In December 2019, a new disease emerged from a seafood
market in Wuhan, China. People who were infected began experiencing fever, dry
cough, muscle aches and shortness of breath. The disease swept through China
like wildfire and quickly spread overseas to almost every continent. We now
know the virus that caused this disease, SARS-CoV-2, is a member of the severe
acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and the disease itself was officially
named COVID-19. According to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center,
there are 877,422 confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide, and 43,537 total
deaths at the publication of this blog. Those numbers are only expected to
increase over the next few weeks.
In this moment of crisis, scientists all around the world are desperately trying to find ways to treat and prevent the disease. One strategy for preventing the spread of the virus is to block its entry into human cells. But first we need to understand how SARS-CoV-2 enters human cells. A research group at the German Primate Center led by Dr. Stefan Pohlmann provides some answers in a recent publication in Cell.
Snakebite is a serious public health issue in many tropical countries. Every year, roughly 2 million cases of poisoning from snakebites occur, and more than 100,000 people die. Snake venom is extremely complex, containing a cocktail of chemicals, many of which are undefined. This complicates the development of new therapeutics for treating snakebite.
Antivenom is the most effective treatment for snakebites,
but its production is complex and dangerous. It involves manually milking the
venom from different species of live snakes, then injecting small doses of the
venom into animals (mostly horses) to stimulate an immune response. After a
period of time, antibodies form in the animal’s blood, which is purified for
use as antivenom.
But what if we could produce snake venom in the lab, instead
of using live snakes? Recently, a group from the Netherlands did just that by
growing organoids derived from snake venom glands.
Once the purview of virology researchers, the word “coronavirus” is now part of the vernacular in the mainstream media as reports of quarantined cruise ships (1) and makeshift hospitals (2) fill our online news feeds. While there is currently no approved anti-viral treatment for coronavirus infection (3), a team led by researchers from Vanderbilt University recently published work characterizing the anti-CoV activity of a compound, which they now plan to test against 2019-nCoV (4).
Developing New Therapeutics Against Coronaviruses
Coronaviruses (CoVs) are enveloped, single-stranded RNA viruses that exhibit cross-species transmission—the ability to spread quickly from one host (e.g., civet) to another (e.g., human). Scientists classify CoVs into four groups based on the nature of the spikes on their surface: alpha (α), beta (ß), gamma (γ) and delta (δ, 1). Only the alpha- and beta-CoVs can infect humans. Four coronaviruses commonly circulate within human populations: Human CoV 229E (HCoV229E), HCoVNL63, HCoVOC43, and HCoVHKU1. Three other CoVs have emerged as infectious agents, jumping from their normal animal host species to humans: SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and most recently, 2019-nCoV (5).
Our cells have evolved multiple mechanisms for “taking out
the trash”—breaking down and disposing of cellular components that are defective,
damaged or no longer required. Within a cell, these processes are balanced by
the synthesis of new components, so that DNA, RNA and proteins are constantly
Proteins are degraded by two major components of the cellular
machinery. The discovery of the lysosome in the mid-1950s
provided considerable insight into the first of these degradation mechanisms
for extracellular and cytosolic proteins. Over the next several decades,
details of a second protein degradation mechanism emerged: the ubiquitin-proteasome system
(UPS). Ubiquitin is a small, highly conserved polypeptide that is used to
selectively tag proteins for degradation within the cell. Multiple ubiquitin
tags are generally attached to a single targeted protein. This ill-fated, ubiquitinated
protein is then recognized by the proteasome, a large protein complex with
proteolytic activity. Ubiquitination is a multistep process, involving several
specialized enzymes. The final step in the process is mediated by a family of ubiquitin
ligases, known as E3.
Bioluminescent reporter assays are an excellent choice for analyzing gene regulation because they provide higher sensitivity, wider dynamic range and better signal-to-background ratios compared to colorimetric or fluorescent assays. In a typical genetic reporter assay, cells are transfected with a vector that contains the sequence of interest cloned upstream of a reporter gene, and the reporter activity is used to determine how the target sequence influences gene expression under experimental conditions. A second control reporter encoded on the same or a different plasmid is an essential internal control. The secondary reporter is used to normalize the data and compensate for variability caused by differences in cell number, lysis efficiency, cell viability, transfection efficiency, temperature, and measurement time.
For genetic reporter assays, using a secondary control vector with a weak promoter like PGK or TK to ensures that the control does not interfere with activation of your primary reporter vector. Transfection of high amounts of the control plasmid or putting the control reporter under control of a strong promoter like CMV or SV40 often leads to transcriptional squelching or other interference with the experimental promoter (i.e., trans effects). Reporter assays can also be used to quantitatively evaluate microRNA activity by inserting miRNA target sites downstream or 3´ of the reporter gene. For example, the pmirGLO Dual-Luciferase miRNA Target Expression Vector is based on dual-luciferase technology, with firefly luciferase as the primary reporter to monitor mRNA regulation and Renilla luciferase as a control reporter for normalization.
Here in Technical Services we often talk with researchers who are just starting their project and looking for advice on designing their genetic reporter vector. They have questions like:
How much of the upstream promoter region should be included in the vector?
How many copies of a response element will be needed to provide a good response?
Does the location of the element or surrounding sequence alter gene regulation?
These assays are relatively easy to understand in principle. Use a primary and secondary reporter vector transiently transfected into your favorite mammalian cell line. The primary reporter is commonly used as a marker for a gene, promoter, or response element of interest. The secondary reporter drives a steady level of expression of a different marker. We can use that second marker to normalize the changes in expression of the primary under the assumption that the secondary marker is unaffected by what is being experimentally manipulated.
While there are many advantages to dual-reporter assays, they require careful planning to avoid common pitfalls. Here’s what you can do to avoid repeating some of the common mistakes we see with new users:
We rely on insulin supplied by our pancreas at the right dose and at the right time to control our blood glucose levels and energy storage. Insulin works by regulating the energy usage of various cell types in the body. When this process goes awry, it can cause diabetes.
There are two types of diabetes, defined by how insulin is
dysregulated. In Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), the pancreas produces too little
insulin. Patients need to give themselves insulin in order to respond to
glucose in the diet. In Type 2 Diabetes (T2D), patients do not respond well to
the insulin produced in their body. Therefore, they need to give themselves
more to avoid hyperglycemia (high blood glucose).
Synthetic biology—genetically engineering an organism to do or make something useful—is the central goal of the iGEM competition each year. After teams conquer the challenge of cloning their gene, the next hurdle is demonstrating that the engineered gene is expressing the desired protein (and possibly quantifying the level of expression), which they may do using a reporter gene.
Reporters can also play a more significant role in iGEM projects when teams design their organism with reporter genes to detect and signal the presence of specific molecules, like environmental toxins or biomarkers. Three of the iGEM teams Promega sponsored this year opted to incorporate some version of NanoLuc® Luciferase into their projects.
NanoLuc® luciferase is a small monomeric enzyme (19.1kDa, 171 amino acids) based on the luciferase from the deep sea shrimp Oplophorus gracilirostris. This engineered enzyme uses a novel substrate, furimazine, to produce high-intensity, glow-type luminescence in an ATP-independent reaction. Unlike other molecules for tagging and detecting proteins, NanoLuc® luciferase is less likely to interfere with enzyme activity and affect protein production due to its small size.
NanoLuc® Luciferase has also been engineered into a structural complementation reporter system, NanoBiT® Luciferase, that contains a Large subunit (LgBiT) and two small subunit options: low affinity SmBiT and high affinity HiBiT. Together, these NanoLuc® technologies provide a bioluminescent toolbox that was used by the iGEM teams to address a diverse set of biological challenges.
Here is an overview of each team’s project and how they
incorporated NanoLuc® technology.
In recent years, scientists have been hot on the trail of transcription factor FOXO3, tracing its involvement in various tumor-centric activities comprising the many trademarks of cancer, from drug resistance to metastasis to tumor angiogenesis.
FOXO3 is a member of the O sub-class of the forkhead box family of transcription factors. The forkhead box (FOX) family is characterized by a fork head DNA-binding domain (DBD), comprised of around 100 amino acids. They have also proven themselves to be a family of many hats, functioning in diverse roles ranging from metabolism, immunology, cell-cycle control, development, as well as cancer (1). The forkhead box O (FOXO) sub-class alone has demonstrated involvement in a variety of cellular outcomes, from drug resistance and longevity to apoptosis induction.
Due to its pro-apoptotic and anti-proliferative proclivity, FOXO3 has been previously identified as a tumor suppressor gene. However, more and more studies have begun to flip the narrative on FOXO3, portraying it more as a devoted henchman, due to its roles in drug and radiotherapy resistance, cell-cycle arrest and long-term maintenance of leukemia-initiating stem cells in a variety of cancer types, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, and both acute and chronic myeloid leukemia.
There are as many different
cancers as there are people with cancer. Unlike infectious diseases, which are
caused by pathogens that are foreign to our bodies (bacteria, viruses, parasites),
cancer cells arise from our body—our own cells gone rogue. Because cancer is a
dysfunction of a person’s normal cells, every cancer reflects the genetic
differences that mark us as individuals. Add to that environmental influences like
diet, tobacco use, the microbiome and even occupation, and the likelihood of
finding a “single” pharmaceutical cure for cancer becomes virtually impossible.
But, while looking for a single cure for all cancers may not be a fruitful activity, defining a best practice for understanding the genetic and protein biomarkers of individual tumors is proving worthwhile.