Difference between revisions of "Team:UNIK Copenhagen/Results"
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
<h2>Considerations for replicating the experiments</h2> | <h2>Considerations for replicating the experiments</h2> | ||
| − | + | Doing PCR’s can be surprisingly hard. Usually not when amplifiyng small DNA fragments like Piece B or C, but for longer pieces it gets a lot more technical difficult. Piece A was around 5000 bp and piece D was around 3000 bp (exact lenght) and that made the process very difficult. From around the time we started in the laboratory, we spent a lot of time just optimizing the PCR reactions for Piece A and C. Not only was it hard to just get a band on the gel, it was also difficult to amplify a high enough amount of each piece, since you need 30 ug of DNA total for our moss transformation protocol. | |
| + | Looking in the hind mirror, we could have potentially have amplified Piece A in two different overlapping pieces and the same for Piece D. But we suspect that having more separate DNA pieces (4-6) for one transformation would have affected our transformation efficiency negatively. | ||
| + | Moss is fun, but as we already mentioned, it grows very slowly. So buckle up and plan ahead :) | ||
<h2>Future plans</h2> | <h2>Future plans</h2> | ||
| − | + | Our future plans is to grow the transformed lines of Physcomitrella patens, so that they can be used as a starting point for next year’s teams. We imagine that future teams can do experiments with our antifreeze moss and/or do additional transformations with our lines, to make them even more adapted to the martian environment. | |
</div> | </div> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
Revision as of 15:11, 12 September 2015
Project Results
A few days after transformation we observed the moss protoplasts under a fluorescent microscope and saw YFP expression in moss protoplats for the antifreeze and the STS construct (fig. 4A and 4B). This confirms the that our transformation was a success and highly suggests that our genes of interest, antifreeze and STS, are expressed. It demonstrated that our construct design works and that moss can combine different DNA pieces with matching overhangs using homologous recombination.
Figure 4: Fluorescence microscopy pictures of P. patens transformed with our genetic constructs. A) A moss protoplast transformed with the antifreeze construct. B) A moss protoplast transformed with our STS construct. C) A moss protoplast transformed with a vector expressing YFP. A positive control. D) WT moss. A negative control. 1) Bright field picture. 2) Filter showing autoflouorescence (red) and YFP-expression (green). 3) Filter showing only YFP-expression (green).
Our transformed moss protoplasts were then moved to to PhyB-plates containing kanamycin (50 mg/ml) and were left to grow for a few weeks. One month after transformation we had ten growing clumps of transformed moss. Seven of those clumps of moss were expressing YFP (fig. 4). This suggests stable integration of our gene constructs.
Figure 5: A clump of transformed P. Patens showing YFP-expression, grown on kanamycin containing plates (50 mg/ml). A) Bright field picture. B) Filter showing autoflouorescence (red) and YFP-expression (green).
C) Filter showing only YFP-expression (green).