RF-Cloning.org Forum

Anything and everything cloning: Go...

New accounts disabled to block spam. The forum is just an archive now.

#76 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Problematic to say the least » 2014-12-09 21:45:05

Hey there,
I went digging through the backend, and found one project attached to your user account (pGSK-44mer). I think I see what your issue is, but I'd like some more info before I make any suggestions. Can you post the exact protocol you used for both the primary and secondary PCR (detailing the precise content of your reactions)?
Thanks,
-Steve

#77 Re: rf-cloning troubles » More than 3 fragments » 2014-12-08 21:44:34

Hmm, might be a bit difficult. Check out the following method by Peleg and Unger: doi 10.1007/978-1-62703-764-8_6
(PM me if you run into the paywall, I'll send the pdf)
I haven't tried it myself, so I can't really advise you much more than this. Please let us know though if you have any success (or failure).
-Steve

#78 Re: Novel protocols » Q5 anyone? » 2014-11-28 13:16:52

Hey Tiago,
I haven't actually used Q5 myself, but at least one other person in the forum has -> handle_url_tag($matches[1])
Maybe send them a pm? I doubt anyone else has email alerts on the RF-cloning forum, so you might be waiting awhile to hear from someone with first-hand experience :S
If you give it a try, I'd love to hear how it works out.
-Steve

#79 Re: rf-cloning troubles » RF-cloning to do mutagenesis? » 2014-11-24 20:44:52

Hey Erin,
This should be a pretty straight forward RF project. I assume you can synthesize the megaprimer directly given how short all the bits are, so just stick it in the website and get the PCR params. It really is just a large quick-change at this point though, because you don't need the full primary PCR reaction.
What are some of the details from your previous bad luck with QC kits?
-Steve

#80 Re: rf-cloning troubles » empty vector » 2014-10-23 18:45:23

Hi Vidhya,
Sorry to hear you're having trouble. Your projects look fairly straight forward to me, and it's strange that your colony PCR looks fine if there isn't an insert. Can you elaborate a little more on what you did to confirm the insert by PCR? Maybe post a gel?
Fortunately, you do have a really handy EcoRI site inside your NVD trailer sequence, so you should try doing a diagnostic digest on a couple clones from that project. It will save you sending things off for sequencing that are obviously negative.
One other thing, you are definitely aware that you're breaking the Amp resistance gene, right? Are you selecting on Tet plates?
-Steve

#81 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Is phosphorilation needed? » 2014-10-15 13:48:36

Hey Gabriele,
I think the difference is that the exponential Megaprimer method leads to completely linear vector which needs to be blunt end ligated, while the more standard version of RF-Cloning gives you a circularized, albeit nicked, plasmid. The transformed cells will repair the nicks all on their own, but are just going to degrade the linear DNA; hence the phosphorylation/T4-ligase step. I'm just skimming through the 2014 article by Peleg and Unger again (doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-764-8_6) and they are not using the exponential method, which is probably why you aren't seeing reference to a ligation step.
Hope this clarifies!
Good luck, and it would be awesome if you share your experience with the exponential method after you've given it a whirl.
-Steve

#82 Re: rf-cloning troubles » 2nd PCR not working » 2014-08-15 12:30:24

Congrats! I'm glad it all worked out.
Take care,
-Steve

#83 Re: rf-cloning troubles » 2nd PCR not working » 2014-08-13 13:00:51

Hey again Zac,
Before you do anything else, redo the 2° PCR and only use 1 μl of the reaction in the transformation. You've made a common mistake by assuming 'more is better', but you're changing the salt concentration of the comp cells and significantly reducing their efficiency. You should not exceed 5% of the total cell volume when adding DNA, 10% max. The cells are actually sensitive to total DNA as well (20-50 ng is a common target for high efficiency), and there is probably 10-100X too much total DNA (albeit chewed up by DpnI) in the full PCR reaction.
One other thing I've noticed is that you appear to be cloning into the MCS, and there are some really ugly dimers on the plasmid side of both primers. Bump up your annealing temp to 68°C, and you might want to increase your extension time to 3:30 min.
Good luck, and let us know how it turns out smile
-Steve

#84 Re: rf-cloning troubles » 2nd PCR not working » 2014-08-12 17:40:08

Try looking in your project management dash again; I made a mistake, but it should be there now.

I'm guessing you had a positive control that came up as expected? And did you use the entire PCR reaction in the transformation, or just 1 μl (i.e., 1 μl good; 20 μl bad)? I'm surprised you didn't get any negative colonies at all using the OneShot Max cells, because they are crazy sensitive.

#85 Re: rf-cloning troubles » 2nd PCR not working » 2014-08-12 17:03:55

Hey Zac,
I think I was able to find your project from the backend, and on first glance everything looks good. The plasmid is a bit big, but by no means horrible. What were the details of your transformation?
-Steve

ps. I've linked the project I think was yours to your account. Go into the project management dashboard and see if it's right.

#86 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Question on the basics » 2014-08-11 20:08:05

Cool cool, good luck with your project.
-Steve

#87 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Question on the basics » 2014-08-11 19:29:20

Hey Sand,
You're probably more or less on track regarding the first bit, but instead of thinking of it as a nicked plasmid, just look at is as a single linear daughter product. When the reverse complement mega-primer binds, it's 3' end is situated right at the terminus of the strand, so it can't initiate any further synthesis. Thus the linear expansion in rf-cloning vs. exponential of normal PCR.
That little + red thingy is just trying to convey that the reverse complement of the plasmid was still synthesized from a parental source by the other half of the mega-primer, and when you combine the two daughter strands, you get a full plasmid with a pair of nicks. They should have changed the colour of the incoming daughter strand to green or something, because it really looks like the parental plasmid acquired a nick somehow (it doesn't).
Does that clarify, or am I just muddying the water further?
-Steve

#88 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Relevance of DpnI treatment? » 2014-08-11 12:38:18

Thanks for sharing Bjarte!
It's a really cool use of ccdB, and looks like a great technique if you're swapping lots of inserts into a specific expression plasmid.
-Steve

#89 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Amount of mega primer/plasmids second PCR. » 2014-08-09 01:40:56

Any of the main commercial kits should be okay, although I have often suffered from low recovery as well. I've used GeneCleanII mostly (it's a glass milk kit). Your best bet is to fiddle with the primary PCR a bit, and get better amplification if possible. Load everything!

#90 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Cloningtroubles when 'swapping' genes » 2014-08-05 11:02:03

Ya, electro-comp cells and chem-comp cells are two different beasts.

#91 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Amount of mega primer/plasmids second PCR. » 2014-08-05 11:00:18

Hey Jan,
The amount of megaprimer to use is provided in the output as 'insert', and is expressed as 'ng' instead of a μM concentration.
-Steve

#92 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Cloningtroubles when 'swapping' genes » 2014-08-04 12:21:17

I agree with Jan that you should get a positive control working before trying anything else. Just the parental should be fine smile
That said, it's a big plasmid you are working with, so I'm not surprised that the reaction is running at low efficiency. If you can electroporate, that would be great, or alternatively get hold of some high competency (10^8-10^9) cells. Any standard strain should be fine (as long as it's appropriate for your given construct).
-Steve

#93 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Cloningtroubles when 'swapping' genes » 2014-08-03 19:40:12

Have you been plating the entire transformation reaction, or tried transforming ultra-comp cells?
-Steve

#94 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Removing part » 2014-07-26 15:03:44

Yep, you've got it. Play around with the tool a little, and the results should be pretty intuitive.
-Steve

#95 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Removing part » 2014-07-25 18:08:27

You sure can!
When you use the website to design your project, place the '!' points on either side of the sequence you want removed.
If you want, I can have a look at your project before you order the primers.
-Steve

#96 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Length of plasmid » 2014-07-25 13:54:12

Hey Jan,
I've not used Q5 polymerase myself, but from what I can see its very similar to Phusion. It still uses the Sso7d processivity enhancing domain, so I assume it's either a minor tweek to the original Phusion enzyme, or maybe they've grabbed a polymerase out of some other thermo-tolerant bug. I don't see any reason not to use it, and look forward to hearing about your experience. Just make sure to follow NEBs directions regarding annealing temps.
Your plasmid is also pretty big, so you might want to use some high comp cells if a first attempt comes up blank.
Best of luck!
-Steve

#98 rf-cloning troubles » In-Fusion » 2014-07-09 18:47:14

Steve Bond
Replies: 6

RF-Cloning can be tricky sometimes, especially when your insert is large or you need to delete a big chunk of sequence from the destination plasmid. Instead of fighting with the extension overlap PCR method, you can often re-purpose your primers for the In-Fusion recombinase method.

handle_url_tag($matches[1])

At face value it looks to be a bit more expensive per construct, but a little secret I'm more than happy to share, is that you can cut the recommended reaction size down to 2μl and squeeze 5 times the number of constructs out of a kit (this drops the price to less than $5/reaction!). The one caveat, is that you either need a restriction site between your insertion points, or you need to linearize the plasmid using inverse PCR.

I highly recommend keeping this method in mind as you design your constructs, because it can save a huge amount of headache. And again, the primers that the website spits out can be used for either the PCR or In-Fusion method. In fact, if you know a priori that you're going to use the recombinase, then you can cut down on the size of the plasmid binding side of the primer (15 bases is the magic number), and save some more dollars on primer synthesis.

-Steve

#99 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Cloning not working! Any advice? » 2014-07-09 18:15:57

You didn't use TE buffer to elute your megaprimer by any chance, did you? The EDTA would mess things up, although I think most PCR cleanup kits have you elute in water or EB. A good positive control would be to set up some random PCR reaction you know works well, and add in the same volume of megaprimer you used in the 2ndary PCR to see if it bungs up the reaction (assuming you have enough megaprimer to mess around with it like that). Obviously you'll also need the test product to be different size than the megaprimer.
Your conditions look fine to me. You might want to try the 3-step protocol, using an annealing temp of 63-65°C for 30-sec. You could also try some PCR additives (handle_url_tag($matches[1])).
One other thing you can try, especially for the 3KB project, is to cut the amount of DNA going into the PCR by 5X (i.e.,about 150ng insert, 13ng plasmid).
Fortunately, you have some 1-cutter restriction sites where you want your inserts, so you can always switch to In-Fusion if the RF-Cloning proves too troublesome.
Good luck!
-Steve

#100 Re: rf-cloning troubles » Always "empty" vectors...? » 2014-07-09 16:30:59

Hey Tiago,
Any colonies today? I had a look at your two new projects, and they will probably give you less grief. You may want to go back to adding DMSO for those ones though, seeing their high GC content. I would love to hear how it turns out if you do them both in a single reaction, but were it me, I would probably set up the individual reactions at the same time just in case.
As for the ease of future projects once you have your first insert in place, I really don't know! This would be a great experiment actually: testing the effect of deletion size relative to insertion size. It seems intuitive that similar insert:deletion might facilitate easier binding of the primers, but I have no data to back it up. Once you have your first insert, would you mind setting up parallel reactions for the next project (using the empty plasmid and first insert plasmid as destination), and reporting back to the forum?
-Steve

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB