Team:Michigan/Oil Sands August September
From 2010.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
(→8/8/2010) |
(→8/9/2010) |
||
Line 413: | Line 413: | ||
'''PCR of flu for gel extraction''' | '''PCR of flu for gel extraction''' | ||
- | Because there are unspecific products from the PCR of flu, a gel extraction will have to be used to isolate the desired DNA | + | Because there are unspecific products from the PCR of flu, a gel extraction will have to be used to isolate the desired DNA. |
- | 50 uL reaction volume for PCR was performed using 65.5C for the initial annealing temperature as shown in the following [[Media:8-9-2010_Colony_PCR_flu.pdf|colony PCR protocol | + | 50 uL reaction volume for PCR was performed using 65.5C for the initial annealing temperature as shown in the following :[[Media:8-9-2010_Colony_PCR_flu.pdf|colony PCR protocol for flu]]. The higher annealing temperature reduces unspecific products. |
'''Gel Extraction of flu operon''' | '''Gel Extraction of flu operon''' | ||
- | A gel extraction was performed according to the following [[Media:8-8-2010_Protocol_for_gel_extraction.pdf|gel extraction protocol]] | + | A gel extraction was performed according to the following [[Media:8-8-2010_Protocol_for_gel_extraction.pdf|gel extraction protocol]]. |
- | 20 uL of the flu #14 PCR was mixed with 5 uL of blue juice to run the gel | + | 20 uL of the flu #14 PCR was mixed with 5 uL of blue juice to run the gel. |
- | The weight of the eppendorf tube was 1.0284 g | + | The weight of the eppendorf tube was 1.0284 g. |
- | The weight of the eppendorf tube with the sample was 1.2030 g | + | The weight of the eppendorf tube with the sample was 1.2030 g. |
- | The weight of the gel sample was 0.175 g | + | The weight of the gel sample was 0.175 g. |
- | 524 uL of QG buffer was added to | + | 524 uL of QG buffer was added to dissolve the gel sample. |
- | No DNA appeared on the nanodrop | + | No DNA appeared on the nanodrop. Marc ran the flu gel purified sample on his gel to confirm no DNA eluted. |
- | DNA did appear on the gel that Marc ran so we do have DNA from the gel extraction. The nanodrop may not have been able to pick it up because it was too low of a concentration or it was contaminated (very high 260/230 reading) | + | DNA did appear on the gel that Marc ran so we do have DNA from the gel extraction. The nanodrop may not have been able to pick it up because it was too low of a concentration or it was contaminated (very high 260/230 reading). |
[[Image:8-9-2010_Gel_extraction_of_flu.jpg|500px]] | [[Image:8-9-2010_Gel_extraction_of_flu.jpg|500px]] |
Revision as of 03:49, 26 October 2010