Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
First, amplifying Lysep3-D8 gene from a plasmid containing <a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K3034012">BBa_K3034012</a>, we inserted it into an expression vector induced by IPTG(final concentration is 0.5mM) and transformed it into <p style="display: inline;font-style: italic">E.coli</p> BL21(DE3). We added the inducer at the logarithmic phase(OD600=0.5) of <p style="display: inline;font-style: italic">E.coli</p> to verify the effect of cleavage of Lysep3-D8(Fig.1). | First, amplifying Lysep3-D8 gene from a plasmid containing <a href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K3034012">BBa_K3034012</a>, we inserted it into an expression vector induced by IPTG(final concentration is 0.5mM) and transformed it into <p style="display: inline;font-style: italic">E.coli</p> BL21(DE3). We added the inducer at the logarithmic phase(OD600=0.5) of <p style="display: inline;font-style: italic">E.coli</p> to verify the effect of cleavage of Lysep3-D8(Fig.1). | ||
<p>Second, we inserted red fluorescent protein (TagRFP) after the light-sensitive promoter system to characterize the function of the light control system. The control group was under continuous illumination at 470 nm and the experimental group was in absolute dark conditions(all other conditions are exactly the same.). After 24 h, comparing the experimental group with the control group, we found that the experimental group did not show the expected red color visible to the naked eye.</p> | <p>Second, we inserted red fluorescent protein (TagRFP) after the light-sensitive promoter system to characterize the function of the light control system. The control group was under continuous illumination at 470 nm and the experimental group was in absolute dark conditions(all other conditions are exactly the same.). After 24 h, comparing the experimental group with the control group, we found that the experimental group did not show the expected red color visible to the naked eye.</p> | ||
− | <p>Finally, we carried out the bactericidal effect of ultraviolet rays irradiated at different gradient times.In the experiment to verify the ultraviolet bactericidal effect, we designed the experimental group with the duration of UV irradiation (10 mins, 30 mins, 60 mins), and did not irradiate ultraviolet light as a blank control group. At different irradiation times, 20 microliters of bacterial solution was taken and applied to LB medium, and cultured overnight, which can be used to judge the ultraviolet sterilization effect (Fig.2).</p> | + | <p>Finally, we carried out the bactericidal effect of ultraviolet rays irradiated at different gradient times.In the experiment to verify the ultraviolet bactericidal effect, we designed the experimental group with the duration of UV irradiation (10 mins, 30 mins, 60 mins), and did not irradiate ultraviolet light as a blank control group. At different irradiation times, 20 microliters of bacterial solution was taken and applied to LB medium, and cultured overnight, which can be used to judge the ultraviolet sterilization effect (Fig.2.1, Fig.2.2 and Fig.2.3).</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 13:09, 11 October 2019
Overview
Biosafety
Introduction
Parts
Experiments
E.coli
BL21(DE3). We added the inducer at the logarithmic phase(OD600=0.5) ofE.coli
to verify the effect of cleavage of Lysep3-D8(Fig.1).Second, we inserted red fluorescent protein (TagRFP) after the light-sensitive promoter system to characterize the function of the light control system. The control group was under continuous illumination at 470 nm and the experimental group was in absolute dark conditions(all other conditions are exactly the same.). After 24 h, comparing the experimental group with the control group, we found that the experimental group did not show the expected red color visible to the naked eye.
Finally, we carried out the bactericidal effect of ultraviolet rays irradiated at different gradient times.In the experiment to verify the ultraviolet bactericidal effect, we designed the experimental group with the duration of UV irradiation (10 mins, 30 mins, 60 mins), and did not irradiate ultraviolet light as a blank control group. At different irradiation times, 20 microliters of bacterial solution was taken and applied to LB medium, and cultured overnight, which can be used to judge the ultraviolet sterilization effect (Fig.2.1, Fig.2.2 and Fig.2.3).
Results
E.coli
(BL21) (inhibition rate was about 30.7%).From the comparison results of the above three groups, it can be seen that the sterilization effect of the ultraviolet lamp is very remarkable. Compared to our light-controlled cracking system, UV lamps can better meet the needs of practical applications.
From the above experimental results, under the condition of suitable protein expression, the antibacterial effect of Lysep3-D8 protein induced by IPTG strong inducer was not significant compared with the blank control. When we verified the induction intensity of the blue light-controlled promoter, from the experimental results, it did not have a good induction effect compared to the IPTG-inducible promoter. And from the above experiments using different durations of UV irradiation, we can conclude that UV has a significant bactericidal effect and can be easily applied to our hardware equipment.
In order to realize our concept of high efficiency and biosafety, in the realization of hardware biosafety, we finally decided to adopt a low-cost and high-efficiency physical sterilization method, using double-ultraviolet sterilization to prevent engineering bacteria leakage to the maximum extent to ensure the environment. And people's safety. This can promote the further development of hardware, making it more potential to enter the community.
Horizontal Gene Transfer(HGT)
E.coli
in the future.E.coli
such as the enzyme III subunit δ (holB), methionyl-tRNA synthetase (metG), phosphoglycerate kinase (pgk), etc. can be modified to encode the codon UAG into NSAA L-4, 4'-biphenylalanine (bipA), which has a different size and geometry than any standard amino acid, as well as hydrophobic chemicals that are expected to be compatible with the protein core.References
Journal of Microbiology,
2017, Volume 55, Number 5, Page 403[2] Philippe Marliere. The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world.
Systems and Synthetic Biology,
2009, Volume 3, Number 1-4, Page 77[3] Daniel J. Mandell, Marc J. Lajoie, Michael T. Mee, et al. Biocontainment of genetically modified organisms by synthetic protein design.
Nature,
2015, Volume 518, Pages 55–60Lab Safety
Chasiss
E.coli
DH5a,E.coli
BL21(DE3) ,E.coli
CICIM B0016,E.coli
TOP 10 andE.coli
MC1061, which all belong to RISK GROUP 1, means they are low risk for human being and environment.Part
Expected Protection Mechanism
Disposal
Training
Operation
Laboratory coveralls, gowns or uniforms must be worn at all times for work in the laboratory;
When some volatile toxic reagents are necessary, we will operate in the fume hood; All reagents have designated position and must returned after experiment;
A variety of drugs and reagents must be signed a clean label including the name, concentration, specification, etc.;
Daily decontamination of all work surfaces when work is complete;
Prohibition of food, drink and smoking materials in lab setting;
Pipetting by mouth of any material is forbidden. You must always use the teats, syringes, and pipette-fillers provided;
Contaminated glassware, plastic ware, microscope slides and discarded Petri dishes etc., must be placed in the receptacles indicated by the lecturer in charge;