Difference between revisions of "Team:Uppsala/Interlab"

(Created page with "{{Uppsala/CSS}} {{Uppsala/Header}} <html> </html> {{Uppsala/Navbar}} <html> <body> <div class="container"> <div class="row"> <h2 class="text"> Interlab Study</h...")
 
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
   
 
   
 
         <div class="row">
 
         <div class="row">
 +
            <div class="col-lg-8 text" role="main">
 
<h2 class="text"> Interlab Study</h2>
 
<h2 class="text"> Interlab Study</h2>
             <div class="col-lg-12">
+
             </div>
             
+
                <img class="img-responsive img-rounded" style="clip: rect(0px,500px,0px,0px);" src="http://placehold.it/1000x1500" />
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
+
<!--<nav class="navbar nav-left hidden-print hidden-sm hidden-xs affix">
        <div class="row">
+
<ul class="nav bs-docs-sidenav">
             <div class="col-lg-8 text">
+
                    <li><a href="#intro"> Introduction </a></li>
 +
                    <li> <a href="#method">Method</a>-->
 +
<!--<ul class="nav">
 +
<li> <a href="#OD600">OD600 reference point</a> </li>
 +
<li> <a href="#FITC">FITC fluorescence standard curve</a></li>
 +
<li> <a href="#cell measurement">Cell measurement protocol</a></li>
 +
</ul>--><!--</li>
 +
<li> <a href="#results">Results</a></li>
 +
<li> <a href="#discussion">Discussion</a></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</nav>-->
 +
             <div class="col-lg-8 text" role="main">
 
   <hr>
 
   <hr>
                 <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque non mollis massa, eu vestibulum massa. Fusce ultricies scelerisque quam vitae auctor. Duis sollicitudin enim quam, id vulputate libero accumsan quis. Mauris sit amet sagittis ante, ut tempor risus. Aenean porttitor ultrices sodales. Nulla placerat nunc quis tristique dignissim. In at varius nunc. Vivamus vitae vestibulum ex. Proin lobortis nisi nunc, sed ullamcorper nulla tempor quis. Sed ut purus vitae mauris dignissim dictum eget non nisl. Nullam eros arcu, vulputate sit amet facilisis eu, aliquet sed neque. In auctor in odio id dapibus. Nam lobortis eros et odio tempus, in ultricies metus commodo. In vitae vulputate diam. Nam vehicula felis a sapien viverra pharetra in eu lacus. Nulla aliquet dolor at lacus sollicitudin, sed rhoncus nulla porttitor. Nullam diam sem, aliquam at leo ac, blandit fermentum ligula. Etiam nec leo ac erat mattis fringilla. Ut augue lacus, ornare scelerisque est ac, sagittis aliquam dolor. Aliquam tincidunt et erat facilisis porta. Suspendisse potenti. Nullam sed commodo ex, sit amet consectetur arcu. Ut ac tempor lorem. Mauris fringilla molestie leo et volutpat. Donec varius maximus leo sit amet fringilla. Suspendisse pellentesque ligula diam, id ullamcorper augue condimentum sit amet. Cras scelerisque nec diam sit amet consectetur. Nunc sit amet justo condimentum, vulputate lorem in, iaculis augue. Proin tincidunt, mi sit amet scelerisque sollicitudin, velit ex porta nulla, id consequat magna mi sed sem. Sed ut tristique erat. Suspendisse eget quam consequat tortor iaculis ultrices. Maecenas sit amet arcu a libero finibus fringilla nec eget lorem. Pellentesque consequat pulvinar neque at aliquet. Mauris viverra arcu sed magna sollicitudin vehicula. Sed nec elementum dui. Ut ut cursus nunc, ut ultrices est. Sed arcu justo, congue fermentum faucibus id, fringilla ut lorem. Ut cursus neque in nisi commodo euismod. Proin vel arcu varius, rhoncus felis id, ultricies ipsum. Cras luctus lectus justo, congue rutrum mi ultrices eu. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec vel dui scelerisque, condimentum velit et, dapibus eros. Nulla et imperdiet risus. Ut malesuada mi urna, nec hendrerit nibh pharetra a. Nulla eu urna aliquam, placerat sem ac, tincidunt ante. Nam sed augue consectetur, ornare sapien at, dictum justo. Donec ut commodo nisl, vitae aliquet dui. Ut ac finibus nisi. Phasellus tincidunt consec
+
                 <h3 id="intro">Introduction</h3>
 +
<p>We are happy to say that we now have re-introduced the Uppsala team to the interlab study after a year in absence. The flow cytometer that has been used by the Uppsala iGEM team earlier years was unavailable this year. However, we had access to a fluorescence plate reader which allowed us to participate in the interlab study using the plate reader protocol. </p>
 +
<h3 id="method">Method</h3>
 +
<p>Thorough instructions for the interlab study are available at <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/c5/InterLab_iGEM2016_Plate_Reader_Protocol_Updated_July.pdf">iGEM.org</a>. The form for providing the results from the interlab study is available <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/64/TeamName_iGEM2016_Interlab_Sheet_1_updated.xls">here</a>.
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The protocol consists of two calibration protocols: OD600 reference point and FITC fluorescence standard curve, and a cell measurement protocol.
 +
In each protocol, there are instructions on how to perform measurements with a plate reader or a cuvette reader. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Five different devices were provided by iGEM and included in the distribution kit. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
<table style="width:100%">
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>Positive control</td>
 +
    <td>J23151.B0032.E0040.B0010.B0012</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>Negative control</td>
 +
    <td>R0040</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
    <td>Device 1</td>
 +
    <td>J23101.B0034.E0040.B0015</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
    <td>Device 2</td>
 +
    <td>J23106.B0034.E0040.B0015</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
    <td>Device 3</td>
 +
    <td>J23117.B0034.E0040.B0015</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
</table> </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In addition to this FITC standard and LUDOX solution was provided in the kit and used for calibration.
 +
 
 +
A Shimadzu UV-1800 cuvette spectrophotometer was used for calibration and measurement of OD600. A Fluoroscan Ascent was used for the calibration and measurement of fluorescence. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h4 id="OD600">OD600 Reference point</h4>
 +
<p>Was performed as instructed in cuvettes. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h4 id="FITC">FITC fluorescence standard curve</h4>
 +
<p>While preparing the FITC solution, the solution was incubated overnight to properly dissolve the FITC into 1X PBS. This was recommended in a note in the official protocol if the FITC was not dissolved after 4 hours. The rest of the protocol was performed as instructed in the Fluoroscan Ascent plate reader.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>Settings used:
 +
Excitation wavelength: 485 nm
 +
Emittation wavelength: 538 nm
 +
Scaling factor: 0.7/1
 +
Integration time was varied between 20 ms and 80 ms.
 +
 
 +
The variation in integration time did not cause a big difference on the results. 40 ms integration time was chosen for the presented results. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h4 id="Cell measurement">Cell measurement protocol</h4>
 +
<p>The first day, E.coli DH5α was transformed with the five different devices provided by iGEM with our transformation protocol for chemically competent E.coli DH5α. The next day, 2 colonies of each device was inoculated into 5 ml LB+Chloramphenicol in a 50 ml Falcon tube. The lid of the tube was screwed down loosely and the tube was placed on a shaking table at 220 rpm overnight. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The third day, OD600 of each culture was measured in the calibrated cuvette spectrophotometer. Calculations were made with the provided excel sheet  and each tube was diluted with LB+Cloramphenicol to 10 ml of OD600 0.02 as instructed in 50 ml Falcon tubes. 100 μl samples were then collected each hour and kept on ice in 4℃ for later measurement. When 7 samples had been collected, measurements were done in the calibrated Fluoroscan Ascent plate reader. Both cultures of replicates with device 3 was notably clearer than all other cultures after 6 hours.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>No measurements of OD600 were done on the plates. This was due to a misunderstanding of the protocol, and not enough sample volume was available to be able to do OD600 measurements in the cuvette spectrophotometer. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3 id="results">Results</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Since no OD600 measurement was done on the hourly samples, we have no Fl/Abs600 data.
 +
However, we can still compare the arbitrary fluorescence units of the different measurements to each other. </p>
 +
<figure>
 +
              <img float="right" display="inline" class="img-responsive" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/60/T--Uppsala--Interlab2016-1.png" />
 +
<figcaption>Figure 1. The fluorescence of the different samples as a function of time, corrected for the readout of LB media with 25 μg/ml chloramphenicol. Non-modified version from the provided Excel template. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img float="right" display="inline" class="img-responsive" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/cc/T--Uppsala--Interlab2016-2.png" />
 +
<figcaption>Figure 2. The mean fluorescence of the two replicates for each device (n=2), corrected for the readout of LB media with 25 μg/ml chloramphenicol. Error bars show standard deviation. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 
 +
<h3 id="discussion">Discussion</h3>
 +
<p>In figure 1 and figure 2, we can see that both replicates of device 3 have a fluorescence close to the values of the negative control. This is probably due to low growth of cells, since the culture looked clear even after 6 hours of incubation. Why this happened in both replicates is unknown. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>While providing a mean and standard deviation of only two replicates is not very good form, figure 2 is a lot easier to read than figure 1. In figure 2, it is clear that device 2 has a higher fluorescence than device 1. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<Since only 100 μl was sampled (as instructed in protocol) from each replicate every hour and the plate reader assay is volume dependent, a better consistency in volume could have been achieved by sampling a larger volume. This would allow for some leftovers in the sample tube, instead of assuming that it is possible to extract the total volume from a sample of 100 μl every time. We decided to keep the samples in eppendorf tubes that were spun down before pipetting down into the plate for measurements, but sampling more than 100 μl would have solved this issue completely.  
 +
 
 +
The interlab study in the Uppsala team was performed by Fredrik Lindeberg.  
 
                 </p>
 
                 </p>
 
             </div>
 
             </div>

Latest revision as of 21:07, 18 October 2016

Interlab Study


Introduction

We are happy to say that we now have re-introduced the Uppsala team to the interlab study after a year in absence. The flow cytometer that has been used by the Uppsala iGEM team earlier years was unavailable this year. However, we had access to a fluorescence plate reader which allowed us to participate in the interlab study using the plate reader protocol.

Method

Thorough instructions for the interlab study are available at iGEM.org. The form for providing the results from the interlab study is available here.

The protocol consists of two calibration protocols: OD600 reference point and FITC fluorescence standard curve, and a cell measurement protocol. In each protocol, there are instructions on how to perform measurements with a plate reader or a cuvette reader.

Five different devices were provided by iGEM and included in the distribution kit.

Positive control J23151.B0032.E0040.B0010.B0012
Negative control R0040
Device 1 J23101.B0034.E0040.B0015
Device 2 J23106.B0034.E0040.B0015
Device 3 J23117.B0034.E0040.B0015

In addition to this FITC standard and LUDOX solution was provided in the kit and used for calibration. A Shimadzu UV-1800 cuvette spectrophotometer was used for calibration and measurement of OD600. A Fluoroscan Ascent was used for the calibration and measurement of fluorescence.

OD600 Reference point

Was performed as instructed in cuvettes.

FITC fluorescence standard curve

While preparing the FITC solution, the solution was incubated overnight to properly dissolve the FITC into 1X PBS. This was recommended in a note in the official protocol if the FITC was not dissolved after 4 hours. The rest of the protocol was performed as instructed in the Fluoroscan Ascent plate reader.

Settings used: Excitation wavelength: 485 nm Emittation wavelength: 538 nm Scaling factor: 0.7/1 Integration time was varied between 20 ms and 80 ms. The variation in integration time did not cause a big difference on the results. 40 ms integration time was chosen for the presented results.

Cell measurement protocol

The first day, E.coli DH5α was transformed with the five different devices provided by iGEM with our transformation protocol for chemically competent E.coli DH5α. The next day, 2 colonies of each device was inoculated into 5 ml LB+Chloramphenicol in a 50 ml Falcon tube. The lid of the tube was screwed down loosely and the tube was placed on a shaking table at 220 rpm overnight.

The third day, OD600 of each culture was measured in the calibrated cuvette spectrophotometer. Calculations were made with the provided excel sheet and each tube was diluted with LB+Cloramphenicol to 10 ml of OD600 0.02 as instructed in 50 ml Falcon tubes. 100 μl samples were then collected each hour and kept on ice in 4℃ for later measurement. When 7 samples had been collected, measurements were done in the calibrated Fluoroscan Ascent plate reader. Both cultures of replicates with device 3 was notably clearer than all other cultures after 6 hours.

No measurements of OD600 were done on the plates. This was due to a misunderstanding of the protocol, and not enough sample volume was available to be able to do OD600 measurements in the cuvette spectrophotometer.

Results

Since no OD600 measurement was done on the hourly samples, we have no Fl/Abs600 data. However, we can still compare the arbitrary fluorescence units of the different measurements to each other.

Figure 1. The fluorescence of the different samples as a function of time, corrected for the readout of LB media with 25 μg/ml chloramphenicol. Non-modified version from the provided Excel template.
Figure 2. The mean fluorescence of the two replicates for each device (n=2), corrected for the readout of LB media with 25 μg/ml chloramphenicol. Error bars show standard deviation.

Discussion

In figure 1 and figure 2, we can see that both replicates of device 3 have a fluorescence close to the values of the negative control. This is probably due to low growth of cells, since the culture looked clear even after 6 hours of incubation. Why this happened in both replicates is unknown.

While providing a mean and standard deviation of only two replicates is not very good form, figure 2 is a lot easier to read than figure 1. In figure 2, it is clear that device 2 has a higher fluorescence than device 1.