Talk:20.109(S12):Assess protein function (Day7): Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
|0.0343, 1.4974 | |0.0343, 1.4974 | ||
|Utilized model 2 | |Utilized model 2 | ||
|- | |||
|Red | |||
|E67K | |||
|E67R | |||
|0.1429, 1.3167 | |||
|0.0384, 0.9833 | |||
|0.0600, 1.0852 | |||
|Model 2 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
Line 94: | Line 102: | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
|} | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | |
Revision as of 12:47, 21 April 2012
Raw Data
Please post your raw calcium titration data below.
Analysis, T/R
Please be mindful of significant figures when you fill in this table. Do not state far more precise numbers than you can believe.
Group Colour | E67K, T79P, or M124S? | X#Z Mutant | Most believable KD; n for WT | Most believable KD; n for (+) | Most believable KD; n for X#Z mutant | Comments |
Orange | T79P | D24H | 0.104, 1.26 | 0.166, 1.30 | 0.7892, 2.73 | I utilized model 2. |
Purple | T79P | F65D | 0.0848, 1.313 | 0.1329, 1.3673 | 0.1923, -0.6862 | Utilized model 2 |
Blue | T79P | D57N | 0..1142, .8862 | .1036, 1.4481 | .0613, 1.2909 | Utilized model 2 |
Yellow | E67K | D20R | 0.0907, 1.2464 | 0.0300, 0.8097 | 0.6699, 0.4722 | Utilize model 2 |
Green | E67K | E67R | 0.0677, 1.2960 | 0.0849, 0.4586 | 0.0343, 1.4974 | Utilized model 2 |
Red | E67K | E67R | 0.1429, 1.3167 | 0.0384, 0.9833 | 0.0600, 1.0852 | Model 2 |
|- | | | | | | | |- | | | | | | | |- |}
Analysis, W/F
Please be mindful of significant figures when you fill in this table. Do not state far more precise numbers than you can believe.
Group Colour | E67K, T79P, or M124S? | X#Z Mutant | Most believable KD; n for WT | Most believable KD; n for (+) | Most believable KD; n for X#Z mutant | Comments |
Orange | T79P | V55F | KD 0.1025; n 1.8227 for WT | KD 0.1491; n 1.3982 for T79P | KD 0.1598; n 1.6114 for V55F | The WT and T79P were switched during the experiment. For the above results, the labels were switched back to the original |
Red | T79P | T79F | KD 0.1075; n 1.3550 for WT | KD 0.1372; n 1.1433 for T79P | KD 0.1053; n 1.3550 for T79F | As the above group, the labels were switched back to the original between T79P and WT. Also, our yield for WT and T79P was low (may be error prone) |
Pink | E67K | D20K | KD 0.1628; n 0.8206 for WT | KD 0.0520; n 0.2212 for E67K | KD 0.000047 for D20K | we used KDs from model 1 |
Purple | M124S | G23W/G25W | KD 0.1643; n 1.3591 for WT | KD 0.4753; n 2.9004 for M124S | KD 0.1470; n 1.0503 for G23W/G25W | Our yields for WT and G23W/G25W were low. The fluorescence values for G23W/G25W were very low (only between 18 and 24) and may not be significant. For G23W/G25W (contrary to WT and M124S), as [Ca2+] increased, fluorescence increased. |
Blue | E67K | T26Y | KD 0.1047; n 1.2123 | KD 0.0193; n 0.8686 | KD 0.3547; n -0.6402 | We used KD and hill coefficient values from model 2. Our T26Y had minimal variance between our highest (58 A) and lowest (47 A) absorbance values, contributing to some noise -- was also had a reversed transition curve. |
Green | T79P | F65D | KD 0.0872; n 1.1791 | KD 0.1018; n 1.6077 | KD 0.1523; n 1.4928 | We used part 3/method 2 to get Kd and hill coefficient. |
Yellow | E67K | D20K | KD 0.2155; n 1.6616 for WT | KD 0.0556; n 1.0883 for E67K | KD 0.0910; n 0.2797 for D20K | We used the values from model 2 |