A Modular Synthetic Device to Calibrate Promoters

[EN] In this contribution, a design of a synthetic calibration genetic circuit to characterize the relative strength of different sensing promoters is proposed and its specifications and performance are analyzed via an effective mathematical model. Our calibrator device possesses certain novel and useful features like modularity (and thus the possibility of being used in many different biological contexts), simplicity, being based on a single cell, high sensitivity and fast response. To uncover the critical model parameters and the corresponding parameter domain at which the calibrator performance will be optimal, a sensitivity analysis of the model parameters was carried out over a given range of sensing protein concentrations (acting as input). Our analysis suggests that the half saturation constants for repression, sensing and difference in binding cooperativity (Hill coefficients) for repression are the key to the performance of the proposed device. They furthermore are determinant for the sensing speed of the device, showing that it is possible to produce detectable differences in the repression protein concentrations and in turn in the corresponding fluorescence in less than two hours. This analysis paves the way for the design, experimental construction and validation of a new family of functional genetic circuits for the purpose of calibrating promoters.This work has been funded by MICINN TIN2009-12359 project ArtBioCom, the Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia through the program Juan de la Cierva, the FPI grant program of the Generalitat Valenciana and the Beca de recerca predoctoral from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili. The authors would also like to thank the Valencia iGEM 2007 team and Enrique O'Connor and his group from the Centro de Investigacion Prncipe Felipe in the Universidad de Valencia for useful discussions.Gamermann, D.; Montagud Aquino, A.; Aparicio, P.; Navarro-Peris, E.; Triana, J.; Villatoro, F.; Urchueguía Schölzel, JF.... (2012). A Modular Synthetic Device to Calibrate Promoters. Journal of Biological System. 20(1):37-55. https://doi.org/10.1142/S02183390125000153755201Elowitz, M. B., & Leibler, S. (2000). A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature, 403(6767), 335-338. doi:10.1038/35002125Becskei, A., & Serrano, L. (2000). Engineering stability in gene networks by autoregulation. Nature, 405(6786), 590-593. doi:10.1038/35014651Monod, J., & Jacob, F. (1961). General Conclusions: Teleonomic Mechanisms in Cellular Metabolism, Growth, and Differentiation. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 26(0), 389-401. doi:10.1101/sqb.1961.026.01.048Ishiura, M. (1998). Expression of a Gene Cluster kaiABC as a Circadian Feedback Process in Cyanobacteria. Science, 281(5382), 1519-1523. doi:10.1126/science.281.5382.1519Gardner, T. S., Cantor, C. R., & Collins, J. J. (2000). Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature, 403(6767), 339-342. doi:10.1038/35002131Stricker, J., Cookson, S., Bennett, M. R., Mather, W. H., Tsimring, L. S., & Hasty, J. (2008). A fast, robust and tunable synthetic gene oscillator. Nature, 456(7221), 516-519. doi:10.1038/nature07389Becskei, A. (2001). Positive feedback in eukaryotic gene networks: cell differentiation by graded to binary response conversion. The EMBO Journal, 20(10), 2528-2535. doi:10.1093/emboj/20.10.2528Sayut, D. J., Niu, Y., & Sun, L. (2006). Construction and Engineering of Positive Feedback Loops. ACS Chemical Biology, 1(11), 692-696. doi:10.1021/cb6004245Weber, W., & Fussenegger, M. (2006). Pharmacologic transgene control systems for gene therapy. The Journal of Gene Medicine, 8(5), 535-556. doi:10.1002/jgm.903Walz, D., & Caplan, S. R. (1995). Chemical oscillations arise solely from kinetic nonlinearity and hence can occur near equilibrium. Biophysical Journal, 69(5), 1698-1707. doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(95)80039-1Santos, C. N. S., & Stephanopoulos, G. (2008). Combinatorial engineering of microbes for optimizing cellular phenotype. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 12(2), 168-176. doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.01.017Alper, H., Fischer, C., Nevoigt, E., & Stephanopoulos, G. (2005). Tuning genetic control through promoter engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(36), 12678-12683. doi:10.1073/pnas.0504604102Liang, S.-T., Bipatnath, M., Xu, Y.-C., Chen, S.-L., Dennis, P., Ehrenberg, M., & Bremer, H. (1999). Activities of constitutive promoters in Escherichia coli 1 1Edited by D. E. Draper. Journal of Molecular Biology, 292(1), 19-37. doi:10.1006/jmbi.1999.3056Smolke, C. D., & Keasling, J. D. (2002). Effect of gene location, mRNA secondary structures, and RNase sites on expression of two genes in an engineered operon. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 80(7), 762-776. doi:10.1002/bit.10434Khlebnikov, A., Skaug, T., & Keasling, J. D. (2002). Modulation of gene expression from the arabinose-inducible araBAD promoter. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 29(1), 34-37. doi:10.1038/sj.jim.7000259Cox, R. S., Surette, M. G., & Elowitz, M. B. (2007). Programming gene expression with combinatorial promoters. Molecular Systems Biology, 3(1), 145. doi:10.1038/msb4100187Chu, D., Zabet, N. R., & Mitavskiy, B. (2009). Models of transcription factor binding: Sensitivity of activation functions to model assumptions. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 257(3), 419-429. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.11.026Chesi, G. (2011). Robustness analysis of genetic regulatory networks affected by model uncertainty. Automatica, 47(6), 1131-1138. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2010.10.01