Team:Heidelberg/Project/miMeasure
From 2010.igem.org
(→Analysis of mutated/ randomized binding sites) |
(→Analysis of mutated/ randomized binding sites) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
We used microscopy analysis to determine the EGFP expression in relation to EBFP2. EBFP2 serves as a normalization for transfection efficiency. Nine miMeasure constructs with different binding sites were designed. The binding sites are either mutated on one site, or they contain randomly changed sites within a certain range. The construct representing the 100% knock-down is the perfect binding site, which is complemetary to the synthetic miRNA miRsAg. The negative control represents 0% knock-down, since there is no binding site in this miMeasure construct. M12 contains the perfect binding site. The GFP/BFP-ratio stand for the level of GFP-expression normalized to one copy per cell. When we compare the GFP/BFP-ratio between the different constructs, there is a significant difference of GFP expression in the control (miMeasure without binding site) and the construct with the perfect binding site for the cotransfected synthetic miRNA. The modified binding sites don't supress GFP-expression as strong as the perfect one. So GFP expression is just in between, except for M20 and M22. | We used microscopy analysis to determine the EGFP expression in relation to EBFP2. EBFP2 serves as a normalization for transfection efficiency. Nine miMeasure constructs with different binding sites were designed. The binding sites are either mutated on one site, or they contain randomly changed sites within a certain range. The construct representing the 100% knock-down is the perfect binding site, which is complemetary to the synthetic miRNA miRsAg. The negative control represents 0% knock-down, since there is no binding site in this miMeasure construct. M12 contains the perfect binding site. The GFP/BFP-ratio stand for the level of GFP-expression normalized to one copy per cell. When we compare the GFP/BFP-ratio between the different constructs, there is a significant difference of GFP expression in the control (miMeasure without binding site) and the construct with the perfect binding site for the cotransfected synthetic miRNA. The modified binding sites don't supress GFP-expression as strong as the perfect one. So GFP expression is just in between, except for M20 and M22. | ||
- | + | Only the nucleotide 9 is mutated in M20. The change doesn't disturb the knock-down efficiency. Thus down-regulation of GFP is of similar extent as M12, which contains the perfect binding site. The seed region is altered in M22. Since the seed region is considered the most important site for knock-down efficiency, the its change diminishes the knock-down capability of the binding site completely. So the GFP expression in this case is as high as the negative control, where no binding site was inserted into the miMeasure plasmid. | |
Revision as of 22:03, 26 October 2010
|
|
||