Line 985: | Line 985: | ||
<center> | <center> | ||
− | <h2> | + | <h2> A proper proof of concept is essential for communicating the breakthroughs in research and the property creation of a working device. As such, before building the device and integrating engineering and biology, each biological reaction was tested and the engineering working principles were verified and documented. More details on the process and tests themselves may be found in <a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:NYU_Abu_Dhabi/Biology">the biology</a> and <a href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:NYU_Abu_Dhabi/Engineering">the engineering</a> lab notebooks. </h2> |
+ | |||
+ | <h7><ins>Sample Collector</ins></h7> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h2>When a sterile cotton bud is used to collect a real life sample, amplification of the target gene and thus presence of the subject pathogen can be colorimetrically visualised in normal light conditions. Immediately after the LAMP reaction with WarmStart Colorimetric Mastermix is completed, there is a notably lighter appearance to the reaction tube containing the transformed bacteria with the target gene <i>(lmo0733)</i>. On the other hand, the sample of uncontaminated beef and the negative control remain a bright red colour, the difference is more noticeable 15 minutes after the reaction. The gel electrophoresis confirms the amplification that occured. This set of experiments provides evidence that LAMP results can be visualised on real food samples with bacterial cells and not only on purified DNA samples. </h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/0/0a/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--proof1.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 1. Colorimetric results from WarmStart Colorimetric Master Mix reactions immediately after extraction from thermal cycler | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/4/41/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--proof2.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 2. Colorimetric results from WarmStart Colorimetric Master Mix reactions 15 minutes after extraction from thermal cycler | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/8/8a/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--proof3.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 3. 1% agarose gel (left to right) : (left) 500bp ladder, WarmStart reaction mix with treated beef sample, WarmStart reaction mix with untreated beef sample, WarmStart reaction mix with nuclease free water (right)500bp ladder, Optigene reaction mix with treated beef sample, Optigene reaction mix with untreated beef sample, Optigene reaction mix with nuclease free water | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/a7/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--proof4.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 4. Testing effective collection (using a swab) and release (passing water pressure through the swab) of a sample. Working principle appeared successful | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/a7/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--design8.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 5. Testing TE buffer chamber cross contamination from a contaminated used cotton swab. Small blue dots inside the chamber show cross contamination | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/a/a7/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--design7.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 6. Test the safe storage and effective release of the TE buffer using a film sealed plastic chamber released by a plunger | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h7><ins>Chip Flow</ins></h7> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/7/77/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--proof5.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 7. Testing flow of liquid in the first PDMS chip | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h2>The film was tested if it was hydrophilic enough to ensure good flow of liquid. When roughly testing wells and channels made only from the chip, it showed that the film is hydrophilic enough for liquid to flow without pressure. </h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/b/b7/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--proof6.JPG"class="center"> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <h2><center><i>Figure 8. Testing flow of liquid in the 3M chip | ||
+ | </i></center></h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h2>Confirming the hydrophilicity of the chip, a prototype made from double sided tape and film was tested. The chip had a channel width of 200µm, which is a conventional width for PDMS microfluidic chip. However, the liquid did not flow to the wells. Through varying different width of the microfluidic chip, we realized that maximizing the surface area exposed to the hydrophilic film is more important than varying surface pressure of the wells. The finalized chip had a 600µm width to ensure good flow but prevent flowback. </h2> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h7><ins>Amplification</ins></h7> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
</center> | </center> | ||
Revision as of 15:12, 17 October 2018