"
Team:Stockholm/Results/Assemblies
From 2010.igem.org
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
===Cloning strategies=== | ===Cloning strategies=== | ||
| - | ==== | + | ====IdeS·PtA-Z fusion protein==== |
| + | Information here. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====CPP fusions==== | ||
| + | As described in our project introduction, one of our aims was to target proteins to keratinocytes and melanocytes in human skin using cell-penetrating peptides. As we didn't know which of (or if) our CPPs would be most efficient in protein delivery, we set out to test all three in parallel. | ||
| + | |||
| + | At least two of our CPPs (LMWP and Tp10) have not previously been tested using recombinant technique, i.e. in protein fusions. Although these have been shown to successfully deliver protein cargo into cells and/or skin, these proteins have been chemically conjugated to the CPPs, [[Image:PEX.his protein CPP.png|200px|thumb|right|'''Cloning strategy for proteins fused to CPPs''']] | ||
| + | [[Image:PEX.nCPP_protein_his.png|200px|thumb|right|'''Cloning strategy for proteins fused to N-part CPPs''']]usually to amino acid side chains. We were therefore unsure as to whether membrane and skin penetration would be most effective when fusing the CPPs to our proteins' N- or C-termini; we also discussed that this may possibly vary for different proteins, as different cargo properties may interact and possibly disturb our CPPs. In relation to this, we also discussed the probability of the CPPs disturbing the enzymatic activity of our fused cargo proteins, and whether this risk would differ depending on to which side of the protein (N- or C-terminus) the CPP is fused. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As time is very limited in the iGEM competition, and as we would not be able to test fusion to one side at the time, we decided to fuse the CPPs to both sides of our proteins, and draw our own conclusions by investigating both CPP and protein activity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Another factor we took into consideration was the additional amino acids added to parts adapted to the [[http://partsregistry.org/Assembly_standard_25 Freiburg assembly standard]]. Due to the small size of our CPPs (11-21 a.a.) we thought that even a very small variation to the amino acid sequence could affect their function. For our N-terminal protein fusions we therefore designed N-part versions of our CPPs, which prevents the addition of the two extra amino acids in the CPP N-terminal (Ala & Gly) by removing the standard-specific NgoMIV restriction site. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Finally, we also attached a 6x His tag to each one of our protein fusions to enable antibody detection and protein purification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The figures to the right illustrate the cloning strategy for our CPP·protein fusions, and insertion into the IPTG-inducible protein expression pEX ([http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K243033 BBa_K243033]). Tables below show an overview of our many CPP·protein fusion combinations. | ||
{|border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" | {|border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" | ||
| Line 26: | Line 41: | ||
[[Image:LMWP_BioBrick.png|175px]]<br /><br /> | [[Image:LMWP_BioBrick.png|175px]]<br /><br /> | ||
[[Image:Tp10_BioBrick.png|180px]] | [[Image:Tp10_BioBrick.png|180px]] | ||
| - | | | + | |} |
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {|border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" | ||
!colspan="3"|N-terminal CPP fusions | !colspan="3"|N-terminal CPP fusions | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 40: | Line 58: | ||
[[Image:IdeS_BioBrick.png|380px]]<br /> | [[Image:IdeS_BioBrick.png|380px]]<br /> | ||
[[Image:ProteinA_BioBrick.png|215px]]<br /> | [[Image:ProteinA_BioBrick.png|215px]]<br /> | ||
| - | |width=" | + | |width="170" align="center"|<br /><br /><br />[[Image:His-tag_BioBrick.png|145px]] |
|} | |} | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
|} | |} | ||
{{Stockholm/Footer}} | {{Stockholm/Footer}} | ||
Revision as of 13:23, 27 October 2010
| Home | Project Idea | Lab Work | Results | Modelling | Team | Follow us on  and 
| 2010.igem.org 
|
AssembliesCloning strategiesIdeS·PtA-Z fusion proteinInformation here. CPP fusionsAs described in our project introduction, one of our aims was to target proteins to keratinocytes and melanocytes in human skin using cell-penetrating peptides. As we didn't know which of (or if) our CPPs would be most efficient in protein delivery, we set out to test all three in parallel. At least two of our CPPs (LMWP and Tp10) have not previously been tested using recombinant technique, i.e. in protein fusions. Although these have been shown to successfully deliver protein cargo into cells and/or skin, these proteins have been chemically conjugated to the CPPs,  As time is very limited in the iGEM competition, and as we would not be able to test fusion to one side at the time, we decided to fuse the CPPs to both sides of our proteins, and draw our own conclusions by investigating both CPP and protein activity. Another factor we took into consideration was the additional amino acids added to parts adapted to the http://partsregistry.org/Assembly_standard_25 Freiburg assembly standard. Due to the small size of our CPPs (11-21 a.a.) we thought that even a very small variation to the amino acid sequence could affect their function. For our N-terminal protein fusions we therefore designed N-part versions of our CPPs, which prevents the addition of the two extra amino acids in the CPP N-terminal (Ala & Gly) by removing the standard-specific NgoMIV restriction site. Finally, we also attached a 6x His tag to each one of our protein fusions to enable antibody detection and protein purification. The figures to the right illustrate the cloning strategy for our CPP·protein fusions, and insertion into the IPTG-inducible protein expression pEX ([http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K243033 BBa_K243033]). Tables below show an overview of our many CPP·protein fusion combinations.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
