Team:Sheffield/Project
From 2010.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Stevegarrett (Talk | contribs) |
|||
(8 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<head> | <head> | ||
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> | <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <style type="text/css"> | ||
+ | #contentSub { | ||
+ | display:none; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | #siteSub { | ||
+ | display:none; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | #search-controls { | ||
+ | display:none; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | .firstHeading { | ||
+ | display:none; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | #search-controls { | ||
+ | margin-top:30px; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | #footer-box { | ||
+ | display:none; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | </style> | ||
</head> | </head> | ||
Line 17: | Line 43: | ||
<p>These promoters were transformed in their plasmids into the DH5α strain of E.coli. The mini-prep technique was performed to extract the DNA. At the same time, a plasmid containing a GFP biobrick was also transformed and a mini-prep performed. A restriction digest was performed to excise the promoter genes from their plasmids and to cut the plasmid containing the GFP in a position just upstream of the GFP start site. Gel electrophoresis was used to ensure the digest was successful and then the fragments were retrieved by gel extraction. Each promoter was then ligated into a cut plasmid containing GFP, directly upstream of the GFP. These ligated plasmids could then be transformed into competent DH5α. The DNA was extracted by mini prep and another two restriction digests were performed; one to excise the promoter-GFP construct from its plasmid, and one to cut the iGEM, chloramphenicol-resistant, plasmid at the appropriate site. These were, again, run on a gel to check for accuracy, and then retrieved by gel extraction. The promoter-GFP construct was then ligated into the iGEM plasmid and transformed. The DNA for these biobricks was then obtained by mini-prep. Characterisation- 5ml cultures of LB with 5µl chloramphenicol were inoculated with DH5α containing the promoter-GFP constructs. Cultures were grown overnight at 37˚C, to saturation, then diluted 1:500 into 50ml LB/chloramphenicol at the beginning of the time course. Samples were taken from the overnight cultures (2ml), at the time of dilution (10ml), and every 45 minutes thereafter for 6hours. The samples were spun down and re-suspended in 1ml of PBS and stored on ice until all samples were collected. The samples were then put into the flow cytometer for analysis. </p> | <p>These promoters were transformed in their plasmids into the DH5α strain of E.coli. The mini-prep technique was performed to extract the DNA. At the same time, a plasmid containing a GFP biobrick was also transformed and a mini-prep performed. A restriction digest was performed to excise the promoter genes from their plasmids and to cut the plasmid containing the GFP in a position just upstream of the GFP start site. Gel electrophoresis was used to ensure the digest was successful and then the fragments were retrieved by gel extraction. Each promoter was then ligated into a cut plasmid containing GFP, directly upstream of the GFP. These ligated plasmids could then be transformed into competent DH5α. The DNA was extracted by mini prep and another two restriction digests were performed; one to excise the promoter-GFP construct from its plasmid, and one to cut the iGEM, chloramphenicol-resistant, plasmid at the appropriate site. These were, again, run on a gel to check for accuracy, and then retrieved by gel extraction. The promoter-GFP construct was then ligated into the iGEM plasmid and transformed. The DNA for these biobricks was then obtained by mini-prep. Characterisation- 5ml cultures of LB with 5µl chloramphenicol were inoculated with DH5α containing the promoter-GFP constructs. Cultures were grown overnight at 37˚C, to saturation, then diluted 1:500 into 50ml LB/chloramphenicol at the beginning of the time course. Samples were taken from the overnight cultures (2ml), at the time of dilution (10ml), and every 45 minutes thereafter for 6hours. The samples were spun down and re-suspended in 1ml of PBS and stored on ice until all samples were collected. The samples were then put into the flow cytometer for analysis. </p> | ||
<p><strong>Results </strong></p> | <p><strong>Results </strong></p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/6/65/Green!.jpg" /> | ||
+ | <p> The image above shows a cell expressig GFP after induction with CAI-1, showing that our project may well be feasible. </p? | ||
<p><strong>References </strong></p> | <p><strong>References </strong></p> | ||
<p>CsrA post-translationally represses pgaABCD, responsible for synthesis of a biofilm polysaccharide adhesion of E.coli Xin Wang et al, Molecular Microbiology (2005) 56 (6), 1648-1663. </p> | <p>CsrA post-translationally represses pgaABCD, responsible for synthesis of a biofilm polysaccharide adhesion of E.coli Xin Wang et al, Molecular Microbiology (2005) 56 (6), 1648-1663. </p> | ||
Line 23: | Line 52: | ||
www.conncoll.edu/ccacad/zimmer/GFP-ww/prasher.html </p></td> | www.conncoll.edu/ccacad/zimmer/GFP-ww/prasher.html </p></td> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p><strong> Acknowledgements </strong></p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Sheffield iGEM team would like to thank all of their advisors for the advice given. The EPSRC for the funding and all work described above was performed by the team. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
</table> | </table> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:06, 28 October 2010