Difference between revisions of "Team:KU Leuven/Research/Results"
Line 255: | Line 255: | ||
<div id="togglethree"> | <div id="togglethree"> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
− | + | The first Gibson assembly was performed using gBlocks only without vector. Since the T5 exonuclease cleaves nucleotides from 5’ to 3’, an extra fill-in step was added after the 1 hour incubation at 50°C. Appropriate primers were added together with Phusion DNA polymerase and T4 DNA ligase to recreate our blunt inserts. The ligated fragments were checked by PCR and both reactions showed a band at the expected height. The 1-2-3 reaction however showed a lot of aspecific bands. The 5-6 fragment was stored untill further use and the 1-2-3 fragment was then digested to be directionally cloned in a pSB1C3 backbone and to be transformed in electrocompetent <i>E. cloni</i> cells. | |
</p> | </p> | ||
+ | <p>Positive colonies of 1-2-3 were further checke by colony PCR. Of this check, only one colony seemed to have the right insert. Restriction digestion was however negative. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p><b>Method 2</b> | ||
+ | Because our method was a little abberant compared to the IDT protocol, a vector with correct overhangs was PCR amplified. This vector was further used in a one-reaction Gibson assembly. After transformation, liquid cultures were grown from which the plasmid DNA was isolated. Restriction mapping was performed (fig) and showed only pUC19. | ||
+ | To get rid of the template pUC, the PCR amplified backbone was digested with DpnI. This restriction enzyme only cuts methylated DNA and thus is inactive on the PCR amplified pUC and synthesised gBlocks.<br/> | ||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | Even after digestion with DpnI, pUC19 kept appearing (fig).<br/> | ||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | To make the vector PCR more efficient, pUC19 was first linearized using XbaI. Again, the PCR product was digested with DpnI. This plasmid was also transformed as a negative control and did not show any positive colonies. The plates that should contain the insert did show positive colonies.</p> These were further analysed and | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
<div class="whiterow"></div> | <div class="whiterow"></div> | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 00:14, 19 September 2015
Results
Leucine detection
The standard curve from 0 to 100 µM did not give a linear relationship. Our working method needs optimisation. Because the enzymes are from other organisms than mentioned in Kugimiya and Fukada (2015), it is possible that the enzymes have another efficiency and as a consequence need to have another ratio (substrates over enzyme). Additionally, we did not have the same equipment as described in the article: we had to manually pipet the luminol solution. This possibly means that the measurements have a delay.
Due to a lack of time, we couldn’t complete the plasmid assembly and therefore, we were not able to proceed the quantification of leucine.
In comparison to HPLC, the chosen method would be less time consuming without the need of specialized equipment.
Contact
Address: Celestijnenlaan 200G room 00.08 - 3001 Heverlee
Telephone: +32(0)16 32 73 19
Email: igem@chem.kuleuven.be