Difference between revisions of "Team:ETH Zurich/InterLab"

(Added example graph (has to be replaced by standard plot layout later))
(FACS protocol 2 sided)
Line 27: Line 27:
  
  
−
<div class="image_box" style="max-width: 3000px;">
+
<div class="img">
−
     <a href="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--ETH_Zurich--FACS.svg">
+
     <a href="https://2016.igem.org/File:T--ETH_Zurich--Protocol_Flow_Cytometry.pdf">
−
         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/35/T--ETH_Zurich--FACS.svg">
+
         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/b0/T--ETH_Zurich--Updated_Facs_Protocol_2sided.jpg">
 
     </a>
 
     </a>
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 11:24, 14 October 2016

PAVLOV'S COLI

INTERLAB STUDY

Building up on last years findings (Beal, Jacob, et al.1), the Third Annual Interlaboratory Measurement Study was continued during this years iGEM competition. The main focus still lays on the comparison of fluorescence measurements of identical constructs from different labs and with different equipment. This years question to explore: "How close can the numbers be when fluorescence is measured all around the world?"

PROTOCOL

This years plate reader protocol was straight-forward. The protocol to measure all devices using flow cytometry however, was not yet up to the same standard. To make participating in next years InterLab study a bit more attractive, we propose an easy-to-use FACS protocol as well as a new Excel sheet for data collection:

RESULTS

We measured all five devices with our plate reader as well as the departments flow cytometer. The submitted data can be found here: Plate reader data or flow cytometry data. An example graph comparing Device 2 (J23106+I13504) to the negative control is shown here:

CONCLUSION

Participating in this years InterLab Study did not take too much effort. However, we feel like the data submission deadline should be moved closer towards end of September, since not every team has access to their laboratory space early enough to get comfortable with the equipment and procedures. We highly recommend teams of future iGEM competitors to sign up and we are looking forward to the resulting comparison of the measured data.

REFERENCES

  • [1] Beal, Jacob, et al. "Reproducibility of Fluorescent Expression from Engineered Biological Constructs in E. coli." PloS one 11.3 (2016): e0150182.

Thanks to the sponsors that supported our project: