Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26140052›Full record

ArticleJournal of biological engineering2015

Essential validation methods for E. coli strains created by chromosome engineering.

Sriram Tiruvadi Krishnan, M Charl Moolman, Theo van Laar, Anne S Meyer, Nynke H Dekker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biological engineering, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Secretion of recombinant proteins fromEngineering in life sciences · 2018
    Review
  6. Defeating Antibiotic- and Phage-ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sriram Tiruvadi KrishnanDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, Delft, 2628 CJ The Netherlands.
M Charl MoolmanDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, Delft, 2628 CJ The Netherlands.
Theo van LaarDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, Delft, 2628 CJ The Netherlands.
Anne S MeyerDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, Delft, 2628 CJ The Netherlands.
Nynke H DekkerDepartment of Bionanoscience, Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, Delft, 2628 CJ The Netherlands.
Delft University of Technology · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChromosome engineering encompasses a collection of homologous recombination-based techniques that are employed to modify the genome of a model organism in a controlled fashion. Such techniques are widely used in both fundamental and industrial research to introduce multiple insertions in the same Escherichia coli strain. To date, λ-Red recombination (also known as recombineering) and P1 phage transduction are the most successfully implemented chromosome engineering techniques in E. coli. However, due to errors that can occur during the strain creation process, reliable validation methods are essential upon alteration of a strain's chromosome. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods and DNA sequence analysis are rapid and powerful methods to verify successful integration of DNA sequences into a chromosome. Even though these verification methods are necessary, they may not be sufficient in detecting all errors, imposing the requirement of additional validation methods. For example, as extraneous insertions may occur during recombineering, we highlight the use of Southern blotting to detect their presence. These unwanted mutations can be removed via transducing the region of interest into the wild type chromosome using P1 phages. However, in doing so one must verify that both the P1 lysate and the strains utilized are free from contamination with temperate phages, as these can lysogenize inside a cell as a large plasmid. Thus, we illustrate various methods to probe for temperate phage contamination, including cross-streak agar and Evans Blue-Uranine (EBU) plate assays, whereby the latter is a newly reported technique for this purpose in E. coli. Lastly, we discuss methodologies for detecting defects in cell growth and shape characteristics, which should be employed as an additional check.

conclusionThe simple, yet crucial validation techniques discussed here can be used to reliably verify any chromosomally engineered E. coli strains for errors such as non-specific insertions in the chromosome, temperate phage contamination, and defects in growth and cell shape. While techniques such as PCR and DNA sequence verification should standardly be performed, we illustrate the necessity of performing these additional assays. The discussed techniques are highly generic and can be easily applied to any type of chromosome engineering.

Indexed as

Cell shape analysisChromosome engineeringEBU plate assayEscherichia coliGrowth curve analysisP1 phage transductionRecombineeringStrain validation

Identifiers

PMID26140052
PMCPMC4488041
OpenAlexW1500679183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.