Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
<h1 class="ui left dividing header"><span id="intro" class="section colorize"> </span>IN PROGRESS Coiled-coil interaction model</h1> | <h1 class="ui left dividing header"><span id="intro" class="section colorize"> </span>IN PROGRESS Coiled-coil interaction model</h1> | ||
<div class = "ui segment" style = "background-color: #ebc7c7; "> | <div class = "ui segment" style = "background-color: #ebc7c7; "> | ||
− | <p><b><ul><li> | + | <p><b><ul><li>A two state model that describe an inducible system based on autoinhibitory coiled coil interactions was designed.<li>The ratio of affinities required for an efficient signaling and for a favourable ratio of signal to noice ratio was determined. |
</ul></b></p> | </ul></b></p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
context of <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Slovenia/Protease_signaling/Logic">logic | context of <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Slovenia/Protease_signaling/Logic">logic | ||
function | function | ||
− | design</a>. Two orthogonal CC | + | design</a>. Two orthogonal CC segments, <b>A</b> and <b>b</b>, fused together in one chain can bind each |
− | other and form a stable CC pair. This complex exists in | + | other and form a stable CC pair. This complex exists in equilibrium with the peptide <b>B</b>, |
which | which | ||
can also bind the peptide <b>A</b> and has a different affinity from the peptide <b>b</b>. The linker that | can also bind the peptide <b>A</b> and has a different affinity from the peptide <b>b</b>. The linker that | ||
− | connects <b>A</b> and <b>b</b> can be cleaved by a generic protease (e.g. TEVp) | + | connects <b>A</b> and <b>b</b> can be cleaved by a generic protease (e.g. TEVp). This irreversible reaction |
− | shifts the equilibrium towards a state in which all | + | shifts the equilibrium towards a state in which all three peptides are free in |
solution | solution | ||
and therefore compete for binding. In our experiments, a similar system as the generic coils | and therefore compete for binding. In our experiments, a similar system as the generic coils | ||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
the | the | ||
difference [AB] - [AB-b]. In order to understand the optimal combination of dissociation | difference [AB] - [AB-b]. In order to understand the optimal combination of dissociation | ||
− | constant required to obtain a good signal we solved two systems of equations | + | constant required to obtain a good signal we solved two systems of equations that describe the two separate states of the system, Before cleavage (eq. 1) and After cleavage (eq. 6). The two states are modeled as separate equilibria, with proteolytic cleavage considered an irreversible and complete reaction.</p> |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
<p>Given values for total concentrations and Kd (from 10<sup>-9</sup> to 10<sup>-3</sup> M) the | <p>Given values for total concentrations and Kd (from 10<sup>-9</sup> to 10<sup>-3</sup> M) the | ||
equations, for the | equations, for the | ||
Line 169: | Line 164: | ||
<x-ref>Moran1999, Zhou2004</x-ref> | <x-ref>Moran1999, Zhou2004</x-ref> | ||
. | . | ||
− | <p> | + | <p>We plotted the the difference [AB] - [AB-b], where [AB] is considered the signal after cleavage and [AB-b] the signal before cleavage (leakage), against different combinations of Kd for the interaction of <b>A</b> with both <b>B</b> and <b>b</b> ($Kd_B$ and $Kd_b$). Our calculations (Figure 2) show that in order to obtain a large |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
difference | difference | ||
− | between signal and leakage | + | between signal and leakage the affinity of coil <b>B</b> for coil <b>A</b> needs to be strong (low $Kd_B$). On the other hand, the affinity of the autoinhibitory coil <b>b</b> should be slightly lower, ($Kdb$ \gt $Kd_B$), but not so low that it would allow too much leakage in the pre-cleavage state (<ref>5.4.2.</ref>, right panel).</p> |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
<div style="float:left; width:100%"> | <div style="float:left; width:100%"> | ||
<figure data-ref="5.4.2."> | <figure data-ref="5.4.2."> | ||
Line 199: | Line 183: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | <p> | + | <p>Based on these results, we decided to use as <b>B</b> one of the peptides from the previously characterized coiled coil toolset used by the <a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:Slovenia">Slovenian iGEM 2009 |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
team</a> | team</a> | ||
− | <x-ref>Gradisar2011</x-ref>. In order to | + | <x-ref>Gradisar2011</x-ref>, P3. In order to |
obtain a detectable signal for <a | obtain a detectable signal for <a | ||
href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Slovenia/Protease_signaling/Logic">logic operation | href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Slovenia/Protease_signaling/Logic">logic operation | ||
Line 217: | Line 199: | ||
heptads, would favour the dissociation. We also tried differently destabilized versions of | heptads, would favour the dissociation. We also tried differently destabilized versions of | ||
P3 | P3 | ||
− | and it turned out that, as in the | + | and it turned out that, as in the model described above, an excessive destabilization |
(obtained by substituting a and d positions with Ala) leads to a small difference of the | (obtained by substituting a and d positions with Ala) leads to a small difference of the | ||
signal | signal |
Revision as of 07:52, 19 October 2016
IN PROGRESS Coiled-coil interaction model
Logic operations in biological systems have been tested with several approaches
The relationship between the signal before and after cleavage by proteases is represented by the difference [AB] - [AB-b]. In order to understand the optimal combination of dissociation constant required to obtain a good signal we solved two systems of equations that describe the two separate states of the system, Before cleavage (eq. 1) and After cleavage (eq. 6). The two states are modeled as separate equilibria, with proteolytic cleavage considered an irreversible and complete reaction.
Given values for total concentrations and Kd (from 10-9 to 10-3 M) the equations, for the reaction constants (2), (3) and (7), (8) and and for mass conservation (4), (5) and (9), (10), (11) were solved for the species at equilibrium.
Before cleavage \begin{equation} \ce{Axb + B <=>[Kd_x] A-b + B <=>[Kd_B] AB-b} \end{equation} \begin{align} Kd_x &= \frac{[A-b]}{[Axb]} \label{1.1-2}\\ Kd_B &= \frac{[A-b] * [B]}{[AB - b]} \\ c_B &= [B] + [AB-b]\\ c_A-b &= [A-b]+[Axb]+[AB-b] \label{2.1-2} \end{align} After cleavage \begin{equation} \ce{Ab + B <=>[Kd_b] A + b + B <=>[Kd_B] AB + b} \end{equation} \begin{align} Kd_b &= \frac{[A] * [b]}{[Ab]} \label{1.3-4}\\ Kd_B &= \frac{[A] * [B]}{[AB]} \\ c_A &= [A]+[AB]+[Ab]\\ c_B &= [B] +[AB]\\ c_b &= [b] + [Ab] \label{2.3-5} \end{align} The two systems are connected by the relation between the dissociation constants $Kd_b$ and $Kd_x$, \begin{equation} Kd_x = Kd_b * 4 * 10^{-3} M^{-1} \end{equation} This relation approximates the higher affinity between the coils A and b when they are covalently linked by a short peptide (as in the system “Before cleavage”)We plotted the the difference [AB] - [AB-b], where [AB] is considered the signal after cleavage and [AB-b] the signal before cleavage (leakage), against different combinations of Kd for the interaction of A with both B and b ($Kd_B$ and $Kd_b$). Our calculations (Figure 2) show that in order to obtain a large difference between signal and leakage the affinity of coil B for coil A needs to be strong (low $Kd_B$). On the other hand, the affinity of the autoinhibitory coil b should be slightly lower, ($Kdb$ \gt $Kd_B$), but not so low that it would allow too much leakage in the pre-cleavage state (5.4.2., right panel).
Based on these results, we decided to use as B one of the peptides from the previously characterized coiled coil toolset used by the Slovenian iGEM 2009
team