Difference between revisions of "Team:Tec-Chihuahua/Results"

With minimal mathematical and informatics background, we were able to adapt a model to our situation and code effective solutions for data analysis. This model can also help further developments in similar projects.

Our mathematical model went through many iterations (no pun intended) before arriving at its final state: we tried to develop a molecular model to evaluate protein production and a populational model to predict the health of the beehive by eliminating nodes of infection. In the end, time and resources forced us to concentrate our efforts on the most pressing of matters: peptide delivery.

We were unsuccessful in solving the equation for D; we tried several series properties and other sorts of tricks, but we couldn’t find an analytical solution. We decided to find the diffusion coefficient with a simulation of multiple lines.

Our most poignant failure was not being able to run the experiments successfully. Apidaecin was retained at a customs office for a whole month. By the time we needed the nanoencapsulation to be at the lab for experimentation, the peptide had not yet arrived. We are left with a burning vigor to help make importation easier for all sorts of experimentation in Mexico.

We are the first iGEM team from Tec-Chihuahua that manages to send successful results for the InterLab Study. Besides being a rewarding experience, it was a lot of learning since we had never used a microplate reader.

At the beginning, we worked with E. coli TOP10 but later we had to change to DH5a since the TOP10 strain was contaminated.

For a few weeks, the successful transformation of our competent cells was difficult. We discovered that the key was in the quality of the competent cells. We tried to make several stocks of competent cells with glycerol and store them at -20 °C, however, this did not work. We had to make the competent cells on the same day that the transformation protocol was to be carried out.

We worked in the transformation of competent cells of DH5a with the synthesis of our part linked with pSB1C3. When they were disseminated in the LB medium with chloramphenicol, there was a presence of colonies which meant that they had been correctly transformed. However, when performing the electrophoresis of plasmid extraction only one band of the size of pSB1C3 was observed. First, we thought that the protocols of digestion and ligation that we carried out were not the correct ones or there was a bad manipulation. This idea was discarded when using a control with RFP. Doing more research, we discovered that the parts that we sent to synthesize in IDT lacked base pairs next to the restriction sites of EcoRI-HF and PstI. This means that the enzyme has no way to attach to the DNA sequence and digest it. Why did we have colonies that grew on LB + CAM? We believe that the re-circularization of the plasmid was possible.