could result in a prolonged phase reentering an active state. The activation model has a rather weak predictability, as the half-life of RelE is quite high. This essentially means, that the model is unable to reduce the total amount of RelE, given by RelE_tot=RelE_free+RelE_bound, because of the short simulated timespan. Thus, in activation runs, where the number of free RelE molecules reaches a high level, the amount of RelE_bound is equally high. The problem arises, since the model works under the assumption that bound RelB is not completely stable, causing RelE-RelB complexes to dissociate, whereby RelE is freed. This causes the induced RelB expression to approach equilibrium, implying that the decrease in free RelE is rather slow. It is therefore not only the amount of free RelE that determines the activation time, but also whether the amount of dissociating complexes is high enough to counter the RelB production. Hence, it has no relevance to further test high RelE production in this model, as a high number of complexes will easily be achieved.
Light Sensitivity
One thing the model does not include, is the actual sensitivity to light. Out in the open, the amount of light is rarely an on/off switch, which means there will be periods with varying degrees of activation. Since the bacteria should be active during overcast days, the system requires a threshold, both in the sensitivity of the light-regulated promoter, but also in the activation of the toxin-antitoxin system. Variation of light is implicitly modelled through variation in promoter strength, for instance a half probability of activation translates roughly to a half production rate in the individual bacteria. Because of this, it is important not only to find functioning configurations, but also to investigate the closely related configurations, so that the bacteria neither lay dormant at overcast days, nor make the dormancy system obsolete in moonlight.

Approach

In 2004 the Austen and UCSF iGEM team created a device sensitive to light, laying the foundation for the Coliroid project. In this project, the system is combined with the RelE-RelB toxin-antitoxin system in the endeavour to mediate light-dependent dormancy in bacteria. As tight regulation is required for the RelE-RelB system Tashiro Y, Kawata K, Taniuchi A, Kakinuma K, May T, Okabe S. RelE-Mediated Dormancy Is Enhanced at High Cell Density in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(5):1169-76., modelling of the toxin-antitoxin systemis essential. The impact of different RelE-RelB expression levels was simulated by modelling. Using the results obtained by modelling, a hypothetical working system-design was devised.
On basis of the modulated system, the potential of different vectors and promoters in various combinations was tested. This constitutes the foundation for how the design of the light induced dormancy system in E. coli has been optimized and the final approach shaped. Ultimately, the light-dependent dormancy system, which is illustrated in figure #, was composed of the following parts:

The photocontrol device controlled by the PenI-regulated promoter, BBa_R0074, on a high copy vector.
The antitoxin RelB controlled by pBAD, BBa_K2449031, on a low copy vector.
The toxin RelE controlled by the OmpR-regulated promoter, BBa_R0082, on either a low copy vector or the chromosome.

For further information about our approach, read here.

Figure #. The final design of the light-dependent dormancy system. RelE under control of the OmpR-regulated promoter on the chromosome or a low copy vector, RelB under the control of the pBAD promoter on a low copy vector, and the photocontrol device controlled by the PenI-regulated promoter on a high copy plasmid.

Approach

Balancing Bacterial Dormancy Requires Accurate Regulation of the System
The genes needed for inducing dormancy when the bacteria are not exposed to light, are found in the photocontrol device part, BBa_K519030. This part is composed of three genes named ho1, pcyA, and cph8, all of which are essential to ensure the cells ability to respond to red light. When the photocontrol device is exposed to light, a phosphorylation cascade activates the transcription factor OmpR, which in turn induces transcription through the OmpR-regulated promoter, BBa_R0082. This system is combined with the RelE-RelB toxin-antitoxin system in the endeavour to mediate light-dependent dormancy in bacteria. In the first considered design of the light-dependent dormancy system, the aim was to clone the photocontrol device, BBa_K519030, under control of a constitutive promoter, RelE under control of the OmpR-regulated promoter, BBa_R0082, and RelB under control of a constitutive promoter, all into one high copy BioBrick assembly plasmid pSB1C3, as seen on figure #.

Figure #. All three components of the light-dependent dormancy system cloned into one high copy plasmid.

The Photocontrol Device was Placed under Control of a Constitutive Promoter
From the constitutive promoter family the weak promoter, BBa_J23114, the two medium promoters, BBa_J23106, and BBa_J23110, and the strong promoter, BBa_J23102, were tested by fluorescence microscopy to determine which one to use for expression of the photocontrol device and RelB. Overnight cultures of the submitted parts expressed in E. coli TOP10 illustrated a clear gradient of increasing red fluorescent protein (RFP) expression correlated with the strength of the promoter, as seen on figure #.

Figure #. Cultures of E. coli TOP10. From left to right: WT, the weak promoter, BBa_J23114, the two medium promoters, BBa_J23110, and BBa_J23106, and the strong promoter, BBa_J23102.

On the basis of the data obtained by fluorescence microscopy, the strong constitutive promoter, BBa_J23102, was chosen to control the photocontrol device. For still inexplicable reasons the photocontrol device emerged difficult to clone with the strong constitutive promoter. Although the molecular cloning of these parts was optimised several times very few successful clonings were accomplished, and the few times correct assembly was obtained, the BioBrick was not reproducibly purifiable. By sequencing, it was deduced that a region of the plasmid containing both the promoter and the BioBrick prefix had vanished. To circumvent this inconvenient cloning two other promoters, that are constitutive in E. coli, were examined, namely the PenI-regulated, BBa_R0074, and the Mnt-regulated, BBa_R0073, promoters. By performing fluorescence microscopy on composite parts of the promoters controlling yellow fluorescent protein (YFP), BBa_I6102, and BBa_I6103, respectively, the expression levels were assessed. The obtained results revealed that the PenI-regulated promoter facilitated very strong expression of the marker gene, whereas the expression controlled by the Mnt-regulated promoter was noticeably lower. Based on these findings, the photocontrol device was placed under the control of the PenI-regulated promoter instead of the strong constitutive promoter from the constitutive promoter family. As it turned out, this cloning likewise emerged difficult. After several attempts, it was decided to focus on the other aspects of the dormancy system.

Regulation of the OmpR-dependent Promoter Required a Low Copy Vector
The first construct containing the genes required for the light-induced dormancy was designed as shown in figure #. (Reference to first figure) As the conducted modelling clarified, the necessity for stringent regulation of the RelE and RelB expression, the properties of the OmpR-regulated promoter were studied thoroughly. To assess the functionality of the OmpR-regulated promoter in practice, a reporter system containing the OmpR-regulated promoter controlling RFP was cloned into the E. coli strain MG1655 ΔOmpR. The phenotype of the resulting cultures revealed a dysregulation of the OmpR-regulated promoter. Thorough research lead to the finding that the OmpR-dependent promoter is not controllable when cloned on a high copy vector. As the modelling revealed, and which is evident from figure #, a relatively low expression of RelE is required to induce dormancy, whereas high expression levels quickly result in overshooting. Since the OmpR-regulated promoter is an integrated part of the light sensing system, replacement is not an option. Therefore, the variability of the relE gene copy number was studied, and it was found that the OmpR-regulated promoter should be cloned into the bacterial chromosome or a low copy vector to obtain proper regulation Levskaya A, Chevalier AA, Tabor JJ, Simpson ZB, Lavery LA, Levy M, et al. Synthetic biology: engineering Escherichia coli to see light. Nature. 2005;438(7067):441-2.. This intriguing finding let to the aspiration to investigate the controllability of the OmpR-dependent promoter on vectors with different copy numbers compared to the chromosome, thereby improving the characterisation of the promoter for the benefit to future iGEM teams.
To incorporate DNA onto the bacterial chromosome, homologous recombination with the red λ recombinase is a suitable approach Thompson JF, de Vargas LM, Skinner SE, Landy A. Protein-protein interactions in a higher-order structure direct lambda site-specific recombination. Journal of molecular biology. 1987;195(3):481-93.. Using this technique, a short fragment of chromosomal DNA at the bacterial attachment site attB Groth AC, Calos MP. Phage integrases: biology and applications. Journal of molecular biology. 2004;335(3):667-78. can be replaced with a linear DNA fragment encoding the OmpR-dependent promoter, RelE, and an chloramphenicol resistance cassette. Using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the linear DNA sequence was flanked by sequences, which are homologous to part of the chromosome. The linear DNA fragment was electroporated into bacteria containing the pKD46 plasmid, encoding the red λ recombinase Thompson JF, de Vargas LM, Skinner SE, Landy A. Protein-protein interactions in a higher-order structure direct lambda site-specific recombination. Journal of molecular biology. 1987;195(3):481-93., which mediated the recombination. The fundamental concept of this approach is illustrated in figure #.

Figure #. The principle behind the recombination. By PCR, the two flanking sequences are assembled with the fragment containing the chloramphenicol resistance gene (camR), the OmpR-regulated promoter, and the relE gene. The flanking sequences are homologous to part of the chromosome around the bacterial attachment site (attB), enabling the homologous recombination.

Using this approach, it was attempted to assemble the OmpR-regulated promoter controlling RelE with the flanking regions by PCR. The assembly of the fragment derived from the plasmid with either one of the flanking fragments was achieved. However, the assembly of the complete chromosomal insertion fragment containing all three segments emerged problematic. Several attempts with numerous process optimisations were performed, but unfortunately without success. To circumvent this, another attachment site was chosen. The assembly of the complete fragment by PCR was achieved and chromosomal insertion by electroporation was attempted several times, but in vain. In consideration of the fact that RelE is a bacterial toxin, the cloning of this gene was inconvenient. The model indicated, that overexpression of the antitoxin RelB would bypass this difficulty. As the homologous recombination of this fragment emerged such a challenging task, it was decided to focus on the conduct of the OmpR-regulated promoter on different plasmids, as this was evidently the more convenient approach of the general implementation of the OmpR-regulated promoter.

An Inducible Promoter was Chosen to Regulate the Gene Expression of the Antitoxin RelB
Originally, it was thought to place the antitoxin RelB under a constitutive promoter of appropriate strength. However, as the modelling revealed, strict regulation of RelB is essential to counteract the toxic effect of RelE and enable a functional dormancy system. Thus, it was deduced that it would be more suitable to utilise an inducible promoter for this purpose and it was decided to put RelB under control of the LacI-regulated, lambda pL hybrid promoter, BBa_R0011. The William and Mary team found that the LacI-regulated, lambda pL hybrid promoter had a low level of noise, a measure of the variability in gene expression between cells in the population, when cloned into a low copy vector. Therefore, this regulated promoter was chosen.
To mimic the expression of RelB, a reporter system composed of the LacI-regulated, lambda pL hybrid promoter and GFP was assembled. Hereby, the appropriate concentration of IPTG required to induce the promoter on a low copy vector, was identified. During the cloning, it was discovered that the site between the LacI-regulated, lambda hybrid promoter and this particular construct under the tested conditions had formed a hotspot for transposons. In the light of this finding, another inducible promoter was chosen. The HKUST-Rice iGEM 2015 team demonstrated that induction of the AraC-regulated promoter, pBAD, caused a gradual increase in gene expression when cloned into the low to medium copy plasmid, pSB3K3, in contrast to an all-or-none behavior when cloned into the high copy vector, pSB1K3. Taking these results into consideration, the pBAD promoter was used in combination with the pSB3K3 vector to regulate the expression of the antitoxin RelB. Again, a reporter system was used to mimic the expression of RelB, as the part, BBa_I6058, containing YFP controlled by pBAD, was assessed on different vectors.

The Final Approach for the Three Components Comprised Three Different Vectors
Based on the modelling the system approaches reviewed in the preceding part, the final design, which is illustrated on figure #, was established. Ultimately, the dormancy system was composed of the photocontrol device controlled by the PenI-regulated promoter on a high copy vector, RelB controlled by pBAD, BBa_K2449031, on a low copy vector and RelE controlled by the OmpR-regulated promoter on either a low copy vector or the chromosome.

Figure #. The final design of the light-dependent dormancy system. RelE under control of the OmpR-regulated promoter on the chromosome or a low copy vector, RelB under the control of the pBAD promoter on a low copy vector, and the photocontrol device controlled by the PenI-regulated promoter on a high copy plasmid.

Click here to return to the project design overview.

Carbon Fixation

Theory

Carbon fixation in autotrophic organisms is responsible for the net fixation of 7×10¹⁶ g carbon annually Berg IA. Ecological aspects of the distribution of different autotrophic CO2 fixation pathways. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2011;77(6):1925-36.. Six different pathways related to carbon fixation have been discovered, but the most widespread of these, is the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) cycle found in photosynthetic eukaryotes, e.g. plants and algae, as well as in photo- and chemosynthetic bacteria B. Bowien MG, R. Klintworth, U. Windhövel. Metabolic and Molecular Regulation of the CO2-assimilating Enzyme System in Aerobic Chemoautotrophs. Microbial Growth on C1 Compounds: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposion. 1st ed. Institute for Microbiology, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Federal Republic of Germany: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1987.. Out of the eleven enzymes needed for the Calvin cycle, only three are heterologous to E. coli, namely; ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCo), sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase (SBPase) and phosphoribulokinase (PRK). By the concurrent heterologous expression of the three genes encoding these enzymes, E. coli can be engineered to perform the full Calvin cycle.

Figure #. A simplified illustration of the Calvin cycle, with the enzymes heterologous to E. coli and their respective substrates and products shown.

The carboxysome is a microcompartment utilised by many chemoautotrophic bacteria, including cyanobacteria, as a CO₂ accumulating mechanism to increase carbon fixation efficiency . This organelle-like polyhedral body is able to increase the internal concentrations of inorganic carbon by 4000-fold compared to the external concentration Mangan NM, Brenner MP. Systems analysis of the CO(2) concentrating mechanism in cyanobacteria. eLife. 2014;3.. One type of carboxysome, is the ɑ-carboxysome, which consists of a proteinaceous outer shell composed of six different shell proteins designated CsoS1ABCD and CsoS4AB. This shell encloses RuBisCo, the shell associated protein (CsoS2), and the enzyme carbonic anhydrase (CsoS3). In the proteobacteria Halothiobacillus neapolitanus, these genes are clustered into the cso operon. The carbonic anhydrase converts HCO₃^-, which diffuses passively into the carboxysome, to CO₂, thereby driving the continued diffusion of HCO₃^- into the microcompartment Mangan NM, Brenner MP. Systems analysis of the CO(2) concentrating mechanism in cyanobacteria. eLife. 2014;3.. The increased CO₂ concentration in the vicinity of RuBisCo increases the rate of carbon fixation by saturating the RuBisCo enzyme and increasing the CO₂ to O₂ ratio, enabling carboxylation to dominate over oxygenation Mangan NM, Brenner MP. Systems analysis of the CO(2) concentrating mechanism in cyanobacteria. eLife. 2014;3.. The shell associated protein is essential for the biogenesis of the ɑ-carboxysome Cai F, Dou Z, Bernstein SL, Leverenz R, Williams EB, Heinhorst S, et al. Advances in Understanding Carboxysome Assembly in Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus Implicate CsoS2 as a Critical Component. Life (Basel, Switzerland). 2015;5(2):1141-71..

Figure #. An illustration of the ɑ-carboxysome. The shell proteins CsoS1ABC and CsoS4AB enclose the enzymes RuBisCo and carbonic anhydrase.

For the Calvin cycle to proceed, energy in the form of ATP and electrons carried by NADPH are required. The photosystems are complexes in photosynthesising organisms that can supply this by photophosphorylation. To engineer E. coli to do photosynthesis, 13 genes is needed for the assembly of chlorophyll a and 17 genes for the assembly of photosystem II, which needs to be heterogeneously expressed. An alternative process, in which a diverse array of phototrophic bacteria and archaea harvest energy from light, is through a retinal-containing protein called proteorhodopsin, which catalyses the light-activated proton efflux across the cell membrane and thereby drive ATP synthesis. Opposed to the photosystems, the proteorhodopsin is anoxygenic and generates no NADPH, which is crucial for the Calvin cycle to proceed Walter JM, Greenfield D, Bustamante C, Liphardt J. Light-powering Escherichia coli with proteorhodopsin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2007;104(7):2408-12.. For further information about the theory behind the carbon fixation, read here.

Approach

In order to engineer E. coli in the outer chamber to turn atmospheric CO₂ into cellulose, the carbon first needs to be fixated by the bacteria. This requires the heterologous expression of the genes encoding the three enzymes RuBisCo, SBPase, and PRK. Furthermore, the implementation of the carboxysome from the cso operon can increase the levels of carbon fixation. The 2014 Bielefeld iGEM team had worked with a similar approach in their project. In an endeavour to optimise the carbon fixation process, our project build upon their experiences. The assembly of the individual parts into a composite part, BBa_K2449030, was achieved, however, the cloning of these parts with a promoter emerged problematic. Consequently, it was decided to prioritise other aspects of the project and therefore keep this part theoretical henceforth. For further information about our approach, read here.

Approach

Engineering E. coli to Perform the Calvin Cycle
In order to engineer E. coli in the outer chamber to turn atmospheric CO₂ into cellulose, the carbon first needs to be fixated by the bacteria. This requires the heterologous expression of the genes encoding the three enzymes RuBisCo, SBPase, and PRK. In correspondence with the 2014 Bielefeld iGEM team, who worked with a similar subpart of their project, we discussed the cloning of these genes and received two crucial parts. The first of this was BBa_K1465214, containing RubisCO from Halothiobacillus neapolitanus and PRK from Synechococcus elongatus under the control of a composite promoter controllable by IPTG. The second was BBa_K1465228, which contained SBPase from Bacillus methanolicus. Through the concurrent expression of these parts in E. coli, all enzymes required to fixate CO₂ through the Calvin cycle were present in the cells.
The first approach was to assemble both parts on one plasmid by molecular cloning, as shown on figure #. In doing this, it was discovered that the BBa_K1465214 part was missing roughly 1 kbp when digested with standard restriction enzymes with recognition sites within the BioBrick prefix and suffix. Sequencing of the part revealed that the part was missing the entire promoter sequence of 1239 bp. Consequently, the assembly of the parts additionally required the cloning of a promoter. For this purpose, the Tac-promoter (Ptac) from the part BBa_K864400 was chosen, as this is commonly used to overexpress genes in E. coli. With the objective to place the two Calvin cycle parts on different vectors, it was attempted to clone Ptac in front of both parts. However, this did not succeed and it was decided to prioritise other aspects of the project and therefore keep this part theoretical henceforth.
Implementing the Carboxysome in E. coli to Increase Carbon Fixation Efficiency
The implementation of the microcompartment carboxysome in the test organism can increase the efficiency of the carbon fixation process substantially. As for the Calvin cycle parts, we corresponded with the 2014 Bielefeld iGEM team on their experience of the implementation of the carboxysome, and received the two parts that together contained the cso operon from Halothiobacillus neapolitanus. These parts were BBa_K1465204, containing csoS2, and BBa_K1465209, containing csoS3, csoS14, and csoS1D. As part of the optimisation, we aimed to combine these parts into one part containing the entire cso operon, as shown on figure #. Furthermore, a promoter was required to drive the gene expression. For this purpose, Ptac was chosen, as for the genes encoding the Calvin cycle enzymes.

Figure #. The envisaged design of the carboxysomal genes, encoded in the composite part, BBa_K2449030, under control of the Tac-promoter.

We succeeded in assembling both carboxysome parts in the composite part, BBa_K2449030, but for some inexplicable reason, this composite part likewise emerged difficult to clone with the Tac-promoter. Therefore, it was decided to focus at other aspects of the project and, as for the Calvin cycle part, keep this part theoretical henceforth.
A fitting approach to verify the expression of the genes involved in carbon fixation, could consist of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI MS) and quantitative PCR (qPCR). For this, one could build upon the experience obtained by the 2014 Bielefeld iGEM team.
In order to test the functionality of the parts we had hoped to assemble, we had reached out to Nordcee, which is a major research group within the Department of Biology at SDU. Our hope was to compare the carbon fixation rates for cultures expressing the Calvin cycle enzymes alone and in combination with the carboxysome, whereby the effectivity of the microcompartment also would have been assessed. In cooperation with Nordcee, measurements of CO₂ decrease in an airtight culture would have been carried out with an infrared CO₂analyser. Another test approach would have been using ¹⁴CO₂, and then measure the amount our organism had taken in.

Click here to return to the project design overview.

Cellulose Biosynthesis

Theory

Bacterial cellulose is one of the most abundant biopolymers produced by different species of gram-negative bacteria, especially by Acetobactors. Glucoacetobacter xylinus is a bacterial species, which produces cellulose in large quantities of high quality Lin, SP., Loira Calvar, I., Catchmark, J.M. et al. Cellulose (2013) 20: 2191.. Cellulose is produced from the resource glucose-6-phosphate. This phosphorylated glucose is a key intermediate in the core carbon metabolism of bacteria given its importance in glycolysis, gluconeogenesis and pentose phosphate pathway Joanne Willey LS, Christopher J. Woolverton. Prescott’s Microbiology. 9th edition 2014.. Even though the pathway, where glucose and glucose-6-phosphate is converted into cellulose, only includes few steps, it requires a great amount of energy. Not only does the cell spend energy on forming UDP-glucose for cellulose biosynthesis, it also uses glucose, which otherwise would have contributed to generation of ATP Florea M, Hagemann H, Santosa G, Abbott J, Micklem CN, Spencer-Milnes X, et al. Engineering control of bacterial cellulose production using a genetic toolkit and a new cellulose-producing strain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2016;113(24):E3431-40..
The ability for G. xylinus to produce cellulose nanofibers from UDP-glucose, crystallize, and secrete it, is controlled by genes in the Acetobacter cellulose synthase (acs) operon acsABCD. This operon encodes four different proteins: AcsA, AcsB, AcsC and AcsD. A dimer, known as AcsAB, is formed by a catalytic domain, AcsA, and a regulatory domain, AcsB. This dimer is responsible for synthesising the cellulose nanofibers from UDP-glucose, whereas AcsC and AcsD secretes cellulose and forms an interconnected cellulose pellicle around the cells Mehta K, et al. Characterization of an acsD disruption mutant provides additional evidence for the hierarchical cell-directed self-assembly of cellulose in Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Cellulose. 2014;22:119–137., as illustrated in figure #.

Figure #. The AcsAB dimer synthesises cellulose nanofibers. AcsC and AcsD mediate the secretion and formation of an interconnected cellulose pellicle.

Other genera, including some E. coli strains, secrete cellulose as a component of their biofilm. Even though cellulose biosynthesis is intrinsic to E. coli, the quantity of the production is incomparable to cellulose biosynthesis in G. xylinus. Indigenously, E. coli is not capable of degrading cellulose into a metabolisable energy source Gao D, Luan Y, Wang Q, Liang Q, Qi Q. Construction of cellulose-utilizing Escherichia coli based on a secretable cellulase. Microbial Cell Factories. 2015;14:159.. However, if this structural and water-holding polymer is enzymatically degraded, first into cellobiose and then to glucose residues, the cellulose polymer is a potent source of energy Arai T, Matsuoka S, Cho HY, Yukawa H, Inui M, Wong SL, et al. Synthesis of Clostridium cellulovorans minicellulosomes by intercellular complementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2007;104(5):1456-60..

Approach

To link the two bacterial compartments of the PowerLeaf, an efficient way to store the harvested energy was required. Research led to the finding that storing the chemical energy in cellulose would be a suitable approach, since this is a polysaccharide that bacteria normally are unable to degrade Gao D, Luan Y, Wang Q, Liang Q, Qi Q. Construction of cellulose-utilizing Escherichia coli based on a secretable cellulase. Microbial Cell Factories. 2015;14:159.. After looking into earlier iGEM projects it was found that the 2014 project Aqualose from Imperial College London, had worked with optimisation of cellulose biosynthesis in E. coli. Our aim was to enhance cellulose biosynthesis in E. coli MG1655, which naturally secretes small amounts of cellulose as a part of its biofilm Gualdi L, Tagliabue L, Bertagnoli S, Ierano T, De Castro C, Landini P. Cellulose modulates biofilm formation by counteracting curli-mediated colonization of solid surfaces in Escherichia coli. Microbiology (Reading, England). 2008;154(Pt 7):2017-24.. This would be achieved by the cloning of plasmids containing the cellulose synthase operon acsABCD, utilising the two parts BBa_K1321334 and BBa_K1321335, constructed by Imperial College London 2014. This would enhance the cellulose biosynthesis and thereby optimise the energy outcome of the entire system in our project. Due to cloning difficulties, it was decided to prioritise other aspects of the project and therefore keep this part theoretical henceforth. For further information about the cellulose biosynthesis approach, read here.

Approach

Optimised Cellulose Biosynthesis in E. coli
To enhance the cellulose biosynthesis, parts containing the coding sequence of the Cellulose Synthase enzyme were cloned into the E. coli strain MG1655. The original idea was to clone the entire cellulose synthase operon acsABCD into one vector under control of the Ptac, as seen in figure #. With a plasmid with a total length over 9000 bp, the cloning emerged difficult. After several unsuccessful attempts, a different approach was sought.

Figure #. The acsABCD operon controlled by Ptac cloned into one high copy vector.

In this design, it was attempted to implement the acsABCD operon into E. coli MG1655 on two separate vectors, with both parts controlled by PtacBBa_K864400, ensuring equal expression levels of the parts. The AcsAB dimer, encoded in the part BBa_K1321334, was attempted to be inserted into the vector pSB1C3. The part BBa_K1321335, containing AcsC and AcsD, was inserted into the vector pSB1A3. Several combinations of the two parts and different vectors carrying different resistance cassettes were attempted, but unfortunately without success. Correspondence with a supervisor from the Imperial College London team, revealed that cloning with these parts had emerged difficult for them as well. Due to time constraints, it was decided to prioritise other aspects of the project and therefore keep this part theoretical henceforth.
If the cloning of the acsABCD operon had been successful, the cellulose biosynthesis would have been tested using fluorescent brightener 28. This is a colourless organic compound that fluoresces with a bright blue color under ultraviolet radiation, and it is used as a fluorescent brightening agent for polyamide and cellulose fabrics. Fluorescent brightener 28 binds non-specifically to polysaccharides with β-1,3 and β-1,4 linkages, of which the latter is present in cellulose Staining of fungal hyphae and propagules with fluorescent brightener.

Click here to return to the project design overview.

Breakdown of Cellulose

Theory

Cellulose is a natural biopolymer used for a huge variety of biological purposes. It is most commonly found in plants, where it serves as the main structural component. Since plants are primary producers, many organisms of the Earth’s ecosystems have adapted accordingly [kilde 4]. One of the key evolutionary features for the primary consumers, was the development of the ability to degrade cellulose into glucose, which could then be used as a cellular fuel. A simple organism, able to efficiently do so, is the Cellumonas fimi, which converts cellulose to glucose in a two-step process, with cellobiose as the intermediate [kilde 7].

Breakdown of Cellulose to Cellobiose
Cellulose is a long polysaccharide consisting of β-1,4 linked D-glucose units. Many organisms, including E. coli, lack the enzymes able to degrade these strong β-linkages. To overcome this, the C. fimi developed two cellulases, namely the endo-β-1,4-glucanase and exo-β-1,4-glucanase, respectively encoded by the cenA and cex genes [kilde 7]. The endoglucanase is able to randomly degrade the amorphous structure of cellulose, thereby allowing the exoglucanase to cleave the β-1,4 linkages at every other D-glucose unit. Thus disaccharides are released in the form of cellobiose [kilde 8], as illustrated in figure #. Cellulose itself is too large to be transported across the bacterial cell membrane. Therefore, the breakdown of cellulose into cellobiose must take place in the extracellular fluid.

The α-Hemolysin Transport System
The ɑ-hemolysin transport system is an ABC transporter complex, consisting of three proteins, namely the outer membrane protein TolC, Hemolysin B (HlyB), and Hemolysin D (HlyD) [kilde 3]. The ABC transporter complex effectively transports intracellular Hemolysin A (HlyA) to the extracellular fluid. Utilising a linker peptide, the protein of interest can be fused with HlyA. Once a protein is HlyA-tagged, it can be recognized by the ATP-binding cassette HlyB, which will initiate transportation of the HlyA-tagged protein to the extracellular fluid, as seen in figure # [kilde 3, kilde 6].

Uptake of Cellobiose
While cellulose is too large to be pass the cell membrane, transportation of cellobiose is a common feature found in many organisms. An example is E. coli, which utilises the membrane protein lactose permease (LacY) [kilde 5]. In the cytosol, cellobiose is enzymatically catabolised.

Breakdown of Cellobiose to Glucose
Through evolutionary events, many organisms have developed the ability to express enzymes, capable of breaking the β-linkage in cellobiose. E. coli expresses the periplasmic β-glucosidase encoded by the bglX gene, which is known to have said feature, by hydrolysing the cellobiose β-linkage[kilde 1]. Saccharophagus degradans expresses a different enzyme, which efficiently cleaves the β-linkage in cellobiose, namely cellobiose phosphorylase encoded by the cep94A gene. This enzyme phosphorylates the cellobiose at its β-linkage, resulting in the degradation of cellobiose to D-glucose and α-D-glucose-1-phosphate [kilde 5], as seen in figure #.

Approach

Cellulose to Cellobiose
In the endeavour to engineer E. coli to utilise cellulose as it’s only carbon source, inspiration was drawn from the Edinburgh 2008 iGEM team project, who developed two BioBricks containing the cenA and cex genes. In this project, the α-hemolysin transport system was utilised by creating HlyA-tagged endo- and exo-β-1,4-glucanase, using a peptide linker. To implement this system in E. coli, heterogeneous expression of hlyB, hlyD, cenA-hlyA and cex-hlyA was required.
To achieve this, DNA synthesis of cenA and cex was ordered, each tagged with HlyA. The genes encoding HlyB and HlyD were retrieved from the part BBa_K1166002 by phusion PCR. Using the resulting PCR product, the following construct was composed for the degradation of cellulose into cellobiose, as illustrated on figure #.

Cellulose to Cellobiose
The Edinburgh 2011 iGEM team team created a BioBrick encoding periplasmic β-glucosidase endogenous to E. coli, proposed to increase its efficiency at degrading cellobiose to glucose. However, it seems that the enzymatic activity of bglX has faded as a result of evolution, rendering E. coli incapable of surviving solely on cellobiose. So even though E. coli can absorp cellobiose, it is not able to survive with this as its only carbon source.
To solve this issue, we decided to synthesise a cep94A Biobrick, intended to make E. coli capable of effectively surviving on cellobiose. To achieve this we composed the following construct:

Click here to return to the project design overview.

Extracellular Electron Transfer

Theory

Microbial Fuel Cell
Electrochemical devices such as batteries and fuel cells are broadly used in electronics to convert chemical energy into electrical energy. A Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC) is an open system electrochemical device, consisting of two chambers, an anode chamber and a cathode chamber, separated by a proton exchange membrane as illustrated in figure y. Both the anode and the cathode in a MFC can use various forms of graphite as the base material. In the anode chamber of a MFC, microbes are utilised as catalysts to convert organic matter into metabolic products, protons and electrons [kilde 8]. This is carried out through metabolic pathways such as glycolysis, to generate needed ATP to maintain cellular life. This metabolic pathway also generates a release of electrons carried by NAD⁺ in its reduced form NADH.

Under aerobic conditions, the generated NADH will deliver its electron as part of the electron transfer chain, to return to its oxidised form NAD⁺. Under anaerobic conditions the electron transport chain will not be able to continue, which will cause the generated NADH to accumulate. As a consequence of accumulated NADH, the concentration of available NAD⁺ for glycolysis will decrease. This will drive the cell to carry out other metabolic pathways, such as fermentation, in order to maintain its ATP levels. Instead the accumulating NADH generated under anaerobic conditions, can be utilised to drive an electrical current by depositing the retrieved electrons to an anode coupled with an appropriate cathode. The cathode catalyst in a MFC will usually catalyse the reaction of 4 H⁺ + 2 O₂ à H₂O. The transfer of electrons from NADH to the anode can be executed in three different ways as shown in figure x; redox shuttles, direct contact electron transfer, and bacterial nanowires [kilde 7][kilde 8].

The redox shuttles use extracellular electron mediators, which hold the advantage of not being limited by the surface area of the anode. However, it is restricted by the slow diffusion of the extracellular mediators. The direct contact electron transfer, in reverse to the redox shuttles, is strongly limited by the surface area of the anode, but the membrane bound cytochromes in direct contact with the anode, rapidly delivers the electrons. Bacterial nanowires are known to efficiently transfer electrons, much like the direct contact electron transfer. However, bacterial nanowires are not as strictly limited by the surface area of the anode as the direct contact electron transfer is. This is due to bacterial nanowires ability to form complex networks of interacting nanowires in biofilm, to efficiently transfer electrons from distant microbes all the way to the anode using this network. [kilde 8]

Bacterial Nanowires
Nanowires are long electrically conductive pili found on the surface of various microorganisms, such as the metal reducing Geobacter sulfurreducens. G. sulfurreducens utilises nanowires to transfer accumulating electrons retrieved from metabolism, to metals in the nearby environment [kilde 3]. G. sulfurreducens is strictly anaerobic, as it would not be able to transfer its electrons to the environment in the presence of the highly reducing oxygen. Nanowires found in G. sulfurreducens is a type IV pilin polymer chain composed of pilA monomers, which can reach nearly 10 mm in length [kilde 4]. The proteins required for the effective transfer of electrons by nanowires is a complex and poorly understood system, which involves a long series of c-type cytochromes [kilde 6].

The electrical conductivity of the nanowires in G. sulfurreducens can be optimised by exchanging endogenous pilA with heterologous pilA rich in aromatic amino acids. Tan Yang et. al [kilde 1] did an exchange like this by heterogeneously expressing pilA from G. metallireducens, which proved to increase the electrical conductivity of the G. sulfurreducens recombinant by a 5000-fold. This optimisation can be helpful in the development of highly efficient bacterial strains for MFCs. With the intention of optimising a MFC, G. sulfurreducens is a lot easier to work with than G. metallireducens [kilde 1].

Approach

Originally, we wanted to implement bacterial nanowires from G. sulfurreducens into E. coli. Through extensive research, we came to a similar conclusion as the Bielefeld 2013 iGEM team did; that this task was too comprehensive to undertake in the limited time of an iGEM project. Postdoc Oona Snoeyenbos-West suggested us to use G. sulfurreducens as the model organism for our MFC.
We then decided to work on optimisation of the G. sulfurreducens by increasing the electrical conductivity of its endogenous nanowires. To achieve this we ordered synthesis of the pilA genes from G. metallireducens, which was used to create a Biobrick. From this Biobrick, a PCR product was made containing the chloramphenicol resistance cassette of the pSB1C3 backbone for later selection of recombinant G. sulfurreducens. The PCR product was ligated with PCR products retrieved from the 500 bp upstream and downstream regions of the chromosomal pilA genes of the G. sulfurreducens PCA strain. This was used to create the following linear DNA fragment, intended for homologous recombination into G. sulfurreducens:

Click here to return to the project design overview.

@@ Line 980: / Line 980: @@
 <p class="P-Larger"><b>Results</b></p><br>
-<p>As the bacteria only require a few tens of RelE molecules to enter dormancy, the threshold was placed at 40 copies to allow for lag in activation. This is of course an oversimplification, but it is not a problem that activation and dormancy are defined at different levels, since the exact number of RelE molecules required to induce dormancy is unknown.</p><br>
+<p>As the bacteria only require a few tens of RelE molecules to enter dormancy, the threshold was placed at 40 copies to allow for lag in activation. This is of course an oversimplification, but it is not a problem that activation and dormancy are defined at different levels, since the exact number of RelE molecules required to induce dormancy is unknown.<br>
 <br class="noContent">
@@ Line 1,005: / Line 1,005: @@
 <br><div class="figure-text"><p><b>Figure #.</b> RelB<sub>2</sub>:50-RelE:35 induces an active state within minutes, whereas RelB:35-RelE:35 only causes few of the bacteria to enter an active state. In the remaining configurations all bacteria remained dormant.</p></div><br class="noContent">
+<br class="noContent">
-<p>class="P-Larger"><b>Discussion of Model Regarding the Artificial Dormancy System</b></p><br>
+<p class="P-Larger"><b>Discussion of Model Regarding the Artificial Dormancy System</b></p><br>
 <p><b>Model Limitations</b><br class="miniBreak">
 As the model only simulates the dormancy for 2 hours, not all configurations have reached equilibrium, therefore these configurations might attain a higher concentration of free RelE than modelled. This could result in a prolonged phase reentering an active state.

Difference between revisions of "Team:SDU-Denmark"

Revision as of 03:03, 1 November 2017

PowerLeaf - A Bacterial Solar Battery

Abstract

Achievements

World Situation

Our Solution

Project Design

Dormancy System

Carbon Fixation

Cellulose Biosynthesis

Breakdown of Cellulose

Extracellular Electron Transfer

Demonstration and Results

Parts

Notebook

SOPs and Protocols

Safety

Bioethics

Integrated Practices

Education & Public Engagement

Perspectives

To Future iGEM Teams

Team

Collaboration

Attributions

Final Words

Difference between revisions of "Team:SDU-Denmark"

Revision as of 03:03, 1 November 2017

PowerLeaf - A Bacterial Solar Battery

Abstract

About Our Green Wiki

iGEM Goes Green

Achievements

World Situation

Our Solution

Project Design

Dormancy System

Light-Dependent Dormancy System

Gillespie Algorithm

Stochastic Modelling of the RelE-RelB Dormancy System

Modelling Results of the RelE-RelB System

Light Sensing System

Carbon Fixation

Carbon Fixation

Carbon Fixation

Cellulose Biosynthesis

Cellulose Biosynthesis

Breakdown of Cellulose

Extracellular Electron Transfer

Demonstration and Results

Parts

Basic Parts

Notebook

Notebook

SOPs and Protocols

SOPs

Protocols

Safety

Bioethics

Integrated Practices

Education & Public Engagement

Perspectives

To Future iGEM Teams

Team

Collaboration

Attributions

Articles

Websites

Books

Final Words