User:Andy Maloney/Notebook/Lab Notebook of Andy Maloney/2010/11/03/Water isotope study: Difference between revisions
Andy Maloney (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Andy Maloney (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
No problems here in the 3rd ROI. I do see one MT that has a tail on its minus end which is uncharacteristic. | No problems here in the 3rd ROI. I do see one MT that has a tail on its minus end which is uncharacteristic. | ||
==45% 3rd try== | |||
Using the same motility assay as in the 2nd run. No real problems here. | |||
==81% 3rd try== | |||
Three different days, two different kinesin aliquots. I did have to stop this assay between the 1st and 2nd ROIs because I didn't put the slide on the holder properly. This lead to a portion of the FOV to be blurry. | |||
Revision as of 11:32, 3 November 2010
9% O-PEM 3rd try
Final assay run for the 9% guy. No problems at all.
45% 2nd try
Again, there is breakups in the 1st ROI. I moved to a different FOV and things are moving better. Some breaking going on but, definitely not as bad as the first FOV.
The 2nd ROI looks great. Except near the end of the time.
I'm not sure what is going on with the breakings. So, I moved the slide a decent amount away from the 1st and 2nd ROI. Still in the center of the flow cell however.
No problems here in the 3rd ROI. I do see one MT that has a tail on its minus end which is uncharacteristic.
45% 3rd try
Using the same motility assay as in the 2nd run. No real problems here.
81% 3rd try
Three different days, two different kinesin aliquots. I did have to stop this assay between the 1st and 2nd ROIs because I didn't put the slide on the holder properly. This lead to a portion of the FOV to be blurry.
