Talk:20.109(S11):Wrap-up analysis and modelingb (Day8): Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:
|20008 (59%), 1061 (3.1%), 16659 (49.1%), 33903
|20008 (59%), 1061 (3.1%), 16659 (49.1%), 33903
|7046 (3292%), 6083 (2842%), 265 (4.3%), 214
|7046 (3292%), 6083 (2842%), 265 (4.3%), 214
|week four day, modified data probably unreliable (used Green W/F design)
|week four data, modified data probably unreliable (used Green W/F design)
|-
|-
|Purple
|Purple

Revision as of 10:04, 10 April 2011

T/R

Please use the following order for all data: IPTG, IPTG/AHL, -/-, AHL.

Data should be written as: # units (% of AHL case). You can indicate the standard deviation of the data if it is known. (You may include one more significant figure than you believe (or not) for your classmates' reference, but don't go overboard!)

In notes you can explain if you are using week 1, week 4, or both data sets for the original system. Also specify which team's design you used, if your own did not produce colonies. Finally, definitely mention if some of your data points are untrustworthy due to saturation.

Group Miller units and % maximal (original) Miller units and % maximal (modified) Notes
Sample 1320 (7.0%), 1470 (7.8%), 12,740 ± 20 (67%), 18,900 ± 300 700 (3.6%), 1280 (6.5%), 9100 ± 260 (46%), 19,600 ± 350 week 4 data only
Blue 1146.95 (3.4%), 1273.3 (3.8%), 31696.1 (95%), 33278.3 6111.7 (1176.6%), 6252.9 (1203.7%), 423.4 (81.5%), 519.5 week 4 data only
Yellow 2015(2.5%), 1843(2.3%), 61790(77%), 79800 27960(19%), 29930(20%), 138940(94%), 147470 week 4 data only, -/- and AHL data may be unreliable due to saturation
Pink 20008 (59%), 1061 (3.1%), 16659 (49.1%), 33903 7046 (3292%), 6083 (2842%), 265 (4.3%), 214 week four data, modified data probably unreliable (used Green W/F design)
Purple 7640, 7907, 116000, 108000 55239 (0.76%), 90264 (17.5%), 73772 (14.7%), 55060 (11.0%) week four only


W/F

Please use the following order for all data: IPTG, IPTG/AHL, -/-, AHL.

Data should be written as: # units (% of AHL case). You can indicate the standard deviation of the data if it is known. (You may include one more significant figure than you believe (or not) for your classmates' reference, but don't go overboard!)

In notes you can explain if you are using week 1, week 4, or both data sets for the original system. Also specify which team's design you used, if your own did not produce colonies. Finally, definitely mention if some of your data points are untrustworthy due to saturation.

Group Miller units and % maximal (original) Miller units and % maximal (modified) Notes
Sample 1320 (7.0%), 1470 (7.8%), 12,740 ± 20 (67%), 18,900 ± 300 700 (3.6%), 1280 (6.5%), 9100 ± 260 (46%), 19,600 ± 350 week 4 data only
Yellow 1030 ± 20 (5.0%), 1000 ± 73 (4.9%), 17,100 ± 5200 (84%), 20,500 ± 73 156 ± 20 (0.92%), 172 ± 11 (1.0%), 7320 ± 690 (43%), 16,900 ± 90 Previously posted values were a factor of 10 too high. (accidentally used 50 ul overnight culture rather than a 1:10 dilution)
Week 4 data only
Purple 294 (2.0%), 431 (2.9%), 12778 (86.2%), 14820 53 (0.87%), 49 (0.81%), 4088 (68.1%), 6001 week four data only
Green 1654 (2.82%), 11360 (19.38%), 13424 (22.90%), 58617 (100%) 4015 (4.42%), 19094 (21.04%), 19835 (21.86%), 90739 (100%) week 4 data only