Difference between revisions of "Team:Alverno CA/Results"

Line 72: Line 72:
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/9/92/T--Alverno_CA--Abs_D12_H12.png" style="width:500px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/9/92/T--Alverno_CA--Abs_D12_H12.png" style="width:500px;">
 
</center>
 
</center>
−
the data is showing the fluorescence of RFP in GG28_1-5 (D12 is GG28_5, E12 is GG28_4, F12 is GG28_3, G12 is GG28_2, H12 is GG28_1). As seen in the graph, there is a strange range of growth in bacteria, which was present in almost all of our results from TX-TL. Now in this graph: <br>
+
The data is showing the fluorescence of RFP in GG28_1-5 (D12 is GG28_5, E12 is GG28_4, F12 is GG28_3, G12 is GG28_2, H12 is GG28_1). As seen in the graph, there is a strange range of growth in bacteria, which was present in almost all of our results from TX-TL. Now in this graph: <br>
 
<center>
 
<center>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/b3/T--Alverno_CA--Abs_D1_H1.png" style="width:500px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/b3/T--Alverno_CA--Abs_D1_H1.png" style="width:500px;">
 
</center>
 
</center>
−
this is the plate reader measuring the fluorescence of GFP in our bacteria. (D01 is GG28_5, E01 is GG28_4, F01 is GG28_3, G01 is GG28_2, H01 is GG28_1)  The data is similar to that of RFP, however the overall fluorescence levels are higher than the fluorescence in RFP. Now, in this graph: <br>
+
This is the plate reader measuring the fluorescence of GFP in our bacteria. (D01 is GG28_5, E01 is GG28_4, F01 is GG28_3, G01 is GG28_2, H01 is GG28_1)  The data is similar to that of RFP, however the overall fluorescence levels are higher than the fluorescence in RFP. Now, in this graph: <br>
 
<center>
 
<center>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/2f/T--Alverno_CA--Abs_A1_A5.png" style="width:500px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/2f/T--Alverno_CA--Abs_A1_A5.png" style="width:500px;">
 
</center>
 
</center>
−
this bacteria has been transformed with both RFP and GFP inducers. (A1 is GG28_1, A2 is GG28_2, A3 is GG28_3, A4 is GG28_4, A5 is GG28_5) The data in this graph shows that overall the bacteria was successfully transformed but this data is not consistent with the data from the two previous graphs (those specific to RFP and GFP respectively). In this graph: <br>
+
This bacteria has been transformed with both RFP and GFP inducers. (A1 is GG28_1, A2 is GG28_2, A3 is GG28_3, A4 is GG28_4, A5 is GG28_5) The data in this graph shows that overall the bacteria was successfully transformed but this data is not consistent with the data from the two previous graphs (those specific to RFP and GFP respectively). In this graph: <br>
 
<center>
 
<center>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/af/T--Alverno_CA--Nor.GFP_Abs_A1_A5.png" style="width:480px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/af/T--Alverno_CA--Nor.GFP_Abs_A1_A5.png" style="width:480px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/e9/T--Alverno_CA--Nor.RFP_Abs_A1_A5.png" style="width:480px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/e9/T--Alverno_CA--Nor.RFP_Abs_A1_A5.png" style="width:480px;">
 
</center>
 
</center>
−
it is another test of the bacteria transformed with both RFP and GFP. The first graph is measuring GFP fluorescence. (A1 is GG28_1, A2 is GG28_2, A3 is GG28_3, A4 is GG28_4, A5 is GG28_5)The second is measuring RFP fluorescence.The results show the significant difference in fluorescence between RFP and GFP in the same bacteria. GFP was more expressed compared to the expression of RFP.<br>
+
It is another test of the bacteria transformed with both RFP and GFP. The first graph is measuring GFP fluorescence. (A1 is GG28_1, A2 is GG28_2, A3 is GG28_3, A4 is GG28_4, A5 is GG28_5)The second is measuring RFP fluorescence.The results show the significant difference in fluorescence between RFP and GFP in the same bacteria. GFP was more expressed compared to the expression of RFP.<br>
  
 
While looking back on our experiment, we realized that there were a few different factors that could have affected our results. One of the more general assumptions was contamination somewhere along iithe process. We try, during all stages of experimentation, to maintain a sterile environment but many times something as simple as a bottle left open can lead to contamination. Another factor could have been the condensation that occurred in our plates that we used in the plate reader. This graph: <br>
 
While looking back on our experiment, we realized that there were a few different factors that could have affected our results. One of the more general assumptions was contamination somewhere along iithe process. We try, during all stages of experimentation, to maintain a sterile environment but many times something as simple as a bottle left open can lead to contamination. Another factor could have been the condensation that occurred in our plates that we used in the plate reader. This graph: <br>

Revision as of 03:14, 20 October 2016

Alverno iGEM 2016

Results













GG28_1-5

The data from our plate reader measured the fluorescence of RFP and GFP in the bacteria. In this graph:
The data is showing the fluorescence of RFP in GG28_1-5 (D12 is GG28_5, E12 is GG28_4, F12 is GG28_3, G12 is GG28_2, H12 is GG28_1). As seen in the graph, there is a strange range of growth in bacteria, which was present in almost all of our results from TX-TL. Now in this graph:
This is the plate reader measuring the fluorescence of GFP in our bacteria. (D01 is GG28_5, E01 is GG28_4, F01 is GG28_3, G01 is GG28_2, H01 is GG28_1) The data is similar to that of RFP, however the overall fluorescence levels are higher than the fluorescence in RFP. Now, in this graph:
This bacteria has been transformed with both RFP and GFP inducers. (A1 is GG28_1, A2 is GG28_2, A3 is GG28_3, A4 is GG28_4, A5 is GG28_5) The data in this graph shows that overall the bacteria was successfully transformed but this data is not consistent with the data from the two previous graphs (those specific to RFP and GFP respectively). In this graph:
It is another test of the bacteria transformed with both RFP and GFP. The first graph is measuring GFP fluorescence. (A1 is GG28_1, A2 is GG28_2, A3 is GG28_3, A4 is GG28_4, A5 is GG28_5)The second is measuring RFP fluorescence.The results show the significant difference in fluorescence between RFP and GFP in the same bacteria. GFP was more expressed compared to the expression of RFP.
While looking back on our experiment, we realized that there were a few different factors that could have affected our results. One of the more general assumptions was contamination somewhere along iithe process. We try, during all stages of experimentation, to maintain a sterile environment but many times something as simple as a bottle left open can lead to contamination. Another factor could have been the condensation that occurred in our plates that we used in the plate reader. This graph:
shows data gathered from a plate that had only water in its wells, but a lot of condensation on the top of the plate lid. The condensation could therefore have affected our results and resulted in abnormal levels of absorbance.
Sanger Sequencing Results for GG Parts


Maybe some screenshots of Benchling Successful Results (a list) Unsuccessful Results (a list) The weird, failed backbones that don’t match with anything Parts that we can improve Future Plans The effects of inducers on the fluorescence expression. (IPTG & ATC)