Lab Book

20/06/16

After the interlab study, we made streak plates from the colonies we had grown. We regrew all the samples on LB agar with 1 in 1000 dilution of Chloramphenicol. We did this to isolate a pure strain of the transformed interlab E. coli, therefore allowing us to grow up a new, genetically-identical plate. Our lab supervisor, Matthew Peake, showed us the correct streaking technique as the Computer Science students had not learnt this technique before.

22/06/16

After analysing the trial interlab results, we decided to re-plate up the positive control to ensure that we would have enough colonies to carry out the interlab study again.

28/06/16

Today we made a microbial fuel cell by following the Reading University’s protocol, see below.

We sourced the material such as the neoprene gaskets, carbon fibre electrode material, cation-exchange membrane, J-cloth from Professor Ian Head, Dr. Ed Milner and Paniz Izadi from the School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences. We also sourced electric wires with crocodile clips and a multimeter from the Engineering Departments.

First, we prepared the 1M glucose solution, 0.02M potassium hexacyanoferrate (III) solution, 10mM methylene blue solution, these were made up in a 0.1M potassium phosphate buffer.

Phosphate Buffer

To start we made a stock solution of the two constituents compounds and then we diluted them down.

1M Potassium Hydrogen Phosphate Stock Solution

We dissolved 87.09g of potassium hydrogen phosphate (K2HPO4) in 400ml of distilled water. Once dissolved, this was made up to 500ml with distilled water.

1M Potassium Dihydrogen Phosphate Stock Solution

For the stock solution we dissolved 68.05g of potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4) in 400ml of distilled water. This was again, once dissolved, made up to 500ml with distilled water.

0.01M Potassium Phosphate Buffer, pH7.0

For the final potassium phosphate buffer, we mixed 61.5ml of the 1M K2HPO4 stock solution with 38.5ml of the 1M KH2PO4 stock solution. We then added 900ml of distilled water to make up to 1 litre. This buffer was then used to make up the rest of the solutions required for the fuel cell, see below.

10mM of Methylene Blue

For the methylene blue, we dissolved 1.87g in 500ml of the potassium phosphate buffer.

0.02M Potassium hexacyanoferrate (III)

3.39g of potassium hexacyanoferrate (III) was dissolved in 500ml of potassium phosphate buffer. It was then stored in a labelled bottle and wrapped in tin foil.

1M Glucose Solution

First we dissolved 9g of glucose in 50ml of the potassium phosphate buffer. This solution had to be used immediately because it wasn’t sterile and supported the growth of microorganisms, because of this it was the last solution we made.

The four Perspex® components of the fuel cell were then bolted together to make the two compartments of the fuel cell, Figure 1. Neoprene gaskets were provided to prevent leaks from the cell.

INSERT IMAGE HERE

Before we start to assemble the fuel cell, we rehydrated the 2.5g dried Baker’s yeast in 5ml of the potassium phosphate buffer. Next, 5ml of the 1M glucose solution was added to the yeast and mixed well.

We then cut out and folded two carbon fibre electrodes, as seen in Figure 2. One electrode was then inserted into each of the chambers made from the Perspex®.

INSERT IMAGE HERE

Two pieces of J-cloth were then cut out and placed into each chamber of the fuel cell, on top of the electrodes. This is to prevent the electrodes from touching the cation exchange membrane.

A neoprene gasket was placed on each half of the fuel cell. The two halves were then placed together with the cation exchange membrane sandwiched between them. The two halves were then tightened by passing four bolts and tightened with the wing nuts. Although we were warned not to over-tighten the nuts as it would distort the cell and allow liquid to weep out. We did find that a lot of our liquid leaked out of the cell and we believe it may be due to the over tightening of the nuts.

We added 5ml of 10mM methylene blue solution to the yeast suspension. After stirring the mixture, we used a clean syringe to add the yeast mixture to one half of the fuel cell. In the other half of the fuel cell, we syringed around 10ml of the 0.02M potassium hexacyanoferrate (III) solution. The multimeter was then connected to the electrode terminals using the wires and crocodile clips.

Our results showed that we had an overall voltage of 397mV. Although this result was really impressive, it would not be enough to power our light bulb component of the board. Therefore, we shall now work on improving this part and seeing if we can increase the voltage.

Today, we also grew up some liquid cultures for the interlab study, which we then left to incubate over-night at 37°C at 220rpm.

29/06/16

The interlab was carried out on the 29th of July. This was a practise run as our Sample 2 had not transformed well. We believe this may have been due to the fact that the competent cells had been carried over from one building to another and not been on dried ice. After a lot of confusion with the protocol, we managed to get the interlab up and running. It was good to have this practise run as we now know what to do for the final run. For example, we were confused by having to dilute down to an OD600 of 0.02, we now know to do this quickly and have a rough idea of what dilution to make.

30/06/16

Liquid cultures were regrown overnight at 37°C at 220rpm, until they were required again for the interlab study.

05/07/16

The interlab was carried out again. This time, we used the iGEM interlab protocol exactly, as well as using a new plate reader that our lab had on loan. The ThermoScientific Varioskan Lux Plate Reader had the ability to shake and incubate, so we were able to run for the full six hours without interrupting the cycle. Although this was a good way to test the interlab study, we wasted a lot of time at the start playing around with the software. This allowed the OD value to increase from 0.2 by the time we started the cycle. We also had issues with condensation on the plate reader lid, this altered the data towards the end of the experiment as the condensation increased. This meant that the results from this protocol could not be compiled into the interlab data, as the protocol was not identical to the other iGEM teams.

The other plate reader experiment was done by following the protocol: taking a sample every hour for 6 hour and putting it on ice. Then FI and OD of the samples were measured all at once. The results were mostly consistent with only a few “out of range” replicates. One limitation that might have impacted the results was that even though the samples were diluted to 0.02 OD using the right calculations, there was no time to check with spectrophotometer if they were diluted to that value in practise. However, we decided to repeat the experiment again due to the protocol being changed.

11/08/16

We PCR'd the pSB1C3 and RFP device to serve as both a test run of PCR operation for later experiments and also to give us a source of pSB1C3 plasmid for later transformations and device assembly. To check our resulting DNA matched the device we used we performed gel electrophoresis on the sample. As the device is 2070bp in length we expected clear bands around 2000bp. To perform the gel electrophoresis we used our standard gel protocol with one variation, instead of running the gel for 40 minutes at 90V we ran the gel for 80 minutes at 90V as after the first 40 minutes it was not possible to clearly distinguish the bands. Additionally we chose to use 1% gel as in the protocol because the pSB1C3 construct is greater than 2000bp long (2070bp). Our result is shown in the below gel image.

As you can see from the image our gel teared when removing the comb. We suspect this is a combination of using a low agarose concentration and that the agarose we used was old. For future experiments we have noted to use a higher concentration of 1.5%.

More importantly, you can clearly see banding at the 200bp marker which confirms that our sample contains the desired device. There are some artefacts which we think could have been removed through the use of a PCR clean up kit. As we beleived we had succesfully isolated the plasmid we froze this sample to be transformed later.

12/08/16

We grew E. coli cells in different media to see which ones they survived better in. This was a rough guide before we did the final experiment to see which media we should use in the final thing. For this experiment, we inoculated each of the media types (listed below) with some of the left over interlab E. coli . The liquid media were then left in a 37°C at 220rpm for 24 hours. After the allocated time period, growth was measured by a simple yes/no to whether the media had turned cloudy or not, see figure 3. The data can be seen below in table 1.

Table 1. Bacterial growth in various media

Growth Medium	Growth
LB (10ml)	Growth
LB (10ml) and 0.25mol of Sodium Chloride	Growth
M9 (10ml)	Growth
0.5xTBE (10ml)	No growth
0.25mol of Sodium Chloride and 20% Glucose Solution	No growth
0.25mol of Sodium Chloride	No growth

INSERT IMAGE HERE

Figure 3. Bacterial growth in various media