Design and construction of a Hin/hix-based DNA recombination system

DNA inversion occurs very rapidly in vitro. Protein-DNA complex assembly, strand cleavage, inversion, and ligation occur in less than 1 minute [11]. Therefore, we engineered Hin/hix inversion to be more tractable to regulation and kinetic studies by decreasing inversion efficiency. Hin was cloned from S. typhimurium by PCR. An ssrA LVA protein degradation tag [12] was added to the C-terminal DNA binding domain to prevent over accumulation of Hin and to achieve tighter control of DNA inversion. In Salmonella, the asymmetrical palindromic sequences hixL and hixR flank the invertible DNA segment and serve as the recognition sites for cleavage and strand exchange. Our system uses hixC, a composite symmetrical hix site that shows higher binding affinity for Hin and a 16-fold slower inversion rate than wild type sites hixL and hixR [13, 14].

To build a proof-of-concept model, we designed a two-pancake BPP containing the Lac promoter (pLac) and a tetracycline resistance coding region with a ribosomal binding site upstream (RBS-tetA(C)), each flanked by hixC sites (Fig. 2). Each configuration of this two-pancake stack is represented by a mathematical signed permutation. For instance, hixC-RBS-tetA(C)-hixC-pLac rev -hixC is represented as the signed permutation "(2, -1)" where RBS-tetA(C) is 2 and pLac is 1. The positive value (2) represents the forward orientation of RBS-tetA(C) and the negative value (-1) represents the reverse orientation of pLac, denoted pLac rev (pLac reversed). The eight possible signed permutations can be plotted as vertices of a graph (Fig. 1b). Two signed permutations are connected by an edge if it is possible to convert one permutation to the other with a flip of one or two pancakes. When flipping occurs at random, the starting permutation can be converted into any of its three neighboring permutations. In cells, after a given amount of time (i.e., number of flips), flipping is stopped by manual cell lysis, BPP plasmids are purified and transformed into new cells lacking HinLVA, and solved BPP plasmids are detected by resistance to tetracycline (pLac driven RBS-tetA(C) expression) in each colony. The time point at which the BPP is first solved at random reflects the minimal number of flips required to solve the BPP.

Figure 2 BPP and HinLVA plasmid constructs. A solved BPP plasmid (left) contains a flippable pLac promoter (blue arrow) and RBS-tetA(C) (green rectangle = RBS, purple arrow = tetA(C)). The pLac promoter is pancake 1 and RBS-tetA(C) is pancake 2. hixC sites (yellow rectangles) flank each flippable element. Inversion of pLac is detected by expression of the reverse (rev) upstream RBS-mRFP reporter. HinLVA is expressed from a second plasmid (right). AmpR = ampicillin resistance marker, ChlrR = chloramphenicol resistance marker, repA pSC101 and ColE1 = origins of replication, RBS = ribosome binding site, TT = double transcription terminator, white boxes = cloning sites. Full size image

HinLVA flips and sorts hixC-flanked DNA segments in vivo

In order to solve the BPP, HinLVA must be able to flip single pancakes of varying sizes, flip adjacent segments independently, and sort segments by flipping multiple pancakes simultaneously. First, we tested HinLVA-mediated inversion on single hixC-flanked DNA segments of different lengths. HinLVA successfully flips the 1212 bp RBS-tetA(C) segment (Fig. 3a). The length of RBS-tetA(C) is comparable to the segment that is inverted by Hin recombinase in Salmonella [9, 10]. HinLVA can also flip the much shorter 200 bp hixC-flanked promoter (Fig. 3b). Restriction digest fragments indicate approximately equal molar amounts of both conformations (forward and reverse), suggesting that flipping of one DNA pancake has reached equilibrium ~24 hours after transformation. These data indicate that HinLVA-mediated inversion reconstituted in E. coli is not limited by fragment size, at least not within the range of 200 – 1212 bp.

Figure 3 HinLVA mediates inversions of short and long DNA fragments. HinLVA-mediated flipping was assessed by NheI restriction digests. Gel electrophoresis images are shown in A and B. (A) A construct carrying hixC-flanked RBS-tetA(C) in the forward orientation (solid purple arrow) is characterized by a ~200 bp NheI restriction fragment (gel lane 2). The reverse orientation of RBS-tetA(C) (hatched purple arrow) yields a larger ~1100 bp band (lane 3). When forward oriented hixC-flanked RBS-tetA(C) is exposed to HinLVA, bands for both forward and reverse orientations of RBS-tetA(C) are detected (lane 4). (B) Similarly, forward oriented hixC-flanked pBAD promoter (solid green arrow) is converted to the reverse orientation (hatched green arrow) after exposure to HinLVA (lane 4). These data show that HinLVA-mediated inversion activity is not constrained by the length of hixC-flanked DNA. Full size image

Next, we cotransformed cells with a BPP plasmid containing a hixC-flanked RBS-tetA(C) rev coding region and a hixC-flanked pLac promoter (permutation (-2, 1)) and a HinLVA expression plasmid (Fig. 2). The RE was omitted from the BPP plasmid to slow the rate of inversion. We used multiplex semiquantitative PCR (sqPCR) to monitor flipping of the two adjacent hixC-flanked DNA segments. Each of the four internal rearrangements can be detected by a sqPCR amplicon of a distinct size (Fig. 4a). Eleven hours after transformation, single colonies were picked for whole cell sqPCR. Bands from all four configurations were visible in samples where (-2, 1) was cotransformed with HinLVA (Fig. 4b). Flipping occurred in the absence of the RE, demonstrating that HinLVA and a pair of hixC sites are sufficient for a functional Hin/hix DNA inversion system in E. coli. The starting pancake arrangement (-2, 1) is the predominant plasmid in all colonies tested. Plasmids generated from a single flip of either RBS-tetA(C) (pancake 2) or pLac (pancake 1) are the next most frequent, while plasmids generated from two sequential flips of both pancakes 2 and 1 are the least common. We could not detect significant bias for flipping of the larger RBS-tetA(C) segment or the smaller pLac promoter (Fig. 4c), suggesting that flipping is not influenced by the size of the DNA segment.

Figure 4 HinLVA flips adjacent hixC -flanked segments independently. (A) Four pancake stack arrangements can be distinguished by quantitative multiplex PCR. Black arrows indicate primers for multiplex PCR. Bars indicate sizes of PCR amplicons. Whole stack inversions that generate the other four possible arrangements cannot be distinguished in this assay. (B) Quantitative PCR of an equimolar mix of all eight manually assembled BPP plasmids (top row), BPP plasmid (-2, 1) alone (middle row), or a single 10-hour colony of cells carrying BPP plasmid (-2, 1) in the presence of HinLVA (bottom row). The first lane in each gel contains a DNA molecular weight marker (M). (C) Histogram showing the frequency of detectable bands at 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 PCR cycles (n = 46 for each band at each cycle). At 10 – 11 hours following cotransformation of (-2, 1) and HinLVA, the starting pancake arrangement predominates (400 bp band). A single flip of either pancake alone (producing a 500 bp or a 600 bp amplicon) is next most frequent occurrence, while two successive flips (700 bp) is least common. Full size image

The sqPCR results suggest that flipping has not yet reached equilibrium after 11 hours of HinLVA activity in the absence of RE. Plasmid supercoiling might be a limiting factor. Hin-mediated inversion requires a negatively supercoiled plasmid DNA substrate [15, 16]. The loss of four negative supercoils after each inversion event [17] might require cells to undergo cell division to reset optimal supercoiling before a second inversion event can occur. Based on the 4 hour lag time and 36 minute maximum doubling rate of the cotransformed cells, we estimate that no more than 12 doublings occurred before sqPCR analysis. Twelve cell divisions appear to be insufficient to allow the distribution of rearrangements to reach equilibrium.

Finally, we assessed simultaneous inversion of both DNA pancakes. In order to accomplish this operation, Hin must recognize the outer-most hixC sites and ignore the central hixC site between the segments. Inversion of the entire permutation (-2, 1) generates permutation (-1, 2) in which the pLac promoter is repositioned to drive mRFP reporter expression (Fig. 5a). Inversion of the promoter alone, producing (-2, -1), is insufficient to induce detectable levels of mRFP (Table 1). Colonies containing HinLVA and the (-2, 1) BPP plasmid were grown as a liquid culture then the Hin-exposed BPP plasmids were isolated and transformed into bacteria. About one third of the cell colonies appeared red (Fig. 5b) indicating that simultaneous inversion of both DNA segments occurred at a high frequency. Thus, HinLVA is capable of mediating the inversion of at least two adjacent flippable DNA segments.

Figure 5 HinLVA flips adjacent hixC -flanked segments simultaneously. (A) A map of the BPP plasmid including the RBS-mRFP rev reporter followed by hixC-tetA(C) rev -hixC-pLac-hixC (-2, 1) is shown at the top. In this arrangement, pLac cannot drive mRFP expression. Simultaneous inversion of both segments converts (-2, 1) into (-1, 2); the pLac promoter is directed towards mRFP so that mRFP expression is turned on. (B, inset C) White light photograph of colonies ~18-hours after cotransformation with BPP plasmid (-2, 1) and HinLVA. (D, inset E) mRFP protein production visualized under ultraviolet light (solid white arrow) indicates a simultaneous flip of two adjacent pancakes that placed pLac in the reverse orientation adjacent to RBS-mRFP rev . Some colonies do not glow red (open arrow), indicating a lack of double segment flipping or subsequent conversion into other arrangements that lack mRFP expression (e.g., (1, 2)). Full size image

Table 1 Two-pancake permutations and their phenotypes Full size table

Modeling and detection of phenotypic output

We sought to use the power and sensitivity of antibiotic resistance phenotype screening to detect solved BPP plasmids. sqPCR analyzes one colony at a time and requires several plasmids to generate a detectable PCR amplicon, whereas screening can rapidly distinguish a single solved BPP plasmid from millions of unsolved plasmids in a cell culture. Permutations (1, 2) and (-2, -1) both encode a functional tetracycline resistance gene that should allow cells to live in the presence of tetracycline. The other six permutations encode a disrupted tetracycline resistance gene and should lead to cell death in the presence of tetracycline. Based on these predicted phenotypic outputs, we designed a mathematical model of random flipping over time (successive flips) to predict how cell survival (the percentage of solved pancake stacks) might change over time. We modeled flipping as a Markov Chain in which each of the possible eight signed permutations is a state. Our model is synonymous with a random walk on the graph in Figure 1b. We assumed that any segment of DNA flanked by two hixC sites (pancake 1, pancake 2, or both) is equally likely to be flipped by HinLVA and that all flips in the population of cells happen synchronously. According to this model, the probability of a plasmid being properly sorted after k flips is determined by the number of paths of length k from the initial state to the solution state, divided by the total number of paths of length k from the initial state to any state. For instance, there are six paths of length 3 from initial state (2, 1) to solution state (1, 2) (Fig. 1b); because there are 27 possible paths of length 3 that start at (2, 1), the probability of being in a solution state after three flips is 6/27 (22%). We observed two interesting features of the output from a simulation of random flipping (Fig. 6). First, the conversion of unsolved BPP plasmids towards and away from the solution state reaches equilibrium at 25% survival after five flips. Second, several starting arrangements show equivalent behavior as they approach equilibrium (i.e., (1, -2) and (-1, 2)). The simulation output has implications for further design of our system. If our model is correct, only one representative from each class of equivalent starting configurations needs to be tested. Furthermore, if equilibrium (25% survival) is reached after only five flips, slowing Hin-mediated inversion by omitting the RE may be required to detect significant changes in cell survival over time.

Figure 6 Mathematical model of random flipping. Flipping was modeled as a Markov Chain in which each of the possible eight starting permutations is a state (shown in parenthesis in the graph). At each step (Number of flips (k)) in a random walk on the graph in Figure 1b, the probability of a plasmid being properly sorted (% Plasmids that solved the problem) after k flips is calculated as the number of paths of length k from the initial state to the solution state, divided by the total number of paths of length k from the initial state to any state. Starting permutations that show equivalent behavior can be grouped into three families (distinguished by color in the graph). The families are distinguishable for up to 4 flips; at 5 flips and beyond they reach a state of equilibrium at 25% plasmids solved. Full size image

As an initial step towards carrying out flipping in vivo, we manually constructed all eight pancake permutations (excluding the RE) and transformed them into cells to confirm their phenotypes. We observed several unexpected outcomes. In cells that contain a strong pLac repressor (lacIQ), BPP plasmids (1, 2) and (-2, -1) showed significant tetracycline resistance without activation of pLac by IPTG. We also observed that HinLVA-mediated inversion does not require induction of the pLac promoter on the HinLVA plasmid, indicating general leakiness of pLac promoter activity probably due to more lacIQ binding sites than available repressor protein [18]. The addition of IPTG appears to slow the growth of (1, 2) transformants; this might be result of toxic TetA(C) over expression [19]. We expected to detect mRFP expression from all four plasmids that contain reversed pLac. However, reversed pLac fails to induce mRFP expression when it is positioned after tetA(C) (i.e., RBS-mRFP-hixC-RBS-tetA(C)-hixC-pLac rev -hixC). Increased distance from mRFP or the DNA structure of tetA(C) [20, 21] might block transcription of mRFP.

We found it surprising that four constructs in which pLac is not in the proper position and/or orientation to drive expression of tetA(C) were able to confer tetracycline resistance; in the presence of IPTG, three of these showed more robust growth than cells carrying (1, 2). When the pLac promoter was removed from the construct, cells were still tetracycline resistant (data not shown), thus pLac is not required for expression in the pBR322-derived cloning vector we had been using (pSB4A3). Read-through transcription by RNA polymerase binding to the antibiotic resistance marker promoter or degenerate promoter sequences within the vector backbone [22] could result in tetA(C) expression in the tetracycline resistant scrambled permutations (1, -2), (-1, 2), (-2, 1), and (2, 1). We constructed an "insulated" vector (pSB1A7) containing forward and reverse double transcription terminator sequences to shield RBS-tetA(C) from read-through transcription. In pSB1A7, there was no expression of RBS-tetA(C) (forward or reverse) when pLac was removed from the construct. Arrangements (1, 2) and (-2, -1) produced tetracycline resistance, as expected. Surprisingly, we also observed tetracycline resistance in the insulated vector when pLac was reversed relative to tetA(C) in arrangements (-1, 2) and (-2, 1), suggesting reverse promoter activity from pLac. Unlike forward transcription initiated from pLac, backwards transcription did not respond to IPTG as determined by cell growth; IPTG induction of forward transcription from pLac led to overexpression of tetA(C) and subsequent cell death [19]. Due to the backwards promoter activity of pLac, our manually built set of permutations are not distinguishable by phenotype, thus phenotype alone is insufficient to perform computation using pLac and RBS-tetA(C). The observations described above demonstrate that the construction of synthetic biological devices can reveal unexpected characteristics of well-studied DNA elements (e.g., pLac).