Difference between revisions of "Team:LambertGA/Model"

Line 356: Line 356:
  
 
<script type="text/javascript"></script>
 
<script type="text/javascript"></script>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/fd/T--LambertGA--resa2.jpg" style="width:100%;margin:auto;">
  
 
<br>
 
<br>
Line 364: Line 365:
 
<div >
 
<div >
 
<p style="font-size: 20px; text-align: center;">To further describe our characterization of the DAS and LAA degradation tags, our team designed a visual representation of the relative degradation strengths.</p>
 
<p style="font-size: 20px; text-align: center;">To further describe our characterization of the DAS and LAA degradation tags, our team designed a visual representation of the relative degradation strengths.</p>
 
<br>
 
 
<center>
 
<br>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/fd/T--LambertGA--resa2.jpg">
 
<br>
 
</center>
 
  
 
<br>
 
<br>

Revision as of 02:26, 18 October 2016


Model


To further describe our characterization of the DAS and LAA degradation tags, our team designed a visual representation of the relative degradation strengths.


From left to right the average color intensity of Tspurple with no Degradation tag, with the DAS Degradation tag, and the LAA Degradation tag are shown. These intensity values are an average of multiple, identical intensity values using our camera system (see proof of concept page). This light board, dubbed the BactoGlo, serves a few purposes. One was to visually represent our findings so that other research laboratories can be shown a scale of sorts to assist in making decisions on if they desire to use a degradation tag on their protein. The second reason is for public outreach and presentations of our findings. Our conclusions have a greater impact when the data is displayed in this format.
For example, based on our findings we saw a XX% decrease in protein concentration with the DAS Degradation tag and a XX% decrease with LAA. However, saying this is not as impacting as showing a light ample with XX% less light.