Difference between revisions of "Team:KU Leuven/Research/Results"
Laetitia VW (Talk | contribs) |
Laetitia VW (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
<p>First a broad concentration range was used to estimate the linear part. This range was made by a two-fold dilution series. When measuring the absorbance, LB medium was used as blank. Later the absorbance values of the blank were subtracted from the absorbance values of the standards. Then these values were divided by the absorbance values at 600 nm measured in the microtiterplate which gives an indication of the cell number. Eventually the values were corrected by setting the point with a concentration of 0 mM OHHL in the origin. These values were plotted in figure 4. The concentrations 2.56 mM and 5.12 mM were left out because these values were not distinguishable from the blank. This can be explained because the OHHL is dissolved in DMSO which lowers the growth of C. violaceum CV026. Between the concentrations 0.64 mM and 1.28 mM, the curve is stagnating. This is probably due to saturation of the medium or the inhibitory effect of DMSO. In a next step, a more narrow range was investigated. | <p>First a broad concentration range was used to estimate the linear part. This range was made by a two-fold dilution series. When measuring the absorbance, LB medium was used as blank. Later the absorbance values of the blank were subtracted from the absorbance values of the standards. Then these values were divided by the absorbance values at 600 nm measured in the microtiterplate which gives an indication of the cell number. Eventually the values were corrected by setting the point with a concentration of 0 mM OHHL in the origin. These values were plotted in figure 4. The concentrations 2.56 mM and 5.12 mM were left out because these values were not distinguishable from the blank. This can be explained because the OHHL is dissolved in DMSO which lowers the growth of C. violaceum CV026. Between the concentrations 0.64 mM and 1.28 mM, the curve is stagnating. This is probably due to saturation of the medium or the inhibitory effect of DMSO. In a next step, a more narrow range was investigated. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
+ | <div class ="center"> | ||
+ | <div id="imageAHL4"> | ||
+ | <a class="example-image-link" href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/d/d2/KU_Leuven_ResultOHHL1.jpeg" | ||
+ | data-lightbox="example-set" data-title="acceptor_cell"> | ||
+ | <img class="example-image" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/d/d2/KU_Leuven_ResultOHHL1.jpeg" width="50%"></a> | ||
+ | <h4> | ||
+ | <div id=figure6>Figure 4</div> | ||
+ | First estimation of the OHHL standard curve. click to enlarge</h4> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
<div class="whiterow"></div> | <div class="whiterow"></div> | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 22:27, 18 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