Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
<div style = 'padding-right: 13%; padding-left: 13%; text-indent: 50px;line-height: 25px;' > | <div style = 'padding-right: 13%; padding-left: 13%; text-indent: 50px;line-height: 25px;' > | ||
− | The data obtained from imageJ was processed using excel. From the data we found that we had to further narrow down the concentration ranges for the chemicals of concern in order to get more defined product to substrate curves. For the second batch of experiments the concentration ranges were further refined and the bioassay was assembled as shown in the following plate layouts. | + | The data obtained from imageJ was processed using excel. From the data we found that we had to further narrow down the concentration ranges for the chemicals of concern in order to get more defined product to substrate curves. For the second batch of experiments the concentration ranges were further refined, and the bioassay was assembled as shown in the following plate layouts. |
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 01:41, 18 October 2018
After the insertion of our promoters into the mammalian cells, we ran a series of initial experiments to optimize our measurement protocol. Initially we measured the fluorescence intensity of our bioassay using a microplate reader. We found that this method resulted in a high autofluorescence from the complete growth media. In order to combat this washed the cells with PBS before testing at each time interval. We found that the PBS wash contributed to cell stress and decreased the viability of the cells. Therefore, we chose to use a fluorescence microscope as our choice for measuring cell fluorescence.
We began testing by assembling our bioassay as shown in the following plate layouts.
Table 1. Plate layout for MT1 promoter construct
Table 2. Plate layout for MT2 full promoter construct
Table 3. Plate layout for MT2 59bp promoter construct
run("Set Measurements...", "area mean min integrated limit redirect=title decimal=3");
setAutoThreshold("Default”);
//run("Threshold...");
setThreshold(4000, 65535);
run("Measure");
Figure 1 & 2. The picture to the left shows the microscope image captured and the picture to the right shows the result of the image being processed using imageJ.
Table 4. Plate layout for MT1 promoter and MT2 promoter constructs for the second batch of experiments
Table 5. Plate layout for FGF21 promoter and GADD153 promoter constructs for the second batch of experiments
Normalized FI = Raw FI/ Total Possible Signal
We found that the well that had only transfected cells (0 uM of C.O.C) had higher a higher baseline fluorescence. Noise is intrinsic to all these systems, in our attempt to eliminate noise from our data we subtracted he normalized fluorescence intensities with the 0uM value.
Induction curves were generated by plotting the corrected normalized fluorescence intensities against the concentration of chemicals of concern. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation from the mean normalized fluorescence intensity.