J'aime C. Moehlman's Week 6: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→Continued from Week 5: adding notes) |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*The first group included subjects 10,11 and 15. | *The first group included subjects 10,11 and 15. | ||
*The second group included subjects 6,12 and 13. | *The second group included subjects 6,12 and 13. | ||
* | *Each of the subjects clones were chosen from visit 4 in order to keep the amount of time passed a constant in our experiment. | ||
*When running the multiple sequence alignments we discovered that the two groups were similar. | |||
*We then tried a clustalW(distance matrix) to see if the differences were significant between the two groups; again the amount difference was not significant enough to prove our hypothesis. | |||
*We decided to approach our hypothesis and question with two experiments: comparing the similarities of each group, and the second was to compare the differences from each group(the minimum and maximums). | |||
Revision as of 12:32, 23 February 2010
HIV Research Project
Continued from Week 5
- We ran two multiple sequence alignment (one for each grouping).
- The first group included subjects 10,11 and 15.
- The second group included subjects 6,12 and 13.
- Each of the subjects clones were chosen from visit 4 in order to keep the amount of time passed a constant in our experiment.
- When running the multiple sequence alignments we discovered that the two groups were similar.
- We then tried a clustalW(distance matrix) to see if the differences were significant between the two groups; again the amount difference was not significant enough to prove our hypothesis.
- We decided to approach our hypothesis and question with two experiments: comparing the similarities of each group, and the second was to compare the differences from each group(the minimum and maximums).