Team:SDU-Denmark/project-p

From 2010.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Characterization)
(Characterization)
Line 253: Line 253:
We furthermore tested the cells on a Typhoon Trio but once again we could not detect RFP. We were advised by the Bielefeld team to use excitation 584nm and emittance 607nm. This was done when using the Perkin Elmer LS55 fluorescence spectrometer, but the Typhoon trio has limited settings and according to the Typhoon trio manual RFP can be detected at excitation 633nm and emittance 670nm. <br>  
We furthermore tested the cells on a Typhoon Trio but once again we could not detect RFP. We were advised by the Bielefeld team to use excitation 584nm and emittance 607nm. This was done when using the Perkin Elmer LS55 fluorescence spectrometer, but the Typhoon trio has limited settings and according to the Typhoon trio manual RFP can be detected at excitation 633nm and emittance 670nm. <br>  
The picture above shows the fluorescence scanning preformed on the Bielefeld part induced with 200uM acetosyringone. We spinned an over night culture of MG1655-pSB1C3-K38901 down, removed the supernatant and resuspended the pellet i LB-media. The resupension was transfered to a glass slide and covered by a cover slide. No emittans is seen in the picture, any light seen on the picture is noice. <br><br>
The picture above shows the fluorescence scanning preformed on the Bielefeld part induced with 200uM acetosyringone. We spinned an over night culture of MG1655-pSB1C3-K38901 down, removed the supernatant and resuspended the pellet i LB-media. The resupension was transfered to a glass slide and covered by a cover slide. No emittans is seen in the picture, any light seen on the picture is noice. <br><br>
-
Non of us have any experiment working with fluorescence spectrometer or the part it self. Further more are our fluorescence spectrometer different than the one the Bielefeld team used, therefore the instrumental settings might be different than the one they used. Because we only had two days to replicate the experiment, we did not have time to try different instrumental setting. Overall the insignificant data are probally due to our lack time, experiance with the brick and not the functionality of the biobrick, K389016.
+
Non of us have any experiment working with fluorescence spectrometer or the part it self. Further more are our fluorescence spectrometer different than the one the Bielefeld team used, therefore the instrumental settings might be different their. Because we only had two days to replicate the experiment, we did not have time to try different setting. Overall the insignificant data are probally due to our lack time, experiance with the brick and not the functionality of the biobrick, K389016.
=Characterizing an exicting biobrick=
=Characterizing an exicting biobrick=

Revision as of 22:44, 27 October 2010