IGEM:IMPERIAL/2006/Results

22/08/06

• Data for plate 1 and plate 2 of T9002 testing (96-well plate was left in shaker overnight).

23/08/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: This data is unusuable. I think there might have been some experimental error that occured.

24/08/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: Although this data looks good, I'm dubious of the fact that the OD of these cultures was only around 0.3 when we expect the OD after 4 hours to be approximately 0.5. We can compile the data to see what we get. The reason for this observations is that the fluorescence is reading approximately 4000+, so I'm not sure that it would be good to use this data.
• Data for J37020

25/08/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: This data can be used for a compilation of all the data we have.
• Data for J37020

26/08/06

• The wrong AHL was used so we're discounting all data gathered on this day.
• All cultures for future testing are to be grown up from the freezer stock.

27/08/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: Here we are in line with other usable data showing peak of around 2600 units in the range of 1 to 100 nM. I think it might also be helpful to only test concentrations between 0.1 to 1000 nM so we get better resolution as to what's going on in between the two "milestone" concentrations.
• Data for J37020

• The results of the T9002 assay are not useable...carry on testing.
• J37016 results look useable.
• J37020 testing done with wrong culture of J37020.

28/08/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: This data definitely shows the characteristic that we have been obtaining, but I am dubious to the value at 100 nM. The other results would suggest a lower fluorescence value of about 2800 maximum, but here we are on the order of 6000 units! Could this be due to experimental error? Perhaps the AHL hasn't undergone any degradation yet? At least we are getting what we expect in terms of range of values that J37016 will give a varying response (i.e. 1 to 100 nM). Again, it might be worth looking into why the fluorescence decreases after 100 nM. I'm curious to know why that happens.
• Data for J37020

• The results of the T9002 assay are not useable...carry on testing.
• J37016 results look un-useable.
• J37020 testing done with wrong culture of J37020.

29/08/06

• No data collected today

30/08/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: Although not as promising as the 31/8 or 1/9 data, there is a definite trend that follows from other data collected on J37016. I would not venture to say that the data from this testing is conclusive, but when averaged with all the other data, I think we can manage to get a good transfer curve for our part.
• Data for J37020

31/08/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: I think we can use this set of data. It clearly shows a response between 1 to 10 nM and a peak fluorescence around 100 nM. Comparing this data to 30/8 data, there is definitely a more pronounced curve, however, as with all of the J37016 testing, there is a decrease in the fluorescence after 100 nM. This could be due to experimental error, as the error bars might suggest that the fluoescence stabilises around 2500 to 2600 units.
• Data for J37020

01/09/06

• Data for T9002
• Data for J37016
  • JS: Having analysed this set of data, it looks like we can use it. As from the 31/8 data, we get a response about 1 to 10 nM and a peak around 100 nM. It is curious to note that there is a decrease in fluorescence as we further increase AHL concentration past the 100 nM mark, suggesting that there might be a possible problem with the AHL concentrations. Also, we are obtaining peak fluorescences of 2700 units which is consistent with 31/8 data.
• Data for J37020

02/09/06

• Data for T9002
  • JS: These results look somewhat promising
• Data for J37016
  • JS: These results look somewhat promising Having looked at this set of data, there seems to be something wrong, as the OD of the cultures is only around 0.1. I don't think this is reasonable considering we left the plate in the shaker for at least 4 hours, and previous experimental data would suggest an OD of approximately 0.5 after 4 hours. I think we might have to discard this data. Any suggestions?
• Data for J37020
  • JS: I have to say...the results from this testing of J37020 isn't very promising

• JS: I will try to compile all of the J37016 data within the next few days. As I am busy with classes, I won't be able to guarantee anything, but I'll try my best. Also, MIT uses a linux system, which is great, but unfortunately, doesn't have any Microsoft software on it, and I am not too familiar with OpenOffice, so I have to bring in my laptop one day to download all of the data :(...However, I went to a talk by Drew Endy today and when he was showing a powerpoint slide of the iGEM wiki, I was very surprised to see Imperial College's picture on the front! At least I recognised all the people there. He did give a great talk which perhaps would have been better if we were all given it at the beginning of the project (since this talk was given mainly to 1st and 2nd year students who are interested in their Biological Engineering major here at MIT). None the less, it was great seeing you guys again, albeit in the most awkard place :)!