|
|
Line 111: |
Line 111: |
| <br><br> | | <br><br> |
| | | |
− | By clicking on this button, you can downnload Plate Reader and Colony Forming Unit (CFU) Protocol Details <br> <br>
| + | We followed the Protocol of iGEM <br> <br> |
| <!-- Modeling button--> | | <!-- Modeling button--> |
| | | |
Line 122: |
Line 122: |
| <!-- .\ Modeling button--> <br> | | <!-- .\ Modeling button--> <br> |
| <div id="day1" style="padding:70px"> </div> | | <div id="day1" style="padding:70px"> </div> |
− | <h2 class="title-h2">Calibration with ludox microsphere and fluorescein (day 1) </h2> | + | <h2 class="title-h2">Calibration with Ludox, Microspheres and Fluorescein (day 1) </h2> |
| <br> | | <br> |
| | | |
Line 142: |
Line 142: |
| <figure style=" width: 100%;"> | | <figure style=" width: 100%;"> |
| <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c1/T--Sorbonne_U_Paris--Interlab_figure1.jpg"alt="Particle absorbance calibration curve" style="width: 70%"> | | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c1/T--Sorbonne_U_Paris--Interlab_figure1.jpg"alt="Particle absorbance calibration curve" style="width: 70%"> |
− | <figcaption style="padding: 10px;"><b>Figure 3. Particle absorbance calibration curve. </b>The particle count per 100 µL is plotted against the A600 of the “monodisperse silica microspheres”. This plot allowed the conversion of measured absorbance at 600 nm of the cells in suspension to the number of particles (or cells) in 100 µL. </figcaption> | + | <figcaption style="padding: 10px;"><b>Figure 3. Particle absorbance calibration curve. </b>The particle count per 100 µL is plotted against the A600 of the “monodisperse silica microspheres”. This plot allowed the conversion of measured absorbance at 600 nm of the cells in suspension to the number of particles (or cells) in 100 µL. |
| + | <p>Then, E. coli K-12 DH5-α cells were transformed with the different test devices and spread on plates. </figcaption> |
| </figure> </div> | | </figure> </div> |
| | | |
Line 163: |
Line 164: |
| </figure> </div> | | </figure> </div> |
| | | |
− | <p>After performing the calibrations, the cell measurements were done to convert the absorbance of the cell suspensions into the absorbance of a known concentration of beads. Then the Colony-Forming Units (CFU) were determined and allowed to obtain a conversion factor from absorbance to CFU. </p> | + | <p>Cell measurements were done to convert the absorbance of the cell suspensions into the absorbance of a known concentration of beads. Then the Colony-Forming Units (CFU) were determined and allowed to obtain a conversion factor from absorbance to CFU. </p> |
| | | |
− | <p>E. coli K-12 DH5-α cells were transformed with the different test devices. Then, 2 colonies were picked from the two transformation plates and grown overnight at 37°C in LB. The next day, the cultures were diluted to an A<sup>600</sup> of 0.02 then their absorbance at 600 nm and fluorescence (excitation: 410 nm, emission: 520 nm, gain= 75) measured with a 96-well plate reader (BMG LABTECH - POLARstar Omega) at 0 and 6 hours. </p> | + | <p> Then, 2 colonies were picked from the two transformation plates and grown overnight at 37°C in LB. The next day, the cultures were diluted to an A<sup>600</sup> of 0.02 then their absorbance at 600 nm and fluorescence (excitation: 410 nm, emission: 520 nm, gain= 75) measured with a 96-well plate reader (BMG LABTECH - POLARstar Omega) at 0 and 6 hours. </p> |
| <p>The results showed an increase in the fluorescence and the absorbance after 6 hours compared to the values at 0 hours, indicating an increase in the number of cells (<b>Figure 3</b>). Devices 1 and 4 showed the highest fluorescence while the device 3 was within the same range than the negative control (<b>Figure 3a</b>). Devices 2, 5 and 6 displayed fluorescence levels similar to the positive control (<b>Figure 3a</b>). However, we saw no significant difference in absorbance amongst the cells expressing the different devices and the controls at t = 0 h and t = 6 h (<b>Figure 3b</b>). This observation confirms that the fluorescein level observed were not due to a difference in cell number but rather due to different expression levels of the GFP reporter of the devices.</p> | | <p>The results showed an increase in the fluorescence and the absorbance after 6 hours compared to the values at 0 hours, indicating an increase in the number of cells (<b>Figure 3</b>). Devices 1 and 4 showed the highest fluorescence while the device 3 was within the same range than the negative control (<b>Figure 3a</b>). Devices 2, 5 and 6 displayed fluorescence levels similar to the positive control (<b>Figure 3a</b>). However, we saw no significant difference in absorbance amongst the cells expressing the different devices and the controls at t = 0 h and t = 6 h (<b>Figure 3b</b>). This observation confirms that the fluorescein level observed were not due to a difference in cell number but rather due to different expression levels of the GFP reporter of the devices.</p> |
| | | |