Team:British Columbia/Results
From 2012.igem.org
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Experimentation so far has focused on first being able to monitor members of our synthetic consortium through fluorescent markers and characterizing our inducible constructs in both single and co-culture. Once the three fluorescent markers were under a common constitutive promoter (pTet), co-culture growth was monitored via plate counts after correcting with optical density. Co-culture growth kinetics were then analyzed in comparison to monocultures grown on minimal media. </br></br> | Experimentation so far has focused on first being able to monitor members of our synthetic consortium through fluorescent markers and characterizing our inducible constructs in both single and co-culture. Once the three fluorescent markers were under a common constitutive promoter (pTet), co-culture growth was monitored via plate counts after correcting with optical density. Co-culture growth kinetics were then analyzed in comparison to monocultures grown on minimal media. </br></br> | ||
- | As seen in Figure 1, the co-culture showed growth while monocultures did not. Quantifying individual members indicated that the tryptophan and methionine auxotrophs dominated the population, whereas the tyrosine auxotroph did not appear to grow. This result was also evident in visualizing the culture (Figure 2). Therefore, analysis of complementation constructs focused first on pairwise comparison of tryptophan and methionine mutants before attempting to integrate tyrosine. | + | As seen in Figure 1, the co-culture showed growth while monocultures did not. Quantifying individual members indicated that the tryptophan and methionine auxotrophs dominated the population, whereas the tyrosine auxotroph did not appear to grow. This result was also evident in visualizing the culture (Figure 2). Therefore, analysis of complementation constructs focused first on pairwise comparison of tryptophan and methionine mutants before attempting to integrate tyrosine. |
<p align=center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/4/4c/UbcresultsSlide1.jpg"></br><b>Figure 1</br></br> | <p align=center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/4/4c/UbcresultsSlide1.jpg"></br><b>Figure 1</br></br> |
Revision as of 03:45, 4 October 2012
Monitoring individuals in a population
Experimentation so far has focused on first being able to monitor members of our synthetic consortium through fluorescent markers and characterizing our inducible constructs in both single and co-culture. Once the three fluorescent markers were under a common constitutive promoter (pTet), co-culture growth was monitored via plate counts after correcting with optical density. Co-culture growth kinetics were then analyzed in comparison to monocultures grown on minimal media.
As seen in Figure 1, the co-culture showed growth while monocultures did not. Quantifying individual members indicated that the tryptophan and methionine auxotrophs dominated the population, whereas the tyrosine auxotroph did not appear to grow. This result was also evident in visualizing the culture (Figure 2). Therefore, analysis of complementation constructs focused first on pairwise comparison of tryptophan and methionine mutants before attempting to integrate tyrosine.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5 Figure 6
Figure 7