Team:Goettingen/week12-1

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)

Latest revision as of 18:40, 26 September 2012


Home Homepage News Team Members Focus Groups Seminars Work Impressions Project Our Project Results Discussion/Outlook Lab Work Flow Notebook Overview Materials Methods Computational Data Bioinformatical Tools iGEM What is iGEM? Parts Submitted Attributions Safety > Göttingen City University of Göttingen Max-Planck-Institute S1-Demo Lab Human Practice Our Human Practice Projects Public and Media Survey Synthetic Biology Day Panel Discussion Flash Coli Sponsoring Our Sponsors Interested in...?
Deutsch / English

#1 Selection / Swimming - 12th Week

Back to overview

V07_17

V07_17_1 Analysis of separation assay V07_13_1

Experiment:
From the plates of V07_13_1 were little spots picked. These spots are right at the most outer front of the swimming bacterial halo towards the attractant soaked Whatman paper. The picked colonies were resuspended and plated onto new plates to count the cfus.
Observations & Results:
None of the plates showed the formation of colonies.

V07_17_2: Using an amino acid mix as attractan

Experiment:
According to the swimming assay in methods. M9 agar plates, supplemented with methionine were used. Different strains (∆tar, BL21, and DH10B) were used, containing a variety of plasmids (in case of ∆tar: pSB1C3_rfp and psB1C3_18C_tar; BL21 and DH10B: J61002_18C_rfp and J61002_18C_flhDC). This time, a mix of 18 proteinogenic amino acids was used as chemoattractant.
Observations & Results:
∆tar: the Tar containing cells showed swimming, whereas the rfp-transformants did not. BL21: flhDC containing E. coli showed clear chemotaxis towards the amino acids, whereas the rfp transformants showed only a little swimming. DH10B: Here, the rfp transformants showed strong swimming and chemotaxis, the flhDC strains did not.

V07_19

Repetition of several swimming assays

Experiment
The strains BL21 and DH10B, containing 18c_rfp and 18c_flhDC constructs, together with ∆tar, containing 18c_rfp and 18c_Tar were dropped onto M9 agar (supplemented with methionine) plates. A variety of chemoattractants was used (tryptone, aspartate, and aa-mix) and soaked into whatman papers. The paper was put in the middle of the plates.

Back to overview

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 <ul>
 <li>Experiment: <br>
-From the plates of V07_13_1 were little spots picked. These spots are right at the most outer front of the swimming bacterial halo towards the attractant soaked whatman paper. The picked colonies were resuspendet and plated onto new plates to count the cfus.</li>
+From the plates of V07_13_1 were little spots picked. These spots are right at the most outer front of the swimming bacterial halo towards the attractant soaked Whatman paper. The picked colonies were resuspended and plated onto new plates to count the cfus.</li>
 <li>Observations & Results:<br>
 None of the plates showed the formation of colonies.
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 <ul>
 <li>Experiment: <br>
-According to the swimming assay in methods. M9 agar plates, supplemented with methionine were used. Different strains (∆tar, BL21, and DH10B) were used, containing a variety of plasmids (in case of ∆tar: pSB1C3_rfp and psB1C3_18C_tar; BL21 and DH10B: J61002_18C_rfp and J61002_18C_flhDC). This time, a mix of 18 proteinogenic amino acids was used as chemoattractant.</li>
+According to the swimming assay in methods. M9 agar plates, supplemented with methionine were used. Different strains (<i>∆tar</i>, BL21, and DH10B) were used, containing a variety of plasmids (in case of ∆tar: pSB1C3_rfp and psB1C3_18C_tar; BL21 and DH10B: J61002_18C_<i>rfp</i> and J61002_18C_<i>flhDC</i>). This time, a mix of 18 proteinogenic amino acids was used as chemoattractant.</li>
 <li>Observations & Results:<br>
-∆tar: the Tar containing cells showed swimming, whereas the rfp-transformants did not. BL21: flhDH containing E. coli showed clear chemotaxis towards the amino acids, whereas the rfp transformants showed only a little swimming. DH10B: Here, the rfp transformants showed strong swimming and chemotaxis, the flhDC strains did not.
+∆tar: the Tar containing cells showed swimming, whereas the rfp-transformants did not. BL21: <i>flhDC</i> containing <i>E. coli</i> showed clear chemotaxis towards the amino acids, whereas the <i>rfp</i> transformants showed only a little swimming. DH10B: Here, the <i>rfp</i> transformants showed strong swimming and chemotaxis, the <i>flhDC</i> strains did not.
 </ul>
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 <ul>
 <li>Experiment <br>
-  The strains BL21 and DH10B, containing 18c_rfp and 18c_flhDC constructs, together with ∆tar, containing 18c_rfp and 18c_Tar were dropped onto M9 agar (supplemented with methionine) plates. A variety of chemoattractants was used (tryptone, aspartate, and aa-mix) and soaked into whatman papers. The paper was put in the middle of the plates.</li>
+  The strains BL21 and DH10B, containing 18c_<i>rfp</i> and 18c_<i>flhDC</i> constructs, together with ∆tar, containing 18c_<i>rfp</i> and 18c_Tar were dropped onto M9 agar (supplemented with methionine) plates. A variety of chemoattractants was used (tryptone, aspartate, and aa-mix) and soaked into whatman papers. The paper was put in the middle of the plates.</li>
 </ul>
 <br></td></tr>