Difference between revisions of "Team:UMaryland/Results"

Line 150: Line 150:
 
<div id='contentbox'>
 
<div id='contentbox'>
 
<p style="font-size:48px;text-align:center;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><b>Fluorescence Studies</b>
 
<p style="font-size:48px;text-align:center;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><b>Fluorescence Studies</b>
 +
<p style = "font-size:24px">Our fluorescence studies supported the findings of our plating tests. We were able to observe that fluorescence was rapidly lost in the negative control. This was expected due to plating tests demonstrating the loss of plasmid from that group. We were pleasantly surprised to observe that Hok-Sok was able to maintain fluorescence for a longer period of time than typical chloramphenicol pressure.</p>
 
<p style = "font-size:24px">DH5α Cell Line</p>
 
<p style = "font-size:24px">DH5α Cell Line</p>
  
Line 171: Line 172:
 
<p style = "font-size:18px">Figure 9. K1783003 (Hok-Sok+Constitutive unstable RFP) in DH5α cells grown in media without antibiotic. Fluorescence is initially moderate, but remains relatively constant over time, a one-time spike notwithstanding.</p>
 
<p style = "font-size:18px">Figure 9. K1783003 (Hok-Sok+Constitutive unstable RFP) in DH5α cells grown in media without antibiotic. Fluorescence is initially moderate, but remains relatively constant over time, a one-time spike notwithstanding.</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
 +
<p style = "font-size:18px">Our initial tests using the BL21 cell line were inconclusive due to a variety of factors, including the need to calibrate our testing protocol. We are including them here to demonstrate the higher level of RFP fluorescence in a cell line engineered to express proteins well.</p>
  
 
<div style="float:left;width:450px;height:550px;">
 
<div style="float:left;width:450px;height:550px;">
Line 234: Line 237:
 
<div id='contentbox'>
 
<div id='contentbox'>
 
<div style="text-align:center;">
 
<div style="text-align:center;">
<p style="font-size:48px;text-align:center;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><b>Sequence Analysis</b><p>
+
<p style="font-size:48px;text-align:center;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><b>Sequence Analysis</b></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 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>
 
<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>

Revision as of 03:45, 19 September 2015