1 / 18

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome. iGEM Journal Club 6/30/10. “Even in simple bacterial cells, do the chromosomes contain the entire genetic repertoire?

orea
Download Presentation

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome iGEM Journal Club 6/30/10

  2. “Even in simple bacterial cells, do the chromosomes contain the entire genetic repertoire? If so, can a complete genetic system be reproduced by chemical synthesis starting with only the digitized DNA sequence contained in a computer?”

  3. Mycoplasma • Genus of bacteria containing the smallest known free-living bacterium (M. genitalium) • Causative agents of caprine/bovine diseases • Small genomes (0.58-1.38kb) • M. genitalium: | 582,970bp • M. capricolum: | 1,155,500bp • M. mycoides: | 1,077,947bp

  4. Precursor Studies

  5. Step 1: Bacterial genome transplant • 2007 – Venter Institute announces the successful transplantation of a Mycoplasma genome from one species to another

  6. Step 2: The Minimal Genome Project • January 2008 – Venter Institute reports having synthesized the complete 582,970 base pair chromosome of M. genitalium • Overlapping "cassettes" of5 to 7kb were assembled from chemically synthesizedoligos • Cassettes were joined by in vitro recombination to produceintermediate assemblies, then inserted into E.coli • Intermediate assemblies inserted into yeast and combined via transformation-associatedrecombination cloning

  7. Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

  8. Genome Design • Two finished M. mycoides genome sequences exist, differing at 95 sites • Sequence differences between the synthetic cassettes and CP001668 that occurred at 19 sites appeared harmless • These provide 19 markers for the synthetic genome • Four watermark sequences were designed to replace one or more cassettes in harmless regions • Tet resistance and X-Gal blue selection

  9. Genome assembly

  10. Stage 1 – Cassettes • 1,078 one-kb cassettes • Cassettes and a vector were recombined in yeast and transferred to E. coli. • Plasmid DNA was then isolated from individual E. coli clones and digested to screen for cells containing a vector with an assembled 10-kb insert.

  11. Stage 2 – 10kb Intermediates • 109 ten-kb sections • Too large for E.coli, so DNA was extracted from yeast to assemble 100kb sections • Analyzed by multiplex PCR

  12. Stage 3 – 100kb intermediates • 11 100kb sections • Isolated in circular plasmid form • Removed linear yeast chromosomes by pooling samples in solidifying agarose • Multiplex PCR and restriction to verify full assembly

  13. Obstacles • Bacterial genomes grown in yeast are unmethylated and thus not protected from the single restriction system of the recipient cell • Methylate the donor DNA with purified methylases or crude M. mycoides or M. capricolum extracts • Disrupt the recipient cell’s restriction system • Success was thwarted for many weeks by a single base pair deletion in the essential gene dnaA. • One wrong base out of over one million in an essential gene rendered the genome inactive!

  14. Successful Transplants! Synthetic Wild-type

  15. Notable results • Sequence matched the intended design with the exception of: • The 19 known polymorphisms • 8 new single nucleotide polymorphisms • E. coli transposon insertion • 85-bp duplication • No sequences from M. capricolum (recipient) • Proteomic analysis shows almost the exact protein pattern as WT M. mycoides

  16. Implications • Synthesis of a custom organism is possible • Our sequencing technology is accurate enough to produce an entire genome • DNA synthesis costs “will follow what has happened with DNA sequencing and continue to exponentially decrease” • Synthetic biology is now in the public eye

  17. Critiques • Patents may stifle synthetic biology in this field • Currently, far less efficient than gene insertion to achieve similar goals

  18. Questions • Is it appropriate to “play god” by creating life? • Does this further blur the line between living things and machines? • Is the risk of bioterrorism/biowarfare worth continuing this technology? What additional safeguards should be put in place? • What advantages does the synthetic genome approach have over gene insertion?

More Related