| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Lab Sep 18 2009

Page history last edited by Kyliah Clarkson 14 years, 6 months ago

Well, no flourescence from K235013 or 14, and 14 should definitely have worked.  We also tested K235009 as a negative control and E0240 and saw nothing.

We first used Dr. Pearson's microscope and found cells but no flourescence.

We then tried Dr. Burke's microscope and found tiny artifact flourescence on K9 and K14, our negative control and positive respectively, thus meaningless.  We didn't bother with K13 and E0240 on that microscope.

 

2:00pm Kyliah

The way I see it, we never attempted to sequence anything, so that might be the problem. Maybe we should see about PCR'ing up our inserts somehow and ensuring they're the right things.

 

The BioBrick primers VF2 and VR should work with all three of the plasmids from the P1010s we've been using - the chloramphenicol and kanamycin ones have one single base mismatch, and it's a T where a C was expected, so the primer should still work just fine. They're both 20nt long, so it should be simple to order some... A third to possibly order is the last 20nt of the ribolock we're using, so that we can properly sequence something that's normally self-complementary. If this properties calculator is accurate, the last 20nt should have a similar Tm to the two primers.

 

5:00pm

Looking at the registry, part of our fails might have been because key3d is screwing up all over the Registry sequencing. Part J23070 was the second-best key for Berkeley even without a terminator. If we rehydrate this part (plate 1, well 16O, pSB1A2-derived plasmid with pTet-<brickpart>-RFP) and then construct a double-terminator onto the end (B0015) we might have a part that's even more effective than the key we have now was claimed to be.

Comments (3)

Chris Tuttle said

at 6:44 pm on Sep 18, 2009

Yeah, sequencing the most complex parts first makes sense. any parts we with improper sequence can be scrapped and started from scratch. If we want to guarentee a project at the end of october I think we have to sequence every colony picked from now on as best we can. the double terminator and the k3y both have noticable secondary structure so sequencing those is going to be tricky at best.
I really, really doubt that people having a problem sequencing the k3y means that there is a problem with it. Many times more likely we picked a colony containing empty plasmid at some point along the line. also trying to make a new RNA construct with reliable secondary structure seems like the biggest way we could be wasting our time right now, when we don't have a single point of data that would suggest our assemblies are working right (or I should say to the efficancy you expected, I would say at most 70% of colonies on plates represent good transformants).

Chris Tuttle said

at 6:47 pm on Sep 18, 2009

Also, I don't understand why K235013 or K235014 would flouresce by themselves. did you co-transform with a k3y generator? if not you are just producing lo3ked GFP mRNA and no translated protein...

Chris Tuttle said

at 6:51 pm on Sep 18, 2009

Nevermind, I think I understand what those two parts should be now. my first comment stands, ignore the second.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.