Difference between revisions of "Team:Vilnius-Lithuania/Results"
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
<p class="text-justify">The wild type plasmid of Cascade complex was in a pCDF-Duet vector and had one EcoRI restriction site inside the Cascade complex gene. After restriction analysis of mutated Cascade plasmids (Figure 1) we can see, that the wild type (WT) Cascade plasmid was linearized by EcoRI, but the six mutated plasmids have retained superspiralized form, and were not cleaved by the enzyme.</p> | <p class="text-justify">The wild type plasmid of Cascade complex was in a pCDF-Duet vector and had one EcoRI restriction site inside the Cascade complex gene. After restriction analysis of mutated Cascade plasmids (Figure 1) we can see, that the wild type (WT) Cascade plasmid was linearized by EcoRI, but the six mutated plasmids have retained superspiralized form, and were not cleaved by the enzyme.</p> | ||
− | + | <br /> | |
<div class="text-center"> | <div class="text-center"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/9/93/Vilnius15_gelis.png" style="width:450px"/> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/9/93/Vilnius15_gelis.png" style="width:450px"/> | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
<p class="text-justify">The Cas3 gene was in a pET-Duet vector and had EcoRI, XbaI and PstI restriction sites upstream the gene (in the vector multi-cloning site area) and in the gene itself. After restriction analysis of a non-mutated Cas3 gene, two bands are visible (Figure 2). After the mutagenesis 5 out of 6 mutants were non-digestable by the enzymes.</p> | <p class="text-justify">The Cas3 gene was in a pET-Duet vector and had EcoRI, XbaI and PstI restriction sites upstream the gene (in the vector multi-cloning site area) and in the gene itself. After restriction analysis of a non-mutated Cas3 gene, two bands are visible (Figure 2). After the mutagenesis 5 out of 6 mutants were non-digestable by the enzymes.</p> | ||
− | + | <br /> | |
<div class="text-center"> | <div class="text-center"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/b2/Vilnius15_gelis2.png" style="width:800px"/> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/b2/Vilnius15_gelis2.png" style="width:800px"/> | ||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
<p class="text-justify">Our experiment was a success, and we have obtained an expression of our Cascade constructs, compared to the negative controls, wich had no plasmids (Figure 3). Cell cultures were grown until OD<sub>500</sub>~0,6, and then incubated at two different conditions. Expression of incubated cells at 16°C for 16 hours resulted in a bit stronger protein expression than those, which were incubated at 37°C for 3 hours. We wanted to see a different protein expression between the biobrick, which had a strong RBS (S), medium RBS (M) or weak RBS (W), however, the western blot did not show any differences. This may be due to the fact, that expression was too big to see subtile differences. </p> | <p class="text-justify">Our experiment was a success, and we have obtained an expression of our Cascade constructs, compared to the negative controls, wich had no plasmids (Figure 3). Cell cultures were grown until OD<sub>500</sub>~0,6, and then incubated at two different conditions. Expression of incubated cells at 16°C for 16 hours resulted in a bit stronger protein expression than those, which were incubated at 37°C for 3 hours. We wanted to see a different protein expression between the biobrick, which had a strong RBS (S), medium RBS (M) or weak RBS (W), however, the western blot did not show any differences. This may be due to the fact, that expression was too big to see subtile differences. </p> | ||
− | + | <br /> | |
<div class="text-center"> | <div class="text-center"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/62/Vilnius15_gelis3.png" style="width: 600px; " /> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/62/Vilnius15_gelis3.png" style="width: 600px; " /> | ||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
<div class="text-center"> | <div class="text-center"> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/3/38/Vilnius15_invivo.png" style="width: 800px; " /> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/3/38/Vilnius15_invivo.png" style="width: 800px; " /> | ||
− | + | </div> | |
− | + | <br /> | |
<p style="border-left: 5px solid rgb(236,151,31); padding-left: 3px; border-bottom: none"><strong>Figure 4.</strong> Cell killing proficiency test. CFUs were counted of bacteria transformed with genome targeting crRNAs (SP1 or SP2), compared to no crRNA harbouring control (K). Experiment was conducted in two conditions : without IPTG and with 2.5 mM IPTG present.</p> | <p style="border-left: 5px solid rgb(236,151,31); padding-left: 3px; border-bottom: none"><strong>Figure 4.</strong> Cell killing proficiency test. CFUs were counted of bacteria transformed with genome targeting crRNAs (SP1 or SP2), compared to no crRNA harbouring control (K). Experiment was conducted in two conditions : without IPTG and with 2.5 mM IPTG present.</p> | ||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/76/Vilnius15_diagram.png" style="width: 500px; " /> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/76/Vilnius15_diagram.png" style="width: 500px; " /> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | + | <br /> | |
<p style="border-left: 5px solid rgb(236,151,31); padding-left: 3px; border-bottom: none"><strong>Scheme 1.</strong> The CRISPR-Cas system</p> | <p style="border-left: 5px solid rgb(236,151,31); padding-left: 3px; border-bottom: none"><strong>Scheme 1.</strong> The CRISPR-Cas system</p> | ||
Revision as of 09:27, 18 September 2015