Difference between revisions of "Team:Exeter/Proof"

 
Line 635: Line 635:
 
<h6><u>Ministat experiment</u></h6>
 
<h6><u>Ministat experiment</u></h6>
 
<p id="pp">All samples from the ministat were tested using the KillerRed, KillerOrange protocol found <a href="#KRKOProt">
 
<p id="pp">All samples from the ministat were tested using the KillerRed, KillerOrange protocol found <a href="#KRKOProt">
here</a>. Glycerol stocks were made of the samples taken at each time interval, testing was done using these glycerol stocks.</p>
+
here</a>. Glycerol stocks were made from the samples taken at each time interval, testing was done using these glycerol stocks.</p>
<p id="pp"><b>Fig.1,2</b> Average number of colonies after 0 h, 24 h, 120 h and 168 h of continuous culture. Values were  
+
<p id="pp">The following graphs show the average number of colonies of samples taken at 0 h, 24 h, 120 h and 168 h of continuous culture and then tested in the light box. Values were  
averaged across three biological repeats. A max value of 300 colonies is set as any plate with more than 300 colonies was
+
averaged across three biological repeats. Colonies were not counted above 300 and so this is the maximum value given. All samples were induced to a final concentration of 0.2 nM IPTG. All samples were  
not counted and assigned the max value. All samples were induced to a final concentration of 0.2 nM IPTG. All samples were  
+
diluted 1000 times in a final volume of 4.5 ml liquid broth (LB). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p>
diluted 1000 times in a final volume of 4.5 ml LB. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean</p>
+
 
<p id="pp"> <b>Fig. 3,4</b> Data from Fig.7,8 represented as percentage viable cells over time. 100% viable is given
+
when the CFU count for the kill switch condition equaled the control. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p>
+
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
     <div class="col-xs-6" style="padding:5px 2% 5px 10%;margin:0;">
 
     <div class="col-xs-6" style="padding:5px 2% 5px 10%;margin:0;">
 
         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/7/78/T--Exeter--KRcont.jpg"  
 
         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/7/78/T--Exeter--KRcont.jpg"  
 
style="max-width:100%;margin:auto;display:block;">
 
style="max-width:100%;margin:auto;display:block;">
             <span class="caption">Fig. 1. Comparison of CFUs formed by KillerRed exposed to light and kept in the dark.</span>
+
             <span class="caption">Fig. 14. Comparison of CFUs formed by KillerRed exposed to light and kept in the dark for each sample taken from the ministat. The efficiency of the kill switch decreases over time as shown by the increasing number of CFUs.</span>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
Line 654: Line 652:
  
 
     <div class="col-xs-6" style="padding:5px 10% 5px 2%;margin:0;">
 
     <div class="col-xs-6" style="padding:5px 10% 5px 2%;margin:0;">
         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/9/9f/T--Exeter--KRDpercent2.jpg"  
+
         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d0/T--Exeter--KOcont.jpg"  
 
style="max-width:100%;margin:auto;display:block;">
 
style="max-width:100%;margin:auto;display:block;">
             <span class="caption">Fig. 2. Percentage viable cells of KillerRed exposed to light.</span>
+
             <span class="caption">Fig. 15. Comparison of CFUs formed by KillerOrange exposed to light and kept in the dark. The efficiency of the kill switch decreases over time as shown by the increasing number of CFUs. The effect is not as obvious in KillerOrange compared to KillerRed as the starting efficiency of KillerOrange is lower. </span>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
Line 662: Line 660:
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
<div class="row">
 
    <div class="col-xs-6" style="padding:5px 2% 5px 10%;margin:0;">
 
        <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d0/T--Exeter--KOcont.jpg"
 
style="max-width:100%;margin:auto;display:block;">
 
            <span class="caption">Fig. 3. Comparison of CFUS of KillerOrange exposed to light and in the dark.</span>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
    </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<h6>Discussion</h6>
    <div class="col-xs-6" style="padding:5px 10% 5px 2%;margin:0;">
+
        <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/0/01/T--Exeter--KOpercent2.jpg"
+
style="max-width:100%;margin:auto;display:block;">
+
            <span class="caption">Fig. 4. Percentage viable cells of KillerOrange exposed to light.</span>
+
<br>
+
<br>
+
    </div>
+
</div>
+
 
+
</div>
+
  
 +
<p id="pp">The continuous culture of KillerRed showed a 15 fold increase in the percentage of viable cells after 168 hrs. A similar pattern is shown for KillerOrange but with around a two fold increase. Both KillerRed and KillerOrange show greater numbers of colonies forming over time (Fig. 14 & 15). This number approaches the amount produced in the dark condition by 168 hrs.
 +
The average fluorescence reading for 0 hr KillerRed samples was 506.3 A.U (recorded at an average OD of of 0.745). After 168
 +
hrs the average fluorescence reading  was 436 A.U (at an average OD of 0.96). It seems unlikely due to the readings being
 +
similar that a mutation has occurred in the kill switch itself. As fluorescence is proportional to the amount of ROS
 +
being produced, up regulation of native <i>E. coli</i> enzymes that mitigate the effects of ROS may be the cause of the increase
 +
in cell survival. Future transcriptome analysis could provide interesting data on the mechanism of this change, this was
 +
unfortunately beyond the scope of this project. This shows that there may be many ways for bacteria to circumvent the effects of a kill switch given the high selection pressure they pose.</p>
  
 
<!--Content Ends-->
 
<!--Content Ends-->

Latest revision as of 14:46, 19 October 2016