Difference between revisions of "Team:Uppsala/Results"
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
} | } | ||
+ | figcaption { | ||
+ | margin-bottom: 10px; | ||
+ | } | ||
.smaller { | .smaller { | ||
font-size: 82%; | font-size: 82%; | ||
Line 81: | Line 84: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
− | |||
<h2 id="biosurf">Biosurfactants</h2> | <h2 id="biosurf">Biosurfactants</h2> | ||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
Line 130: | Line 132: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/bf/Uppsala_fig3_biosurf.png"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/bf/Uppsala_fig3_biosurf.png"> | ||
<figcaption><b>Figure 3</b> Gel electrophoresis. Well 1: cut BBa_K1688000, well 3: cut BBa_K1688002 and well 4: cut BBa_K1688003. All biobricks cut with EcoRI and PstI. Well 2: DNA size marker commercial 1kb. 1% w/v agarose gel stained with SyberSafe.</figcaption> | <figcaption><b>Figure 3</b> Gel electrophoresis. Well 1: cut BBa_K1688000, well 3: cut BBa_K1688002 and well 4: cut BBa_K1688003. All biobricks cut with EcoRI and PstI. Well 2: DNA size marker commercial 1kb. 1% w/v agarose gel stained with SyberSafe.</figcaption> | ||
− | + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/a/a5/Uppsala_fig4_biosurf.png"> | |
− | <img src=""> | + | <figcaption><b>Figure 4.</b> Gel electrophoresis. Well 11: cut BBa_K1688001 with XbaI and PstI. Well 8: DNA size marker 1kb. 1% w/v agarose gel stained with GelRed. </figcaption> |
+ | <p> | ||
+ | Figures 3 and 4 shows bands for each construct approximately as expected according to table 1. All biobrick constructs were verified by Sanger sequencing. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
Table 2 and figure 6 displays data of drop expansion test with standard mono-rhamnolipids (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 1 and 1.6 mg/ml). Table 3 and figure 7 displays the data of drop expansion test of LB medium, supernatant extracted from E.coli BL21 with BBa_K1688000 respectively untransformed and supernatant extracted from E.coli DH5α with BBa_K1688000 respectively untransformed. | Table 2 and figure 6 displays data of drop expansion test with standard mono-rhamnolipids (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 1 and 1.6 mg/ml). Table 3 and figure 7 displays the data of drop expansion test of LB medium, supernatant extracted from E.coli BL21 with BBa_K1688000 respectively untransformed and supernatant extracted from E.coli DH5α with BBa_K1688000 respectively untransformed. |
Revision as of 17:31, 15 September 2015
Results
Enzymatic degradation
Naphthalene pathway
Biosurfactants
Gel electrophoresis
Biobrick Code | Insert | Digestion | Insert (bp) | Backbone pSB1C3 (bp) | Expected bands |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BBa_K1688000 | Promoter + RBS + Rhl A + RBS + Rhl B | EcoRI, PstI | 2333 | 2070 | 2374, 2037 |
BBa_K1688001 | RBS + Rhl A + RBS + Rhl B | XbaI, PstI | 2333 | 2070 | 2324, 2052 |
BBa_K1688002 | RBS + Rhl A | EcoRI, PstI | 2298 | 2070 | 1006, 2037 |
BBa_K1688003 | RBS + Rhl B | EcoRI, PstI | 1325 | 2070 | 1366, 2037 |
Figures 3 and 4 shows bands for each construct approximately as expected according to table 1. All biobrick constructs were verified by Sanger sequencing.
Table 2 and figure 6 displays data of drop expansion test with standard mono-rhamnolipids (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 1 and 1.6 mg/ml). Table 3 and figure 7 displays the data of drop expansion test of LB medium, supernatant extracted from E.coli BL21 with BBa_K1688000 respectively untransformed and supernatant extracted from E.coli DH5α with BBa_K1688000 respectively untransformed.
Table 2 shows that a higher concentration of mono-rhamnolipids causes the drop to expand more and collapse faster. This verifies that presence of rhamnolipids can be indicated from drop collapse tests. The drop from sample BBa_K1688000 in BL21 from table 3 collapsed after 30 seconds and expansion of drop diameter was 120% within 5 minutes from 1 cm to 2.2 cm which indicate presence of biosurfactant. The drop from sample BBa_K1688000 in DH5α collapsed and diameter expansion of drop was 90% after 20 minutes. This indicates some presence of biosurfactants. As expected the test indicate that BBa_K1688000 was more expressed and rhamnolipid production was higher in BL21 than in DH5α as BL21 is good for protein expression. The negative controls, LB medium and un-transformed BL21 and DH5a showed very little expansion or no expansion, which is expected as they do not produce biosurfactants.