Difference between revisions of "Team:Marburg/Measurement"

Line 219: Line 219:
 
<p>
 
<p>
 
               Figure 1 shows our setup for the measurement of growth curves. The gated beads are counted to an event number of 1000. Meanwhile our cells are counted in a defined gate reaching from 2x10<sup>3</sup> to 10<sup>5</sup> relative fluorescence units. For detection of autofluorescence the APC filter was used. APC stands for Allophycocyanin, as this filter is designed to show the fluorescence of excited Allophycocyanin from red algae - a protein similar to phycocyanin in cyanobacteria, which is the reason why this setup works well to show cyanobacterial autofluorescence.<br><br>
 
               Figure 1 shows our setup for the measurement of growth curves. The gated beads are counted to an event number of 1000. Meanwhile our cells are counted in a defined gate reaching from 2x10<sup>3</sup> to 10<sup>5</sup> relative fluorescence units. For detection of autofluorescence the APC filter was used. APC stands for Allophycocyanin, as this filter is designed to show the fluorescence of excited Allophycocyanin from red algae - a protein similar to phycocyanin in cyanobacteria, which is the reason why this setup works well to show cyanobacterial autofluorescence.<br><br>
              </p>
+
 
              <figure>
+
<center><figure Style="text-align:center">
                <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/f/f2/T--Marburg--CellCountSetup.png" alt="CellCountSetup">
+
                        <!-- add this for centered pics-->
                <figcaption>
+
                        <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/f/f2/T--Marburg--CellCountSetup.png" >
                  Fig.1 - Setup for the creation of growth curves through cell counts with flow cytometry.
+
                        <figcaption>
                </figcaption>
+
                            Figure 1 - Setup for the creation of growth curves through cell counts with flow cytometry.
              </figure>
+
                        </figcaption>
             
+
                        </figure></center>
              <p>
+
</p>
 +
        <p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 1em;">              
 +
 
 +
         
 
               Comparing flow cytometry measurements to optical density measurements we were able to find some striking differences.
 
               Comparing flow cytometry measurements to optical density measurements we were able to find some striking differences.
 
               Using the exact same probes and paying very close attention to work carefully we created to growth curves which, although showing the same tendency, differ from one another. While in the optical density measurements the culture seems to shift towards the stationary phase (Fig. 2), the cell counts show us a still exponentially growing culture (Fig. 3). Calculating the doubling time between two exact same time points for both approaches we were again able to find a difference: while the OD730 measurements resulted in a calculated doubling time of 108 minutes for the UTEX 2973 strain, the calculation using cell counts resulted in a doubling time of 94 minutes - a difference of 14 minutes between two measurement methods for the exact same samples!
 
               Using the exact same probes and paying very close attention to work carefully we created to growth curves which, although showing the same tendency, differ from one another. While in the optical density measurements the culture seems to shift towards the stationary phase (Fig. 2), the cell counts show us a still exponentially growing culture (Fig. 3). Calculating the doubling time between two exact same time points for both approaches we were again able to find a difference: while the OD730 measurements resulted in a calculated doubling time of 108 minutes for the UTEX 2973 strain, the calculation using cell counts resulted in a doubling time of 94 minutes - a difference of 14 minutes between two measurement methods for the exact same samples!
 
               </p>
 
               </p>
              <figure>
+
<center><figure Style="text-align:center">
                <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/6/65/T--Marburg--GrowthCurveOD.png" alt="GrowthCurveOD">
+
                        <!-- add this for centered pics-->
                <figcaption>
+
                        <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/6/65/T--Marburg--GrowthCurveOD.png" alt="GrowthCurveOD">
                  Fig.2 - Growth of <i>S. elongatus</i> UTEX 2973 and PCC 7942 measured by optical density.
+
                        <figcaption>
                </figcaption>
+
                            Fig.2 - Growth of <i>S. elongatus</i> UTEX 2973 and PCC 7942 measured by optical density.
              </figure>
+
                        </figcaption>
 +
                        </figure></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><figure Style="text-align:center">
 +
                        <!-- add this for centered pics-->
 +
                        <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/9/99/T--Marburg--GrowthCurveCellCount.png" alt="CellCountSetup">
 +
                        <figcaption>
 +
                            Fig.3 - Growth of <i>S. elongatus</i> UTEX 2973 and PCC 7942 measured by flow cytometry.
 +
                        </figcaption>
 +
                        </figure></center>
 +
 
 
                
 
                
              <figure>
 
                <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/9/99/T--Marburg--GrowthCurveCellCount.png" alt="CellCountSetup">
 
                <figcaption>
 
                  Fig.3 - Growth of <i>S. elongatus</i> UTEX 2973 and PCC 7942 measured by flow cytometry.
 
                </figcaption>
 
              </figure>
 
 
               <br><br>
 
               <br><br>
 
               <h2 class="subtitle" style="font-size: 1.5rem !important" >Cell cytometry to examine gene expression levels</h2>
 
               <h2 class="subtitle" style="font-size: 1.5rem !important" >Cell cytometry to examine gene expression levels</h2>
Line 252: Line 259:
 
               As expected, no YFP expressing cells could be counted in the wild type strain.
 
               As expected, no YFP expressing cells could be counted in the wild type strain.
 
               </p>
 
               </p>
              <figure>
+
 
                <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/2/27/T--Marburg--UDARyfpFACSmeasurement.png" alt="UTEXwtYFP">
+
<center><figure Style="text-align:center">
                <figcaption>
+
                        <!-- add this for centered pics-->
                  Fig.4 - YFP expression of the wild type strain.
+
                        <imgsrc="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/2/27/T--Marburg--UDARyfpFACSmeasurement.png" alt="UTEXwtYFP">
                </figcaption>
+
                        <figcaption>
              </figure>
+
                            Fig.4 - YFP expression of the wild type strain.
 +
                        </figcaption>
 +
                        </figure></center>
 +
 
 +
 
 
               <br><br>
 
               <br><br>
 
               <p>
 
               <p>
Line 263: Line 274:
 
             </p>
 
             </p>
 
               <br><br>
 
               <br><br>
              <figure>
+
 
                <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/a/a7/T--Marburg--ConjugantYFPexpression.png" alt="ConjugantYFPexpression">
+
<center><figure Style="text-align:center">
                <figcaption>
+
                        <!-- add this for centered pics-->
                  Fig.5 - YFP expression of a conjugant strain.
+
                        <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/a/a7/T--Marburg--ConjugantYFPexpression.png" alt="ConjugantYFPexpression">
                </figcaption>
+
                        <figcaption>
              </figure>
+
                            Fig.5 - YFP expression of a conjugant strain.
 +
                        </figcaption>
 +
                        </figure></center>
 +
 
 +
 
 
                         </div>
 
                         </div>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>

Revision as of 10:24, 8 December 2019

M E A S U R E M E N T


Amplifying new standards in measurement

We entered this project as the first Marburg iGEM team working with Synechococcus elongatus UTEX 2973, the fastest phototrophic organism. Missing knowledge in handling and cultivation of UTEX 2973 left us in front of many problems and questions. Especially the usage of different media, light conditions and other cultivating and measurement parameters were one of the biggest problems we discovered in scientific papers. Many of these problems are reasoned in the ongoing optimization and development of methods and instruments. Therefore it is hard to hold on to special methods; nevertheless, standardization is paramount in synthetic microbiology in order to be able to compare results with other scientists and reproduce their data.

Because we wanted to establish Synechococcus elongatus as a new chassis for the iGEM community and scientists, we should show the best conditions for cultivation and the best measuring method for our parts in UTEX 2973. Therefore we analyzed a big variety of cultivating conditions in measuring growth curves, tried to find a standard in light measurement, evaluated different reporters, established a measurement method and compared it to a already known FACS measurement method.

At the beginning of our project we faced the first question: how to cultivate UTEX at 1500 μE? To answer this we had to measure the light conditions in our incubators and while doing this simple task the first part of standardization began. We discovered that nearly every paper is using different methods to measure their light conditions and that it is a really complex and important procedure. So we got in contact with Cyano and light measurement experts to confront this problem and standardize it. In the following popups we show different ways of measurement, their (dis-)advantages and different results depending on the measuring instrument.

Moreover, not only the light intensity but also a variety of other cultivating parameters needed to be analyzed. In literature and while talking with different experts, we recognized that small deviations of these parameters had a huge impact on the growth speed of Synechococcus elongatus. While establishing UTEX 2973 as a new chassis we evaluated this impact on the growth speed and were able to show combinations of parameters that lead to the fastest growth speed.

Another aspects were measuring the expression and characterizing our part. Different possibilities were discussed and after testing them we decided on two methods in our project. One approach was to measure the fluorescence/luminescence with a plate reader. Plate readers belong to standard equipment of every lab nowadays, and could deliver easy reproducible results. The second way was to measure the fluorescence by FACS (Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting). In contrast to a platerader a FACs device delivers results with high accuracy by measuring every cell by its own.

However, not every laboratory posses a FACS/device. So in the end we would like to offer a database - analyzed using these two methods - from our constructs for iGEM teams and research groups, who do not have access to a FACS and show the difference in measurement methods.

In the end of the project we were able to create a protocol how to handle Synechococcus elongatus UTEX 2973 and make a contribution to the cyano community by establishing essential/fixed standards in measurements.


L I G H T
M E A S U R E M E N T


Light measurements are a crucial aspect when working on phototrophic organisms - here’s how we tackled some issues we faced!

R E P O R T E R S


Fluorescence Reporters

F A C S


FACS Measurements

P A R T
M E A S U R E M E N T


Establishing a measurement workflow that is not only applicable to UTEX 2973 and other cyanobacteria with a high throughput.

G R O W T H
C U R V E S


Varying our growth conditions we were finally able to achieve doubling times of under 80 minutes.