Rkawalerski (Talk | contribs) |
Rkawalerski (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<font size="4"> | <font size="4"> | ||
− | As expected, we noticed a low level of fluorescence in our readings for the negative control across all time points in the experiment. It was also seen that device 3 demonstrated a low level of GFP production in <i>E. Coli</i>. These raw fluorescence readings were used for the data standardization with recording Abs600 values displayed | + | As expected, we noticed a low level of fluorescence in our readings for the negative control across all time points in the experiment. It was also seen that device 3 demonstrated a low level of GFP production in <i>E. Coli</i>. These raw fluorescence readings were used for the data standardization with recording Abs600 values displayed in the above graph. |
</font> | </font> | ||
</p> | </p> |
Latest revision as of 02:53, 20 October 2016
Interlab Study
Absorbance values for replicates across the 6-hour data collection process. It can be seen that device 1 experienced a low level of growth across the time period compared to each of the alternative devices and controls. Determining the Abs600 for each time point in the experiment is necessary to standardize GFP fluorescence levels.
As expected, we noticed a low level of fluorescence in our readings for the negative control across all time points in the experiment. It was also seen that device 3 demonstrated a low level of GFP production in E. Coli. These raw fluorescence readings were used for the data standardization with recording Abs600 values displayed in the above graph.
This bar graph provides average FI/Abs600 readings across all controls and devices. Averages were calculated with 2 replicates of each of the controls and experimental devices. Standard deviations were calculated using an averaging of data from the two replicates for each control and device and are represented by the error whiskers on the bars.