Difference between revisions of "Team:UMaryland/Results"

Line 204: Line 204:
 
<p><img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/74/UMDallplasmids.jpeg"></p>
 
<p><img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/74/UMDallplasmids.jpeg"></p>
 
<p><img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/9/9c/UMDhsgel1.png"></p>
 
<p><img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/9/9c/UMDhsgel1.png"></p>
<p style = "font-size:24px">Gels generally show that plasmids are kept whenever a form of pressure is placed on the cell. Why then, is RFP not being expressed? Our sequencing results showed random mutations in the promoter and coding region of the RFP construct. This is a valuable lesson that, with any BioBrick construct, mutations and evolution is inevitable.</p>
+
<p style = "font-size:24px">Gels generally show that plasmids are kept whenever a form of pressure is placed on the cell. Why then, is RFP not being expressed? Our sequencing results showed random mutations in the promoter and coding region of the RFP construct. This is a valuable lesson that, with any BioBrick construct, mutations and evolution is inevitable. However, plasmids that were maintained with Hok-Sok alone (no chloramphenicol) did not display mutations in the RFP construct. The large difference in protein expression over multiple days, as shown by our fluorescence and plating tests, suggests to us that the presence of Hok-Sok, combined with the absence of chloramphenicol pressure, is putting a smaller evolutionary pressure on the  bacterium.</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 01:55, 19 September 2015