Team:Uppsala University/Promoters

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 21: Line 21:
<tr>
<tr>
<td>
<td>
-
<p style="margin-right:10px;font-size:10px;margin-bottom:40px;float:left;width:400px"><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/4/49/Promoter_test.png"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/4/49/Promoter_test.png" width=400></a><br>
+
<p style="margin-right:10px;font-size:10px;margin-bottom:20px;float:left;width:400px"><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/4/49/Promoter_test.png"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/4/49/Promoter_test.png" width=400></a><br>
This bar diagram shows the differences measured florescence between different promoters in each strand, data from one lab strain should not be compared to the other lab strain since these haven't been grown under exactly same conditions.
This bar diagram shows the differences measured florescence between different promoters in each strand, data from one lab strain should not be compared to the other lab strain since these haven't been grown under exactly same conditions.
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
The promoter test was conducted by measuring florescence expressed by each individual promoter assembled with B0032-SYFP2 (Bba_**) though a FACS (florescence activated cell sorter) in lab strains MG1655 and DH5Alpha.  
+
The promoter test was conducted by measuring florescence expressed by each individual promoter assembled with B0032-SYFP2 (BBa_K864101) though a FACS (florescence activated cell sorter) in lab strains MG1655 and DH5α.  
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
The test was conducted on triplicated cultures of each promoter construct, which were measured in the FACS. For each culture 105 cells fluorescence were measured individually, dead cells and non fluorescent cells were discarded, and a average where calculated. All promoter constructs of each strain were grown under same conditions.
+
The test was conducted on triplicated cultures of each promoter construct, which were measured in the FACS. For each culture 10⁵ cells fluorescence were measured individually, dead cells and non fluorescent cells were discarded, and a average where calculated. All promoter constructs of each strain were grown under same conditions.
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
The test was conducted on triplicated cultures of each promoter construct, which were measured in the FACS. For each culture 105 cells fluorescence were measured individually, dead cells and non fluorescent cells were discarded, and a average where calculated. All promoter constructs of each strain were grown under same conditions.
+
The test was conducted on triplicated cultures of each promoter construct, which were measured in the FACS. For each culture 10⁵ cells fluorescence were measured individually, dead cells and non fluorescent cells were discarded, and a average where calculated. All promoter constructs of each strain were grown under same conditions.
</p>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>
<p>
-
The variance in expression between MG1655 and DH5Alpha may depend on the J23101-B0032-SYFP2, which is the promoter the other promoters strength is calculated from, construct in DH5Alpha might been a weaker phenotype resulting in higher RPU values to other DH5Alpha.
+
The variance in expression between MG1655 and DH5α may depend on the J23101-B0032-SYFP2, which is the promoter the other promoters strength is calculated from, construct in DH5α might been a weaker phenotype resulting in higher RPU values to other DH5α.
-
Alternatively the maximum protein expression is lower in DH5Alpha due to its lower fitness also resulting in lower expression of SYFP2 in the J23101 construct.
+
Alternatively the maximum protein expression is lower in DH5α due to its lower fitness also resulting in lower expression of SYFP2 in the J23101 construct.
</p>
</p>
</td>
</td>

Revision as of 05:10, 26 September 2012

Team Uppsala University – iGEM 2012


OBS! PRELIMINÄRT


This bar diagram shows the differences measured florescence between different promoters in each strand, data from one lab strain should not be compared to the other lab strain since these haven't been grown under exactly same conditions.

The promoter test was conducted by measuring florescence expressed by each individual promoter assembled with B0032-SYFP2 (BBa_K864101) though a FACS (florescence activated cell sorter) in lab strains MG1655 and DH5α.

The test was conducted on triplicated cultures of each promoter construct, which were measured in the FACS. For each culture 10⁵ cells fluorescence were measured individually, dead cells and non fluorescent cells were discarded, and a average where calculated. All promoter constructs of each strain were grown under same conditions.

The test was conducted on triplicated cultures of each promoter construct, which were measured in the FACS. For each culture 10⁵ cells fluorescence were measured individually, dead cells and non fluorescent cells were discarded, and a average where calculated. All promoter constructs of each strain were grown under same conditions.


The variance in expression between MG1655 and DH5α may depend on the J23101-B0032-SYFP2, which is the promoter the other promoters strength is calculated from, construct in DH5α might been a weaker phenotype resulting in higher RPU values to other DH5α. Alternatively the maximum protein expression is lower in DH5α due to its lower fitness also resulting in lower expression of SYFP2 in the J23101 construct.



Sponsors






Retrieved from "http://2012.igem.org/Team:Uppsala_University/Promoters"