Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description
From 2009.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
(→2)Internal Negative autoregulation) |
(→P2-P4 bacteriophages) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
Bacteriophage P2 and P4 are double stranded DNA enterobacteria viruses. Phage P4 is a satellite phage because it is | Bacteriophage P2 and P4 are double stranded DNA enterobacteria viruses. Phage P4 is a satellite phage because it is | ||
- | dependent on the machinery of P2. Sometimes, it is called a "parasite phage", since it takes over the elements of P2 and leaves its "host phage" practically neutralized. There are several interesting features of the P4 genome, including transactivation zones (the genes that respond to the presence of P2 along with P4 and vice versa) that | + | dependent on the machinery of P2. [[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#References|(1,2,3)]] Sometimes, it is called a "parasite phage", since it takes over the elements of P2 and leaves its "host phage" practically neutralized. There are several interesting features of the P4 genome, including transactivation zones (the genes that respond to the presence of P2 along with P4 and vice versa) that |
- | function in domination of the late P2 genes. Important elements of this kind are gene P4 delta and P2 ogr, which work synergistically together in activating P2 genes. Given these interesting properties, P4 has been exhaustively studied. | + | function in domination of the late P2 genes. Important elements of this kind are gene P4 delta and P2 ogr[[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#References|(12,15,16)]], which work synergistically together in activating P2 genes. Given these interesting properties, P4 has been exhaustively studied. |
- | + | ||
====P4 genome structure==== | ====P4 genome structure==== | ||
We can divide P4 genome into two main regions: the essential and non-essential region. The essential region contains | We can divide P4 genome into two main regions: the essential and non-essential region. The essential region contains | ||
- | operons intended for replication and hijacking of P2, and the non-essential region contains accessory genes for special situations as lambda infections, as well as the integrase and attachment site. Removing the latter two would result in a permanent plasmid-state P4 with a unique multicopy replication system. | + | operons intended for replication and hijacking of P2, and the non-essential region contains accessory genes for special situations as lambda infections, as well as the integrase and attachment site[[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#References|(3)]]. Removing the latter two would result in a permanent plasmid-state P4 with a unique multicopy replication system. |
====P4 sid mutation==== | ====P4 sid mutation==== | ||
- | As P4 thoroughly depends on P2 for capsid, tail and lysis functions, the difference in size between both genomes (+- 33kb for P2 whereas +-11kb for P4) came to attention. P4 protein sid is able to scaffold a smaller capsid with the same structural proteins as P2. A sid mutant was found that made P4 pack its genome inside bigger-sized capsids, which can hold up to 1, 2 or 3 copies of its genome. The extra genome copies could be “something else”; this means P4 can transport over 20 kbs of extra foreign DNA attached to its genome. | + | As P4 thoroughly depends on P2 for capsid, tail and lysis functions, the difference in size between both genomes (+- 33kb for P2 whereas +-11kb for P4) came to attention. P4 protein sid is able to scaffold a smaller capsid with the same structural proteins as P2. A sid mutant was found that made P4 pack its genome inside bigger-sized capsids, which can hold up to 1, 2 or 3 copies of its genome[[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#References|(6)]]. The extra genome copies could be “something else”; this means P4 can transport over 20 kbs of extra foreign DNA attached to its genome. |
Line 67: | Line 66: | ||
==='''P4sid1 standardized production'''=== | ==='''P4sid1 standardized production'''=== | ||
- | We thought of a way '''to overproduce our viral particles''' without being forced to infect with P2 or getting P2 particles as a byproduct. The solution planned was to construct an E. coli strain containing all the useful genes for P4 in P2 (capsid, tail and lysis operons). In addition to these genes, the''' helper cell''' would also contain the main P2 transactivators (cox and ogr) under a lac operator. This way, after we transform the helper cell with our desired P4 plasmid, '''we would decide when to promote stock production by lysis of the helper bacteria''' by adding IPTG. Then we have our biobrick assembled inside ready-to-use phages that can deliver their genome to wildtype bacteria. | + | We thought of a way '''to overproduce our viral particles''' without being forced to infect with P2 or getting P2 particles as a byproduct. The solution planned was to construct an E. coli strain containing all the useful genes for P4 in P2 (capsid, tail and lysis operons). In addition to these genes, the''' helper cell''' would also contain the main P2 transactivators (cox and ogr)[[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#References|(12,15,16)]] under a lac operator. This way, after we transform the helper cell with our desired P4 plasmid, '''we would decide when to promote stock production by lysis of the helper bacteria''' by adding IPTG. Then we have our biobrick assembled inside ready-to-use phages that can deliver their genome to wildtype bacteria. |
We have also biobricked the cos sites of P4. This biobrick should be cloned in any vector with your construction. If you transform the P4 producing strain with this vector and then infect with P4, you will have as a result some | We have also biobricked the cos sites of P4. This biobrick should be cloned in any vector with your construction. If you transform the P4 producing strain with this vector and then infect with P4, you will have as a result some | ||
Line 89: | Line 88: | ||
As a first step in this area, we have adapted the [[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#Translation sabotage| kamikaze system]] to detect pathogenicity instead of phages. The target pathogen is EHEC and EPEC (Enterohemorragic and Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli). P4 will introduce a specific binding site for a pathogenicity-specific regulator LER, which in turn will activate the [[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#Translation sabotage| kamikaze system]] at the moment LER activates pathogenic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_Enterocyte_Effacement effacement]. | As a first step in this area, we have adapted the [[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#Translation sabotage| kamikaze system]] to detect pathogenicity instead of phages. The target pathogen is EHEC and EPEC (Enterohemorragic and Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli). P4 will introduce a specific binding site for a pathogenicity-specific regulator LER, which in turn will activate the [[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#Translation sabotage| kamikaze system]] at the moment LER activates pathogenic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_Enterocyte_Effacement effacement]. | ||
- | <br>3) '''Phage mediated | + | <br>3) '''Phage mediated training ''' |
Another usage could be to "train" the bacterial population by P4 infection so that it is sensitive to a future | Another usage could be to "train" the bacterial population by P4 infection so that it is sensitive to a future | ||
Line 145: | Line 144: | ||
==='''Defense system: benefits and perspectives'''=== | ==='''Defense system: benefits and perspectives'''=== | ||
- | One of the most important mechanisms concerning the defense subsystem is the use of toxins as the main element in the disruption of phage’s assembly and scattering. Even though the contention of the infection implies that some bacteria will die, the use of a RNAse and a DNAse induces a delay of the phages production by beating host machinery. This in turn, avoids the possibility of the phage to gain resistance against toxins. | + | One of the most important mechanisms concerning the [[Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Description#Defense|defense subsystem]] is the use of toxins as the main element in the disruption of phage’s assembly and scattering. Even though the contention of the infection implies that some bacteria will die, the use of a RNAse and a DNAse induces a delay of the phages production by beating host machinery. This in turn, avoids the possibility of the phage to gain resistance against toxins. |
====1)Lytic phage-induced responses==== | ====1)Lytic phage-induced responses==== | ||
Line 153: | Line 152: | ||
One of the ideal situations in synthetic biology is the "friendly get-along" of humans and biological machines for the benefit of the former, as projected with medicine production from genetic circuits. We propose that activation of such circuits could rely on the usage of bacteriophages and their population equilibrium with bacteria. While a bacterial population could tolerate a phage infection with our alarm system and hence initiate extra responses (like medicine production), an overdose of the initial phage activation signal, instead of killing individuals by icreasing the production of medicine, could cause the extintion of the biological machine inside the body. This would bring the individual to an initial pre-medication state. | One of the ideal situations in synthetic biology is the "friendly get-along" of humans and biological machines for the benefit of the former, as projected with medicine production from genetic circuits. We propose that activation of such circuits could rely on the usage of bacteriophages and their population equilibrium with bacteria. While a bacterial population could tolerate a phage infection with our alarm system and hence initiate extra responses (like medicine production), an overdose of the initial phage activation signal, instead of killing individuals by icreasing the production of medicine, could cause the extintion of the biological machine inside the body. This would bring the individual to an initial pre-medication state. | ||
+ | |||
+ | =='''References'''== | ||
+ | 1.Propagation of satellite phage P4 as a plasmid. Goldstein R, Sedivy J, Ljungquist E. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982 Jan;79(2):515-9 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2.Nonessential region of bacteriophage P4: DNA sequence, transcription, gene products, and functions. Ghisotti D, Finkel S, Halling C, Deh˜ G, Sironi G, Calendar R. J Virol. 1990 Jan;64(1):24-36. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3.Mechanisms of Genome Propagation and Helper Exploitation by Satellite Phage P4. Lindqvist BH, Deh˜ G, Calendar R. Microbiol Rev. 1993 Sep;57(3):683-702. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 4.Phasmid P4: manipulation of plasmid copy number and induction from the integrated state. Lagos R, Goldstein R. J Bacteriol. 1984 Apr;158(1):208-15. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 5.Integration of satellite bacteriophage P4 in Escherichia coli. DNA sequences of the phage and host regions involved in site-specific recombination. Pierson LS 3rd, Kahn ML. J Mol Biol. 1987 Aug 5;196(3):487-96. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 6.Determination of capsid size by satellite bacteriophage P4. Shore D, Deh˜ G, Tsipis J, Goldstein R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Jan;75(1):400-4. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 7.Recombinant P4 Bacteriophages Propagate as Viable Lytic Phages or as Autonomous Plasmids in Klebsiella pneumoniae. David W. Ow and Frederick M. Ausubel. Molec. gen. Genet. 180, 165 175 (1980) | ||
+ | |||
+ | 8.Engineered bacteriophage-defence systems in bioprocessing. Sturino JM, Klaenhammer TR. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 May;4(5):395-404. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 9.Interactions between a satellite bacteriophage and its helper. Barrett KJ, Marsh ML, Calendar R. J Mol Biol. 1976 Sep 25;106(3):683-707 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 10.Engineering BioBrick vectors from BioBrick parts. Shetty RP, Endy D, Knight TF Jr. J Biol Eng. 2008 Apr 14;2:5. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 11.The Locus of Enterocyte Effacement (LEE)-Encoded Regulator Controls Expression of Both LEE- nd Non-LEE-Encoded Virulence Factors in Enteropathogenic and Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli. Eliott J. et al.(2000). Infection and immnity, Nov. 2000, p 6115-6126 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 12.Activation of prophage P4 by the P2 Cox protein and the sites of action of the Cox protein on the two phage genomes. PNAS. Vol 86:pp. 3973-3977 Shamol Saha et al.(1989) | ||
+ | |||
+ | 13.Eliott J. et al.(2000). The Locus of Enterocyte Effacement (LEE)-Encoded RegulatorControls Expression of Both LEE- and Non-LEE-Encoded | ||
+ | |||
+ | 14.Virulence Factors in Enteropathogenic and Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli. Infection and immnity, Nov. 2000, p 6115-6126 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 15.Bacteriophage P2 ogr and P4 delta genes act independently and are essential for P4 multiplication. Journal of Bacteriology. Halling, C. (1990) 172(7):3549-3558 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 16.Regulation of bacteriophage P2 late-gene expression: The ogr gene. Christie, G. (1986) PNAS Vol.83 3238-3242 | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
Latest revision as of 03:51, 22 October 2009