Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
<figure class="makeresponsive" style="width: 60%; float: right;"> | <figure class="makeresponsive" style="width: 60%; float: right;"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/7/7e/EvaluationVector.png" alt="A scheme explaining the design of the Evaluation Vector."> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/7/7e/EvaluationVector.png" alt="A scheme explaining the design of the Evaluation Vector."> | ||
− | <figcaption><b>Figure 1: New layout of the multiple cloning site in our Evaluation Vector.</b> The crosses indicate restriction enzyme sites: E= EcoRI, N= NotI, X=XbaI, S= SpeI and P= PstI. Please note: cutting with BsaI will result in an XbaI overhang.</figcaption></figure>At first, we removed a BsaI restriction enzyme site on the backbone of the vector by PCR based mutagenesis using primers TM3161 and TM3164 because it was interfering with our design. The confirmed BsaI free vector was then cut with EcoRI and XbaI to insert the Xylose inducible promoter P<sub><i>xylA</sub></i><sup>1</sup> wich was previously digested with EcoRI and BsaI (resulting in an XbaI overhang) to maintain the BioBrick prefix in front of the promoter. Next, we had to create an entirely new multiple cloning site (MCS): We synthesized a new RFP version using the original RFP derived from the pSB1C3 backbone. The expression of this RFPsyn2 is still driven by the IPTG inducible P<sub>lacI</sub> promoter but it now lacks restriction enzyme sites which interfere with the RFC25 standard. | + | <figcaption><b>Figure 1: New layout of the multiple cloning site in our Evaluation Vector.</b> The crosses indicate restriction enzyme sites: E= EcoRI, N= NotI, X=XbaI, S= SpeI and P= PstI. Please note: cutting with BsaI will result in an XbaI overhang.</figcaption></figure>At first, we removed a BsaI restriction enzyme site on the backbone of the vector by PCR based mutagenesis using primers TM3161 and TM3164 because it was interfering with our design. The confirmed BsaI free vector was then cut with EcoRI and XbaI to insert the Xylose inducible promoter P<sub><i>xylA</sub></i><sup>1</sup> wich was previously digested with EcoRI and BsaI (resulting in an XbaI overhang) to maintain the BioBrick prefix in front of the promoter. Next, we had to create an entirely new multiple cloning site (MCS): We synthesized a new RFP version using the original RFP derived from the pSB1C3 backbone. The expression of this RFPsyn2 is still driven by the IPTG inducible P<sub><i>lacI</i></sub> promoter but it now lacks restriction enzyme sites which interfere with the RFC25 standard. |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<figure> | <figure> | ||
<figure class="makeresponsive" style="width: 75%; float: left;"> | <figure class="makeresponsive" style="width: 75%; float: left;"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/4d/EvaluationVectorCloning.png" alt="A scheme explaining the cloning of the Evaluation Vector."> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/4d/EvaluationVectorCloning.png" alt="A scheme explaining the cloning of the Evaluation Vector."> | ||
− | <figcaption><b>Figure 2: Cloning scheme of the Evaluation Vector.</b> The detailed cloning workflow which led to the finished Evaluation Vector construct with the pBS1C backbone.</figcaption></figure> Additionally, we added an AgeI restriction enzyme site in the BioBrick suffix which is necessary for translational fusions. Furthermore, we amplified a <i>lacZα</i> fragment with AgeI and NgoMIV restriction enzyme sites upstream of the coding sequence and the RFC10 BioBrick standard as suffix using the primers iG17P055 and iG17P056.<br>Finally, we combined our new MCS, by ligating the digested RFPsyn2 (cut with XbaI and AgeI) with the <i>lacZα</i> fragment (cut with AgeI and PstI). This MCS was inserted into the pBS1C-P<sub>xylA</sub> backbone, which was prior opened using BsaI (resulting in an XbaI overhang) and PstI (Figure 2). The final construct of our EV was verified by sequencing.<br><br>We decided to additionally also provide this MCS as a BioBrick. Therefore we cloned it into the pSB1C3 backbone (via EcoRI and PstI digest) and verified the construct by sequencing. It has been submitted to the parts registry under <a target="_blank" href ="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K2273107">BBa_K2273107</a>. | + | <figcaption><b>Figure 2: Cloning scheme of the Evaluation Vector.</b> The detailed cloning workflow which led to the finished Evaluation Vector construct with the pBS1C backbone.</figcaption></figure> Additionally, we added an AgeI restriction enzyme site in the BioBrick suffix which is necessary for translational fusions. Furthermore, we amplified a <i>lacZα</i> fragment with AgeI and NgoMIV restriction enzyme sites upstream of the coding sequence and the RFC10 BioBrick standard as suffix using the primers iG17P055 and iG17P056.<br>Finally, we combined our new MCS, by ligating the digested RFPsyn2 (cut with XbaI and AgeI) with the <i>lacZα</i> fragment (cut with AgeI and PstI). This MCS was inserted into the pBS1C-P<sub><i>xylA</i></sub> backbone, which was prior opened using BsaI (resulting in an XbaI overhang) and PstI (Figure 2). The final construct of our EV was verified by sequencing.<br><br>We decided to additionally also provide this MCS as a BioBrick. Therefore we cloned it into the pSB1C3 backbone (via EcoRI and PstI digest) and verified the construct by sequencing. It has been submitted to the parts registry under <a target="_blank" href ="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K2273107">BBa_K2273107</a>. |
</figure> | </figure> | ||
<p>Detailed methods can be found in our <a target="_blank" href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">protocol collection section</a>. All primers used can be found in our primer collection table. | <p>Detailed methods can be found in our <a target="_blank" href ="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Experiments">protocol collection section</a>. All primers used can be found in our primer collection table. | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p>Additionally, a second SOP was tailored to explain the random integration of secretion signal peptides as the EV was evaluated in the course of our <a target="_blank" href="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Measurement"> Signal Peptide Toolbox</a>.</p> | <p>Additionally, a second SOP was tailored to explain the random integration of secretion signal peptides as the EV was evaluated in the course of our <a target="_blank" href="https://2017.igem.org/Team:TU_Dresden/Measurement"> Signal Peptide Toolbox</a>.</p> | ||
+ | <table> | ||
+ | <td style="width:95%;"><p><sup>1</sup>J Radeck, K Kraft, J Bartels, T Cikovic, F Dürr, J Emenegger, S Kelterborn, C Sauer, G Fritz, S Gebhard and T Mascher "The <i>Bacillus</i> BioBrick Box: generation and evaluation of essential genetic building blocks for standardized work with <i>Bacillus subtilis</i>" Journal of Biological Engineering 7:29 (2013). <a target="_blank" href ="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24295448">PubMed</a></p></td> | ||
+ | </table> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</main> | </main> |
Revision as of 04:56, 25 October 2017