Difference between revisions of "Team:William and Mary/Interlab"

Line 105: Line 105:
 
<p> FACS Distributions from Midlog Measurement:</p>
 
<p> FACS Distributions from Midlog Measurement:</p>
 
<p> Device #1:
 
<p> Device #1:
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D1-1.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/8/8d/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D1-1.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D1-2.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/51/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D1-2.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D1-3.png"></p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/9/9a/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D1-3.png"></p>
 
<p> Device #2:
 
<p> Device #2:
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D2-1.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/e5/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D2-1.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D2-2.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/ec/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D2-2.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D2-3.png"></p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/2f/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D2-3.png"></p>
 
<p> Device #3:
 
<p> Device #3:
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D3-1.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/3d/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D3-1.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D3-2.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/6c/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D3-2.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D3-3.png"></p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/af/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-D3-3.png"></p>
 
<p> Negative Control:
 
<p> Negative Control:
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-N-1.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/4/48/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-N-1.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-N-2.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/7/79/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-N-2.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-N-3.png"></p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/1/18/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-N-3.png"></p>
 
<p> Positive Control:
 
<p> Positive Control:
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-P-1.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/66/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-P-1.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-P-2.png">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/1/16/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-P-2.png">
−
<img src="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--William_and_Mary--I-M-P-3.png"></p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/6d/T--William_and_Mary--I-M-P-3.png"></p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div>
 
<div>

Revision as of 03:48, 20 October 2016


...

Interlab

We participated in the Interlab Measurement Study using Flow Cytometry analysis on a FACS (Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorter) machine following the protocol provided by iGEM. Our results are presented here:

In addition to participating in the Interlab Study, we also wanted to determine if there would be a noticeable difference between measurements taken at Midlog and measurements taken on those same samples at Saturation.

We noticed that although there were differences between the midlog and saturation measurements, they were not very drastic across the different devices when looking at bulk population-level mean measurements, with the exception of the negative control.

However, because we measured the devices with flow cytometry, we were additionally able to assess the changes in population heterogeneity which occur with between midlog phase and saturation phase. We found that the midlog populations tended to be more unimodal than the saturation populations.

Fig. 3: Representative single-cell histograms of absolute fluorescence levels for the same sample at midlog phase vs. at saturation phase

A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that the antibiotic selection for the reporter construct may weaken over time, allowing subpopulations of cells to develop which have varying metabolic emphases on the reporter construct.

All of the FACS plots from our Interlab study can be found at the bottom of this page.

FACS Distributions from official Interlab submission:

Device #1:

Device #2:

Device #3:

Negative Control:

Postiive Control:

FACS Distributions from Midlog Measurement:

Device #1:

Device #2:

Device #3:

Negative Control:

Positive Control:

FACS Distributions from Saturation Measurement:

Device #1:

Device #2:

Device #3:

Negative Control:

Positive Control: