Team:SDU-Denmark/project-p

From 2010.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Scanning Electron microscopy)
(Computerized analysis of the bacterial motility with the THOR prototype by Unisensor A/S and the Unify software)
Line 73: Line 73:
We started out with extracting the mean velocity in um/frame for the photosensor and wildtype bacteria when exposed red and blue light, the mean was extracted from around 100 paths for each of the 4 different samples (only taken from the experiment where we shifted between red and blue light, data from the light intensity and gradient experiment were not included.). What we hoped to see was that bacteria that tumble less would have a higher mean velocity, than bacteria that exhibit a normal rate of tumbling (the wildtype):<br>
We started out with extracting the mean velocity in um/frame for the photosensor and wildtype bacteria when exposed red and blue light, the mean was extracted from around 100 paths for each of the 4 different samples (only taken from the experiment where we shifted between red and blue light, data from the light intensity and gradient experiment were not included.). What we hoped to see was that bacteria that tumble less would have a higher mean velocity, than bacteria that exhibit a normal rate of tumbling (the wildtype):<br>
[[Image:Red_blue_PS_noPS.jpg|750px|center]]<br>
[[Image:Red_blue_PS_noPS.jpg|750px|center]]<br>
-
Contrary to our expectations the plot over mean velocity/frame did not show a noticeable difference between the four samples. The photosensor had about the same velocity/frame in blue and red light and there was no clear difference either when compared to the wildtype. The reason for this could be that we were were not effective enough at excluding non-informative paths from the data file (bacteria that are trapped in a circular motion, bacteria only exhibiting brownian motion) and / or that the environment the experiments were done in, was not optimal in the meaning of that the photosensor was exposed to light, before the measurements.
+
Contrary to our expectations the plot over mean velocity/frame did not show a noticeable difference between the four samples. The photosensor had about the same velocity/frame in blue and red light and there was no clear difference either when compared to the wildtype. The reason for this could be that we were were not effective enough at excluding non-informative paths from the data file (bacteria that are trapped in a circular motion, bacteria only exhibiting brownian motion) and / or that the environment the experiments were done in, was not optimal in the meaning of that the photosensor was exposed to light, before the measurements.<br>
-
 
+
Since the results from the experiment with the red and blue light were inconclusive, we went on to analyse the data from the experiment, where we set up a light gradient in the area that was observed through the microscope. We recorded this for 40 seconds with a framerate of 4 frames/second, waited for 100 seconds and recorded again for 40 seconds. We did 10 iterations of this, which would give us a long-term overview of migration (if there is any) along the light gradient.
<br>
<br>

Revision as of 18:20, 27 October 2010