Difference between revisions of "Team:ANU-Canberra/solubility"

Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
<!-- Content -->
 
<!-- Content -->
−
<article class="box post">
+
<article class="box post">
−
<header>
+
<header>
−
<h2>Solubility tests</h2>
+
<h2>Solubility of CRY2 and CIB1</h2>
 
</header>
 
</header>
 
<p>
 
<p>
−
The indication that the CRY2/CIB1-Cre-recombinase device may not work properly in E. coli. sent us searching for issues that may prevent functionality of the CRY2 and CIB1 proteins.  Due to the potential difficulties of expressing eukaryotic genes CRY2 and CIB1 in E. coli, we determined to test for the solubility of CRY2/CIB1 constructs. Insoluble CRY2 or CIB1 proteins would explain the non-functionality of our devices.                                                                             </p>
+
Due to the potential difficulties of expressing eukaryotic genes (the <i>A. thaliana</i>-derived CRY2 and CIB1) in prokaryotes, we used SDS-PAGE analyses to test whether the CRY2 and CIB1 fusion proteins were intact and soluble in <i>E. coli</i>. Insolubility of CRY2 or CIB1 could flag to us whether our system could associate under light and function properly.
−
<p>
+
                                                                            </p>
−
We tested for protein solubility with an SDS PAGE analysis of CRY2-CreN and CIB1-CreC fragments constructed during our initial Cre-recombinase activity tests.
+
<header>
−
                                    </p>
+
<h2>Solubility of FRET constructs</h2>
−
                                    <p>
+
</header>
−
Using an E. coli BL21 and empty pET16 plasmid as controls, we checked for the size of the CRY2-CreN and CIB1-CreC proteins using a Coomassie stain. A 70kDa fragment was detected in the Lysed sample (column 3), an equivalent size to that expected for CRY2-CreN. Much of this fragment  was insoluble, (only 5% was soluble) suggesting that CRY2-CreN fragments may be misfolded in E. coli expression, thus limiting potential CRY2 activity within the cell. These results reflected the results recorded for  lack of activity for our CRY2-CreN/CIB1-CreC device tested in BL21 (DE3) E. coli using an RFP reporter.
+
<header>
−
                                    </p>
+
<h2>Solubility of Cre-recombinase constructs</h2>
 +
</header>
 
                                     <p>
 
                                     <p>
−
                                    After transforming the construct to BL21 E. coli and culturing with IPTG induction, a very low expression level was observed as determined by the fluorescence of the peaks being comparable to background lysate. Excitation at 400 nm produced a small CFP and YFP peak, and blue light induction for 10 min showed no observable change in the spectrum. Unfortunately the individual fusion proteins could not be separated or purified due to the location of the purification tags.
+
We checked for the size of the CRY2-CreN and CIB1-CreC proteins using a Coomassie stain (using BL21 cells and empty pET16 vector as controls). A 70kDa fragment was detected in the lysed sample (column 3), the expected size of CRY2-CreN. Much of this fragment  was insoluble (only 5% was soluble) suggesting that CRY2-CreN fragments may be misfolded or aggregated, thus limiting potential CRY2 activity within the cell.
 
                                     </p>
 
                                     </p>
 
                                     <p>
 
                                     <p>
−
 
+
Significantly, CIB1-CreC fragments during the SDS PAGE analysis (column 4) suggested proteolysis of the mainly soluble fragment or a lack of full-length protein expression (as a band at 47kDa was expected).  This was particularly puzzling as our research into the CRY2/CIB1 optogentic device had suggested that CIB1 expressed successfully in <i>E. coli</i>. It was suggested by our Instructor (Spencer Whitney) that the large spans of lysine residues occuring on the CIB1 fragment may have made CIB1 particularly prone to proteolysis.  
−
Significantly, CIB1-CreC fragments during the SDS PAGE analysis showed  (column 4) proteolysis of the mainly soluble fragment or a lack of full-length protein expression (as a band at 47kDa was expected).  This was particularly puzzling as our research into the CRY2/CIB1 optogentic device had suggested that CIB1 expressed in E. coli. It was suggested by our Instructor (Spencer Whitney) that the large spans of lysine residues occuring on the CIB1 fragment may have made CIB1 particularly prone to proteolysis.  
+
 
                                     </p>
 
                                     </p>
 
                                     <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/67/Solubility.png"></img>                             
 
                                     <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/67/Solubility.png"></img>                             
 
                                     <p>
 
                                     <p>
−
Failure to record Cre-recombinase activity in our device and the SDS PAGE analysis suggesting that our devices were insoluble led us to redesign our construct. This included separating the CRY2 and CIB1 into separate plasmids fused to eCFP and eYFP respectively. (See FRET Results for more information)
+
Insolubility of CRY2 and proteolysis of CIB1 were consistent across the FRET and Cre-recombinase constructs, suggesting the issue was with those proteins and not a characteristic of the fusion. So although the protein fragments fused to CRY2 and CIB1 may be intact, soluble and functional, it is likely the system would not be light-inducible as the insoluble CRY2 and cleaved CIB1 cannot associate.
 +
</p>
 
</section>
 
</section>
 
</article>
 
</article>

Revision as of 13:30, 18 September 2015

Solubility of CRY2 and CIB1

Due to the potential difficulties of expressing eukaryotic genes (the A. thaliana-derived CRY2 and CIB1) in prokaryotes, we used SDS-PAGE analyses to test whether the CRY2 and CIB1 fusion proteins were intact and soluble in E. coli. Insolubility of CRY2 or CIB1 could flag to us whether our system could associate under light and function properly.

Solubility of FRET constructs

Solubility of Cre-recombinase constructs

We checked for the size of the CRY2-CreN and CIB1-CreC proteins using a Coomassie stain (using BL21 cells and empty pET16 vector as controls). A 70kDa fragment was detected in the lysed sample (column 3), the expected size of CRY2-CreN. Much of this fragment was insoluble (only 5% was soluble) suggesting that CRY2-CreN fragments may be misfolded or aggregated, thus limiting potential CRY2 activity within the cell.

Significantly, CIB1-CreC fragments during the SDS PAGE analysis (column 4) suggested proteolysis of the mainly soluble fragment or a lack of full-length protein expression (as a band at 47kDa was expected). This was particularly puzzling as our research into the CRY2/CIB1 optogentic device had suggested that CIB1 expressed successfully in E. coli. It was suggested by our Instructor (Spencer Whitney) that the large spans of lysine residues occuring on the CIB1 fragment may have made CIB1 particularly prone to proteolysis.

Insolubility of CRY2 and proteolysis of CIB1 were consistent across the FRET and Cre-recombinase constructs, suggesting the issue was with those proteins and not a characteristic of the fusion. So although the protein fragments fused to CRY2 and CIB1 may be intact, soluble and functional, it is likely the system would not be light-inducible as the insoluble CRY2 and cleaved CIB1 cannot associate.