Team:TU Munich/Project

From 2010.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(References)
(Network construction)
 
(135 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
= Vision=
= Vision=
-
Until today, 13.628 biobrick sequences<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref1|&#91;1&#93;]]</sup> have been submitted to partsregistry, thereof 102 reporter units, 12 signaling bricks and xx sensing parts.
+
Until today, 13.628 biobrick sequences<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref1|&#91;1&#93;]]</sup> have been submitted to partsregistry, thereof 102 reporter units and 12 signaling bricks.
-
Since there, people are trying to arrange these single biological building blocks in such a manner that allows producing special biotechnological products (metabolic engineering), developing biological sensory circuits (biosensors) and even giving microorganisms the ability to react on multiple environmental factors and serve both as disease indicator and drug. These examples and further promising ideas were implemented on previous iGEM-competitions.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref2|&#91;2&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref3|&#91;3&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref4|&#91;4&#93;]]</sup> <br><br>
+
Since then, people are trying to arrange these single biological building blocks in such a manner that allows producing special biotechnological products (metabolic engineering), developing biological sensory circuits (biosensors) and even giving microorganisms the ability to react on multiple environmental factors and serve both as disease indicator and drug. These examples and further promising ideas were implemented on previous iGEM-competitions.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref2|&#91;2&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref3|&#91;3&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref4|&#91;4&#93;]]</sup> <br><br>
-
The idea of combining the outcome of several iGEM competitions to construct complex synthetic biological systems falls at the last hurdle - the fact, that each team uses a different principle how to access and functionally connect the respectively used biobricks. For example, it is a major challenge to create a system that uses several sensoring BioBricks from different iGEM-teams which in turn regulates reportering BioBricks from various teams. In order to combine and fully take advantage of these promising projects, our vision is to develop an adapter that allows interconnecting any arbitrary biobricks on a functional level. Such a system easily allows to setup sensor-reporter circuits and interconnect them to complete biological chips... A further step towards artificial cells.<br><br>
+
The idea of combining the outcome of several iGEM competitions to construct complex synthetic biological systems falls at the last hurdle - the fact, that each team uses a different principle how to access and functionally connect the respectively used biobricks. For example, it is a major challenge to create a system that uses several sensoring BioBricks from different iGEM-teams which in turn regulates reportering BioBricks from various teams. In order to combine and fully take advantage of these promising projects, our vision is to develop an adapter that allows interconnecting arbitrary biobricks on a functional level. Such a system easily allows to setup sensor-reporter circuits and interconnect them to complete biological chips... A further step towards artificial cells.<br><br>
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
-
Generally speaking, the above descirbed adapter has to meet the following requirements:
+
Generally speaking, the above adapter has to meet the following requirements:
*'''Universality'''
*'''Universality'''
:The adapter has to be compatible to as many BioBricks as possible. This objective will guarantee that a large number of BioBricks can be connected.
:The adapter has to be compatible to as many BioBricks as possible. This objective will guarantee that a large number of BioBricks can be connected.
Line 17: Line 17:
:Once the basic design of the system is established, the construction of the system is supposed to be automated in silico. This way it will be possible to create an adapter connecting a large amount of BioBricks.
:Once the basic design of the system is established, the construction of the system is supposed to be automated in silico. This way it will be possible to create an adapter connecting a large amount of BioBricks.
*'''Biological orthogonality'''
*'''Biological orthogonality'''
-
:Interfering with cellular components has to be as low as possible in order to avoid unwanted and perturbing side effects.
+
:Interference with cellular components has to be as low as possible in order to avoid unwanted and perturbing side effects.
*'''Logic'''
*'''Logic'''
:The adapter is supposed to not only associate different BioBricks, but to functionally connect BioBricks in a precisely determined manner (including operations such as AND/OR/NOT).
:The adapter is supposed to not only associate different BioBricks, but to functionally connect BioBricks in a precisely determined manner (including operations such as AND/OR/NOT).
<br>
<br>
-
Several biological logic units, devices and circuits have been developed so far<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref5|&#91;5&#93;]]</sup>, but to our knowledge, none was shown to meet all requirement listed above.
+
Several biological logic units, devices and circuits have been developed so far<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref5|&#91;5&#93;]]</sup>, but to our knowledge, none was shown to meet all requirements listed above.
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
 +
=Implementation=
=Implementation=
To functionally connect BioBricks, there are several possibilities including genetic switches, riboswitches and direct protein-protein interactions. We investigated several hypothetically principles, and decided to focus our practical work on the development of a RNA-RNA interaction-based switch. These switches are capable of changing between two states, a state of antitermination and termination, and make use of highly-specific RNA-RNA interaction. In principle such a switch can fulfill all requirements mentioned previously. The following text clarifies how these switches work in detail.
To functionally connect BioBricks, there are several possibilities including genetic switches, riboswitches and direct protein-protein interactions. We investigated several hypothetically principles, and decided to focus our practical work on the development of a RNA-RNA interaction-based switch. These switches are capable of changing between two states, a state of antitermination and termination, and make use of highly-specific RNA-RNA interaction. In principle such a switch can fulfill all requirements mentioned previously. The following text clarifies how these switches work in detail.
Line 31: Line 32:
{|
{|
|-
|-
-
|[[Image:Networks.png|center|500px]]
+
|[[Image:Networks.png|center|thumb|730px|The general principle how different inputs can be connect to various outputs. For details see text.<br>Inputs (such as proteins or small molecules) are indicated on the left side. blue lines represent transmitter molecules whereas organe lines present logic gates. The type of logic gate is indicated. Green lines indicate transmitter RNA that can function as mRNA and consequently generate any output gene (indicated on the very right).]]
|}
|}
-
<br>
+
In order to connect different BioBricks, our network requires four major types of components:
*Input elements
*Input elements
*Transmitter molecules
*Transmitter molecules
Line 40: Line 41:
{{:Team:TU_Munich/Templates/InfoBoxStart}}'''Computer vs. molecular network - and our approach'''<br>
{{:Team:TU_Munich/Templates/InfoBoxStart}}'''Computer vs. molecular network - and our approach'''<br>
-
Logic gates in a molecular network are often compared to transistors used in a computer, where billions of transistors are incorporated<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref7|&#91;7&#93;]]</sup>. The main advantage on a computer chip is, all transistors share the same functional principle, and only the way connecting them in a special sequence allows specific addressing of only a subset of other transistors by an input. However, spatial fixed connections of molecular logic gates are not possible in a living cell. The "wiring" within a cell relies on the specific interaction between transmitter molecule and their corresponding logic gates, for example implemented by protein-protein/ligand-protein interactions or specific ligand-riboswitch interactions.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref8|&#91;8&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref9|&#91;9&#93;]]</sup>  As a result, in a cell, each occurring logic gate ("transistor") has to be different, at least in a special recognition site<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref10|&#91;10&#93;]]</sup> - for example like different transcription factors, recognizing different DNA-sites. Thanks to evolution, nature easily can invent a new transistor for each task - science achieves this only on a limited scale, and producing synthetic molecular logic gates artificially by either rational or evolutionary protein or riboswitch engineering, is limited to small circuits so far<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref11|&#91;11&#93;]]</sup>. Our project aims to establish a real molecular transistor, which shares the same functional principle for all logic gates.  At the same time, we want to design a easily exchangeable recognition site, which can individually be designed by everyone! {{:Team:TU_Munich/Templates/InfoBoxEnd}}
+
Logic gates in a molecular network are often compared to transistors used in a computer, where billions of transistors are incorporated<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref7|&#91;7&#93;]]</sup>. The main advantage on a computer chip is, all transistors share the same functional principle, and only the way connecting them in a special sequence allows specific addressing of only a subset of other transistors by an input. However, spatially fixed connections of molecular logic gates are not possible in a living cell. The "wiring" within a cell relies on the specific interaction between transmitter molecule and their corresponding logic gates, for example implemented by protein-protein/ligand-protein interactions or specific ligand-riboswitch interactions.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref8|&#91;8&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref9|&#91;9&#93;]]</sup>  As a result, in a cell, each occurring logic gate ("transistor") has to be different, at least in a special recognition site<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref10|&#91;10&#93;]]</sup> - for example like different transcription factors, recognizing different DNA-sites. Thanks to evolution, nature easily can invent a new transistor for each task - science achieves this only on a limited scale, and producing synthetic molecular logic gates artificially by either rational or evolutionary protein or riboswitch engineering, is limited to small circuits so far<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref11|&#91;11&#93;]]</sup>. Our project aims to establish a molecular switch as close as possible to a electronic transistor, thus sharing the same functional principle for all logic gates.  At the same time, we want to design a easily exchangeable recognition site, which can individually be designed by everyone! {{:Team:TU_Munich/Templates/InfoBoxEnd}}
-
These elements can be combined to build up a molecular network (see illustration). Each input molecule (such as a BioBrick) produces a unique transmitter molecule. All transmitters belong to the same type of molecule and share a common design. However each transmitter molecule can only interact and activate a certain subset of logic gates. In other words, logic gates have to recognize and bind the corresponding transmitter molecules. Depending on the type of the logic gate (AND, OR or NOT<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref6|&#91;6&#93;]]</sup>), an output molecule is only created if both transmitter molecules are present (AND), at least one of two transmitter molecules is present (OR) or if no transmitter is present at all (NOT). These logic gates produce other transmitter molecules, which can in turn address another subset ("layer") of logic gates. In theory many layers of logic gates can be connected by transmitters. The last "layer" of logic gates finally allows to active/inactive output elements, such as BioBricks.  
+
These elements can be combined to build up a molecular network (see illustration). Each input molecule (such as a BioBrick) produces a unique transmitter molecule. All transmitters belong to the same type of molecule and share a common design. However, each transmitter molecule can only interact and activate a certain subset of logic gates. In other words, logic gates have to recognize as well as bind the corresponding transmitter molecules and are capable of producing a new output transmitter molecule. Depending on the type of the logic gate (AND, OR or NOT<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref6|&#91;6&#93;]]</sup>), an output transmitter is only created if both input transmitter molecules are present (AND), at least one of two input transmitters is present (OR) or if no input transmitter is present at all (NOT). Once a logic gate has produced a new output transmitter, these transmitters can in turn address another subset ("layer") of logic gates. In theory many layers of logic gates can be connected this way allowing the creation of large networks. Until this step, various transmitter molecules might have been produced. But in order to create a Biobrick output, the last layer of logic gates finally generates transmitter molecules that will not active logic gates, but will rather interact with the cell metabolism to produce a BioBrick response. In other words, the last layer of transmitter molecules is capable of regulating BioBrick formation.
-
Summarizing, the network established a connection between input BioBrick and output BioBrick in a functional manner.
+
Summarizing, the network establishes a connection between input BioBricks and output BioBricks in a functional manner.
-
Having addressed the basic layout of the molecular network, the next step is to determine what type of molecules can perform the required functions. We decided to use RNA both as transmitter molecules and for constructing logic gates. Several advantages result from the utilization of RNA as the central element:
+
Having addressed the basic layout of the molecular network, the next step is to determine what type of molecules can perform the required functions. We decided to use RNA, both as transmitter molecules and for constructing logic gates. Several advantages result from the utilization of RNA as the central element:
-
*During the last years, many Biobricks were designed that are sensitive to various chemicals and substances. These BioBricks often function as a transcription factor that binds to a specific DNA sequence and consequently would be capable to produce a specific transmitter RNA molecule. Thus, in principle each BioBricks which involves transcription can be used integrated in our circuits/networks
+
*During the last years, many Biobricks were designed that are sensitive to various chemicals and substances. These BioBricks often function as a transcription factor that binds to a specific DNA sequence and consequently would be capable to produce a specific transmitter RNA molecule. Thus, in principle each BioBrick which involves transcription can be integrated in our network.
-
*Since all logic gates would be capable to produce RNA (since the transmitter is RNA), they can also produce functional mRNA encoding any protein. This means, each BioBrick consisting of protein or RNA can be produced as output of our circuits/networks.
+
*Since all logic gates are capable of producing transmitter RNA, they can also produce functional mRNA encoding any protein. This means, each BioBrick consisting of protein or RNA can be produced as an output of our network.
-
*If RNA forms both, the transmitter molecule and the logic gates, they can specifically interact by RNA-RNA interaction, which is highly predictable compared to protein interactions. This allows to generate a library of transmitters and gates ''in silico''.
+
*If RNA forms both, the transmitter molecule and the logic gates, they can specifically interact by RNA-RNA interaction, which is highly predictable compared to protein interactions. This allows to generate a library of transmitters and gates ''in silico''. Such a library is essential for the creation of large networks.
-
*RNA production is fast and energy saving for a cell - since the complete faulty  wiring of our circuits/networks (the interactions of logical gates) would be on the level of RNA-interaction and thus on a transcriptional level, translation and resource consuming protein production would one be involved at the last layer.  
+
*RNA production is fast and energy saving for a cell. Consequently, operating a network that only produces RNA rather than proteins will also be faster and more efficient for the host cell. Since our logic gates are based on transcription, translation and resource consuming protein production will only be required at the very last step.  
*As the half-time of RNA can be rather short, transmitter RNA will not accumulate within the cell and it is therefore less likely for the system to become saturated.
*As the half-time of RNA can be rather short, transmitter RNA will not accumulate within the cell and it is therefore less likely for the system to become saturated.
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
Line 56: Line 57:
==Design and functional principle of logic gates==
==Design and functional principle of logic gates==
The concept introduced above provides a framework that can potentially serve as an universal adapter between different BioBricks. However, the [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#logic gate | logic gates]] have not been specified more precisely so far. This will be done in the following section.
The concept introduced above provides a framework that can potentially serve as an universal adapter between different BioBricks. However, the [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#logic gate | logic gates]] have not been specified more precisely so far. This will be done in the following section.
 +
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
-
Generally speaking, our logic gates are to posses the following characteristics:
+
Generally speaking, our logic gates are to possess the following characteristics:
*Logic gates, such as AND, OR and NOT, have to be implemented by RNA-interaction based principles (see [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#How_to_connect_BioBricks | How to connect BioBricks]]).
*Logic gates, such as AND, OR and NOT, have to be implemented by RNA-interaction based principles (see [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#How_to_connect_BioBricks | How to connect BioBricks]]).
-
*All logic gates have to recognize corresponding [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Transmitter (bioLOGICS)| transmitter RNA´s]] and, in response, produce an output transmitter molecule.
+
*All logic gates have to recognize their corresponding [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Transmitter (bioLOGICS)| transmitter RNAs]] and, in response, produce an output transmitter molecule.
-
*Logic gates should follow a basic design rule, in such a way, that their creation can be automated in silico.
+
*Logic gates should follow a basic design rule, in such a way, that their creation can be automated ''in silico''.
-
*The response efficiency of logic gates toward a transmitter molecule should be comparable for all logic gates to provide calculable robustness, sensitivity and comparable molecular concentrations to be functional
+
*The response efficiency of a logic gate toward a transmitter molecule should be comparable for all logic gates to provide calculable robustness and sensitivity. This will ensure comparable molecular concentrations and functionality of large networks.
-
*the whole system should be able to function ''in vivo'' - therefore, all parameters where optimized to 37 °C and a e.coli environment
+
*The system has to be designed for ''in vivo'' utilization at the first place. As a reference we always assumed a temperature of 37 °C and an ''E. coli'' environment.
-
<br>
+
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
-
In order to build a logic gates for our bioLOGICS system we will first create a simple toggle switch. A toggle switch can be activated by one transmitter RNA and produce an output transmitter RNA. In contrast to a logic gate, a toggle switch does not perform logic operations. However by combining toggle switches, logic gates can be created. The following text will first describe how the developed toggle switch works and secondly, how logic gates such as AND/OR/NOT can be created by based on these toggle switches.
+
In order to build logic gates for our bioLOGICS system we will first create a simple switch. A switch can be activated by one transmitter RNA and produce an output transmitter RNA. In contrast to a logic gate, a switch does not perform logic operations. However by combining switches, logic gates can be created. The following text will first describe how the developed switch works and secondly, how logic gates such as AND/OR/NOT can be created using these switches.
-
<br>
+
<html>
-
<br>
+
<script type="text/javascript">
-
===Toggle Switch===
+
$(document).ready(function(){
-
*'''target site'''<br>
+
-
The target unit is the functional core element of our switches, allowing a shift between an "on" and "off" state. Since we work on the level of RNA-production (transcription), a "switchable" transcriptional terminator is suitable for this purpose. The principle idea of our target site relies on such systems occurring in nature. We used [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#in silico design |''in silico'' synthetic RNA-engineering]] to modify the [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Antitermination|Antitermination principle]] of two natural system: [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Attenuation| Attenuation]] in ''e.coli'' and [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Tiny Abortive RNA´s| tiny abortive RNA´s]] of T7-phage. Future plans will also work with [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Synthetic Terminator| Synthetic Terminators]], which will retrieve additional informations what drives the process of Termination. To highlight and illustrate the functional principle of our switches, only the part of the terminator which is involved in interacting with a transmitter molecule and which is responsible for shifting between "on" and "off" state is called target site. The remaining terminator sequence is called often called terminator in the following, even if both, target site AND terminator equal the terminator structure occurring in nature.
+
-
<br>
+
-
The sticking point of our switches is the fact that they all consist of THE SAME target site. Having found one functional "switchable" terminator will therefore allow almost unlimited upscaling. This is the main difference to previous works on this field, which always required developing a new shifting principle for each switch.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref12|&#91;12&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref13|&#91;13&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref14|&#91;14&#93;]]</sup> Beside the extendability, this principle provides a comparable on/off shifting rate, which avoids complex concentration dependent fine tuning of interacting molecular circuits.
+
-
<br> Another special thing is the specific accessing of our toggle switches is separated from the target site, by providing an additional recognition site.
+
-
*'''recognition site''' <br>
+
$("p.trigger").click(function(){
-
It defines the specific accessibility of a respective toggle switch by an transmitter molecule. Therefore, a unique
+
$(this).next("div").find(".thumbinner").slideToggle("slow");
-
recognition element is assigned to each switch. This allows to arrange and interconnect numerous
+
 
-
of these switches in a specific logical order, without changing the target site, comparable to wires connecting many transistors.
+
return false; //Prevent the browser jump to the link anchor
-
<br>
+
});
-
The recognition site is implemented by putting a random sequence with arbitrary length (has to be optimized, compare [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#in silico design |''in silico'' design]] and [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling| Modeling]] ) upstream of the target site. <br>
+
$("a.toggle_close").click(function(){
 +
var nextParent = $(this).parent();
 +
while(nextParent!= null) {
 +
if(!nextParent.is(".toggle_container")) {
 +
nextParent = nextParent.parent();
 +
}
 +
else {
 +
break;
 +
}
 +
}
 +
if(nextParent.is(".toggle_container")) {
 +
 +
 +
nextParent.prev("div").find(".thumbinner").slideToggle("slow");
 +
 +
}
 +
 +
 +
return false; //Prevent the browser jump to the link anchor
 +
});
 +
});
 +
</script>
 +
</html>
 +
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart1}}Read more{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart2}}
 +
[[Image:toggle_switch.png|500px|thumb|center|id="hideOnReadMore"|'''A''' The basic structure of a bioLOGICS switch (left) and a transmitter molecule (right).<br>'''B'''The process of switching. See the text in the close-by "Read more" section for details.<br>Rectangles present the composition of our functional units on the level of DNA. Fringed lines represent RNA produced by RNA polymerase. The stem loop structure depicts the switchable terminator. Terminator and target site are illustrated in blue and turquoise, respectively. Recognition sites are indicated in different colors, in this case red for the input transmitter and green for the output transmitter.Each switch and or later logical unit has to be flanked by a promotor and another constitutive terminator, to allow RNA-production by RNA-polymerase in a proper way. ]]
 +
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart3}}
 +
===Switch===
 +
[[Image:TUM2010_switch-and-transmitter.jpg|550px|right|thumb|The basic strcutrue of a switch (left) and a transmitter RNA (right). See text for details.]]
 +
Roughly speaking, a switch can be regarded as an enhanced switchable transcriptional terminator. The enhancement can be described easier by dividing a switch into its functional components:
 +
*'''Target site'''<br>
 +
:The target site is the functional core element of our switches, allowing a shift between an "on" and "off" state. Since we work on the level of RNA-production (transcription), a "switchable" transcriptional terminator is suitable for this purpose. By allowing or preventing formation of a transcriptional terminator, that is by switching between termination and antitermination it is possible to represent an "off" and an "on" state, respectively. Therefore, the target site is the 5' ending of the terminator and is required for a stable terminator formation. It should be noted that this principle was also observed in nature.
 +
:To highlight and illustrate the functional principle of our switches, only the part of the terminator which is involved in interacting with a transmitter molecule and which is responsible for shifting between "on" and "off" state is called target site. The remaining terminator sequence is called terminator in the following, even if both, target site and terminator build up the terminator structure occurring in nature.
 +
:The important aspect of our switches is the fact that all switches will hold the same identical target site. Therefore having found one functional "switchable" terminator, will allow almost unlimited upscaling since this terminator can be used for a large library of switches. This is the main difference to previous works done on this field, which always required developing a new shifting principle for each switch.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref12|&#91;12&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref13|&#91;13&#93;]]</sup><sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref14|&#91;14&#93;]]</sup> Beside this scalability, this principle provides a comparable on/off shifting rate (responds function) for all switches, avoiding complex fine tuning of molecular networks.
 +
:To sum it up, the target site, allows to switch between an "on" and "off" state. But so far, the switch is not capable of performing specific interaction with transmitter molecules. This is where the recognition site comes into play.
 +
*'''Recognition site'''
 +
:The recognition site defines which transmitter molecule can actually interact with the switch. Therefore, a unique recognition site is generated for each switch and is positioned right upstream of the target site. In principle the recognition can be any random sequence as long as it remains unique within the molecular network.
 +
Summing up, the recognition site allows a specific interaction between switches and transmitter molecules. Once this interaction is formed, an interaction between the transmitter and the target will actually switch the state of the terminator. This allows the specific arrangement and interconnection of numerous of these switches by transmitter molecules, without changing the target site. Comparable to wires connecting many identical transistors, our target site remains the same.
<br>
<br>
-
===Transmitter RNA´s, input and output of bioLOGICS toggle switches===
 
-
Transmitters present the "trigger" to shift switches between the "on" and "off" state. They requires the ability to change the terminators secondary structure and cause antitermination, BUT only if a special recognition site is detected. Thus, each signal consists of a '''trigger site''', interacting with the switches trigger site and an '''identity site''', interacting with the toggles recognition site. Practically, the shift between antitermination and termination is induced by a complementary RNA-sequence, influencing the terminators secondary structure. But in contrast to previous approaches on this field <sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref12|&#91;12&#93;]]</sup>, we introduced the described synthetic trigger site in such a manner it is not able to change the terminator´s state on its own, but only in combination with the '''identity site''', which is complementary to the recognition site.
+
===Transmitter RNA´s===
 +
As desccribed above, transmitter RNAs are the input and output of bioLOGICS switches (compare [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#How_to_connect_BioBricks | How to connect BioBricks]]). These transmitters are short ssRNA molecules representing the "trigger" to shift switches between the "on" and "off" state. To fulfill this role, they need to posses the following properties:
 +
*A transmitter may only interact with certain switches. That is, a transmitter has to find the corresponding  recognition site of a switch.
 +
*Once an interaction is established between a transmitter and a switch, a transmitter has to be capable of changing the secondary structure of a terminator and thus cause antitermination.
 +
Again, these two properties are fulfilled by two components of the transmitter:
 +
*'''Identity site'''
 +
:This site is capable of forcing an interaction between the transmitter and the switch. Therefore it is complementary to the recognition site of this switch. As the recognition site is unique within a network, so is the identity site. However, the single identity site is not capable of changing the state of the switch. That is were the trigger site comes into play.
 +
*'''Trigger site'''
 +
:Once an interaction is created by the identity site, the trigger site is capable of actually shifting the switch since it is complementary to the target site of the switch. To fulfill this role, it is placed upstream at the 5' end of the identity site. As the target site is the same for all switches, the trigger site is the same for all signals. Therefore it is important, that similar to the identity site, a trigger site cannot function on its own. That is, a single trigger site cannot shift the state of a switch without the help of an identity site.
-
The challenge is to arrange and optimize these elementary building blocks thermodynamically, that a trigger site is only able to switch in combination with its respective identity site. This was done by ''in silico'' design using [[TU Munich/Glossary#NUPACK| NUPACK]], presented in section [[TU Munich/Project#in silico design| in silico design]].
+
Summing up, we applied the principle introduced for the switches to the transmitter molecules. In contrast to previous approaches on this field <sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref12|&#91;12&#93;]]</sup>, we introduced the described synthetic trigger site in such a manner that it is not able to change the state of the terminator on its own, but only in combination with the identity site. So the challenge is to arrange and optimize these elementary building blocks thermodynamically, that a trigger site is only able to switch in combination with its respective identity site. This was done by ''in silico'' design using [[TU Munich/Glossary#NUPACK| NUPACK]], presented in section [[TU Munich/Modeling#in silico design based on thermodynamic calculations| in silico design]].
<br>
<br>
 +
===Putting it all together: the switching process===
===Putting it all together: the switching process===
 +
[[Image:TUM2010_switching-process.jpg|550px|right|thumb|The basic structure of a switch (left) and a transmitter RNA (right). See text for details.]]The functional principle of the designed switches is illustrated in the figure. The switch is positioned on DNA upstream of a desired output transmitter. So in the absence of a triggering transmitter molecule, transcription will be canceled by the formation of a RNA stem loop in the nascent RNA-chain. This will cause the RNA polymerase to stop transcription and fall off the DNA and consequently no output RNA will be produced. This process only relies on [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Termination| rho-independent termination]].
 +
On the other hand, in the presence of a [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#RNA_transmitters | input transmitter]], this small functional RNA inhibits the stem loop formation by complementary base-pairing and hence avoids termination of transcription. In detail, the identity site (red part on transmitter) binds the recognition site (red part on switch) and serves as [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Toehold|toehold]], which will thermodynamically allow the trigger site (turquoise part on transmitter) to perform a [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Strand Displacement| strand displacement]] and open up the stem loop structure. Consequently the polymerase can read all the way through and form the output RNA.<br>Summing up, we use this concept to create a switch that can be toggled by a transmitter RNA molecule and in response, is able to produce another transmitter RNA.
<br>
<br>
-
[[Image:toggle_switch.png|500px|thumb|center|  Rectangles present the composition of our functional units on the level of DNA. Fringed lines represent RNA produced by RNA polymerase. The stem loop structure depicts the switchable terminator. Terminator and target site are illustrated in blue and turquoise, respectively. Recognition sites are indicated in different colors, in this case red for the input transmitter and green for the output transmitter.Each toggle switch and or later logical unit has to be flanked by a promotor and another constitutive terminator, to allow RNA-production by RNA-polymerase in a proper way. ]] The functional principle of the designed toggle switches is illustrated in the figure above. The switch is implemented upstream of a desired output transmitter. So in the ground state, transcription will be canceled by the formation of a RNA stem loop in the nascent RNA-chain, which then causes the RNA polymerase to stop transcription and fall off the DNA and no output RNA will be produced. We rely on [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Termination| rho-independent termination]]
 
-
On the other hand, in the presence of a [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#RNA transmitters, the inputs and outputs of the bioLOGICS switch| input transmitter]], this small functional RNA inhibits the stem loop formation by complementary base-pairing and hence avoids termination of transcription. In detail, the identity site (red part on transmitter) binds the recognition site (red part on switch) and serves as [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Toehold|toehold]], which will thermodynamically allow the  trigger site (turquoise part on transmitter) to perform a [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Strand Displacement| strand displacement]] and open the stem loop structure, allowing the polymerase to read through and form the output RNA.<br>Summing up, we use can use this concept to create a switch that can be toggled by a transmitter RNA molecule and in response, is able to produce another transmitter RNA.
 
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-
Main challenges are
 
-
* to find a suitable terminator construct and design a complementary trigger unit, which is only functional in combination with a specificity site - meaning an optimization of the '''thermodynamically parameters''' (see[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#in silico design| in silico design]])
 
-
* to investigate whether the signal/switch interaction reaction is really on a timescale
 
-
to be competitive to terminator formation - meaning an comparison of '''kinetic parameters''' (see [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling|Modeling page]])
 
-
* to proof antitermination can be also be caused by synthetically RNA-interaction (see [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Antitermination| Antitermination in nature]] and [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#Results| ''in vivo'' and ''in vitro'' measurements]] )
 
-
<br>
+
===From switches towards bioLOGICS logic gates===
-
===The bioLOGIC toggle switch with regard of logical operations===
+
As described, each switch can be accessed by a specific RNA-transmitter molecule, representing the input. In turn, another RNA-transmitter molecule will be produced if the switch shifts its state. This output transmitter of one switch can serve as input transmitter for the next switch by meaningful selection and design of the respective recognition sites. This easily allows arranging several switches in specific sequences and faulty  wiring - the corner stone of a logical network.<br>
-
As described, each switch can be accessed by a specific RNA-transmitter molecule, illustrating the input. In turn, another RNA-transmitter molecule will be produced if the switch shifts its state. This output transmitter of one switch can serve as input transmitter for the next toggle switch by meaningful selection and design of the respective recognition sites. This easily allows arranging several switches in specific sequences and faulty  wiring - the corner stone of a logical network.
+
To ease the building of logical networks we want to create a switch capable of Boolean logics, a common mathematical principle fundamental for computational science. Since AND/OR/NOT are basic logic operations which can be implemented with the presented switches, all remaining operations (such as XOR, NAND, ...) can be expressed by these three operators according to laws of boolean logics.
 +
Creating logic gates is achieved by combining two switches in two different ways, as illustrated below.
 +
*AND gate
 +
:An AND gate can be constrcuted by positioning two switches right next to each other. For the output transmitter to be created, both input transmitter have to be present.[[Image:AND2.png|500px|thumb|center|Combining two switches in series creates a logic AND gate.]]
-
To ease the building of logical networks, applying mathematical logics, e.g. Boolean logics like in computational science would be worthwhile. It is possible to establish general Boolean operators with our switches and thus build "logical modules".  
+
*OR gate
-
Since AND/OR/NOT are the most simple logic operations which can be implemented with the presented toggle switches, and all remaining operations can be expressed by these three operators[ZITAAAT Wiki oder so)we exemplary designed them.
+
:An OR gate is created by utilizing two independent switches sharing the same output transmitter. If each one of both switches is activated, an output transmitter is generated. Therefore, one input transmitter is enough to produce an output transmitter.[[Image:OR2.png|500px|thumb|center|Combining two switches in parallel creates a logic OR gate.]]
-
{|
 
-
|-
 
-
| *AND consists of a parallel circuit of two switches
 
-
|-
 
-
|[[Image:AND2.png|500px|thumb]]
 
-
|-
 
-
| *OR is implemented by connecting two switches in series
 
-
|-
 
-
|[[Image:OR2.png|500px|thumb]]
 
-
|-
 
-
| *NOT is more complex to explain. In principle, it consists only of one toggle switch which contains its respective signal molecule intrinsic, so via intramolecular interaction, antitermination is the initial state. The signal is composed of the same components as usual to allow interconnection with other logic gates.
 
-
|-
 
-
|[[Image:NOT2.png|500px|thumb]]
 
-
|}
 
-
==Network construction==
+
*NOT gate
-
Designing complex biological networks based on either traditional protein engineering or our new bioLOGICS is still a complex task. We developed a software which allows the fast construction of a bioLOGICS based networks. <br>
+
:A NOT gate is supposed to function as an inverter. In contrast to the gates described above, a not gate requires only one sitch. However, to meet the design rule for transmitter molecules, this switch shows some differences compared to the switches used for AND and OR gates.<br>
-
To read more about this, look at our [https://2010.igem.org/Team:TU_Munich/Software Software page]
+
:Since the transcriptional terminator may not form if no transmitter is present. Consequently, the switch needs an internal trigger site, capable of preventing terminator formation. To allow the binding of an input transmitter molecule, the switch contains a recognition site upstream of a second target site. The additional target site is mandatory since all transmitter molecules have to carry a trigger. In the case of the NOT switch this trigger site may not bind the actual target site within the transcriptional terminator. In other words, a second target site further upstream is required to catch the trigger site of the transmitter molecule. At the same time, the identity site of the transmitter may not bind right upstream of the terminator. This is accomplished by placing an other identity site right upstream of the terminator rather than an recognition site (compare switches used for AND or OR gate). Due to these two difference, the input transmitter is forced to bind further upstream to the recognition site, displacing the internal trigger site of the switch. This will allow the RNA polymerase to read through an create the output transmitter.
 +
[[Image:NOT2.png|500px|thumb|center|Structure and switching process of a NOT gate.<br>]]
 +
 
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
-
<!-- Haissi&Wuschels alter Text --
 
-
Although classical molecular biology and genetic engineering equipped the science community with many functional proteins and possible applications, using and linking different parts together to a working network still requires highly complicated strategies. The switches established in molecular biology, for example the ''lac'' operon, are highly limited, as most of them rely on interactions including metabolites and proteins providing only one on/off-signal. Thus, it is hardly possible to build up a logic network inside a cell without interferences between different switches. Our approach is to change this by developing a new and more robust way to control ''E. coli'' cells using RNA-RNA-interaction based switches, which we call '''bioLOGICS'''.<br>
+
==Network construction==
-
These switches allow an easy construction of networks consisting of AND/OR circuits. The major advantage of our RNA-based units is the possiblility to easily upscale and to include parameters for tailored protein expression control. <br>
+
Designing complex biological networks based on either traditional protein engineering or our new bioLOGICS is still a complex task. As described above our bioLOGICS design allows the creation and precise connection of logic gates. To illustrate how a bioLOGICS network is put together we developed a software allowing the fast construction of a custom-made network.<br>
-
This is a major advantage towards ribozyme and especially protein based networks. While the complexicity of protein-protein interactions may work for cells, constructing networks without just copying complete operons is hardly possible. With the small size of our bioLOGICS, ten logic units occupy the space of an average protein sequence on a plasmid. Circuits based on bioLOGICS may play a key role for gene regulation with more variations than just on/off in the future.
+
To read more about this, take a look at our [https://2010.igem.org/Team:TU_Munich/Software software page]
-
-->
+
=Our Objective=
-
 
+
Putting the implementation described above into practice, will be a major challenge. For this year's iGEM competition our goal is to do the first step: design and build a switch that can be toggled by a RNA molecule. To be precise, we want to apply the design rules of our switch to modify a transcription terminator in such a way that it interacts with a second RNA molecule and, as a result, is no longer capable of forming a stem loop. This objective will require intensive ''in silico'' designing and modeling of switches based on different terminators and their corresponding transmitters. In connection to this theoretical part, we also have to test and verify the switches. For this step, we establish custom-made assays, ''in vitro'' and ''in vivo''.
-
<!-->
+
-
= Concept =
+
-
The basic principle of our switches are short RNA sequences, and the scientific idea shares similiarities with the principle of antitermination, but also inherits a completely new way of RNA based transcription regulation. We used three-dimensional structure predictions and thermodynamic calculation to develop a set of switches - about 50 nucleotides - and signals - about 20 nucleotides. The switches form a stem loop causing transcription termination, which can be resolved upon binding of the specific signal. On/off switching can therefore be easily controlled by signal availability and provides a new concept to control gene transcription.
+
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
-
Our switches are based on the principle of transcriptional antitermination. Transcription can be cancelled by the formation of a RNA stem loop in the nascent RNA-chain, which then causes the RNA polymerase to stop transcription and fall off the DNA. We use sequences as transcriptional switches, that are calculated to be capable of stem loop formation.<br>
+
Once the objective mentioned above is accomplished, these basic RNA/RNA-interactions have to be modified in such a manner that the described identity/trigger site pattern for the transmitter and the complementary recognition/target site switch composition has to be established. The most important requirement is to is to optimize these modules that the transmitter is only able to switches specifically, meaning only in the presence of both, identity AND trigger site.  
-
[[Image:TUM2010 novelunit.png|thumb|right|300 px|Novel switches based on RNA-RNA interaction]]
+
-
 
+
-
We plan to control the termination at these switches with a small RNA molecule (our RNA "signal") that is complementary to a part of the stem loop forming sequence. This small functional RNA inhibits the stem loop formation by complementary base-pairing and hence avoids transcription termination. The signal is composed of two parts: While the first part provides specifity (recognition site), the second part causing stem loop disintegration (functional core) can in principle be the same for all bioLOGICS. Therefore variation of the first part allows the construction of an endless number of switches. The functional core causing stem loop disintegration is based on a working system (see attenuation) established by nature. Different stem loops were tested in this effort: <font color="red">Regulatory parts from the E. coli ''trp''-operon, ''his''-operon and one based on previous iGEM-work.</font>
+
-
<br>
+
-
The initial signal can be provided by various metabolic compounds and stimuli and the output signal can be anything DNA-coded, too. In the last years, many working sensory systems were submitted to the Partsregistry. Those parts can now be utilized as inputs for our network. BioLOGICS provides a new way to use the whole potential of iGEM distributions connecting different parts for totally new applications.
+
-
<br>
+
-
The major advantage over conventional protein based devices and even [[glossary|riboswitches]] is the small size of our basic units, its easy construction, huge variability and easy upscaling to complex networks in cells. Furthermore introduction of an RNA network into ''E. coli'' is especially easy - all informations can be coded on one plasmid. In comparison to protein networks, the elegance of RNA based networks lies in its functionality, simplicity and predictability. Since RNA-RNA interactions are highly predictable and since our system is based on the variation of one principle in many switches, simulations of our networks are much more accurate than those of comparable systems currently available. Incorporation of established Biobricks allows a high diversity of input and output signals providing a whole new level of cell control.
+
-
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
+
-
<!-->
+
-
 
+
-
=Our Objective=
+
-
Putting the implementation described above into pratise, will be a major challenge. For this year's iGEM competition our goal is to do the first step: design and build a switch that can be toggled by a RNA molecule. To be precise, we want to modify a transcription terminator, in such a way, that it interacts with a second RNA molecule and as a result is no longer capable of forming a stem loop. Once the objective mentioned above is accomplished, these basic RNA/RNA-interactions have to be modified in such a manner that the described identity/trigger site pattern for the transmitter and the complementary recognition/target site switch composition has to be established. The most important requirement is to is to optimize these modules that the transmitter is only able to toggle switches specifically, meaning only in the presence of both, identity AND trigger site.  
+
<br>
<br>
Once the objective mentioned above is accomplished, the creation of an OR gate will be rather simple since it only requires two switches. However the creation of an AND or NOT gate and optimizing the logic gates to improve their responds function will remain the goal of future work. Also the creation of small networks and the correct integration of BioBricks as input and output molecules will be future challenges. Furthermore, we wanted to rather focus on the development and the testing of our structural design of the switches, rather than developing a variety of new BioBricks.
Once the objective mentioned above is accomplished, the creation of an OR gate will be rather simple since it only requires two switches. However the creation of an AND or NOT gate and optimizing the logic gates to improve their responds function will remain the goal of future work. Also the creation of small networks and the correct integration of BioBricks as input and output molecules will be future challenges. Furthermore, we wanted to rather focus on the development and the testing of our structural design of the switches, rather than developing a variety of new BioBricks.
 +
==''In silico'' design==
 +
As described above, our switches are based on certain design rules. However, there still are different structural parameters that need to be tested and optimized (length of recognition site and target site, choice of terminator, etc.).
 +
We used [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#in silico design |''in silico'' design]] and [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling| modeling]]) to test different parameters. Furthermore we tried to use the [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Antitermination|antitermination principle]] observed in nature, such as [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Attenuation| attenuation]] in ''E. coli'' or [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Tiny Abortive RNA´s| tiny abortive RNA´s]] of T7-phage.
==Evaluation and Measurements==
==Evaluation and Measurements==
To evaluate the functionality of our molecular switches, we first had to establish several assays. Therefore, we improved an existing [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab#In vivo Measurements |''in vivo'' assay]] and developed an [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab#In vitro Transcription | ''in vitro'' assay]] for this purpose. For more information please refer to the [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab | lab]] section.
To evaluate the functionality of our molecular switches, we first had to establish several assays. Therefore, we improved an existing [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab#In vivo Measurements |''in vivo'' assay]] and developed an [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab#In vitro Transcription | ''in vitro'' assay]] for this purpose. For more information please refer to the [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab | lab]] section.
 +
<br>
 +
<br>
 +
Summarizing, the main challenges are
 +
* to find a suitable terminator construct and design a complementary trigger unit, which is only functional in combination with a specificity site - meaning an optimization of the '''thermodynamically parameters''' (see[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#in silico design| in silico design]])
 +
* to investigate whether the transmitter/switch interaction reaction is on a timescale to be competitive to terminator formation - meaning an comparison of '''kinetic parameters''' (see [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling|Modeling page]])
 +
* to proof antitermination can be also be caused by synthetically RNA-interaction (see [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Antitermination| Antitermination in nature]] and [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#Results| ''in vivo'' and ''in vitro'' measurements]] )
 +
 +
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
=Results=
=Results=
Every network starts with a basic unit. While our declared aim is to enable networks allowing fine-tuning of gene expression beyond the regular on/off, exploring such an on/off switch/signal pair is the first step towards a functional network. We constructed several units and tested their efficiency, robustness and reproducibility ''in vivo'', ''in vitro'' and ''in silico''. Furthermore we developed a software which allows easy constructions of networks based on our designed logic gates. Conclusive elaboration of a few first RNA-based logic units is the major contribution of our iGEM team.
Every network starts with a basic unit. While our declared aim is to enable networks allowing fine-tuning of gene expression beyond the regular on/off, exploring such an on/off switch/signal pair is the first step towards a functional network. We constructed several units and tested their efficiency, robustness and reproducibility ''in vivo'', ''in vitro'' and ''in silico''. Furthermore we developed a software which allows easy constructions of networks based on our designed logic gates. Conclusive elaboration of a few first RNA-based logic units is the major contribution of our iGEM team.
-
==in silico design of switching and trigger unit==
+
==in silico Design of Switching and Trigger Unit==
 +
As described on the [[Team:TU_Munich/Project | project]] page, one key aspect of our switches is the idea, that a [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Transmitter_(bioLOGICS) | RNA transmitter molecule]] is capable to shift the state of a switch only if its [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Trigger_Site_(bioLOGICS) | trigger site]] is present and its [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Identity_Site_(bioLOGICS) | identity site]] corresponds to the [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Recognition_Site_(bioLOGICS) | recognition site]] of the [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Switch_(bioLOGICS) | switch]]. We successfully constructed several switches and their corresponding transmitter RNA ''in silico'' on a thermodynamical basis. We modified different transcriptional terminators in such a way, that the formation of the terminator was prevented by a transmitter molecule. As desired, this only occured if the transmitter molecule contained both, a trigger and an identity site. Analogously, we were able to design and verify a NOT gate using the same thermodynical approach.
 +
 
 +
==Diffusion and RNA Folding Dynamics==
 +
We estimated the diffusion time for our constructs and modeled the folding dynamics of our bioLOGICS switches including the switching process with a stochastic RNA folding program. We were able to provide better insight in their folding dynamics and proved that they are able to interrupt termination. We also optimized the switches and the corresponding signals. Furthermore, we combined the switches what resulted in a logic gate. See our [[Team:TU Munich/Modeling|Modeling page]] for further details.
 +
 
 +
==''in vivo'' Functionality Screening==
 +
Since our logic gates are intended to function in living cells, ''in vivo'' measurements were essential. In a set of experiments we concentrated on two different switches based on known [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Attenuation|attenuators]] from nature: the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|HisTerm]] and [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|TrpTerm]]. Focusing on fluorescent proteins for quantifiable input and output we designed a functional and robust screening system. For greater detail see [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab#Experiment_Design|Experimental Design]]. Unfortunately, setting up a working screening system failed twice. Only in redesigning and improving the screening plasmid pSB1A10 we succeeded, but lost precious time.
 +
 
 +
Ultimately, the two switches displayed remarkable differences in their terminator efficiency, but neither of them responded to their corresponding signal. However, screening one transmitter signal does not disprove the basic working principle of our system. Limited by time, we hope for future teams to take up our work and to use our improved test system that we submitted to the parts registry, for performing successful in vivo measurement.
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
-
===attenuation principle===
+
Considering the high complexity of ''in vivo'' measurements compared to other experimental challenges, a robust and easy to handle test system for [[Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#PoPS-based devices| PoPS-based devices]] is desirable. As described in [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab#Experiment_Design|Experimental design]], we used fluorescent proteins: RFP or mCherry to measure the amount of produced output and eGFP for normalization. Our first attempt, using the screening plasmid pSB1A10, yielded no interpretable results. Switching the fluorescent protein to mCherry did not work either, but after several experimental setups we determined a transcriptional problem causing no reporter protein expression regardless of the inserted part. Thereby we demonstrated the screening plasmid pSB1A10 to be [[Team:TU_Munich/Biobricks#Falsification| malfunctioning]].
-
A random sequence was derived from xxx. A complementary sequence, reaching within the terminator´s stem loop was stepwise shortened to find the length, where the formation of the terminator is thermodynamically favored compared to the strand displacement by the signal. The trigger sequence was defined by selecting the shortest unit which still is able to "destroy" the stem loop. Subsequently, the trigger unit was tested in regard of not being able to resolve the stem loop on its on. As table xxx illustrates, the terminator is thermodynamically favorite toward the trigger unit, but in combination with the specificity site, binding becomes possible.  
+
Finally a new design based on pSB1A10 lead to a functional and robust screening system (compare [[Team:TU_Munich/Parts#Screening system: Backbone BBa_K494001| Screening system: Backbone BBa_K494001]]). A second promoter with identical induction properties inside the BioBrick cloning site enforces transcription of the PoPS-based device and the mCherry output.
-
+
Exemplary, the graph below on the right shows the positive control, induced and uninduced at OD<sub>600</sub>=0.7 followed by 16 h incubation at 25 °C. Clearly visible are eGFP and mCherry fluorescence in the induced samples. The uninduced control showed no fluorescence at all, demonstrating the PBad promoter to be tight and providing very low basal transcription, what is a major advantage for the screening system. This newly designed screening approach renders the characterization of PoPS-based devices in general and switches in particular easy and robust. The low basal transcription furthermore fulfills one of the most important requirements for the designed switches, since output transmitters may only be produced in presence of an input transmitter. This helps to avoid strong "background" noise, which would extremely harden the successful interconnection of several switches.  
-
{|  width=500 align="center" class="bordertable"
+
<br>
-
|- align=center
+
[[Image:TUM2010_PosControlklein.JPG|200px||thumb|left|Bacteria containing positive control]]
-
! element
+
[[Image:TUM2010_graphPosControl1.png|355px|thumb|center|Emission spectra of induced (green/red) and uninduced(black) positive control BBa_K494002 ; green: eGFP fluorescence ex: 501 nm, red: mCherry fluorescence ex: 587 nm]]
-
! free energy [kcal/mol]
+
<br>
-
! ratio of pairing [%]
+
Due to the time limitations of the iGEM completion we had to focus our efforts on few switches after designing the screening system. Relying on the functionality of systems occurring in nature, we choose the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|HisTerm]] as well as the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|TrpTerm]]. Both switches are based on known natural [[https://2010.igem.org/Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Attenuation|attenuators]]. Testing synthetic and none-naturally switchable terminators in vivo are goals for future work.
-
|- align=center
+
Delorme et al. reported the His-Terminator to be a remarkable effective Terminator with more than 99% termination efficiency.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref12|&#91;12&#93;]]</sup> The exemplary measurement below on the right confirms the high terminator efficiency. In fact, we could not detect any mCherry fluorescence in any cells containing the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|HisTerm]]. Even induction of the corresponding signal transmitter RNA via IPTG did not alter the Terminator efficiency. Again time was the limiting factor and prevented us from testing more than one corresponding transmitter, although the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling| Modeling]] highly suggested the necessarily of finding an optimized transmitter length. Thus, the results are insufficient either to prove or to disprove the functionality of the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|HisTerm]] or our concept in general.
-
| toggle switch (terminator secondary structure)
+
<br>
-
| -30.10
+
[[Image:TUM2010_HisSwitchklein.JPG|200px|thumb|left|Bacteria containing HisTerm]][[Image:TUM2010_HisSwitchGraph1.png|355px|thumb|center|Emission spectra of induced and uninduced screening plasmid BBa_K494002 containing HisTerm ; green: eGFP fluorescence ex: 501 nm, red: mCherry fluorescence ex: 587 nm]]
-
| -
+
<br>
-
|- align=center
+
-
| transmitter + toggle switch
+
-
| -72.88
+
-
| 100
+
-
|- align=center
+
-
|  trigger site + target site
+
-
| -24.21
+
-
| 0
+
-
|- align=center
+
-
|  identity site + recognition site
+
-
|
+
-
| 0
+
-
|}
+
-
{|width=100% align=center
+
-
|-
+
-
Toggle switch:''Comparison of free energy for secondary structure formation at 37°C, simulated by using NUPACK analysis.''
+
-
|}
+
-
<br><br>
+
-
{|width=100%
+
-
|[[Image:dotplot_switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based toggle switch simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]
+
-
|[[Image:switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based toggle switch secondary structure, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
+
-
|-
+
-
|[[Image:dotplot_signal+switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based toggle switch in presence of the respective transmitter RNA, simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]  
+
-
|[[Image:signal+switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based toggle switch secondary structure in presence of the respective transmitter RNA, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
+
-
|-
+
-
|[[Image:dotplot_triggerunit+switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based toggle switch in presence of the transmitter RNA´s trigger site only, simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]
+
-
|[[Image:trigger+switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based toggle switch secondary structure in presence of the transmitter RNA´s trigger site only, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
+
-
|-
+
-
|[[Image:dotplot_identity+switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate in presence of the transmitter RNA´s identity site only, simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]
+
-
|[[Image:identity+switch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate secondary structure in presence of the transmitter RNA´s identity site only, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
+
-
|}
+
-
<br><br>
+
-
'''NOT Gate'''
+
-
{| width=500 align=center style="background:#ffffff;" class="bordertable"
+
Attaining only 90% terminator efficiency, the natural Trp [[https://2010.igem.org/Team:TU_Munich/Glossary#Attenuation|Attenuator]] is known be less effective than the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|HisTerm]].<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref13|&#91;13&#93;]]</sup> The graph on the right depicts our designed [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|TrpTerm]] characteristic efficiency of about 40 %, notably below the natural standard. Allowing 60% transcription in the “off” state excludes the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|TrpTerm]] from possible candidates for a scalable network of logic gates, due to the mentioned required "yes or no" function (see [[Team:TU_Munich/Project#Implementation| Implementation and how to connect Biobricks]]). Thus the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|TrpTerm]] is inoperative as intended, but may still be useful in other contexts. Similar to the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|HisTerm]], the [[Team:TU_Munich/Modeling#Switch|TrpTerm]] also did not react to the induction of the corresponding signal. Under circumstances, termination efficiencies altered by the transmitter are on a low range and not resolvable within observed 40% basal transcription.
-
|- align=center style="background:#D8D5D0"
+
<br>
-
! element
+
[[Image:TUM2010_TrpSwitchklein.JPG|200px|thumb|left|Bacteria containing TrpTerm]][[Image:TUM2010_TrpSwitchGraph1.png|355px|thumb|center|Emission spectra of induced and uninduced screening plasmid BBa_K494002 containing TrpTerm ; green: eGFP fluorescence ex: 501 nm, red: mCherry fluorescence ex: 587 nm]]
-
! free energy [kcal/mol]
+
-
! ratio of paaring [%]
+
-
|- align=center
+
-
| toggle switch (NOT-gate secondary structure)
+
-
| -68.18
+
-
|   -
+
-
|- align=center
+
-
| transmitter + switch
+
-
| -98,18
+
-
| 100
+
-
|- align=center
+
-
| trigger unit + target site
+
-
| -
+
-
| 0
+
-
|- align=center
+
-
| identity site + recognition site
+
-
|
+
-
| 0
+
-
|}
+
-
{|width=100% align=center
+
-
|-
+
-
NOT-gate:''Comparison of free energy for secondary structure formation at 37°C, simulated by using NUPACK analysis.''
+
-
|}
+
<br>
<br>
-
{|style="width:100%;"
 
-
|-
 
-
|[[Image:dotplot_NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]
 
-
|[[Image:NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate secondary structure, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
 
-
|-
 
-
|[[Image:dotplot_signal+NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate in presence of the respective transmitter RNA, simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]
 
-
|[[Image:signal+NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate secondary structure in presence of the respective transmitter RNA, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
 
-
|-
 
-
|[[Image:dotplot_triggerunit+NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate in presence of the transmitter RNA´s trigger site only, simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]
 
-
|[[Image:Trigger+NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate secondary structure in presence of the transmitter RNA´s trigger site only, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
 
-
|-
 
-
|[[Image:dotplot_identity+NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Pairing probabilities of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate in presence of the transmitter RNA´s identity site only, simulated by NUPACK secondary structure analysis tool]]
 
-
|[[Image:identity+NOTswitch.png|300px|thumb|center|Illustration of the His-Terminator based NOT-gate secondary structure in presence of the transmitter RNA´s identity site only, generated by NUPACK utility tools]]
 
-
|}
 
-
===tiny abortive principle===
+
Making use of our improved screening system we also carried out some ''in vivo'' kinetic measurements in addition to the end-point measurements above. In contrast to the ''in vitro'' experiments we did not obtain significant results for the characterization of our switches. As the switching process is many times faster than protein synthesis our ''in vivo'' kinetics include the synthesis of mCherry as well as its maturation. Therefore we centered our attention on end-point experiments. For more information browse the [[Team:TU_Munich/Lab#Lab_Book|lab book]]. <br>
-
===ubiquitous terminators===
+
Considering our ''in vivo'' measurements, neither of the tested switches showed any effect regarding the signal induction. But due to the small number of tested switches and signals this can hardly be regarded as disprove of concept. In particular in light of the recent findings by Sooncheol proving antitermination in principle using a T7 system.<sup>[[Team:TU_Munich/Project#ref14|&#91;14&#93;]]</sup>
 +
 
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
-
==Modeling==
+
==''in vitro'' Screening==
-
To read how bioLOGICS switches theoretically should be able to interrupt termination check out the [[Team:TU Munich/Modeling|Modeling page]].
+
To minimize the amount of disturbing factors we decided to countercheck our ''in vivo'' results with a set of ''in vitro'' measurements. While the ''in vitro'' systems are no doubt much less complex than living cells, the work with these set-ups proved to be quite as difficult.
 +
Just as with the ''in vivo'' measurements we could prove our switching system neither right nor wrong, leaving enough work for future iGEM teams.
-
==in vivo functionality screening==
+
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
-
Since our logic gates are intended to function in living cells, in vivo measurements were essential. In a set of experiments we concentrated on two different toggle switches based on known attenuators from nature: the HisTerm and TrpTerm. Focusing on fluorescent proteins for quantifiable input and output we designed a functional and robust screening system. For greater detail see Experimental Design.  Unfortunately, setting up a working screening system failed twice. Only in redesigning and improving the screening plasmid pSB1A10 we succeeded, but lost precious time.
+
===''in vitro translation''===
-
Ultimately, the two switches displayed remarkable differences in their terminator efficiency, but neither of them responded to their corresponding signal. However, screening one transmitter signal cannot disprove our principle system. Limited by time we hope for future teams to take up our work and submit our improved test system to the parts registry.
+
Beside optimization of the reporter proteins in use, the major problem occuring in the experiments was the low capacity of the kit. The signal intensity was very low, which made it difficult to observe any signal intensity alterations, so no conclusion could be drawn from these measurements.
-
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
+
 
-
Considering the high complexity of in vivo measurements compared to other experimental challenges, a robust and easy to handle test system for PoPS-based devices  is desirable. As described under Experimental design, we used fluorescent proteins: eGFP to normalize the input and a RFP or mCherry to measure the output. Our first t attempt, using the screening plasmid pSB1A10 yielded no interpretable results. Switching the fluorescent protein to mCherry did not work either, but after several experimental setups we determined a transcriptional problem causing no reporter protein expression regardless of the inserted part. Thereby we demonstrated the screening plasmid pSB1A10 to be malfunctioning.  
+
===''in vitro'' transcription===
-
Finally a new design based on pSB1A10 lead to a functional and robust screening system. A second promoter with identical induction properties inside the BioBrick cloning site enforces transcription of the PoPS-based device and the mCherry output.
+
We used two completely independent ''in vitro'' systems: Using ''E.coli'' RNA Polymerase we analyzed the His and Trp switches that had already been tested ''in vivo''. In a second set-up, we used the well-established T7 RNA Polymerase and switch based on the T7 terminator as well as several signal sequences.
 +
 
 +
====T7 System====
 +
In contradiction to the results of Kang and coworkers and other groups, in our ''in vitro'' set-up the T7 terminator did not seem to terminate at all. The negative control (Promoter_Terminator_malachite binding aptamer) showed a similar increase in fluorescence as the positive control (Promoter_random sequence_malachite binding aptamer).  
 +
[[Image:TUM2010_T7Result1.png|350px||thumb|left|''in vitro'' transcription measurement of T7 terminator with no signal(upper left), nonsense signal (upper right) and two different designed signals (below)]]
 +
[[Image:TUM2010_T7Result3.png|350px||thumb|right|''in vitro'' transcription measurement of positive control(upper left and T7 terminator with three different designed signals (remaining traces)]]<br>
 +
 
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
Furthermore denaturing Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis (PAGE) confirmed that there was no observeable termination of transcription. The addition of a signaling sequence led to a significantly lower increase in fluorescence, which can be attributed to the fact that both DNA sequences, switch and signal, compete for RNA Polymerases.
 +
However, there is almost no difference between the designed signals and random sequences, which is not a big surprise since there can be no antitermination if the terminator itself does not work.<br>
   
   
-
8posControl8
+
Possible explanations for the contradiction between our results and those of Kang and coworkers might be the experimental set-up and the RNA Polymerases we used. Different variants of T7 RNA Polymerase might respond in different ways to terminator structures, and the termination might be influenced by the presence or absence of cofactors, depending on the purification methods used in producing the Polymerase.<br><br>
-
Exemplary, the graph on the left shows the positive control, induced and uninduced at OD600=0.7 and 16h incubation at 25°C. Clearly visible are eGFP and mCherry fluorescence in the induced samples. The uninduced control showed no fluorescence at all, demonstrating the PBad promoter to be tight and providing no basal transcription. A major advantage for the screening system. This newly designed screening approach renders the characterization of PoPS-based devices in general and toggle switches in particular easy and robust.
+
-
Due to the time limitations of the iGEM completion we had to focus our efforts on few toggle switches after designing the screening system. Since nobody does it better than nature, we choose the HisTerm as well as the TrpTerm. Both switches are based on known natural attenuators.
+
-
8HisTerm8
+
This set-up offers a lot of possible experiments for the future, which we would have loved to conduct with a just a bit more time...
-
Et al. reported the His-Terminator to be a remarkable effective Terminator with almost 99% termination efficancy. The exemplary measurement on the right confirms the high terminator efficiency. In fact, we could not detect any mCherry fluorescence in any cells containing the HisTerm. Even induction of the corresponding signal transmitter RNA via IPTG did not alter the Terminator efficiency. Again time was the limiting factor and prevented us from testing more than one corresponding signal. Thus, the results are insufficient to disprove the functionality of the HisTerm or our concept in general.
+
====''E.coli'' System====
-
8TrpTerm8
+
Compared to the T7 System, the ''E. coli'' RPO system produced poor increases in fluorescence, indicating little RNA synthesis. It was shown that the presence of a terminator decreases, as expected, the production of downstream RNA.<br>
 +
<br>
 +
[[Image:TUM2010_101023kinetik.PNG|350px||thumb|left|''in vitro'' transcription measurement of Switch TrpTerm (upper traces) and positive control (lower traces). Left side: with Trp-signal, right side: no signal]]
 +
[[Image:TUM2010_101022_Kinetik.png|350px||thumb|right|''in vitro'' transcription measurement of positive control (left), Switch TrpTerm (center) and switch HisTerm(right)
 +
<br>
 +
]]<br>
-
Attaining only 90% terminator effiecency, the natural Trp Attenuator is known be less effective than the HisTerm. The graph on the right depicts the to our designed TrpTerm characteristic efficiency of about 40 %, notably below the natural standard. Allowing 60% transcription in the “off” state excludes the TrpTerm from possible candidates for a scalable network of logic gates. Thus the TrpTerm  is inoperative as intended, but may still be useful in other contexts. Similar to the HisTerm, the TrpTerm also did not react to the induction of the corresponding signal.
+
<br>
-
Regarding the in vivo measurements, neither of the tested switches showed any effect regarding the signal induction. But due to the small number of tested switches and signals this can hardly be regarded as disprove of concept. In particular in light of the recent findings by … proving antitermination in principle using a T7 system.
+
-
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
+
This result was also confirmed by denaturing PAGE. However, due to the poor changes in fluorescence we were not able to actually characterize the behaviour of our switches ''in vitro'', and the small RNA concentrations did not allow a quantitative interpretation of our gels.
 +
 
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
[[Image:TUM2010_coliGel.png|500px||thumb|center|denaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of DNaseI digested samples from ''in vitro'' transcription of positive control (16z), Switch TrpTerm (W) and switch HisTerm(H). c marks the lanes in which the DNA was injected, the last three lanes show the undigested samples]]
 +
 
 +
A major problem with this method was the low concentration of the ordered Polymerase resulting in a much weaker overall signal as comparable measurements using the T7 Polymerase. <br><br>
 +
In future experiments we might try to work with smaller volumes in order to reach higher concentration of RPO and of the synthesized RNA molecules, so measuring in 96 well plate readers might be a good choice. 
-
==in vitro screening==
 
-
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}}
 
-
===in vitro translation===
 
-
<!-- von Lab rüber
 
-
Beside optimization of the reporter proteins in use, a major problem occuring in the experiments was the low capacity of the kit. The signal intensity is very low, which made it difficult to observe any signal intensity alterations, so no conclusion could be drawn from these measurements. -->
 
-
===in vitro transcription===
 
-
====malachite green assay====
 
-
====RNA-PAGE====
 
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
{{:Team:TU Munich/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}
==Software==
==Software==
-
To learn how bioLOGCIS theoretically would allow the construction of complex information processing networks check out the [[Team:TU Munich/Software|Software page]].
+
Although we could not show the full functionality of bioLOGICS in the lab we still want to demonstrate the potential of our approach. Hence we implemented the idea behind our logic gates in a program which illustrates how bioLOGCIS theoretically would allow the construction of complex information processing networks interconnecting BioBricks. For further details take a look at our [[Team:TU Munich/Software|Software page]].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
=References=
=References=
Line 301: Line 278:
<html><a name="ref3"></a></html>[3] https://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft
<html><a name="ref3"></a></html>[3] https://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft
<html><a name="ref4"></a></html>[4] https://2008.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg
<html><a name="ref4"></a></html>[4] https://2008.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg
-
<html><a name="ref5"></a></html>[5] Smolke and so on....  
+
<html><a name="ref5"></a></html>[5] Maung Nyan Win and Christina D. Smolke, Science Oct. 2008 Vol. 322. no. 5900, pp. 456 - 460
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate#Symbols
+
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[6] Lu, T.K., A.S. Khalil, and J.J. Collins, Next-generation synthetic gene networks. Nature biotechnology, 2009. 27(12): p. 1139-1150.  
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
+
<html><a name="ref7"></a></html>[7] Schaller, R.R., Moore's law: past, present and future. Spectrum, IEEE, 2002. 34(6): p. 52-59.
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_interaction
+
<html><a name="ref8"></a></html>[8] von Mering, C., et al., Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions. Nature, 2002. 417(6887): p. 399-403.
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riboswitch
+
<html><a name="ref9"></a></html>[9] Mandal, M. and R.R. Breaker, Gene regulation by riboswitches. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 2004. 5(6): p. 451-463.  
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_sites + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_site
+
<html><a name="ref10"></a></html>[10] Benner, S.A. and A.M. Sismour, Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2005. 6(7): p. 533-543.
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[11] irgend ein damn review über directed evolution and so on
+
<html><a name="ref11"></a></html>[11] Beaudry, A. and G. Joyce, Directed evolution of an RNA enzyme. Science, 1992. 257(5070): p. 635-641.
-
<html><a name="ref12"></a></html>[12] C. DELORME, S. D. EHRLICH, AND P. RENAULT, Regulation of Expression of the Lactococcus lactis Histidine Operon. JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY, Apr. 1999, p. 2026–2037
+
<html><a name="ref12"></a></html>[12] Delorme, Ehrlich and Renault, Regulation of Expression of the Lactococcus lactis Histidine Operon. Journal of Bacteriology, Apr. 1999, p. 2026–2037
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[13]  
+
<html><a name="ref13"></a></html>[13] Trun and Trempy(2003): Fundamental Bacterial Genetics, Wiley-Blackwell, Chapter 12
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[14]  
+
<html><a name="ref14"></a></html>[14]Sooncheol Lee, Huong Minh Nguyen and Changwon Kang, Tiny abortive initiation transcripts exert antitermination activity on an RNA hairpin-dependent intrinsic terminator. Nucleic Acids Research, 2010, 1–9
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[15]
+
-
<html><a name="ref6"></a></html>[16]
+
<!-- The idea behind our project is to change the way BioBricks have been used up to now. Over the years, many receptors and signals have been constructed as BioBricks during the annual iGEM competition, but still it is not possible to interconnect these Bricks in a complex biological network resuting in a cell, that is able to respond to its environment giving differenciated responses depending on the input signals. (Beispiel: cambridge hat das gemacht, xx dies, aber eine zelle kann nicht beides...<br>
<!-- The idea behind our project is to change the way BioBricks have been used up to now. Over the years, many receptors and signals have been constructed as BioBricks during the annual iGEM competition, but still it is not possible to interconnect these Bricks in a complex biological network resuting in a cell, that is able to respond to its environment giving differenciated responses depending on the input signals. (Beispiel: cambridge hat das gemacht, xx dies, aber eine zelle kann nicht beides...<br>

Latest revision as of 03:49, 28 October 2010

Navigation:

Home →  Project

iGEM MainPage

Contents

bioLOGICS: Logical RNA-Devices Enabling BioBrick-Network Formation


Vision

Until today, 13.628 biobrick sequences[1] have been submitted to partsregistry, thereof 102 reporter units and 12 signaling bricks. Since then, people are trying to arrange these single biological building blocks in such a manner that allows producing special biotechnological products (metabolic engineering), developing biological sensory circuits (biosensors) and even giving microorganisms the ability to react on multiple environmental factors and serve both as disease indicator and drug. These examples and further promising ideas were implemented on previous iGEM-competitions.[2][3][4]

The idea of combining the outcome of several iGEM competitions to construct complex synthetic biological systems falls at the last hurdle - the fact, that each team uses a different principle how to access and functionally connect the respectively used biobricks. For example, it is a major challenge to create a system that uses several sensoring BioBricks from different iGEM-teams which in turn regulates reportering BioBricks from various teams. In order to combine and fully take advantage of these promising projects, our vision is to develop an adapter that allows interconnecting arbitrary biobricks on a functional level. Such a system easily allows to setup sensor-reporter circuits and interconnect them to complete biological chips... A further step towards artificial cells.

Read more

Generally speaking, the above adapter has to meet the following requirements:

  • Universality
The adapter has to be compatible to as many BioBricks as possible. This objective will guarantee that a large number of BioBricks can be connected.
  • Scalability
Once the basic design of the system is established, the construction of the system is supposed to be automated in silico. This way it will be possible to create an adapter connecting a large amount of BioBricks.
  • Biological orthogonality
Interference with cellular components has to be as low as possible in order to avoid unwanted and perturbing side effects.
  • Logic
The adapter is supposed to not only associate different BioBricks, but to functionally connect BioBricks in a precisely determined manner (including operations such as AND/OR/NOT).


Several biological logic units, devices and circuits have been developed so far[5], but to our knowledge, none was shown to meet all requirements listed above.

Close

Implementation

To functionally connect BioBricks, there are several possibilities including genetic switches, riboswitches and direct protein-protein interactions. We investigated several hypothetically principles, and decided to focus our practical work on the development of a RNA-RNA interaction-based switch. These switches are capable of changing between two states, a state of antitermination and termination, and make use of highly-specific RNA-RNA interaction. In principle such a switch can fulfill all requirements mentioned previously. The following text clarifies how these switches work in detail.

How to connect BioBricks

Our adapter is a system, that activates or disables BioBricks (output BioBricks) in response to the presence of other Biobricks (input Biobricks). Our approach uses a molecular network to put this into practice and consists of four major elements:

Read more


The general principle how different inputs can be connect to various outputs. For details see text.
Inputs (such as proteins or small molecules) are indicated on the left side. blue lines represent transmitter molecules whereas organe lines present logic gates. The type of logic gate is indicated. Green lines indicate transmitter RNA that can function as mRNA and consequently generate any output gene (indicated on the very right).

In order to connect different BioBricks, our network requires four major types of components:

  • Input elements
  • Transmitter molecules
  • Logic gates
  • Output elements

Computer vs. molecular network - and our approach
Logic gates in a molecular network are often compared to transistors used in a computer, where billions of transistors are incorporated[7]. The main advantage on a computer chip is, all transistors share the same functional principle, and only the way connecting them in a special sequence allows specific addressing of only a subset of other transistors by an input. However, spatially fixed connections of molecular logic gates are not possible in a living cell. The "wiring" within a cell relies on the specific interaction between transmitter molecule and their corresponding logic gates, for example implemented by protein-protein/ligand-protein interactions or specific ligand-riboswitch interactions.[8][9] As a result, in a cell, each occurring logic gate ("transistor") has to be different, at least in a special recognition site[10] - for example like different transcription factors, recognizing different DNA-sites. Thanks to evolution, nature easily can invent a new transistor for each task - science achieves this only on a limited scale, and producing synthetic molecular logic gates artificially by either rational or evolutionary protein or riboswitch engineering, is limited to small circuits so far[11]. Our project aims to establish a molecular switch as close as possible to a electronic transistor, thus sharing the same functional principle for all logic gates. At the same time, we want to design a easily exchangeable recognition site, which can individually be designed by everyone!

These elements can be combined to build up a molecular network (see illustration). Each input molecule (such as a BioBrick) produces a unique transmitter molecule. All transmitters belong to the same type of molecule and share a common design. However, each transmitter molecule can only interact and activate a certain subset of logic gates. In other words, logic gates have to recognize as well as bind the corresponding transmitter molecules and are capable of producing a new output transmitter molecule. Depending on the type of the logic gate (AND, OR or NOT[6]), an output transmitter is only created if both input transmitter molecules are present (AND), at least one of two input transmitters is present (OR) or if no input transmitter is present at all (NOT). Once a logic gate has produced a new output transmitter, these transmitters can in turn address another subset ("layer") of logic gates. In theory many layers of logic gates can be connected this way allowing the creation of large networks. Until this step, various transmitter molecules might have been produced. But in order to create a Biobrick output, the last layer of logic gates finally generates transmitter molecules that will not active logic gates, but will rather interact with the cell metabolism to produce a BioBrick response. In other words, the last layer of transmitter molecules is capable of regulating BioBrick formation.


Summarizing, the network establishes a connection between input BioBricks and output BioBricks in a functional manner. Having addressed the basic layout of the molecular network, the next step is to determine what type of molecules can perform the required functions. We decided to use RNA, both as transmitter molecules and for constructing logic gates. Several advantages result from the utilization of RNA as the central element:

  • During the last years, many Biobricks were designed that are sensitive to various chemicals and substances. These BioBricks often function as a transcription factor that binds to a specific DNA sequence and consequently would be capable to produce a specific transmitter RNA molecule. Thus, in principle each BioBrick which involves transcription can be integrated in our network.
  • Since all logic gates are capable of producing transmitter RNA, they can also produce functional mRNA encoding any protein. This means, each BioBrick consisting of protein or RNA can be produced as an output of our network.
  • If RNA forms both, the transmitter molecule and the logic gates, they can specifically interact by RNA-RNA interaction, which is highly predictable compared to protein interactions. This allows to generate a library of transmitters and gates in silico. Such a library is essential for the creation of large networks.
  • RNA production is fast and energy saving for a cell. Consequently, operating a network that only produces RNA rather than proteins will also be faster and more efficient for the host cell. Since our logic gates are based on transcription, translation and resource consuming protein production will only be required at the very last step.
  • As the half-time of RNA can be rather short, transmitter RNA will not accumulate within the cell and it is therefore less likely for the system to become saturated.

Close

Design and functional principle of logic gates

The concept introduced above provides a framework that can potentially serve as an universal adapter between different BioBricks. However, the logic gates have not been specified more precisely so far. This will be done in the following section.

Read more

Generally speaking, our logic gates are to possess the following characteristics:

  • Logic gates, such as AND, OR and NOT, have to be implemented by RNA-interaction based principles (see How to connect BioBricks).
  • All logic gates have to recognize their corresponding transmitter RNAs and, in response, produce an output transmitter molecule.
  • Logic gates should follow a basic design rule, in such a way, that their creation can be automated in silico.
  • The response efficiency of a logic gate toward a transmitter molecule should be comparable for all logic gates to provide calculable robustness and sensitivity. This will ensure comparable molecular concentrations and functionality of large networks.
  • The system has to be designed for in vivo utilization at the first place. As a reference we always assumed a temperature of 37 °C and an E. coli environment.

Close

In order to build logic gates for our bioLOGICS system we will first create a simple switch. A switch can be activated by one transmitter RNA and produce an output transmitter RNA. In contrast to a logic gate, a switch does not perform logic operations. However by combining switches, logic gates can be created. The following text will first describe how the developed switch works and secondly, how logic gates such as AND/OR/NOT can be created using these switches.

Read more

A The basic structure of a bioLOGICS switch (left) and a transmitter molecule (right).
BThe process of switching. See the text in the close-by "Read more" section for details.
Rectangles present the composition of our functional units on the level of DNA. Fringed lines represent RNA produced by RNA polymerase. The stem loop structure depicts the switchable terminator. Terminator and target site are illustrated in blue and turquoise, respectively. Recognition sites are indicated in different colors, in this case red for the input transmitter and green for the output transmitter.Each switch and or later logical unit has to be flanked by a promotor and another constitutive terminator, to allow RNA-production by RNA-polymerase in a proper way.

Switch

The basic strcutrue of a switch (left) and a transmitter RNA (right). See text for details.

Roughly speaking, a switch can be regarded as an enhanced switchable transcriptional terminator. The enhancement can be described easier by dividing a switch into its functional components:

  • Target site
The target site is the functional core element of our switches, allowing a shift between an "on" and "off" state. Since we work on the level of RNA-production (transcription), a "switchable" transcriptional terminator is suitable for this purpose. By allowing or preventing formation of a transcriptional terminator, that is by switching between termination and antitermination it is possible to represent an "off" and an "on" state, respectively. Therefore, the target site is the 5' ending of the terminator and is required for a stable terminator formation. It should be noted that this principle was also observed in nature.
To highlight and illustrate the functional principle of our switches, only the part of the terminator which is involved in interacting with a transmitter molecule and which is responsible for shifting between "on" and "off" state is called target site. The remaining terminator sequence is called terminator in the following, even if both, target site and terminator build up the terminator structure occurring in nature.
The important aspect of our switches is the fact that all switches will hold the same identical target site. Therefore having found one functional "switchable" terminator, will allow almost unlimited upscaling since this terminator can be used for a large library of switches. This is the main difference to previous works done on this field, which always required developing a new shifting principle for each switch.[12][13][14] Beside this scalability, this principle provides a comparable on/off shifting rate (responds function) for all switches, avoiding complex fine tuning of molecular networks.
To sum it up, the target site, allows to switch between an "on" and "off" state. But so far, the switch is not capable of performing specific interaction with transmitter molecules. This is where the recognition site comes into play.
  • Recognition site
The recognition site defines which transmitter molecule can actually interact with the switch. Therefore, a unique recognition site is generated for each switch and is positioned right upstream of the target site. In principle the recognition can be any random sequence as long as it remains unique within the molecular network.

Summing up, the recognition site allows a specific interaction between switches and transmitter molecules. Once this interaction is formed, an interaction between the transmitter and the target will actually switch the state of the terminator. This allows the specific arrangement and interconnection of numerous of these switches by transmitter molecules, without changing the target site. Comparable to wires connecting many identical transistors, our target site remains the same.

Transmitter RNA´s

As desccribed above, transmitter RNAs are the input and output of bioLOGICS switches (compare How to connect BioBricks). These transmitters are short ssRNA molecules representing the "trigger" to shift switches between the "on" and "off" state. To fulfill this role, they need to posses the following properties:

  • A transmitter may only interact with certain switches. That is, a transmitter has to find the corresponding recognition site of a switch.
  • Once an interaction is established between a transmitter and a switch, a transmitter has to be capable of changing the secondary structure of a terminator and thus cause antitermination.

Again, these two properties are fulfilled by two components of the transmitter:

  • Identity site
This site is capable of forcing an interaction between the transmitter and the switch. Therefore it is complementary to the recognition site of this switch. As the recognition site is unique within a network, so is the identity site. However, the single identity site is not capable of changing the state of the switch. That is were the trigger site comes into play.
  • Trigger site
Once an interaction is created by the identity site, the trigger site is capable of actually shifting the switch since it is complementary to the target site of the switch. To fulfill this role, it is placed upstream at the 5' end of the identity site. As the target site is the same for all switches, the trigger site is the same for all signals. Therefore it is important, that similar to the identity site, a trigger site cannot function on its own. That is, a single trigger site cannot shift the state of a switch without the help of an identity site.

Summing up, we applied the principle introduced for the switches to the transmitter molecules. In contrast to previous approaches on this field [12], we introduced the described synthetic trigger site in such a manner that it is not able to change the state of the terminator on its own, but only in combination with the identity site. So the challenge is to arrange and optimize these elementary building blocks thermodynamically, that a trigger site is only able to switch in combination with its respective identity site. This was done by in silico design using NUPACK, presented in section in silico design.


Putting it all together: the switching process

The basic structure of a switch (left) and a transmitter RNA (right). See text for details.
The functional principle of the designed switches is illustrated in the figure. The switch is positioned on DNA upstream of a desired output transmitter. So in the absence of a triggering transmitter molecule, transcription will be canceled by the formation of a RNA stem loop in the nascent RNA-chain. This will cause the RNA polymerase to stop transcription and fall off the DNA and consequently no output RNA will be produced. This process only relies on rho-independent termination.

On the other hand, in the presence of a input transmitter, this small functional RNA inhibits the stem loop formation by complementary base-pairing and hence avoids termination of transcription. In detail, the identity site (red part on transmitter) binds the recognition site (red part on switch) and serves as toehold, which will thermodynamically allow the trigger site (turquoise part on transmitter) to perform a strand displacement and open up the stem loop structure. Consequently the polymerase can read all the way through and form the output RNA.
Summing up, we use this concept to create a switch that can be toggled by a transmitter RNA molecule and in response, is able to produce another transmitter RNA.


From switches towards bioLOGICS logic gates

As described, each switch can be accessed by a specific RNA-transmitter molecule, representing the input. In turn, another RNA-transmitter molecule will be produced if the switch shifts its state. This output transmitter of one switch can serve as input transmitter for the next switch by meaningful selection and design of the respective recognition sites. This easily allows arranging several switches in specific sequences and faulty wiring - the corner stone of a logical network.
To ease the building of logical networks we want to create a switch capable of Boolean logics, a common mathematical principle fundamental for computational science. Since AND/OR/NOT are basic logic operations which can be implemented with the presented switches, all remaining operations (such as XOR, NAND, ...) can be expressed by these three operators according to laws of boolean logics. Creating logic gates is achieved by combining two switches in two different ways, as illustrated below.

  • AND gate
An AND gate can be constrcuted by positioning two switches right next to each other. For the output transmitter to be created, both input transmitter have to be present.
Combining two switches in series creates a logic AND gate.
  • OR gate
An OR gate is created by utilizing two independent switches sharing the same output transmitter. If each one of both switches is activated, an output transmitter is generated. Therefore, one input transmitter is enough to produce an output transmitter.
Combining two switches in parallel creates a logic OR gate.


  • NOT gate
A NOT gate is supposed to function as an inverter. In contrast to the gates described above, a not gate requires only one sitch. However, to meet the design rule for transmitter molecules, this switch shows some differences compared to the switches used for AND and OR gates.
Since the transcriptional terminator may not form if no transmitter is present. Consequently, the switch needs an internal trigger site, capable of preventing terminator formation. To allow the binding of an input transmitter molecule, the switch contains a recognition site upstream of a second target site. The additional target site is mandatory since all transmitter molecules have to carry a trigger. In the case of the NOT switch this trigger site may not bind the actual target site within the transcriptional terminator. In other words, a second target site further upstream is required to catch the trigger site of the transmitter molecule. At the same time, the identity site of the transmitter may not bind right upstream of the terminator. This is accomplished by placing an other identity site right upstream of the terminator rather than an recognition site (compare switches used for AND or OR gate). Due to these two difference, the input transmitter is forced to bind further upstream to the recognition site, displacing the internal trigger site of the switch. This will allow the RNA polymerase to read through an create the output transmitter.
Structure and switching process of a NOT gate.

Close

Network construction

Designing complex biological networks based on either traditional protein engineering or our new bioLOGICS is still a complex task. As described above our bioLOGICS design allows the creation and precise connection of logic gates. To illustrate how a bioLOGICS network is put together we developed a software allowing the fast construction of a custom-made network.
To read more about this, take a look at our software page

Our Objective

Putting the implementation described above into practice, will be a major challenge. For this year's iGEM competition our goal is to do the first step: design and build a switch that can be toggled by a RNA molecule. To be precise, we want to apply the design rules of our switch to modify a transcription terminator in such a way that it interacts with a second RNA molecule and, as a result, is no longer capable of forming a stem loop. This objective will require intensive in silico designing and modeling of switches based on different terminators and their corresponding transmitters. In connection to this theoretical part, we also have to test and verify the switches. For this step, we establish custom-made assays, in vitro and in vivo.

Read more

Once the objective mentioned above is accomplished, these basic RNA/RNA-interactions have to be modified in such a manner that the described identity/trigger site pattern for the transmitter and the complementary recognition/target site switch composition has to be established. The most important requirement is to is to optimize these modules that the transmitter is only able to switches specifically, meaning only in the presence of both, identity AND trigger site.
Once the objective mentioned above is accomplished, the creation of an OR gate will be rather simple since it only requires two switches. However the creation of an AND or NOT gate and optimizing the logic gates to improve their responds function will remain the goal of future work. Also the creation of small networks and the correct integration of BioBricks as input and output molecules will be future challenges. Furthermore, we wanted to rather focus on the development and the testing of our structural design of the switches, rather than developing a variety of new BioBricks.

In silico design

As described above, our switches are based on certain design rules. However, there still are different structural parameters that need to be tested and optimized (length of recognition site and target site, choice of terminator, etc.). We used in silico design and modeling) to test different parameters. Furthermore we tried to use the antitermination principle observed in nature, such as attenuation in E. coli or tiny abortive RNA´s of T7-phage.

Evaluation and Measurements

To evaluate the functionality of our molecular switches, we first had to establish several assays. Therefore, we improved an existing in vivo assay and developed an in vitro assay for this purpose. For more information please refer to the lab section.

Summarizing, the main challenges are

  • to find a suitable terminator construct and design a complementary trigger unit, which is only functional in combination with a specificity site - meaning an optimization of the thermodynamically parameters (see in silico design)
  • to investigate whether the transmitter/switch interaction reaction is on a timescale to be competitive to terminator formation - meaning an comparison of kinetic parameters (see Modeling page)
  • to proof antitermination can be also be caused by synthetically RNA-interaction (see Antitermination in nature and in vivo and in vitro measurements )

Close

Results

Every network starts with a basic unit. While our declared aim is to enable networks allowing fine-tuning of gene expression beyond the regular on/off, exploring such an on/off switch/signal pair is the first step towards a functional network. We constructed several units and tested their efficiency, robustness and reproducibility in vivo, in vitro and in silico. Furthermore we developed a software which allows easy constructions of networks based on our designed logic gates. Conclusive elaboration of a few first RNA-based logic units is the major contribution of our iGEM team.

in silico Design of Switching and Trigger Unit

As described on the project page, one key aspect of our switches is the idea, that a RNA transmitter molecule is capable to shift the state of a switch only if its trigger site is present and its identity site corresponds to the recognition site of the switch. We successfully constructed several switches and their corresponding transmitter RNA in silico on a thermodynamical basis. We modified different transcriptional terminators in such a way, that the formation of the terminator was prevented by a transmitter molecule. As desired, this only occured if the transmitter molecule contained both, a trigger and an identity site. Analogously, we were able to design and verify a NOT gate using the same thermodynical approach.

Diffusion and RNA Folding Dynamics

We estimated the diffusion time for our constructs and modeled the folding dynamics of our bioLOGICS switches including the switching process with a stochastic RNA folding program. We were able to provide better insight in their folding dynamics and proved that they are able to interrupt termination. We also optimized the switches and the corresponding signals. Furthermore, we combined the switches what resulted in a logic gate. See our Modeling page for further details.

in vivo Functionality Screening

Since our logic gates are intended to function in living cells, in vivo measurements were essential. In a set of experiments we concentrated on two different switches based on known attenuators from nature: the HisTerm and TrpTerm. Focusing on fluorescent proteins for quantifiable input and output we designed a functional and robust screening system. For greater detail see Experimental Design. Unfortunately, setting up a working screening system failed twice. Only in redesigning and improving the screening plasmid pSB1A10 we succeeded, but lost precious time.

Ultimately, the two switches displayed remarkable differences in their terminator efficiency, but neither of them responded to their corresponding signal. However, screening one transmitter signal does not disprove the basic working principle of our system. Limited by time, we hope for future teams to take up our work and to use our improved test system that we submitted to the parts registry, for performing successful in vivo measurement.

Read more

Considering the high complexity of in vivo measurements compared to other experimental challenges, a robust and easy to handle test system for PoPS-based devices is desirable. As described in Experimental design, we used fluorescent proteins: RFP or mCherry to measure the amount of produced output and eGFP for normalization. Our first attempt, using the screening plasmid pSB1A10, yielded no interpretable results. Switching the fluorescent protein to mCherry did not work either, but after several experimental setups we determined a transcriptional problem causing no reporter protein expression regardless of the inserted part. Thereby we demonstrated the screening plasmid pSB1A10 to be malfunctioning. Finally a new design based on pSB1A10 lead to a functional and robust screening system (compare Screening system: Backbone BBa_K494001). A second promoter with identical induction properties inside the BioBrick cloning site enforces transcription of the PoPS-based device and the mCherry output.

Exemplary, the graph below on the right shows the positive control, induced and uninduced at OD600=0.7 followed by 16 h incubation at 25 °C. Clearly visible are eGFP and mCherry fluorescence in the induced samples. The uninduced control showed no fluorescence at all, demonstrating the PBad promoter to be tight and providing very low basal transcription, what is a major advantage for the screening system. This newly designed screening approach renders the characterization of PoPS-based devices in general and switches in particular easy and robust. The low basal transcription furthermore fulfills one of the most important requirements for the designed switches, since output transmitters may only be produced in presence of an input transmitter. This helps to avoid strong "background" noise, which would extremely harden the successful interconnection of several switches.

Bacteria containing positive control
Emission spectra of induced (green/red) and uninduced(black) positive control BBa_K494002 ; green: eGFP fluorescence ex: 501 nm, red: mCherry fluorescence ex: 587 nm


Due to the time limitations of the iGEM completion we had to focus our efforts on few switches after designing the screening system. Relying on the functionality of systems occurring in nature, we choose the HisTerm as well as the TrpTerm. Both switches are based on known natural [[1]]. Testing synthetic and none-naturally switchable terminators in vivo are goals for future work. Delorme et al. reported the His-Terminator to be a remarkable effective Terminator with more than 99% termination efficiency.[12] The exemplary measurement below on the right confirms the high terminator efficiency. In fact, we could not detect any mCherry fluorescence in any cells containing the HisTerm. Even induction of the corresponding signal transmitter RNA via IPTG did not alter the Terminator efficiency. Again time was the limiting factor and prevented us from testing more than one corresponding transmitter, although the Modeling highly suggested the necessarily of finding an optimized transmitter length. Thus, the results are insufficient either to prove or to disprove the functionality of the HisTerm or our concept in general.

Bacteria containing HisTerm
Emission spectra of induced and uninduced screening plasmid BBa_K494002 containing HisTerm ; green: eGFP fluorescence ex: 501 nm, red: mCherry fluorescence ex: 587 nm


Attaining only 90% terminator efficiency, the natural Trp [[2]] is known be less effective than the HisTerm.[13] The graph on the right depicts our designed TrpTerm characteristic efficiency of about 40 %, notably below the natural standard. Allowing 60% transcription in the “off” state excludes the TrpTerm from possible candidates for a scalable network of logic gates, due to the mentioned required "yes or no" function (see Implementation and how to connect Biobricks). Thus the TrpTerm is inoperative as intended, but may still be useful in other contexts. Similar to the HisTerm, the TrpTerm also did not react to the induction of the corresponding signal. Under circumstances, termination efficiencies altered by the transmitter are on a low range and not resolvable within observed 40% basal transcription.

Bacteria containing TrpTerm
Emission spectra of induced and uninduced screening plasmid BBa_K494002 containing TrpTerm ; green: eGFP fluorescence ex: 501 nm, red: mCherry fluorescence ex: 587 nm


Making use of our improved screening system we also carried out some in vivo kinetic measurements in addition to the end-point measurements above. In contrast to the in vitro experiments we did not obtain significant results for the characterization of our switches. As the switching process is many times faster than protein synthesis our in vivo kinetics include the synthesis of mCherry as well as its maturation. Therefore we centered our attention on end-point experiments. For more information browse the lab book.
Considering our in vivo measurements, neither of the tested switches showed any effect regarding the signal induction. But due to the small number of tested switches and signals this can hardly be regarded as disprove of concept. In particular in light of the recent findings by Sooncheol proving antitermination in principle using a T7 system.[14]

Close

in vitro Screening

To minimize the amount of disturbing factors we decided to countercheck our in vivo results with a set of in vitro measurements. While the in vitro systems are no doubt much less complex than living cells, the work with these set-ups proved to be quite as difficult. Just as with the in vivo measurements we could prove our switching system neither right nor wrong, leaving enough work for future iGEM teams.

Read more

in vitro translation

Beside optimization of the reporter proteins in use, the major problem occuring in the experiments was the low capacity of the kit. The signal intensity was very low, which made it difficult to observe any signal intensity alterations, so no conclusion could be drawn from these measurements.

in vitro transcription

We used two completely independent in vitro systems: Using E.coli RNA Polymerase we analyzed the His and Trp switches that had already been tested in vivo. In a second set-up, we used the well-established T7 RNA Polymerase and switch based on the T7 terminator as well as several signal sequences.

T7 System

In contradiction to the results of Kang and coworkers and other groups, in our in vitro set-up the T7 terminator did not seem to terminate at all. The negative control (Promoter_Terminator_malachite binding aptamer) showed a similar increase in fluorescence as the positive control (Promoter_random sequence_malachite binding aptamer).

in vitro transcription measurement of T7 terminator with no signal(upper left), nonsense signal (upper right) and two different designed signals (below)
in vitro transcription measurement of positive control(upper left and T7 terminator with three different designed signals (remaining traces)


Furthermore denaturing Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis (PAGE) confirmed that there was no observeable termination of transcription. The addition of a signaling sequence led to a significantly lower increase in fluorescence, which can be attributed to the fact that both DNA sequences, switch and signal, compete for RNA Polymerases. However, there is almost no difference between the designed signals and random sequences, which is not a big surprise since there can be no antitermination if the terminator itself does not work.

Possible explanations for the contradiction between our results and those of Kang and coworkers might be the experimental set-up and the RNA Polymerases we used. Different variants of T7 RNA Polymerase might respond in different ways to terminator structures, and the termination might be influenced by the presence or absence of cofactors, depending on the purification methods used in producing the Polymerase.

This set-up offers a lot of possible experiments for the future, which we would have loved to conduct with a just a bit more time...

E.coli System

Compared to the T7 System, the E. coli RPO system produced poor increases in fluorescence, indicating little RNA synthesis. It was shown that the presence of a terminator decreases, as expected, the production of downstream RNA.

in vitro transcription measurement of Switch TrpTerm (upper traces) and positive control (lower traces). Left side: with Trp-signal, right side: no signal
in vitro transcription measurement of positive control (left), Switch TrpTerm (center) and switch HisTerm(right)


This result was also confirmed by denaturing PAGE. However, due to the poor changes in fluorescence we were not able to actually characterize the behaviour of our switches in vitro, and the small RNA concentrations did not allow a quantitative interpretation of our gels.


denaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of DNaseI digested samples from in vitro transcription of positive control (16z), Switch TrpTerm (W) and switch HisTerm(H). c marks the lanes in which the DNA was injected, the last three lanes show the undigested samples

A major problem with this method was the low concentration of the ordered Polymerase resulting in a much weaker overall signal as comparable measurements using the T7 Polymerase.

In future experiments we might try to work with smaller volumes in order to reach higher concentration of RPO and of the synthesized RNA molecules, so measuring in 96 well plate readers might be a good choice.


Close

Software

Although we could not show the full functionality of bioLOGICS in the lab we still want to demonstrate the potential of our approach. Hence we implemented the idea behind our logic gates in a program which illustrates how bioLOGCIS theoretically would allow the construction of complex information processing networks interconnecting BioBricks. For further details take a look at our Software page.



References

[1] http://partsregistry.org/cgi/partsdb/Statistics.cgi [2] https://2009.igem.org/Team:Imperial_College_London/M1 encapsulation [3] https://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft [4] https://2008.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg [5] Maung Nyan Win and Christina D. Smolke, Science Oct. 2008 Vol. 322. no. 5900, pp. 456 - 460 [6] Lu, T.K., A.S. Khalil, and J.J. Collins, Next-generation synthetic gene networks. Nature biotechnology, 2009. 27(12): p. 1139-1150. [7] Schaller, R.R., Moore's law: past, present and future. Spectrum, IEEE, 2002. 34(6): p. 52-59. [8] von Mering, C., et al., Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions. Nature, 2002. 417(6887): p. 399-403. [9] Mandal, M. and R.R. Breaker, Gene regulation by riboswitches. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 2004. 5(6): p. 451-463. [10] Benner, S.A. and A.M. Sismour, Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2005. 6(7): p. 533-543. [11] Beaudry, A. and G. Joyce, Directed evolution of an RNA enzyme. Science, 1992. 257(5070): p. 635-641. [12] Delorme, Ehrlich and Renault, Regulation of Expression of the Lactococcus lactis Histidine Operon. Journal of Bacteriology, Apr. 1999, p. 2026–2037 [13] Trun and Trempy(2003): Fundamental Bacterial Genetics, Wiley-Blackwell, Chapter 12 [14]Sooncheol Lee, Huong Minh Nguyen and Changwon Kang, Tiny abortive initiation transcripts exert antitermination activity on an RNA hairpin-dependent intrinsic terminator. Nucleic Acids Research, 2010, 1–9