Difference between revisions of "Team:Exeter/Integrated Practices/lab"

Line 667: Line 667:
  
 
We contacted Dr Markus Gershater, chief scientific officer at <i>Synthace Ltd</i>, to ask him what the application of kill switches might be in an industrial setting and what evidence would be satisfactory for their use. Dr Gershater gave the view that kill switches would not be as effective or economical as the physical and chemical bio-containment methods that Synthace currently employ. One of his concerns was increasing the complexity of an industrial strain makes reproducibility and scalability more difficult. Any mis-control of the switch would incur cost as the run of that culture would die. For these reasons Dr Gershater thought that if increased containment is needed, investment in better physical containment is more effective and economical than biological methods. We decided to test how a kill switch might behave in an industrial setting by performing a continuous culture in a ministat (see <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Exeter/Project#culture">here</a> for details). In this way we could test how viable a containment strategy kill switches are when used in industry.<br><br>
 
We contacted Dr Markus Gershater, chief scientific officer at <i>Synthace Ltd</i>, to ask him what the application of kill switches might be in an industrial setting and what evidence would be satisfactory for their use. Dr Gershater gave the view that kill switches would not be as effective or economical as the physical and chemical bio-containment methods that Synthace currently employ. One of his concerns was increasing the complexity of an industrial strain makes reproducibility and scalability more difficult. Any mis-control of the switch would incur cost as the run of that culture would die. For these reasons Dr Gershater thought that if increased containment is needed, investment in better physical containment is more effective and economical than biological methods. We decided to test how a kill switch might behave in an industrial setting by performing a continuous culture in a ministat (see <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Exeter/Project#culture">here</a> for details). In this way we could test how viable a containment strategy kill switches are when used in industry.<br><br>
We then contacted Dr Tom Ellis  who leads research in synthetic biology and synthetic genome engineering at Imperial College London. His view was that kill switches are not necessarily inherently flawed, but they are a lot more prone to breaking by mutation than other possible mechanisms (e.g. auxotrophies). He suggested that multiple mechanisms could be combined that each have less than 1 in a billion escape rates. This would could give an escape rate of 1 in 10<sup>20</sup>. As a result of this and our own ideas we designed a system that would incorporate both KillerRed, a kill switch already in the registry and KillerOrange, a new part. Both could work together to provide a more effective kill switch and provide a failsafe if one of the kill switches became ineffective due to mutation. Initially we aimed to construct an operon that contained KillerRed and KillerOrange. This was unfeasible with the cloning strategy that we were using as the overhangs that join the ribosome binding site (RBS) to the coding sequence (CDS) would not differentiate between KillerRed and KillerOrange. Constructing KillerRed and KillerOrange on plasmid backbones with different antibiotic resistance markers would allow both to be transformed together. This is a simpler way to test the hypothesis and would be interesting for the future. We also designed a CRISPR based kill switch building on the work of Caliando and Voigt (2015) that would test if having several targets would increase kill switch efficiency. We designed the spacer array to target three essential genes polA, rpoC and topA using the <i>deskgen</i> platform. We selected three protospacers within the CDS of each essential gene. The cleavage sites were designed to be in the first third, the centre third and the final third of the CDS. The spacer array was designed to be carried on the pSB1C3 plasmid under the control of a constituitive promoter (BBa_J23100). Our aim was to investigate whether combining multiple targets would improve efficiency, whether some genes were more effective targets than others and whether targeting multiple protospacers simultaneously was more effective than a single cleavage site. We designed primers to obtain the Cas9 and tracr RNA sequence from BBa_K1218011 provided in the distribution kit. After several attempts transformations remained unsuccessful. The spacer array could also not be produced as a G-block due to the high number of repeating sequences.<br><br>  
+
We then contacted Dr Tom Ellis  who leads research in synthetic biology and synthetic genome engineering at Imperial College London. His view was that kill switches are not necessarily inherently flawed, but they are a lot more prone to breaking by mutation than other possible mechanisms (e.g. auxotrophies). He suggested that multiple mechanisms could be combined that each have less than 1 in a billion escape rates. This would could give an escape rate of 1 in 10<sup>20</sup>. As a result of this and our own ideas we designed a system that would incorporate both KillerRed, a kill switch already in the registry and KillerOrange, a new part. Both could work together to provide a more effective kill switch and provide the increased efficiency that Dr Ellis talked about. This influenced the design of the CRISPR based kill switch we had hoped to develop as we intended to test the effect of targeting multiple essential genes within the host genome instead of just one.<br><br>  
  
 
We spoke to Prof. Robert Beardmore EPSRC Leadership Fellow in the Mathematical Biosciences at Exeter University. Much of his research has been into antibiotic resistance. We discussed how high selection pressure is applied by prolonged use of antibiotics and how kill switches may be analogous to this. It is clear that cells which develop a mutation that inactivates the kill switch would be strongly selected for. It was estimated that functional loss of the kill switch would occur in a short amount of time as a result, and if this was the case, could have strong implications for kill switch longevity. Because of this discussion we decided to test the effectiveness of kill switches over time in the ministat. We measured the efficiency of KillerRed and KillerOrange over time in a continuous culture and found that within a week the efficiency of the kill switch was reduced to the level of the control. (see <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Exeter/Project#MSE">results</a>).<br><br>
 
We spoke to Prof. Robert Beardmore EPSRC Leadership Fellow in the Mathematical Biosciences at Exeter University. Much of his research has been into antibiotic resistance. We discussed how high selection pressure is applied by prolonged use of antibiotics and how kill switches may be analogous to this. It is clear that cells which develop a mutation that inactivates the kill switch would be strongly selected for. It was estimated that functional loss of the kill switch would occur in a short amount of time as a result, and if this was the case, could have strong implications for kill switch longevity. Because of this discussion we decided to test the effectiveness of kill switches over time in the ministat. We measured the efficiency of KillerRed and KillerOrange over time in a continuous culture and found that within a week the efficiency of the kill switch was reduced to the level of the control. (see <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Exeter/Project#MSE">results</a>).<br><br>

Revision as of 21:09, 19 October 2016