Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K194000:Experience"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
===Applications of BBa_K194000=== | ===Applications of BBa_K194000=== | ||
| − | or the purpose of characterization, we connected the | + | or the purpose of characterization, we connected the BBa_K194000 degradation signal downstream of GFP (<partinfo>BBa_K194001</partinfo>) and thereby created BBa_K194002 (<partinfo>BBa_K194002</partinfo>). BBa_K194001 inserted on the same plasmid without the degradation signal was used as reference. Description of the construction of the plasmids can be found on our iGEM 2009 wiki at http://2009.igem.org/Team:DTU_Denmark/results. |
<font size="4"><b>Results of the fermentations of the biobricks</b></font><br><br> | <font size="4"><b>Results of the fermentations of the biobricks</b></font><br><br> | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
[[Image:BBa K194001 OD,GFP.JPG|400px|thumb|center|GFP signal, corrected and normalised for the non-degradable GFP]] | [[Image:BBa K194001 OD,GFP.JPG|400px|thumb|center|GFP signal, corrected and normalised for the non-degradable GFP]] | ||
<html><br><br> | <html><br><br> | ||
| − | As one can see, there is a significant difference between this two constructs in terms of GFP signal. As expected, the signal from the degradable GFP is much lower than the signal showed by the non-degradable GFP, as the GFP that is not being degraded is accumulating and giving a stronger signal.<br>This results go in line with the results published by Avery and Mateus [ | + | As one can see, there is a significant difference between this two constructs in terms of GFP signal. As expected, the signal from the degradable GFP is much lower than the signal showed by the non-degradable GFP, as the GFP that is not being degraded is accumulating and giving a stronger signal.<br>This results go in line with the results published by Avery and Mateus [1] that state that the degradable GFP has a 14 times shorter half-life than the non-degradable. <br>therefore, based on this results we demontrate that the biobrick BBa_K194002 submited, presents a good option as a fast degradable GFP for yeast<br><br> |
<font size="3"><b>References</b></font><br> | <font size="3"><b>References</b></font><br> | ||
| − | <p align="justify"> [1 | + | <p align="justify"> [1] Mateus, C, Avery, S V 2000. Destabilized green fuorescent protein for monitoring dynamic changes in yeast gene expression with flow cytometry . Yeast 16:1313-1323. </p><br> |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===User Reviews=== | ===User Reviews=== | ||
Latest revision as of 02:06, 22 October 2009
This experience page is provided so that any user may enter their experience using this part.
Please enter
how you used this part and how it worked out.
Applications of BBa_K194000
or the purpose of characterization, we connected the BBa_K194000 degradation signal downstream of GFP (BBa_K194001) and thereby created BBa_K194002 (BBa_K194002). BBa_K194001 inserted on the same plasmid without the degradation signal was used as reference. Description of the construction of the plasmids can be found on our iGEM 2009 wiki at http://2009.igem.org/Team:DTU_Denmark/results.
Results of the fermentations of the biobricks
Growth rates (h-1) obtained for the two strains containing the two biobricks ( GFP_Cln and GFP) with glucose as carbon source
Strain | Growth Rate |
| GFP_Cln | 0,080 ± 0,003 |
GFP |
0,129 ± 0,001 |
The growth profile of these two strains in Glucose and in a mixed carbon source of Glucose and Galactose is presented bellow.
Both strains show very similar behavior. With Glucose as the solely carbon source, the curve presents a distinct exponential phase corresponding to the consumption of this substrate. After Glucose is consumed, OD seems to drop. Although there is not a decrease in cells, this drop might be due to morphological changes in the cells typical of a shift in the metabolism. As for the curves representing the mixed carbon, there are two exponential phases, the first corresponding to the glucose consumption and the second to the Galactose.
The next two graphs represent the variation of the GFP signal corrected and normalized with OD to subtract any variability that could come from the differences of growth
As one can see, there is a significant difference between this two constructs in terms of GFP signal. As expected, the signal from the degradable GFP is much lower than the signal showed by the non-degradable GFP, as the GFP that is not being degraded is accumulating and giving a stronger signal.
This results go in line with the results published by Avery and Mateus [1] that state that the degradable GFP has a 14 times shorter half-life than the non-degradable.
therefore, based on this results we demontrate that the biobrick BBa_K194002 submited, presents a good option as a fast degradable GFP for yeast
References
[1] Mateus, C, Avery, S V 2000. Destabilized green fuorescent protein for monitoring dynamic changes in yeast gene expression with flow cytometry . Yeast 16:1313-1323.
===User Reviews===