Difference between revisions of "Team:UST Beijing/InterLab"

Line 66: Line 66:
 
                     <li><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UST_Beijing/Model">Model</a></li>
 
                     <li><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UST_Beijing/Model">Model</a></li>
 
                     <li><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Safety/Final_Safety_Form?team_id=2537">Safety</a></li>
 
                     <li><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Safety/Final_Safety_Form?team_id=2537">Safety</a></li>
                     <li class="dropdown"><a href="javascript:{}">Awards</a>
+
                     <li class="dropdown active"><a href="javascript:{}">Awards</a>
 
                         <ul class="dropdown-menu">
 
                         <ul class="dropdown-menu">
 
                             <li><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UST_Beijing/Attributions">Attribution</a></li>
 
                             <li><a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:UST_Beijing/Attributions">Attribution</a></li>

Revision as of 09:39, 9 October 2018

Team:UST_Beijing/Interlab

Materials

- Plate reader: PerkinElmer EnSpire
- 96 well plates (transparent plates with clear flat bottom)
- Devices: Positive control:BBa_I20270
Negative control: BBa_R0040
Device 1: BBa_J364000 Device 2: BBa_J364001. Device 3: BBa_J364002 Device 4: BBa_J364007 Device 5: BBa_J364008 Device 6: BBa_J364009
- Fluorescein (provided in kit)
- 10ml 1xPBS pH 7.4-7.6
(phosphate buffered saline)
- 300 μL Silica beads
- Microsphere suspension
(provided in kit, 4.7x10^8 microspheres) - 1ml LUDOX CL-X (provided in kit)
- ddH2O

Conclusion

Both Device 2 and Device 4 showed higher fluorescence values than other Devices, and Device 2 is the best. The fluorescence result of Device 3 is the lowest, still higher than negative control though.

Discussion

Figure 1 demonstrated that under 5uM Fluorescein, the standard curve showed a similar polynomial shape, but the whole curve didn’t. Therefore, we speculated that 10uM Fluorescein might beyond the range of the equipment, which meant the concentration of fluorescein was too high to acquire reliable data. According to Figure 2, the log graph of fluorescein standard curve showed a highly similar linear shape.
Particle standard curve (Figure 3 and Figure 4) demonstrated the same problem above (beyond the scale). According to figure 4, particle count under 5×10^7 showed a highly similar linear shape.
Table 1 demonstrated values of Net Fluorescein a.u. From data of 6 hours. We could notice that after 6-hour growth, Device 2 (BBa_J364001) showed a series of high values which were even higher than Positive control. Furthermore, according to Table 2, the Net Abs600 values of them just had little difference, which meant within the range of the errors allowed, the growth of Positive control and Device 2 are similar. Additionally, Device 4 also showed higher value, however, the 0-hour Net fluorescein a.u. values of Device 4 were higher than any other Devices and replicates of colony 1 of Device4 were not very good. Thus, we only compared colony 2 of Device 2 and Device 4, although the initial fluorescein values of device 4 are much higher, they became lower after 6 hours.