Difference between revisions of "Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Results"

(introduction to modeling results)
m (E. coli in italics)
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
#sidenav > li > a > h3 {
 
#sidenav > li > a > h3 {
   margin-top:2px;
+
   margin-top:1px;
 
   padding-top: 0px;  
 
   padding-top: 0px;  
   padding-bottom: 1px;  
+
   padding-bottom: 0px;  
 
}
 
}
 
#sidenav a:hover,
 
#sidenav a:hover,
Line 51: Line 51:
  
 
       <ul id="sidenav" class="nav nav-stacked"><!-- nav-pills if we want rounded corners -->
 
       <ul id="sidenav" class="nav nav-stacked"><!-- nav-pills if we want rounded corners -->
         <li><a href="#modeling" data-scroll="modeling"><h3>Modeling results</h3></a></li>
+
         <li><a href="#" data-scroll="overview"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Overview</h3></a></li>
         <li><a href="#lab" data-scroll="lab"><h3>Lab results</h3></a></li>
+
         <li><a href="#" data-scroll="propanepathway"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Propane pathway</h3></a></li>
         <li><a href="#future" data-scroll="future"><h3>Future</h3></a></li>
+
        <li><a href="#" data-scroll="continuous"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Continuous production</h3></a></li>
         <li><a href="#"><h3 style="border-top:solid;">To the top</h3></a></li>
+
        <li><a href="#" data-scroll="cellulose"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Cellulose degradation</h3></a></li>
 +
        <li><a href="#" data-scroll="amphiphilic"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Amphiphilic protein</h3></a></li>
 +
        <li><a href="#" data-scroll="gfp"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Fusable GFP</h3></a></li>
 +
        <li><a href="#" data-scroll="hp"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Combining modeling and experimental work in iGEM</h3></a></li>
 +
        <li><a href="#" data-scroll="software"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Software</h3></a></li>
 +
         <li><a href="#" data-scroll="future"><h3 style="font-size:21px;">Future</h3></a></li>
 +
         <li><a href="#"><h3 style="border-top:solid;font-size:21px;" >To the top</h3></a></li>
 
       </ul>
 
       </ul>
  
Line 63: Line 69:
 
<h1>Results</h1>
 
<h1>Results</h1>
  
<!-- Modeling results -->
 
<section id="modeling" data-ancor="modeling">
 
<h2 id="modeling">Modeling results</h2>
 
  
<p>Modeling is an important part of synthetic biology. With good models, one can gain insight of the biological phenomena before doing anything in the lab. Understanding the biological system allows us to make better decisions as we modify the system for our purposes. We succeeded in building models that helped our project, even though the cellulose pathway remained a mystery for the modeling team.</p>
+
<!-- Overview below -->
 +
<section id="overview" class="active" data-anchor="overview">
  
<h3 id="modelingpropane">Propane pathway</h3>
+
<h2>Overview</h2>
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p>Extensively <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_propane">modeled</a> a microbial pathway for propane production and used this information to improve experimental design</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Studied the idea of using synthetic amphiphilic micelle-forming proteins as molecular scaffolds to place enzymes in close proximity to each other and modeled both <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_micelle">micelle formation</a> and <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_synergy">the effect of enzyme proximity</a> on reaction pathways when competing enzymes are present</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Parts">Submitted three BioBricks</a> to the registry: one containing enzymes of the propane pathway, one encoding a N-terminally fusable GFP and one unlikely containing the amphiphilic protein</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Design">First report ever</a> of successful continuous microbial propane production</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Questionnaire">Studied</a> the relationship of modeling and experimentation in iGEM teams, as well as the educational background of iGEM participants</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Software">Built</a> and <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/humhub">ideated</a> software to help iGEM teams better collaborate and communicate</p></li>
 +
</ul>  
  
<p>We determined the bottlenecks of our reaction, FadB2 being the worst. This caused the lab team to change it to Hbd. After FadB2 the worst bottlenecks are Ado, Car and Hdb. This knowledge affected our decisions on which backbone we should put which construct. Our pathway is also very sensitive to NADPH and NADH concentrations. See more from our page of <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_propane">modeling propane pathway</a></p>
+
</p>
 +
<!-- Overview above -->
  
<h3 id="modelingcellulose">Cellulose pathway</h3>
 
  
<p>We didn't get any meaningful results from our (nonexistent) cellulose model. Check the <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_cellulose">cellulose page</a> to read more about the degradation pathway and what thoughts our modeling team had.</p>
+
<!-- Propane pathway below -->
 +
<section id="propanepathway" data-anchor="propanepathway">
 +
<h2 id="propane pathway">Propane pathway</h2>
  
<h3 id="modelingmicelle">Micelle</h3>
+
<h3>Background</h3>
 +
<p>Microbially produced propane holds enormous promise as a potential replacement of portable fossil fuels, but the propane yields with current biological pathways are low. Our pathway starts from acetyl-CoA and produces propane through 6 intermediates. To help concentrate engineering efforts on its critical parts, better quantitative understanding of the pathway is required. Our goals were to build a mathematical model of the pathway to better understand it and create and test BioBricks of the propane pathway to help future teams and researchers to continue improving it.</p>
  
<p>We determined that it is <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_micelle">geometrically possible</a> to form the micelles. We also determined that it would be <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_synergy">beneficial to put Car and Ado in a micelle</a> instead of the traditional way of them floating independently in the cell.</p>
+
 
 +
<h3>Outcome</h3>
 +
 
 +
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;margin-bottom:3%;">
 +
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/a/aa/Aalto-Helsinki_bottleneck_both.png" style="width:400px;"/>
 +
  <figcaption><b>Figure 1:</b> Illustrative figure of the bottleneck results of our pathway.On the left,</br>situation before switching FadB2 to Hbd, on the right situation after the switch.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p>Built <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_propane">a model of the pathway</a> based on known kinetic properties of the enzymes</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Identified major bottlenecks of the propane pathway using our model</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Improved our experimental plans according to the modeling results by changing one enzyme to a better homolog and expressing the rate-limiting enzyme from the highest copy number backbone used</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Found that propane output was sensitive to NADPH/NADH, suggesting their efficient regeneration might be a limiting factor</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Designed two BioBricks containing all ten genes required for the propane pathway to produce propane in <i>E. coli</i>
 +
    <ul>
 +
      <li><p>Chose three intercompatible backbones to ensure that the propane pathway could be integrated to the same cell with cellulose hydrolysis (which required the third backbone)</p></li>
 +
    </ul></p></li>
 +
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:20px;">
 +
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/3/3a/Aalto-Helsinki_car_submittedparts.png" style="width:315px;"/>
 +
  <figcaption>Assembled Propane 1 (CAR) constructs.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 
 +
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:20px;">
 +
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/8/8a/Aalto-Helsinki_propane_2_successful_Gibson.png" style="width:210px;"/>
 +
  <figcaption>Assembled Propane 2 insert.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
  <li><p>Used NEBuilder (Gibson) Assembly to construct the BioBricks
 +
    <ul>
 +
      <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Parts#propane_1">Submitted a BioBrick</a> (Propane 1) containing three crucial enzymes of the propane pathway and inserted it in pSB6A1 backbone for usage in propane production</p></li>
 +
      <li><p>After trying both ELIC and OE-PCR once and Gibson assembly twice, we managed to assemble Propane 2 with Gibson assembly and detect the right size insert with colony PCR. However, as we ran out of time, we were unable to successfully propagate the correct plasmid, despite multiple tries. As we didn’t manage to assemble the whole pathway, we couldn’t try out whether the pathway was functional.
 +
</p></li>
 +
    </ul></p></li>
 +
</ul>  
  
 
</section>
 
</section>
<!-- modeling ends -->
+
<!-- Propane pathway above -->
  
 +
<!-- Continuous production below -->
 +
<section id="continuous" data-anchor="continuous">
 +
 +
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
 +
 +
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;">
 +
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/f4/Aalto-Helsinki_Chemostat.jpg" style="width:210px;"/>
 +
  <figcaption>Our chemostat.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 +
<h2 >Continuous production</h2>
 +
 +
<h3>Background</h3>
 +
<p>Industrial biopropane production would most likely occur as a continuously operated process, as it is economically more feasible in large scale production. To take the first step towards industrial scale production we wanted to try continuous production of propane using a <i>E. coli</i> strain provided to us by Pauli Kallio from the University of Turku.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Outcome</h3>
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Design">Successful batch production</a> to prepare analytical equipment for continuous production</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Design">First report ever</a> worldwide of successful microbial production of propane in continuous production</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>145 hour continuous production experiment in a 500 ml chemostat</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Propane yield up to 22.7 µg/L in reactor gas phase</p></li>
 +
</ul>
  
<section id="lab" data-anchor="lab">
 
<h2 id="lab">Lab results</h2>
 
<p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/LabResults">This</a> is a link to our lab results page! </p>
 
 
</section>
 
</section>
 +
<!-- Continuous production above -->
  
 +
<!-- Cellulose below -->
 +
<section id="cellulose" data-anchor="cellulose">
  
<section id="future" data-anchor="future">
+
<h2>Cellulose degradation</h2>
<h2 id="future">Future</h2>
+
  
<h3>Propane pathway</h3>
+
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;">
<p>There is still plenty of room for improvement in the propane pathway. The identified bottlenecks, enzymes CAR and ADO could be studied further to find out whether there are more efficient enzymes with the same function available in the nature. If not, it might be worth the effort to try and engineer the existing CAR and ADO to be more efficient, as has already been once done for <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbic.201300307/pdf">ADO</a>. The idea of having different enzymes of the pathway close together, by fusion to each other or by using different kinds of scaffolds, including our amphiphilic proteins, could also be studied further.</p>
+
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/3/3e/Aalto-Helsinki_cellulose_successful_OE-PCR.png" style="width:150px;"/>
 +
  <figcaption>Cellulose insert.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
  
<p>In out pathway model, we also identified the propane output to be sensitive to NADPH/NADH concentration. Therefore, it might be that NADPH/NADH is a limiting factor, if its generation is insufficient. This is something worth studying, and if NADPH/NADH regeneration is indeed verified to be a bottleneck, then it could be studied whether this regeneration could somehow be enhanced.</p>
+
<h3>Background</h3>
 +
<p>Well over 200 million tonnes of cellulosic waste is left unused each year in the European Union alone. To elevate the microbially produced propane to a 2nd generation biofuel and avoid interfering with food production, we wanted to incorporate a plasmid for cellulose hydrolysis into the same bacteria that produces the propane. The plasmid contains three genes encoding the enzymes that hydrolyse cellulose polymers into glucose.</p>
  
<p>Even though it was not possible within our timeframe, one could try knocking out more endogenous aldehyde reductases and alcohol dehydrogenases that compete with ADO for butyraldehyde. This approach <a href="http://www.biotechnologyforbiofuels.com/content/8/1/61">has been tried</a> by Pauli Kallio and his associates with success: knocking out two endogenous aldehyde reductases Ahr and YqhD resulted in significant improvement in propane output.</p>
+
<h3>Outcome</h3>
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p>Looked into <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_cellulose">modeling cellulose breakdown</a>, but found that there was not enough information to model the breakdown sufficiently well to get any practical benefit from the model.</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>After trying Gibson assembly and ELIC twice, we were able to produce the Cellulose insert containing the genes encoding three enzymes required for cellulose hydrolysis with OE-PCR. However, due to its low concentration, we were unable to transfer it to a backbone and propagate it.</p></li>
 +
</ul>  
  
 +
</section>
 +
<!-- Cellulose above -->
  
<h3>Propane out of sunlight, water and thin air</h3>
+
<!-- Amphiphilic protein below -->
<p>One significant benefit of the pathway is that it can operate in the presence of ​oxygen. This is required to incorporate the pathway in oxygenic, photosynthetic organisms like cyanobacteria. Cyanobacterial propane production could have a tremendous effect on the way energy is produced and consumed in the society. Fuel production would essentially require only sunlight, water and CO\(_2\), and would thus be completely renewable.</p>
+
<section id="amphiphilic" data-anchor="amphiphilic">
  
<h3>Improving safety</h3>
+
<h2>Amphiphilic protein</h2>
<p>As propane is a highly flammable liquid, large-scale microbial production could pose a fire and/or explosion hazard. The production would most likely happen in closed containers with nothing to ignite the gas, easing the problem. However, leaks are always possible: the propane or the bacteria themselves could leak from the microbial container or pipelines to enclosed spaces where ignition is possible. By replacing air, propane could also cause a suffocation danger. To help avoid these problems, it would be beneficial if the propane could be detected. However, propane itself cannot be seen and it has no odour, making detection difficult. Gas molecules with an odour (e.g. ethyl mercaptan) could be added to the purified product and production container. However, this does not allow us to detect the gas if the bacteria leak to produce propane in an enclosed space where no such safety measures are taken.</p>
+
  
<p style="margin-bottom:0;padding-bottom:10%;">To help detect microbial propane production, it might be thus reasonable to have the propane-producing bacteria also produce a certain scent when propane production is active. This could be achieved by for instance incorporating a banana smell generator device to the same bacterium which is producing propane. Another, perhaps even better option would be to modify the bacteria so that they need to be given certain nutrients not widely available in the environment to survive.</p>
+
<h3>Background</h3>
 +
<p>Amphiphilic proteins are synthetic proteins consisting of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic domain that have been shown to spontaneously form micellar and vesicular structures. We were interested whether these structures could be used as scaffolds to have subsequent enzymes of the propane pathway in close proximity. We wanted to model whether fusing enzymes to the proteins would disrupt micelle formation and whether our idea could enhance propane output.</p>
  
 +
 +
<h3>Outcome</h3>
 +
 +
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;margin-bottom:3%;">
 +
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/e4/Aalto-Helsinki_micelle_circle_approach_2.png" style="width:300px;"/>
 +
  <figcaption><b>Figure 2:</b> 2d simplification of the micelle structure</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_synergy">Built a stochastic synergy model</a> in Python, simulating enzyme function in cases where two subsequent enzymes stay in close proximity to each other as opposed to moving around independently in a cell</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>The synergy model predicts a 200-400 % increase in product output if enzymes stay in close proximity to each other</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Modeling_micelle">Constructed a geometrical micelle model</a> based on the sizes and structures of the micelle-forming proteins, indicating that it is indeed possible for micellar structures to form even as enzymes are fused to them</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Parts#amphiphilic">Submitted a BioBrick</a> unlikely encoding the amphiphilic protein to the registry</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Due to time restraints, we were unable to experimentally validate the idea by fusing either two subsequent enzymes of the propane pathway or components of the violacein pathway to the amphiphilic proteins</p></li>
 +
</ul>
  
 
</section>
 
</section>
 +
<!-- Amphiphilic protein above -->
  
 +
 +
<!-- N-terminally fusable GFP below -->
 +
<section id="gfp" data-anchor="gfp">
 +
 +
<h2>N-terminally fusable GFP</h2>
 +
 +
<h3>Background</h3>
 +
<p>To validate our amphiphilic brick, we needed a GFP that could be fused to the amino-terminal end of the protein. There was no such brick in the distribution kit. We also thought there was no such brick in the registry, but later came to realize we were wrong. We wanted to create a GFP BioBrick that could be fused to the N-terminal end of any protein using BioBrick methods.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Outcome</h3>
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Parts#gfp">Submitted a BioBrick</a> encoding GFP with an extra nucleotide prior to the suffix, ensuring that it can be fused to the N-terminal end of a protein using BioBrick enzyme assembly methods while maintaining the reading frame</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Collaborations">Collaborated</a> with team HS Slovenia to validate the brick</p></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;margin-bottom:3%;">
 +
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/archive/8/82/20150918182105!Aalto-Helsinki_GFP-amph_vs_ctrl.jpg" style="width:100%;"/>
 +
  <figcaption><b>Figure 3:</b> Upper row: <i>E. coli</i> expressing GFP fused to the N-terminal end of our amphiphilic protein. Bottom row: control. On the left, a light microscope picture and in the middle a fluorescent microscope picture of the same cells (excitation at 488 nm, detection 493-598 nm). On the right the two pictures to the left merged, showing that GFP is expressed in transformed cells, but not in control cells.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 +
</section>
 +
<!-- N-terminally fusable GFP above -->
 +
 +
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
 +
 +
<!-- Combining modeling and experimental work in iGEM below -->
 +
<section id="hp" data-anchor="hp">
 +
 +
<h2>Combining modeling and experimental work in iGEM</h2>
 +
 +
<h3>Background</h3>
 +
<p>Mathematical modeling is a key component of synthetic biology and also played a central role in our project. Collaboration between modelers and biologists can however be challenging, something we also noticed in our project. We wanted to study how iGEM teams tackle these challenges and are able to integrate modeling to their experimentation.</p>
 +
 +
<figure style="float:right;margin-left:20px;margin-top:2%;margin-bottom:2%;">
 +
  <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/9/9d/Aalto-Helsinki_study_fields.jpg" style="width:400px;"/>
 +
  <figcaption><b>Figure 4:</b> Educational background of questionnaire respondents, 2014 iGEM </br>participants and professional synthetic biology researchers categorized.</br> "Mathematical" includes mathematics, computer science and physics.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 +
<h3>Outcome</h3>
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Questionnaire">Created a questionnaire</a> for iGEM teams on collaboration between modeling and experimentation, and studied 2014 teams and professional synthetic biology groups to find out what educational backgrounds team members are coming from</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Biggest issues in collaboration between modelers and experimentalists are: lack of knowledge of the other field, lack of common terminology and differences in ways of thinking</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Both modelers and biologists need to understand the basics of the other field to be able to effectively collaborate.</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Having experimentalists and modelers work close together is beneficial. One approach generally found successful is to have some biologists get involved in modeling to help ensure models are useful for the project and connected to reality. Modelers can too take some time to get familiar with the wetlab in the beginning of the project</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Regular team meetings for presenting and discussing progress and issues of every field take time, but ensure all team members stay informed and can voice their insights.</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Students with a mathematical background are underrepresented in iGEM teams as compared to professional synthetic biology groups. </p></li>
 +
  <li><p>iGEM teams have relatively many biotechnology students, who often stand seem to act as mediators between the modeling and experimentation.</p></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
</section>
 +
<!-- Combining modeling and experimental work in iGEM above -->
 +
 +
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
 +
 +
<!-- HumHub report and Collab Seeker below -->
 +
<section id="software" data-anchor="software">
 +
 +
<h2>Software: HumHub report and Collab Seeker</h2>
 +
 +
<h3>Background</h3>
 +
<p>Finding new collaboration partners in iGEM is not easy, as finding information about different teams' projects is time-consuming and often difficult. On the other hand, communication with other teams as well as internal team communication can be difficult due to a multitude of platforms used, often cluttered with non-iGEM content. We wanted to do something to these issues to make iGEM even better.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Outcome</h3>
 +
<ul style="list-style-type:disc">
 +
  <li><p>Worked with Stockholm iGEM team on HumHub, a collaboration platform for iGEM teams, and collaboratively <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/humhub">wrote a report</a> on it with them</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Created a questionnaire on how teams found their collaboration partners and how they’re keeping in touch with them</p></li>
 +
  <li><p>Found that 22 out of the 23 teams that answered wished for better means to find collaboration partners with</p></li>
 +
  <li><p><a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Software">Built Collab Seeker</a>, a lightweight collaboration search tool, which helps find relevant collaboration partners using keywords and provides their contact information</p></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
 +
</section>
 +
<!-- HumHub report and Collab Seeker above -->
 +
 +
<section id="future" data-anchor="future">
 +
<h2>Future</h2>
 +
 +
<p>To read our thoughts on future prospects and on how to carry on from where we left, please see our <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Future">Future page</a>.</p>
 +
 +
<h2>Submitted BioBricks and Achievements</h2>
 +
 +
<p>To read about the BioBricks we submitted, see our <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Parts">Submitted Parts page</a>. To see how our achievements match with the medal criteria, see our <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Aalto-Helsinki/Medals">Checklist</a>.</p>
 +
</section>
 +
<p style="margin-bottom:0;padding-bottom:10%;"></p>
  
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 04:31, 29 October 2015

Results

Overview

  • Extensively modeled a microbial pathway for propane production and used this information to improve experimental design

  • Studied the idea of using synthetic amphiphilic micelle-forming proteins as molecular scaffolds to place enzymes in close proximity to each other and modeled both micelle formation and the effect of enzyme proximity on reaction pathways when competing enzymes are present

  • Submitted three BioBricks to the registry: one containing enzymes of the propane pathway, one encoding a N-terminally fusable GFP and one unlikely containing the amphiphilic protein

  • First report ever of successful continuous microbial propane production

  • Studied the relationship of modeling and experimentation in iGEM teams, as well as the educational background of iGEM participants

  • Built and ideated software to help iGEM teams better collaborate and communicate

Propane pathway

Background

Microbially produced propane holds enormous promise as a potential replacement of portable fossil fuels, but the propane yields with current biological pathways are low. Our pathway starts from acetyl-CoA and produces propane through 6 intermediates. To help concentrate engineering efforts on its critical parts, better quantitative understanding of the pathway is required. Our goals were to build a mathematical model of the pathway to better understand it and create and test BioBricks of the propane pathway to help future teams and researchers to continue improving it.

Outcome

Figure 1: Illustrative figure of the bottleneck results of our pathway.On the left,
situation before switching FadB2 to Hbd, on the right situation after the switch.
  • Built a model of the pathway based on known kinetic properties of the enzymes

  • Identified major bottlenecks of the propane pathway using our model

  • Improved our experimental plans according to the modeling results by changing one enzyme to a better homolog and expressing the rate-limiting enzyme from the highest copy number backbone used

  • Found that propane output was sensitive to NADPH/NADH, suggesting their efficient regeneration might be a limiting factor

  • Designed two BioBricks containing all ten genes required for the propane pathway to produce propane in E. coli

    • Chose three intercompatible backbones to ensure that the propane pathway could be integrated to the same cell with cellulose hydrolysis (which required the third backbone)

  • Assembled Propane 1 (CAR) constructs.
    Assembled Propane 2 insert.
  • Used NEBuilder (Gibson) Assembly to construct the BioBricks

    • Submitted a BioBrick (Propane 1) containing three crucial enzymes of the propane pathway and inserted it in pSB6A1 backbone for usage in propane production

    • After trying both ELIC and OE-PCR once and Gibson assembly twice, we managed to assemble Propane 2 with Gibson assembly and detect the right size insert with colony PCR. However, as we ran out of time, we were unable to successfully propagate the correct plasmid, despite multiple tries. As we didn’t manage to assemble the whole pathway, we couldn’t try out whether the pathway was functional.

Our chemostat.

Continuous production

Background

Industrial biopropane production would most likely occur as a continuously operated process, as it is economically more feasible in large scale production. To take the first step towards industrial scale production we wanted to try continuous production of propane using a E. coli strain provided to us by Pauli Kallio from the University of Turku.

Outcome

  • Successful batch production to prepare analytical equipment for continuous production

  • First report ever worldwide of successful microbial production of propane in continuous production

  • 145 hour continuous production experiment in a 500 ml chemostat

  • Propane yield up to 22.7 µg/L in reactor gas phase

Cellulose degradation

Cellulose insert.

Background

Well over 200 million tonnes of cellulosic waste is left unused each year in the European Union alone. To elevate the microbially produced propane to a 2nd generation biofuel and avoid interfering with food production, we wanted to incorporate a plasmid for cellulose hydrolysis into the same bacteria that produces the propane. The plasmid contains three genes encoding the enzymes that hydrolyse cellulose polymers into glucose.

Outcome

  • Looked into modeling cellulose breakdown, but found that there was not enough information to model the breakdown sufficiently well to get any practical benefit from the model.

  • After trying Gibson assembly and ELIC twice, we were able to produce the Cellulose insert containing the genes encoding three enzymes required for cellulose hydrolysis with OE-PCR. However, due to its low concentration, we were unable to transfer it to a backbone and propagate it.

Amphiphilic protein

Background

Amphiphilic proteins are synthetic proteins consisting of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic domain that have been shown to spontaneously form micellar and vesicular structures. We were interested whether these structures could be used as scaffolds to have subsequent enzymes of the propane pathway in close proximity. We wanted to model whether fusing enzymes to the proteins would disrupt micelle formation and whether our idea could enhance propane output.

Outcome

Figure 2: 2d simplification of the micelle structure
  • Built a stochastic synergy model in Python, simulating enzyme function in cases where two subsequent enzymes stay in close proximity to each other as opposed to moving around independently in a cell

  • The synergy model predicts a 200-400 % increase in product output if enzymes stay in close proximity to each other

  • Constructed a geometrical micelle model based on the sizes and structures of the micelle-forming proteins, indicating that it is indeed possible for micellar structures to form even as enzymes are fused to them

  • Submitted a BioBrick unlikely encoding the amphiphilic protein to the registry

  • Due to time restraints, we were unable to experimentally validate the idea by fusing either two subsequent enzymes of the propane pathway or components of the violacein pathway to the amphiphilic proteins

N-terminally fusable GFP

Background

To validate our amphiphilic brick, we needed a GFP that could be fused to the amino-terminal end of the protein. There was no such brick in the distribution kit. We also thought there was no such brick in the registry, but later came to realize we were wrong. We wanted to create a GFP BioBrick that could be fused to the N-terminal end of any protein using BioBrick methods.

Outcome

  • Submitted a BioBrick encoding GFP with an extra nucleotide prior to the suffix, ensuring that it can be fused to the N-terminal end of a protein using BioBrick enzyme assembly methods while maintaining the reading frame

  • Collaborated with team HS Slovenia to validate the brick

Figure 3: Upper row: E. coli expressing GFP fused to the N-terminal end of our amphiphilic protein. Bottom row: control. On the left, a light microscope picture and in the middle a fluorescent microscope picture of the same cells (excitation at 488 nm, detection 493-598 nm). On the right the two pictures to the left merged, showing that GFP is expressed in transformed cells, but not in control cells.

Combining modeling and experimental work in iGEM

Background

Mathematical modeling is a key component of synthetic biology and also played a central role in our project. Collaboration between modelers and biologists can however be challenging, something we also noticed in our project. We wanted to study how iGEM teams tackle these challenges and are able to integrate modeling to their experimentation.

Figure 4: Educational background of questionnaire respondents, 2014 iGEM
participants and professional synthetic biology researchers categorized.
"Mathematical" includes mathematics, computer science and physics.

Outcome

  • Created a questionnaire for iGEM teams on collaboration between modeling and experimentation, and studied 2014 teams and professional synthetic biology groups to find out what educational backgrounds team members are coming from

  • Biggest issues in collaboration between modelers and experimentalists are: lack of knowledge of the other field, lack of common terminology and differences in ways of thinking

  • Both modelers and biologists need to understand the basics of the other field to be able to effectively collaborate.

  • Having experimentalists and modelers work close together is beneficial. One approach generally found successful is to have some biologists get involved in modeling to help ensure models are useful for the project and connected to reality. Modelers can too take some time to get familiar with the wetlab in the beginning of the project

  • Regular team meetings for presenting and discussing progress and issues of every field take time, but ensure all team members stay informed and can voice their insights.

  • Students with a mathematical background are underrepresented in iGEM teams as compared to professional synthetic biology groups.

  • iGEM teams have relatively many biotechnology students, who often stand seem to act as mediators between the modeling and experimentation.

Software: HumHub report and Collab Seeker

Background

Finding new collaboration partners in iGEM is not easy, as finding information about different teams' projects is time-consuming and often difficult. On the other hand, communication with other teams as well as internal team communication can be difficult due to a multitude of platforms used, often cluttered with non-iGEM content. We wanted to do something to these issues to make iGEM even better.

Outcome

  • Worked with Stockholm iGEM team on HumHub, a collaboration platform for iGEM teams, and collaboratively wrote a report on it with them

  • Created a questionnaire on how teams found their collaboration partners and how they’re keeping in touch with them

  • Found that 22 out of the 23 teams that answered wished for better means to find collaboration partners with

  • Built Collab Seeker, a lightweight collaboration search tool, which helps find relevant collaboration partners using keywords and provides their contact information

Future

To read our thoughts on future prospects and on how to carry on from where we left, please see our Future page.

Submitted BioBricks and Achievements

To read about the BioBricks we submitted, see our Submitted Parts page. To see how our achievements match with the medal criteria, see our Checklist.