iGEM 2018 — Team St_Andrews

[![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/8b/HQ_page_logo.jpg)](https://2018.igem.org)

# Team:St Andrews/Notebook

* [Home](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews)
* Team
  + [Team members](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Team)
  + [Collaborations](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Collaborations)
* Project
  + [Description & Design](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Description)
  + [Experiments](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Experiments)
  + [Notebook](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Notebook)
  + [InterLab](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/InterLab)
  + [Model](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Model)
  + [Results](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Results)
  + [Demonstrate](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Demonstrate)
  + [Improve](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Improve)
  + [Attributions](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Attributions)
* Human practice
  + [Human practices](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Human_Practices)
  + [Education & Engagement](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Public_Engagement)
* [Safety](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Safety)
* [Judging form](https://igem.org/2018_Judging_Form?team=St_Andrews)

# Notebook

### ⤵

* [May](#may)
* [June](#june)
* [July](#july)
* [August](#august)
* [September](#september)
* [October](#october)

### May

During May, the initial stages of project planning occurred, and the team began research on what was feasible and what would be the best way to approach the question posed.

### June

Continued planning for various parts of the project, researching necessary protocols and finalising sequences for the first stages of experiments.

#### Cell lysis:

The team determined which constructs should contain which promoter (weak/strong), which fluorescent protein should be used as the signal part of the system, and later which part of the mNeonGreen protein and which should include a tag for binding affinity. Constructs were ordered.

#### Biofilm:

Researched properties of the constitution of biofilms that were specific to Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and could be targeted by the system we aimed to create.

#### Other:

InterLab began initial calibrations for performing the cell measurement and CFU counting experiment, and prepared the initial amount of backbone pSB1C3 provided by iGEM.

### July

#### Cell lysis:

Initially constructs 1-8 were inserted into backbone puc19 with restriction enzymes Nde1 and Pci1, and then transformed into E. coli strain DH5α. Once inserted, constructs were sent for sequencing and were successful. Backbone pHISTEV was prepared by digestion with enzymes Nco1 and Xho1 to be used with construct 9as a standard for measuring fluorescence of other constructs. Constructs 3 and 7 were sent for sequencing. iGEM backbone was prepared for insertion of constructs 1-8 by digesting with EcoR1 and Spe1. Initial attempts to insert the constructs into pSB1C3 failed.

#### Biofilm:

The team performed PCR to add the necessary restriction sites (EcoR1 and Spe1)

#### Other:

InterLab prepared competent cells for the wetlab team to use, and performed the cell measurement and CFU counting protocols as provided by iGEM.

### August

#### Cell lysis:

Restriction enzymes Spe1 and EcoR1 were added to constructs 1-9. Constructs 1-8 were inserted into pSB1C3 and 9 was inserted into pHISTEV, and then transformed into DH5α. Multiple attempts to measure fluorescence of construct 9 induced with ITPG in LB were made, the first few failures due to the addition of the wrong antibiotic (used chloramphenicol when kanamycin was needed). Initial attempts to generate absorbance through combinations of export and retain constructs lysing with bugbuster failed, so switched to lysing via sonification. After switching to this method, constructs 1 and 5 were successfully grown and combined in minimal media (M9). Constructs 2 and 6 were also co-cultured to compare the effectiveness of the added tag. To test if the mNeonGreen protein was present in the constructs, cultures of constructs 1-7 (8 was not tested due to there not being enough lanes on the gel) were run on a Western Blot. Construct 9 production of mNeonGreen (His-tagged) was quantified using a nickel chromatography pull-down.

#### Biofilm:

Constructs 1-8 were inserted into puc19, after various failed attempts to clone the constructs into pSB1C3 it was decided to try to insert the constructs into the backbone using Gibson Assembly, so primers were designed for biofilm constructs 1-4. This attempt was successful only for construct 2, which was confirmed by sequencing.

#### Other:

InterLab carried out the optional flow cytometry measurement and redid the cell measurement part of the protocol as the initial measurement data was rejected due to an issue with the negative control. Gibson Assembly primers were designed and ordered for part characterisation experiment and insertion of biofilm constructs into pHISTEV and pSB1C3.

### September

#### Cell lysis:

Various combinations of constructs 1, 2, 5, and 6 were made and used to determine the time necessary for the separate parts of mNeonGreen to combine and fluoresce in a time trial.

#### Biofilm:

First attempts at Gibson failed and reattempted, and constructs 3 and 4 were sent off to be sequenced.

#### Other:

PCR of part characterisation gene block and insertion into pSB1C3 using Gibson Assembly. Part improvement experiment begun by ordering primers for Gibson Assembly of constructs with mOrange and the improved part, mOrange2, into pSB1C3 with the restriction sites Xho1 and Nco1 added.

### October

#### Cell lysis:

To prepare for submission, the team attempted to insert mNeonGreen 1-10 and mNeonGreen 11 separately into pSB1C3 to be submitted as basic parts as well as being submitted as composite parts. A single colony grew on the plate of mNeonGreen 1-10, which was submitted without sequencing. Test of system under realistic conditions to be run using an antibiotic to lyse cells retaining mNeonGreen instead of using sonification.

#### Biofilm:

Construct 2 (alginate binding construct) submitted to the registry.

#### Other:

The team performed PCR on mOrange and mOrange2 to prepare the gene blocks for insertion into pHISTEV


[![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/8b/HQ_page_logo.jpg)](https://2018.igem.org)

# Team:St Andrews/Experiments

* [Home](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews)
* Team
  + [Team members](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Team)
  + [Collaborations](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Collaborations)
* Project
  + [Description & Design](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Description)
  + [Experiments](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Experiments)
  + [Notebook](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Notebook)
  + [InterLab](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/InterLab)
  + [Model](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Model)
  + [Results](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Results)
  + [Demonstrate](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Demonstrate)
  + [Improve](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Improve)
  + [Attributions](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Attributions)
* Human practice
  + [Human practices](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Human_Practices)
  + [Education & Engagement](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Public_Engagement)
* [Safety](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Safety)
* [Judging form](https://igem.org/2018_Judging_Form?team=St_Andrews)

# Experiments

### ⤵

* [Miraprep & miniprep](#miraprep)
* [Plasmid/gBlock double digest](#digest)
* [Gel purification](#gel)
* [Ligation](#ligation)
* [Transformation](#transformation)
* [Cell culture](#culture)

### Miraprep

#### Background

The Miraprep is a method that uses commercial Miniprep kits for the purification of DNA using a silica column, to get results comparable to industrial purifications. The process essentially runs 5 Minipreps at once resulting in a greater yield of stable plasmid. This step was used to purify large quantities of unaltered vector DNA for digestion, gel purification, and ligation with our DNA g-blocks. The protocol was adapted from Pronobis et al. 2016.

#### Aim

To purify recombinant plasmid DNA from transformed E. coli cells in high concentrations for sequencing and further transformations.

#### Materials

* QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (1)
* 96% ethanol
* 50mL Falcon tube
* 50mg/mL RNase
* Centrifuge
* 1.5mL microcentrifuge tubes
* Microcentrifuge
* 15mL Falcon tube
* Distilled Water

#### Protocol

The QIAprep spin miniprep kit was collected and it was ensured that the DNA wash buffer was mixed with ethanol. Following this, a 50mL overnight culture was transferred to a 50mL Falcon tube and spun down at 3230xg for 20 minutes\* at 4°C. The supernatant was discarded, and the pellet was resuspended in 2mL of resuspension buffer (P1) with 50ug/mL RNase – fresh RNase was required each time. The resuspended 2mL was then aliquoted into 4 seperate 1.5mL centrifuge tube, each with 0.5mL of the resuspension\*. Lysis buffer, 0.5mL, was added to each aliquot which was then inverted 4 times, and then left to incubate for 3 minutes at room temperature.Neutralisation buffer, 0.5mL, was added to each aliquot and the microcentrifuge tube was inverted 4 times before the tubes were then spun at 13,000xg for 10 minutes at room temperature. The supernatant was collected in a 15mL tube and the pellets were discarded. 1x volume (6mL) of 96% ethanol was added and the solution was mixed thoroughly for 5 seconds.

The solution was then loaded onto 5 spin columns in 3 sequential 700uL aliquots and spun at 13,000xg for 30 seconds before flow through was discarded. The columns were washed twice with 500uL of wash buffer, being spun after each wash at 13,000xg for 30 seconds and the flow through discarded. The empty columns were spun once more at 13,000xg for 1.5 minutes to remove any remaining buffer. Following this, the old collection tube was discarded, and each column placed into a new spin tube. The DNA was eluted from the column by adding distilled water, 35uL. This was left to incubate for 2 minutes at room temperature, and spun at 13,000xg for 2 minutes. The eluted DNA was collected in one tube and measured on the Nanodrop before the microcentrifuge was clearly labelled and stored at -20°C.
\* denotes an adaptation to the published procedure.

### Miniprep Background The purpose of the Miniprep is to purify plasmid DNA from a cell culture for further use. Minipreps typically produce ~50µL of purified DNA. This technique was used when lower levels of plasmi were required to avoid using a Miraprep. Materials * QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (1) * 1.5mL microcentrifuge tubes * Microcentrifuge * Distilled Water * Centrifuge * 15mL Falcon tube Protocol ~5mL of cells taken from an overnight culture were spun down in a 15mL Falcon tube in a centrifuge at 4,200xg for 10 minutes and the supernatant discarded. The pellet was then resuspended in 250µL of buffer P1 (ensuring RNase was added beforehand) and transferred to a 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube. Following this, 250µL of buffer P2 was added and the tube was inverted 6 times to ensure thorough mixing. Buffer N3, 350µL, was then added and the mixing step above repeated immediately. The tube was then spun down in a microcentrifuge at full speed for 10 minutes. The supernatant from this process was then added to a QIAprep spin column and spun down for 60 seconds. The column was then washed with 0.5mL of buffer PB and centrifuging again for 60 seconds. The column was further washed by adding 0.75mL and centrifuged for a further 60 seconds. The flow through was discarded and centrifuged once more for 60 seconds before the flow through was discarded. Finally, 50µL of distilled water was added to the centre of the column and left to incubate for 1 minute. The column was then spun down at full speed for 1 minute.

### Digest of gBlocks Background The DNA sequences for the proteins we desired to express were constructed by designing plasmids containing everything required for cloning, digesting, expressing, and purifying. These protein sequences were optimised for E. coli and ordered via Integrated DNA Technologies. In order for these gBlocks to be inserted into our chosen plasmids (varying between pEHISTEV, pUC19, ad pSB1C3), the ends had to be cleaved to allow ligation into the vector. Over the course of the project varying enzymes were used depending on the vector (table 1). The following protocol was written up for an NdeI and PciI double digest. ![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/3/36/T--St_Andrews--protocol_t1.png) Table 1. Restriction enzymes used in each vector Materials * Water bath at 37°C * 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube * NEB NdeI * NEB PciI * Distilled water * Buffer 3.1 * 10ng/µL of gBlock Protocol In a 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube, a volume of 25µL of gBlock was mixed with 3µL of 3.1 buffer and 2µL each of NdeI and PciI. This was then kept in a water bath for 2 hours at 37°C. Following completion, the digest could then be used in a ligation with purified and digested plasmid.

### Digest of Plasmids Background The plasmids used in our cloning were pSB1C3 for submission of parts, pEHISTEV which contains a promoter and so was used for overexpression, and pUC19 which was chosen for ease of cloning in preliminary rounds. The restriction sites used in each plasmid is shown in table 1. The following protocol was written up for an NdeI and PciI double digest of pUC19. Materials * Water bath at 37°C * 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube * NEB NdeI * NEB PciI * Distilled water * Buffer 3.1 * 2.5µg of gBlock Protocol In a 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube, 2.5µg of plasmid DNA was mixed with 3µL of 3.1 buffer, 2µL each of NdeI and PciI, and made up to 30µL distilled water with the enzyme being added last. This was then kept in a water bath at 37°C for 2 hours. Following completion, the digest could then be purified via gel electrophoresis and used in a ligation with gBlock constructs cleaved with the same enzymes. A single digest was also run for each of the restriction enzymes. Note It is noted in the original paper on the Miraprep (Pronobis, Deuitch and Peifer, 2016) that over time the RNase in buffer P1 can degrade. This note was not originally caught by our lab team and as a result, Mirapreps of pSB1C3 and pEHISTEV likely gave us samples with higher levels of RNA and therefore deceptive DNA concentrations when analysed via the nanodrop spectrometer at OD260. This was identified on gels run after the digest which showed little to no DNA despite 2.5µg apparently used. As a result, the plasmid volume used was increased 10-fold. Due to our inability to appropriately identify the concentration of DNA in our plasmid stock, the exact mass of DNA used is unknown. Following purification, yields of roughly 20ng/µL were given.

### 1% Agarose Gel and Gel Purification Background The 1% agarose gel is used to separate DNA fragments based on size. In this example it was used to separate the cut plasmid to be used for insertion from the smaller fragment that has been removed. The single digests were also both run on the gel as a control. A QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit was then used on the removed band to purify the DNA. Materials * Gel tray and lane fork * Agarose powder * 1x TAE buffer * SYBR Safe * Powerpac * Microwave * QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit * DNA loading dye Protocol A 1% agarose gel was prepared by mixing 0.5g of agarose with 50mL of 1xTAE buffer. This was heated in a microwave in 30 second increments to ensure the solution did not boil and was handled with care at all times. This was left to cool until it was possible to touch it and 5µL of SYBR Safe dye was added. Following this the gel was poured into the gel tray containing the gel fork and was left to set – ensuring no air bubbles were present. Upon setting of the gel and removal of the lane fork, 6µL of 6x molecular weight ladder was added to the first lane and the double and single digests were each mixed with µL of loading dye and added into separate columns. This was then run for half an hour at 90V. Following the running of the gel, it was visualised under an LED light box – thanks to the use of SYBR Safe, no UV box was necessary. Using a clean scalpel and under the LED light, the desired band of DNA for our cleaved plasmid was identified and cleaved from the gel – cutting as close to the band as possible and removing excess gel. The band was put into a 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube and weighed to record the mass of the band. Using 100mg = 100µL, 3 volumes of buffer QG was added to the microcentrifuge tube and the tube was incubated at 50°C until the gel had fully dissolved – vortexing every 2-3 minutes to aid the process. Following this, 1 volume of isopropanol was added and the sample was transferred to a QIAquick spin column within a 2mL collection tube. The column was filled and spun down in a microcentrifuge at 10,000xg or 13,000rpm for 1 minute, the flow through discarded, and then loaded again until all of the sample was loaded on the column. Buffer QG, 0.5mL, was added to the column and centrifuged as above with the flow through discarded. Buffer PE, 0.75mL, was added to the column and the column was left to stand for 5 minutes before being centrifuged as above with the flow through discarded and the column was centrifuged for an additional minute. The column was then placed in a clean microcentrifuge tube and 30µL of water was added. The column was left for 1 minute before being spun as above for a final time. The final sample was then labelled and analysed via nanodrop.

### Ligation of gBlocks and Plasmids Background The process of ligation is necessary to join the digested plasmids and gBlocks together to allow transformation of bacterial cells. By using T4 DNA ligase we were able to ligate our desired gBlocks with their vectors in as little as 5 minutes. Materials * 30-40ng of plasmid * DNA construct * Distilled water * 2.5µg of gBlock * Ice bucket * 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube * NEB 10x T4 ligase buffer * NEB T4 DNA liagse * Water bath at 42°C Protocol A 1.5mL microcentrifuge was filled with the plasmid, 6 µL of construct, 1 µL of 10x T4 ligase buffer, and finally 1 µL of T4 DNA ligase. A negative control was run with the same set up but with 6µL of water in place of construct. Once the microcentrifuge tubes were filled, they were left at room temperature for 5 minutes. Following this a transformation would be carried out.

### Bacterial Cell Transformation Background This protocol is a standard heat shock method for the insertion of recombinant plasmids into target cells. Heat shock takes advantage of a steep temperature gradient to increase the permeability of cell membrane, resulting in the uptake of the new DNA. Materials * Competent E. coli DH5α cells * Sterile spreaders * Distilled water * Sterile LB * Ice bucket * Stationery 37°C incubator * 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube * Recombinant plasmid * Orbital shaking incubator * Water bath at 42°C * Sterile ampicillin plates * Microcentrifuge Protocol Competent cells were transferred from the -80°C into an ice bucket and left to defrost until liquid (20-30 minutes). In this time, 1µL of plasmid was pipetted into a 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube and was added to with 50µL of the competent cells. The microcentrifuge tubes were then transferred onto ice for 20 minutes. Following the 20 minute period, the tubes were placed in a water bath at 42°C for 45 seconds before being immediately returned to ice. After 5 minutes on the ice, 900µL of sterile LB was added to each tube and they were taped side down in an orbital incubator at 37°C for 1 hour. After incubation, the tubes were spun down in a microcentrifuge for 1 minute at full speed, 800µL of supernatant was discarded and the cells were resuspended in the ~100µL remaining. The resuspended cells were then pipetted onto a sterile agar ampicillin plate, spread evenly using sterile spreaders, and stored agar side up in a 37°C stationery incubator overnight.

### Cell Culturing Background Overnight cell cultures are used to produce many bacteria for further isolation of modified DNA. Materials * Inoculated and incubated agar plate with specific bacteria * Sterile LB * Sterile culture flask * Liquid antibiotic * Orbital shaking incubator at 37°C Protocol A sterile culture flask was filled with 10mL of sterile LB was mixed with 10µL of the specific antibiotic from a pre-prepared stock. Into this, a pipette tip was ejected after touching it against an isolated round colony. In some cases, the ideal site could be identified by colour depending on the proteins expressed. This was left in an orbital shaking incubator at 37°C overnight.

### Incubation for Expression of Construct 9 Background To observe the expression of mNeongreen in our bacterial cells, we had to culture them to specific optical densities in order to observe the differences in absorbance following the addition of IPTG which activates expression. Materials * Bacterial stock solution * Sterile LB * Sterile culture flasks * Chloramphenicol * Orbital shaking incubator at 37°C * Spectrophotometer Protocol Absorbance of stock solution was measured at 600nm at the following concentrations: * 4x 250µL stock, 750µL LB, A=1.37 * 10x 100µL stock, 900µL, A=.39 * 20x 50µL stock, 950µL LB, A=.26 * 40x 25µL stock, 975µL LB, A=.15 Two flasks were prepared at 40x dilution\*\*: * 48.75ml LB * 1.25ml stock * 50µL chloramphenicol (25 mM) Flasks are left to incubate until absorbance reached 0.6 After, 50µL of IPTG was added to a single flask with the other left as a negative control. The culture was then left overnight. \*\* dilution does not matter as much as absorbance, dilutions should be made from the stock until A is approximately 0.1 Western Blot Background A Western blot relies initially upon the use of an SDS-PAGE to separate proteins by mass allowing identification of proteins. Following this a blot takes place to transfer the proteins to a membrane with high protein affinity. On this membrane, antibodies specific to the protein of interest can be incubated. A secondary antibody that binds to the original can then be added that has a signal response – often fluorescence. This reporting method allows a rough quantification of the proteins present as well as a more concrete identification of the specific protein. This was used in our investigation to observe whether our protein was being expressed and where in the cell the protein was being expressed. Materials * Pellet samples of each construct * SDS sample buffer * Heating block at 95°C * 8% acrylamide gel * Blotting unit * Prestained protein ladder * Milk powder * Secondary antibody * Sponges, 3MM paper, protein membrane * PBS * Ponceau red * V5 tag * Construct 9 culture * Spectrophotometer * Powerpac * Gel knife * Distilled water * Primary antibody * Roller * Tween 20 * 50mL Falcon tube * Gel imager Protocol The pellets of each construct in microcentrifuge tubes were resuspended in 100µL of reducing agent (5x SDS and water) and heated at 95°C for 10 minutes. A negative control was produced from just construct 9 expressing cells as construct 9 doesn’t have a V5 tag. A positive control was produced containing a V5 tag only. Following the heating of all samples, a premade acrylamide gel was removed from its wrapping, rinsed with deionised water, and inserted into a minicell. The minicell was then filled from the inner chamber out with running buffer. Into the wells of the gel, 5µL of the ladder, 20µL of the positive control, and 25µL of the negative control and all other solutions were loaded. The SDS-PAGE was then run at 200V for 45 minutes and then gradually continued until the dye front reached close to the end of the gel. While the gel was running, the sponges, 3MM paper, and the protein binding membrane were soaked in running buffer – with the membrane soaking independently flanked by tissue paper. The gel was removed from its case and trimmed down before being rinsed with distilled water. The transfer stack was then constructed with the sponges on the outer layer, the 3MM paper inside the sponges, and the membrane and the gel in between the paper. This was then inserted into the blotting unit and ran for 1.5 hours at 100V with an ice pack in the running before to prevent melting. Following this, the membrane was removed from the casing and inserted into a 50mL Falcon tube with 5% milk solution as a blocking buffer and left on a roller for 2 hours. The membrane was then transferred into a second Falcon tube containing 5% milk solution and 5mL primary antibody solution. This was incubated for 1 hour on rotating rollers. Next, the membrane was rinsed twice with 50mL PBS-T and transferred to another 50mL falcon tube containing 40mL PBS-T for a further 5 min incubation with shaking (room temperature). The membrane was rinsed twice again with 40mL PBS-T with the 5 min incubation step in between. After the PBS-T was removed, 5mL of the secondary antibody solution was added to the falcon tube containing the membrane and incubated in the dark for an hour on rotating rollers. Then, the washes described after the primary antibody solution were then repeated in the exact manner. 50mL PBS was then used to rinse the membrane and the signal was visualised using an Odyssey scanner.

[![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/8b/HQ_page_logo.jpg)](https://2018.igem.org)

# Team:St Andrews/Results

* [Home](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews)
* Team
  + [Team members](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Team)
  + [Collaborations](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Collaborations)
* Project
  + [Description & Design](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Description)
  + [Experiments](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Experiments)
  + [Notebook](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Notebook)
  + [InterLab](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/InterLab)
  + [Model](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Model)
  + [Results](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Results)
  + [Demonstrate](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Demonstrate)
  + [Improve](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Improve)
  + [Attributions](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Attributions)
* Human practice
  + [Human practices](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Human_Practices)
  + [Education & Engagement](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Public_Engagement)
* [Safety](https://2018.igem.org/Team%3ASt_Andrews/Safety)
* [Judging form](https://igem.org/2018_Judging_Form?team=St_Andrews)

# Results

### ⤵

### Cell Lysis:

We were able to successfully clone our composite parts into DH5alpha E. coli cells, and Western Blots showed that the proteins were synthesized correctly. The bands were in the appropriate locations for the size of protein we were expecting.

![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c1/T--St_Andrews--results_w1.png)

This is an image of a Western Blot which shows that the mNG1-10 fragment was synthesized correctly.

![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/cf/T--St_Andrews--results_w2.png)

This is an image of a Western Blot which shows that the mNG11 fragment was synthesized correctly.

Then, when the two populations of cells were cultured together, so that the medium was saturated with mNG11 and the other cell population contained mNG1-10 at high levels, lysis via sonicator showed that the split fluorophore came together to emit fluorescence at higher than background level.

In subsequent studies, there was a second positive result, in that lysing the cells with an antibiotic instead of sonication also generated an increase in fluorescence over time, as compared to the initial value. This suggests that the system works under the intended conditions. The fragments of mNeonGreen come together at a detectable rate after cell lysis.

![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/82/T--St_Andrews--results_g.png)

The above graph demonstrates that 100 µl of Ampcillin (to a final concentration of 10 mg/mL) lyses the cells which retain the larger component of mNeonGreen (BBa\_K2844009) at a rate sufficient for the first 10 strands of the beta barrel to join with the 11th strand (BBa\_K2844006).

In terms of difficulties, we were unable to submit DNA samples of our basic parts because the cloning step failed. Essentially we were unable to successfully isolate plasmids that contained the coding sequences for the parts we were interested in submitting. We were able to submit DNA samples of our composite parts, but the plan for submission had to be modified at the last minutes. Moreover, our original intentions for the carrying out part improvement experiments failed as well. We wanted to compare and contrast the relative properties of the fluorescent proteins mOrange and mOrange2, but could not successfully clone them into pSB1C3 either, and so had to abandon that component of our plan. In addition, we struggled to clone mNeonGreen into the backbone pHISTEV to generate an overexpression plasmid.

### Biofilm:

We had great difficulty cloning our biofilm parts into pSB1C3 and transforming cells with them for this component of our project. In fact, the only successful transformation carried out was of the alginate binding protein fused to mCherry. This transformation did however produce a pale purple protein which, when purified, had the appropriate His-Tag suggesting that the protein synthesized was our target molecule, and not the Red Fluorescent Protein within the pSB1C3 backbone it was meant to have displaced.

![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/5/58/T--St_Andrews--results_p3.jpg)

This photo is of a column containing the fused alginate binding protein and mCherry, purified by means of a His-tag