"
Team:BCCS-Bristol/Wetlab/signal soil
From 2010.igem.org
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{:Team:BCCS-Bristol/Header}} | {{:Team:BCCS-Bristol/Header}} | ||
| + | =Signal Visibility in Soil= | ||
| - | + | ==Motivation== | |
| - | + | ||
| - | = | + | |
{{:Team:BCCS-Bristol/newtoc}} | {{:Team:BCCS-Bristol/newtoc}} | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
For this project to work it was essential that a signal could actually be detected when in soil. To test this we mixed ''E. coli'' constitutively expressing GFP in soil and imaged and photographed them under a stereo-microscope, mimicking the CCD-based method we envision farmers using to detect fluorescence were this project to be used commercially. | For this project to work it was essential that a signal could actually be detected when in soil. To test this we mixed ''E. coli'' constitutively expressing GFP in soil and imaged and photographed them under a stereo-microscope, mimicking the CCD-based method we envision farmers using to detect fluorescence were this project to be used commercially. | ||
| - | + | <br/><br/><br/><br/> | |
==Experiment== | ==Experiment== | ||
| Line 42: | Line 39: | ||
The soil cultures were left overnight at 37°C. | The soil cultures were left overnight at 37°C. | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
Soil samples viewed under fluorescence microscope. Controls used were as follows: | Soil samples viewed under fluorescence microscope. Controls used were as follows: | ||
| Line 58: | Line 53: | ||
==Results and Conclusion== | ==Results and Conclusion== | ||
| - | |||
All test soil samples showed growth of ''E.coli'' expressing GFP. As might have been expected, a significant increase in growth was observed in the sterile samples when compared to the non-sterile samples at similar dilutions of bacteria/g soil, suggesting our lab-safe MG1655s had been out-competed by more robust wild-type bacteria strains. | All test soil samples showed growth of ''E.coli'' expressing GFP. As might have been expected, a significant increase in growth was observed in the sterile samples when compared to the non-sterile samples at similar dilutions of bacteria/g soil, suggesting our lab-safe MG1655s had been out-competed by more robust wild-type bacteria strains. | ||
| - | |||
Click [https://2010.igem.org/Team:BCCS-Bristol/Wetlab/Lab_photos/First_GFP_Experiment here] for some example images from the test. | Click [https://2010.igem.org/Team:BCCS-Bristol/Wetlab/Lab_photos/First_GFP_Experiment here] for some example images from the test. | ||
| - | It quickly became clear that using | + | It quickly became clear that using <i>E. coli</i> spread freely in the soil was not going to yield a strong enough signal to detect from relatively low tech equipment attached to the back of a tractor. It was because of this that we invented the bead method of spreading our bacteria. |
Latest revision as of 19:09, 27 October 2010
iGEM 2010
Signal Visibility in Soil
Motivation
For this project to work it was essential that a signal could actually be detected when in soil. To test this we mixed E. coli constitutively expressing GFP in soil and imaged and photographed them under a stereo-microscope, mimicking the CCD-based method we envision farmers using to detect fluorescence were this project to be used commercially.Experiment
Sample soil taken from local source (team member's garden). 6 x ~15g aliquots of soil were placed in 50mL centrifuge tubes, taking care to avoid including wildlife. 3 of the tubes were then sterilised using an autoclave. Meanwhile, a 1 in 10 dilution of the overnight culture of MG1655 cells + [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_I13522 BBa_I13522] was found to have an A600 value of ~0.5, roughly translating as 2.5x109 cells/mL in the original culture. The following table lists the rough figures for the 6 soil experiments set up. The lines notated with "S" were for the sterilised tubes, the lines notated with "N" were for the non-sterilised tubes:
| S1 | ~107 cells/g soil | 100μL cell culture plus 900μL LB added to soil |
|---|---|---|
| S2 | ~106 cells/g soil | 100μL 1/10 dilution of cell culture plus 900μL LB added to soil |
| S3 | ~105 cells/g soil | 100μL 1/100 dilution of cell culture plus 900μL LB added to soil |
| N1 | ~107 cells/g soil | 100μL cell culture plus 900μL LB added to soil |
| N2 | ~106 cells/g soil | 100μL 1/10 dilution of cell culture plus 900μL LB added to soil |
| N3 | ~105 cells/g soil | 100μL 1/100 dilution of cell culture plus 900μL LB added to soil |
The soil cultures were left overnight at 37°C.
Soil samples viewed under fluorescence microscope. Controls used were as follows:
| A 200μL aliquot of pure water |
| A 200μL aliquot of cell culture expressing GFP |
| A sample of the unsterilised soil |
| A sample of the unsterilised soil with a 200μL aliquot of cell culture applied 10 minutes before visualisation |
Results and Conclusion
All test soil samples showed growth of E.coli expressing GFP. As might have been expected, a significant increase in growth was observed in the sterile samples when compared to the non-sterile samples at similar dilutions of bacteria/g soil, suggesting our lab-safe MG1655s had been out-competed by more robust wild-type bacteria strains.
Click here for some example images from the test.
It quickly became clear that using E. coli spread freely in the soil was not going to yield a strong enough signal to detect from relatively low tech equipment attached to the back of a tractor. It was because of this that we invented the bead method of spreading our bacteria.
