Talk:BE.109:Systems engineering/Basic bacterial photography: black and white: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| '''Average A550''' | | '''Average A550''' | ||
| '''Calculated units''' | | '''Calculated units''' | ||
|- | |||
| Green | |||
| Light 1:10 | |||
| .1397 | |||
| .1231 | |||
| .029 | |||
| 60.05 | |||
|- | |||
| Green | |||
| Dark 1:10 | |||
| .1743 | |||
| .2477 | |||
| .0315 | |||
| 149.11 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| Blue! | | Blue! | ||
Line 183: | Line 197: | ||
| 0.2439 | | 0.2439 | ||
| 0 | | 0 | ||
| | | 431.8 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Pink | | Pink | ||
Line 190: | Line 204: | ||
| 0.2424 | | 0.2424 | ||
| 0 | | 0 | ||
| | | 420.1 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Pink | | Pink | ||
Line 197: | Line 211: | ||
| 0.3958 | | 0.3958 | ||
| 0 | | 0 | ||
| | | 1161.8 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Pink | | Pink | ||
Line 204: | Line 218: | ||
| 0.3125 | | 0.3125 | ||
| 0 | | 0 | ||
| | | 1158.0 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Blue | | Blue | ||
Line 261: | Line 275: | ||
| 0.012 | | 0.012 | ||
| 1734.090 | | 1734.090 | ||
|} | |} | ||
==Tips for next year== | |||
#Think about the order in which you do your assemblies. Short pieces of DNA tend to be hard to manipulate experimentally. Plan your assembly such that you cut out the large fragments from plasmids and leave the small fragments as part of the plasmid. | |||
#Using more cells in your bacterial photograph seems to lead to poorer contrast but better resolution. |
Latest revision as of 23:59, 11 April 2006
β galactosidase assay results
You should post your results and calculations from your β-galactosidase assays here.
Tuesday/Thursday section
Team color | Sample name | OD600nm | Average A420 | Average A550 | Calculated units |
Green | Light 1:10 | .1397 | .1231 | .029 | 60.05 |
Green | Dark 1:10 | .1743 | .2477 | .0315 | 149.11 |
Blue! | light | 1.5908 | 0.2578 | 0.0424 | 985 |
Blue! | dark | 1.9095 | 0.8475 | 0.1426 | 3809 |
Purple | light, undil. | 2.224 | 0.761 | 0.280 | 315 |
Purple | light, 1:10 | 0.2224 | 0.173 | 0.0053 | 516 |
Purple | dark, undil. | 3.218 | 1.56 | 0.372 | 806 |
Purple | dark, 1:10 | 0.3218 | 0.282 | 0.071 | 1337 |
Yellow | light | 1.7875 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 862.85 |
Yellow | dark | 1.6502 | 0.83 | 0.27 | 929.79 |
Red | light 1:100 | 1.81 | 0.108 | 0.0242 | 505.33 |
Red | light 1:10 | 3.008 | 0.831 | 0.0585 | 337.5 |
Red | dark 1:100 | 1.77 | 0.200 | 0.0232 | 1255.21 |
Red | dark 1:10 | 2.855 | 0.248 | 0.0781 | 189.91 |
Wednesday/Friday section
Team color | Sample name | OD600nm | Average A420 | Average A550 | Calculated units |
Green | light 1:5 | .3245 | .0217 | 122 | |
Green | light 1:10 | .2607 | .0056 | 122 | |
Green | dark 1:5 | .404 | .0145 | 196 | |
Green | dark 1:10 | .3717 | .0061 | 206 | |
Purple | light 1:2 | 1.0397 | .4403 | .0122 | 1885000 |
Purple | light 1:5 | .5247 | .2612 | .0229 | 4076000 |
Purple | dark 1:2 | .784 | .3285 | .0814 | 4923000 |
Purple | dark 1:5 | .4997 | .3763 | .041 | 7300000 |
Yellow | Light (1:10) | 0.3220 | 0.8358 | 0.0054 | 987 |
Yellow | Dark (1:10) | 0.3426 | 0.4435 | 0.0221 | 400 |
Pink | light 1:10 | 0.3255 | 0.2439 | 0 | 431.8 |
Pink | light 1:20 | 0.1672 | 0.2424 | 0 | 420.1 |
Pink | dark 1:10 | 0.2839 | 0.3958 | 0 | 1161.8 |
Pink | dark 1:20 | 0.1472 | 0.3125 | 0 | 1158.0 |
Blue | Light 1:5 | 0.6878 | 0.3559 | 0.0066 | 361.93 |
Blue | Light 1:10 | 0.3681 | 0.2172 | 0.0034 | 362.30 |
Blue | Dark 1:5 | 0.5652 | 0.5625 | 0.0213 | 1052.2 |
Blue | Dark 1:10 | 0.3111 | 0.3747 | 0.0056 | 991.06 |
Red | Light 1:2 | 1.2552 | 0.467 | 0.024 | 427.887 |
Red | Light 1:5 | 0.5504 | 0.302 | 0 | 539.875 |
Red | Dark 1:2 | 0.8589 | 0.479 | 0 | 608.855 |
Red | Dark 1:5 | 0.3282 | 0.391 | 0.012 | 1734.090 |
Tips for next year
- Think about the order in which you do your assemblies. Short pieces of DNA tend to be hard to manipulate experimentally. Plan your assembly such that you cut out the large fragments from plasmids and leave the small fragments as part of the plasmid.
- Using more cells in your bacterial photograph seems to lead to poorer contrast but better resolution.