Team:Tec-Monterrey/allergen/results

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 158: Line 158:
.content #cl6:hover{ background:url(https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/9/93/TECMTY_Allergen_notebook_hover.png) no-repeat;}
.content #cl6:hover{ background:url(https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/9/93/TECMTY_Allergen_notebook_hover.png) no-repeat;}
-
.content #tabs-back {
+
 
-
margin-top:25px;
+
.msg_head {
-
margin-bottom:40px;
+
color:#414141;
 +
}
 +
.msg_head:hover {
 +
color:#000000;
 +
}
 +
.msg_content {
 +
padding-top:8px;
 +
background:#E9E9E9;
 +
color:#414141;
 +
border-radius:5px;
 +
-moz-border-radius:5px;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
.tabcolor {
 +
border:none;
height:60px;
height:60px;
-
background:#000;
+
width:100%;
-
-moz-border-radius:7px;
+
background:#414141;
-
border-radius:7px;
+
color:#FFF;
color:#FFF;
-
font-size:35px;
+
font-size:18px;
-
padding-top:12px;
+
}
-
padding-left:10px;
+
.tabcolor:hover {
 +
background:#E9E9E9;
 +
color:#414141;
 +
}
 +
.tablft {
 +
border-top-left-radius:8px;
 +
border-bottom-left-radius:8px;
 +
-moz-border-radius-topleft:8px;
 +
-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:8px;
 +
}
 +
.tabrit {
 +
border-top-right-radius:8px;
 +
border-bottom-right-radius:8px;
 +
-moz-border-radius-topright:8px;
 +
-moz-border-radius-bottomright:8px;
}
}
.content #replace {
.content #replace {
 +
max-width:980px;
border-radius:8px;
border-radius:8px;
-moz-border-radius:7px;
-moz-border-radius:7px;
Line 178: Line 206:
padding-left:10px;
padding-left:10px;
padding-right:10px;
padding-right:10px;
 +
font-size:16px;
 +
text-align: justify;
color:#414141;
color:#414141;
 +
}
 +
.content #tabs-back {
 +
margin-top:25px;
 +
margin-bottom:40px;
}
}
.content #div_subcontent {
.content #div_subcontent {
Line 267: Line 301:
$("#div_subcontent").fadeOut(1000);
$("#div_subcontent").fadeOut(1000);
});
});
 +
//Tabs
 +
$('#tab1').click(function() {
 +
$('#replace').html($('#content1').html());
 +
});
 +
/*$('#tab2').click(function() {
 +
$('#replace').html($('#content2').html());
 +
});
 +
$('#tab3').click(function() {
 +
$('#replace').html($('#content3').html());
 +
});
 +
$('#tab4').click(function() {
 +
$('#replace').html($('#content4').html());
 +
});*/
 +
//load funcs
 +
$('#tab1').click();
});
});
</script>
</script>
Line 286: Line 335:
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/1/10/TECMTY_Allergen_results_hover.png" alt="11" />
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/1/10/TECMTY_Allergen_results_hover.png" alt="11" />
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/9/93/TECMTY_Allergen_notebook_hover.png" alt="12" />
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/9/93/TECMTY_Allergen_notebook_hover.png" alt="12" />
 +
</span>
 +
 +
<div class="preload" id="content1">
 +
<p><h2>GFP analysis…</h2></p>
 +
<p>To prove the activity of scFv IgE+GFP, we needed to detect both parts separately. To de GFP emission we designed the following experiment. </p>
 +
<p>Using a 96-well fluorescence plate (a black one) we filled some wells with supernatant from our induced Pichia pastoris with scFv IgE+GFP, some with the intracellular extract from the same culture, and the same treatments but for our P.pastoris with scFv His. The fluorescence plate for the experiment was designed as follows: </p>
 +
<p>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/1/14/TECMTY_Results0.jpg" />
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Where GFP III, IV, V, VI are different P.pastoris strains expressing scFvIgE+GFP, Api is a P.pastoris strain expressing Api m 6, His is a strain from the same organism expressing scFv His, SN means supernatant , ICs refers to the soluble fraction of the intracellular extraction and Blank is just media without any strain. </p>
 +
<p>The results were organized on the following tables, the first one comparing the results between the different GFP strains and their fluorescence in supernatant and intracellular-soluble fractions and the second one comparing one of the GFP strains to the other ones.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/c/cd/TECMTY_Results01.jpg" />
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/2/2f/TECMTY_Results2.jpg" />
 +
</p>
 +
<p>In average, the results seem to mean that we indeed have a fluorescent protein on the desired strains and that it does exists more in the supernatant, thanks to the signal peptide is was designed to have. But just that is not enough to approve anything, to interpret these results with more confidence we need to do further mathematical analysis. </p>
 +
<p>The ANOVA test was chosen because we have al the conditions needed for its application. So two ANOVA tests were done, the first one to see if there was any difference in fluorescence between the GFP strains and/or between the fraction (supernatant/ intracellular soluble), and the second to see the same difference but between one of the GFP strains and the His/Api extractions. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/2/2f/Results3.jpg" />
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Thanks to the ANOVA 1 test, now we can conclude information with certainty. The ANOVA test table above shows that our statistic Fp for the source A is greater than the ft, this means that data from the source A (fraction) is significantly different with a 95% percent if confidence. The Fp of source B being not greater than its ft, means that there is no significant difference between the fluorescence of the GFP from different strains. Finally, the AB source having a Fp less than its ft means that there is no difference in combinations of source A and B, which is not of our interest. This means, that yes, we can conclude that we have more fluorescence in the supernatant and that all of our GFP strains are expressing the same with at least 95% of confidence. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/6/62/TECMTY_Results4.jpg" />
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The ANOVA 2 test was designed so that it would tell us if we had any difference in fluorescence between a GFP strain and the other non-GFP strains. Using the same logic that in ANOVA 1 test and comparing the Fp’s from the ft’s, we can conclude with at least 95% of confidence that our GFP is different in fluorescence that our other strains and again we can conclude that this protein is being secreted.  In short, the GFP part of our scFv IgE+GFP does work and it is being secreted successfully!</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<span class="preload" id="content2">
 +
</span>
 +
<span class="preload" id="content3">
 +
</span>
 +
<span class="preload" id="content4">
</span>
</span>
Line 340: Line 422:
<td>
<td>
<div id="tabs-back">
<div id="tabs-back">
-
Tab A
+
<table width="100%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td width="25%">
 +
<button type="button" id="tab1" class="tabcolor tablft">results</button>
 +
</td>
 +
<td width="25%">
 +
<button type="button" id="tab2" class="tabcolor">&nbsp;</button>
 +
</td>
 +
<td width="25%">
 +
<button type="button" id="tab3" class="tabcolor">&nbsp;</button>
 +
</td>
 +
<td width="25%">
 +
<button type="button" id="tab4" class="tabcolor tabrit">&nbsp;</button>
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</td>
Line 347: Line 444:
<td>
<td>
<div class="inner" id="replace">
<div class="inner" id="replace">
-
Lorem Ipsum
+
Waiting
</div>
</div>
</td>
</td>

Revision as of 01:43, 27 September 2012

Tec Igem 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

GFP analysis…

To prove the activity of scFv IgE+GFP, we needed to detect both parts separately. To de GFP emission we designed the following experiment.

Using a 96-well fluorescence plate (a black one) we filled some wells with supernatant from our induced Pichia pastoris with scFv IgE+GFP, some with the intracellular extract from the same culture, and the same treatments but for our P.pastoris with scFv His. The fluorescence plate for the experiment was designed as follows:

Where GFP III, IV, V, VI are different P.pastoris strains expressing scFvIgE+GFP, Api is a P.pastoris strain expressing Api m 6, His is a strain from the same organism expressing scFv His, SN means supernatant , ICs refers to the soluble fraction of the intracellular extraction and Blank is just media without any strain.

The results were organized on the following tables, the first one comparing the results between the different GFP strains and their fluorescence in supernatant and intracellular-soluble fractions and the second one comparing one of the GFP strains to the other ones.

In average, the results seem to mean that we indeed have a fluorescent protein on the desired strains and that it does exists more in the supernatant, thanks to the signal peptide is was designed to have. But just that is not enough to approve anything, to interpret these results with more confidence we need to do further mathematical analysis.

The ANOVA test was chosen because we have al the conditions needed for its application. So two ANOVA tests were done, the first one to see if there was any difference in fluorescence between the GFP strains and/or between the fraction (supernatant/ intracellular soluble), and the second to see the same difference but between one of the GFP strains and the His/Api extractions.

Thanks to the ANOVA 1 test, now we can conclude information with certainty. The ANOVA test table above shows that our statistic Fp for the source A is greater than the ft, this means that data from the source A (fraction) is significantly different with a 95% percent if confidence. The Fp of source B being not greater than its ft, means that there is no significant difference between the fluorescence of the GFP from different strains. Finally, the AB source having a Fp less than its ft means that there is no difference in combinations of source A and B, which is not of our interest. This means, that yes, we can conclude that we have more fluorescence in the supernatant and that all of our GFP strains are expressing the same with at least 95% of confidence.

The ANOVA 2 test was designed so that it would tell us if we had any difference in fluorescence between a GFP strain and the other non-GFP strains. Using the same logic that in ANOVA 1 test and comparing the Fp’s from the ft’s, we can conclude with at least 95% of confidence that our GFP is different in fluorescence that our other strains and again we can conclude that this protein is being secreted. In short, the GFP part of our scFv IgE+GFP does work and it is being secreted successfully!

project
Waiting

Retrieved from "http://2012.igem.org/Team:Tec-Monterrey/allergen/results"