Team:Alberta/Optimization
From 2009.igem.org
Sciocleseus (Talk | contribs) |
Sciocleseus (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
+ | |||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td style="height: 400; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 11px;"> | <td style="height: 400; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 11px;"> | ||
Line 44: | Line 45: | ||
- | <h1> | + | <h1>The Uracil Dilemma</h1> |
<!-- <div align="justify" style="padding-left:20px; padding-right:20px"> --> | <!-- <div align="justify" style="padding-left:20px; padding-right:20px"> --> | ||
Line 53: | Line 54: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | The | + | The original format of the universal primers did not have the uracils distributed evenly within the primer. The result was poor efficiency in construction on a bead. Our hypothesis was that the uracils, if they were distributed more evenly, would create smaller pieces of ssDNA that would more easily melt off the Byte to generate fully ssDNA 12 base overhangs. The first version of our USER ends is shown below. By changing primers to their current form we have consequently increased efficiency of construction 2.5 times that of the first version. |
- | + | ||
- | |||
- | + | <br> | |
- | + | <center> | |
- | < | + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/2/2a/Alberta_iGEM_2009_USER1.png"> |
- | + | </center> | |
- | < | + | <br> |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | </ | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | < | + | |
Line 98: | Line 82: | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
- | <tr> | + | <tr> |
<td style="height: 400; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 11px;"> | <td style="height: 400; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 11px;"> | ||
<b class="b1f"></b><b class="b2f"></b><b class="b3f"></b><b class="b4f"></b> | <b class="b1f"></b><b class="b2f"></b><b class="b3f"></b><b class="b4f"></b> | ||
Line 107: | Line 91: | ||
- | <h1> | + | <h1>PCR Optimization</h1> |
<!-- <div align="justify" style="padding-left:20px; padding-right:20px"> --> | <!-- <div align="justify" style="padding-left:20px; padding-right:20px"> --> | ||
Line 116: | Line 100: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | The | + | The first step in producing workable quantities of BioBytes is PCR with the universal deoxyuracil-containing primers. Only slight tweaking of PCR conditions was required to produce ideal quantities of Bytes. |
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
- | < | + | <li> |
- | < | + | |
- | < | + | <h4>The Primers</h4> |
- | </ | + | |
- | < | + | <ul> |
+ | <li><b>HPLC purified primers</b> were ordered and PCR was attempted with them. The motivation for this was the possibility that during oligo synthesis only a fraction of the synthesized primers are full length. We thought that this may have an effect on the Byte end generation. Unfortunately not only were the primers very expensive to have HPLC purified and that they were in very low yield, but also that the resulting Bytes showed no improved efficiency in ligation. | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <li> | ||
+ | <h4>The dNTPs</h4> | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li><b>Concentration effects of dNTPs</b> were considered. We ran six PCR reactions in total: 3 sets for each AB/BA primer pair. The three conditions tested were 0.2, 0.6, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.5 μM final concentration of dNTPs. Optimal PCR yield was at 0.2 μM dNTPs. | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </li> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p> | ||
Line 144: | Line 145: | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
- | |||
<tr> | <tr> |
Revision as of 21:42, 21 October 2009
|
Optimizing Linear AssemblyMuch work has been done to try and increase the efficiency by which we generate the Bytes, anchor them, assemble them, and terminate them. A general outline of the optimizations we have considered and worked on are shown below as well as their effects on the process.
|
The Uracil Dilemma
The original format of the universal primers did not have the uracils distributed evenly within the primer. The result was poor efficiency in construction on a bead. Our hypothesis was that the uracils, if they were distributed more evenly, would create smaller pieces of ssDNA that would more easily melt off the Byte to generate fully ssDNA 12 base overhangs. The first version of our USER ends is shown below. By changing primers to their current form we have consequently increased efficiency of construction 2.5 times that of the first version.
|
PCR OptimizationThe first step in producing workable quantities of BioBytes is PCR with the universal deoxyuracil-containing primers. Only slight tweaking of PCR conditions was required to produce ideal quantities of Bytes.
|
BioByte ProcessingAn essential step in assembly with BioBytes if the preparation of the Bytes. Following PCR the product is USERTM digested to nick the DNA. Finally, the Bytes are purified away from these small ssDNA pieces to prevent their binding to the sticky ends during assembly and consequently negatively influencing the efficiency of construction. The following describes the results of optimization experiments conducted to increase efficiency of BioBytes.
|