Team:WashU/Week7

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 25: Line 25:
We learned that the biobrick protocol for ligation was not optimal for our conditions. Thus, using a different protocol [FOUND HERE PUT IN LINK], we performed a ligation of our construct CS42S and plasmid PSL2131. Then, we transformed some <i>E. coli</i> with the results of our ligation and put the plates in the incubator.
We learned that the biobrick protocol for ligation was not optimal for our conditions. Thus, using a different protocol [FOUND HERE PUT IN LINK], we performed a ligation of our construct CS42S and plasmid PSL2131. Then, we transformed some <i>E. coli</i> with the results of our ligation and put the plates in the incubator.
In addition, as an extra check, we ran a gel of our ligation results to see if the procedure had worked. [GEL PICTURE]
In addition, as an extra check, we ran a gel of our ligation results to see if the procedure had worked. [GEL PICTURE]
 +
 +
<br>
<br>

Revision as of 18:20, 10 July 2012



Monday, July 9

Saffron in a Kan

Today, we maxi-prepped our construct CS42S, digested both CS42S and our plasmid PSL2131, and ran them both on gels. We made one-well gels in order to allow us to gel purify the constructs and recover DNA. construct%2520extraction.jpg

Then we gel purified the construct and plasmid and nanodropped them. [TABLE OF NANODROP RESULTS]


Tuesday, July 10
We learned that the biobrick protocol for ligation was not optimal for our conditions. Thus, using a different protocol [FOUND HERE PUT IN LINK], we performed a ligation of our construct CS42S and plasmid PSL2131. Then, we transformed some E. coli with the results of our ligation and put the plates in the incubator. In addition, as an extra check, we ran a gel of our ligation results to see if the procedure had worked. [GEL PICTURE]



Wednesday, July 11


Thursday, July 12


Friday, July 13

Back to Weekly Log

Retrieved from "http://2012.igem.org/Team:WashU/Week7"