chapter_11
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
chapter_11 [2024/08/25 12:19] – [Stable regulatory circuits] mike | chapter_11 [2025/04/07 20:58] (current) – mike | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | <typo fs: | + | < |
+ | |||
+ | <typo fs: | ||
In [[chapter_10|Chapter 10]], we studied regulatory mechanisms in well-known //E. coli// operons to see how mutations in different elements of the system would behave in dominance tests and cis/trans tests. We also presented the information in reverse - we told you the answer first, then discussed how mutant phenotypes were interpreted. | In [[chapter_10|Chapter 10]], we studied regulatory mechanisms in well-known //E. coli// operons to see how mutations in different elements of the system would behave in dominance tests and cis/trans tests. We also presented the information in reverse - we told you the answer first, then discussed how mutant phenotypes were interpreted. | ||
Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | Although loss of function mutations in genes for repressors or activators are generally the most common type of regulatory mutation, Table {{ref> | + | Although loss of function mutations in genes for repressors or activators are generally the most common type of regulatory mutation, Table {{ref> |
+ | identify the amino acid sequence of the protein/ | ||
<table Tab1> | <table Tab1> | ||
<columns 100% *100%*> | <columns 100% *100%*> | ||
^ type of mutation | ^ type of mutation | ||
- | | repressor loss-of-function | + | | repressor loss of function |
- | | activator loss-of function | + | | activator loss of function |
- | | operator loss-of-function | + | | operator loss of function |
| promoter (or initiator) loss-of-function | | promoter (or initiator) loss-of-function | ||
| repressor dominant negative or super activator | | repressor dominant negative or super activator | ||
Line 28: | Line 31: | ||
</ | </ | ||
< | < | ||
- | Analysis of regulatory mutants. *note: operator/ | + | Analysis of regulatory mutants. *note: operator/ |
</ | </ | ||
</ | </ | ||
Line 111: | Line 114: | ||
After an initial unstable period immediately after infection, either $cro$ expression or $cI$ expression will dominate. | After an initial unstable period immediately after infection, either $cro$ expression or $cI$ expression will dominate. | ||
- | * Mode 1: High cro expression blocks cI expression. In this state, all of the genes for lytic growth are made and the phage enters the lytic program. | + | * Mode 1: High $cro$ expression blocks |
- | * Mode 2: High cI expression blocks cro expression. In this state, none of the genes except for cI are expressed. This produces a stable lysogen. | + | * Mode 2: High $cI$ expression blocks |
In gene regulation, as in good circuit design, stability is achieved by feedback. The result is a bi-stable switch that is similar to a “flip-flop”, | In gene regulation, as in good circuit design, stability is achieved by feedback. The result is a bi-stable switch that is similar to a “flip-flop”, | ||
Line 118: | Line 121: | ||
===== Questions and exercises ===== | ===== Questions and exercises ===== | ||
- | Discussion Box: As a general principle, making double mutants in obligate diploids is much easier than making double mutants in bacteria. Why? | + | Exercise 1 (challenge question): Revisit |
- | + | ||
- | Exercise | + | |
chapter_11.1724613599.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/08/25 12:19 by mike