Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa J100534:Experience"
(→Applications of BBa_J100534) |
(→User Reviews) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Data was derived by dividing fluorescence of each sample by optical density once readings had been collected from the spectrophotometer. The collected data showed a general trend of RFP production being hindered by incubating each experimental group in 42 degrees Celsius for one hour. The control experimental groups produced slightly more RFP. This suggests that the heat may have denatured the promoter and reduced its functioning capacity. The original X colonies were derived from red cells produced after we prepared our bacterial cells. Three red cells were produced in the experimental colony, which we used for the X1, X2, and X3 samples. The X1 colony was grown from a cell that was very faintly red; this could account for the fact that little RFP was produced in the presence and absence of heat. Therefore, we decided to exclude the X1 data from the X control and X heat averages on the second graph pictured above. | Data was derived by dividing fluorescence of each sample by optical density once readings had been collected from the spectrophotometer. The collected data showed a general trend of RFP production being hindered by incubating each experimental group in 42 degrees Celsius for one hour. The control experimental groups produced slightly more RFP. This suggests that the heat may have denatured the promoter and reduced its functioning capacity. The original X colonies were derived from red cells produced after we prepared our bacterial cells. Three red cells were produced in the experimental colony, which we used for the X1, X2, and X3 samples. The X1 colony was grown from a cell that was very faintly red; this could account for the fact that little RFP was produced in the presence and absence of heat. Therefore, we decided to exclude the X1 data from the X control and X heat averages on the second graph pictured above. | ||
| + | The gel electrophoresis revealed relatively successful PCR results. In the left column molecular weights were used for comparison. The next three column include X1, X2, and X3 samples. The right most column contains the negative control sample. The X samples traveled further than the negative control sample, which makes sense because the oligo that we inserted and cloned were smaller (only 60 nucleotides plus sticky ends maximum) than the promoter sequence in the negative control sample that produced GFP. The X1 sample traveled slightly farther than the other two, which aligns with the fact that there may have been some error in the production of that colony. | ||
Revision as of 16:20, 10 March 2020
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_J100534
User Reviews
UNIQ7a8b5117d9d33899-partinfo-00000000-QINU UNIQ7a8b5117d9d33899-partinfo-00000001-QINU
Data was derived by dividing fluorescence of each sample by optical density once readings had been collected from the spectrophotometer. The collected data showed a general trend of RFP production being hindered by incubating each experimental group in 42 degrees Celsius for one hour. The control experimental groups produced slightly more RFP. This suggests that the heat may have denatured the promoter and reduced its functioning capacity. The original X colonies were derived from red cells produced after we prepared our bacterial cells. Three red cells were produced in the experimental colony, which we used for the X1, X2, and X3 samples. The X1 colony was grown from a cell that was very faintly red; this could account for the fact that little RFP was produced in the presence and absence of heat. Therefore, we decided to exclude the X1 data from the X control and X heat averages on the second graph pictured above. The gel electrophoresis revealed relatively successful PCR results. In the left column molecular weights were used for comparison. The next three column include X1, X2, and X3 samples. The right most column contains the negative control sample. The X samples traveled further than the negative control sample, which makes sense because the oligo that we inserted and cloned were smaller (only 60 nucleotides plus sticky ends maximum) than the promoter sequence in the negative control sample that produced GFP. The X1 sample traveled slightly farther than the other two, which aligns with the fact that there may have been some error in the production of that colony.