Difference between revisions of "Team:Arizona State/Results"

Line 139: Line 139:
 
<p>The second set of senders that was tested is shown below, these are all the combinations and percentages of the AHLs for the test including the controls. Each data point was tested in triplicate. The colors will coordinate with the graphs for each set of tests. The graphs for each set of data will include the overall average GFP signal, the average OD 600 and the normalization of the GFP over the OD 600. The number of data points used made adding individual error bars ineffective as the data was not able to be read. Error was calculated on the controls and added as separate bar graphs below the full data set. There was also Hill curve (trans equations) made that include error/ standard deviation if more information is needed for any notable results. </p>
 
<p>The second set of senders that was tested is shown below, these are all the combinations and percentages of the AHLs for the test including the controls. Each data point was tested in triplicate. The colors will coordinate with the graphs for each set of tests. The graphs for each set of data will include the overall average GFP signal, the average OD 600 and the normalization of the GFP over the OD 600. The number of data points used made adding individual error bars ineffective as the data was not able to be read. Error was calculated on the controls and added as separate bar graphs below the full data set. There was also Hill curve (trans equations) made that include error/ standard deviation if more information is needed for any notable results. </p>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/6/63/A31.png>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/6/63/A31.png   " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c4/A32.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src=" https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/1/1d/A33.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c4/A32.png>
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/1/1d/A33.png>
 
  
 
<h3>Results from test #2 with TraR:</h3>
 
<h3>Results from test #2 with TraR:</h3>
Line 149: Line 151:
 
<h3>Test #3 with TraR: Sender A: CerI, B: BraI, C: RpaI</h3>
 
<h3>Test #3 with TraR: Sender A: CerI, B: BraI, C: RpaI</h3>
 
<p>The third set of senders that was tested is shown below, these are all the combinations and percentages of the AHLs for the test including the controls. Each data point was tested in triplicate. The colors will coordinate with the graphs for each set of tests. The graphs for each set of data will include the overall average GFP signal, the average OD 600 and the normalization of the GFP over the OD 600. The number of data points used made adding individual error bars ineffective as the data was not able to be read. Error was calculated on the controls and added as separate bar graphs below the full data set. There was also Hill curve (trans equations) made that include error/ standard deviation if more information is needed for any notable results. </p>
 
<p>The third set of senders that was tested is shown below, these are all the combinations and percentages of the AHLs for the test including the controls. Each data point was tested in triplicate. The colors will coordinate with the graphs for each set of tests. The graphs for each set of data will include the overall average GFP signal, the average OD 600 and the normalization of the GFP over the OD 600. The number of data points used made adding individual error bars ineffective as the data was not able to be read. Error was calculated on the controls and added as separate bar graphs below the full data set. There was also Hill curve (trans equations) made that include error/ standard deviation if more information is needed for any notable results. </p>
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/38/A34.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/38/A34.png>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/4c/A35.png   " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
 +
<center><img src=" https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/7/74/A36.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
 
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/4c/A35.png>
 
 
 
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/7/74/A36.png>
 
  
 
<h3>Results from test #3 with TraR:</h3>
 
<h3>Results from test #3 with TraR:</h3>
Line 186: Line 185:
 
<p>When testing the LuxR the AubI showed a higher expression when mixed with 10% of a second sender (even when that sender was a negative control sender). The 40% AubI mixed with 10% negative sender and the 40% AubI mixed with 10% RhlI both expressed higher than the 50% AubI by itself. This result was confirmed in another test where 40% Aub mixed with 10% EsaI and 40% AubI mixed with 10% CerI both expressed higher than the 50% AubI alone. (See graphs below).</p>
 
<p>When testing the LuxR the AubI showed a higher expression when mixed with 10% of a second sender (even when that sender was a negative control sender). The 40% AubI mixed with 10% negative sender and the 40% AubI mixed with 10% RhlI both expressed higher than the 50% AubI by itself. This result was confirmed in another test where 40% Aub mixed with 10% EsaI and 40% AubI mixed with 10% CerI both expressed higher than the 50% AubI alone. (See graphs below).</p>
  
<img src=https://2017.igem.org/File:A4.png>
+
<center><img src=" https://2017.igem.org/File:A4.png " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/ce/A38.png>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/ce/A38.png   " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/d/d2/A40.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e9/A2.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/98/A39.png>
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/d/d2/A40.png>
 
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e9/A2.png>
 
  
 
<h3><ins>Summary for Las Receiver:</ins></h3>
 
<h3><ins>Summary for Las Receiver:</ins></h3>
 
<p>Below we see an experiment where the AubI expresses higher when mixed with 10% of any other sender, these results are with the Las receiver. This evidence further confirms that AubI simply works best when mixed versus being used alone. The 40% AubI mixed with 10% negative sender, 10% EsaI and 10% CerI all expressed higher than the 50% AubI alone. </p>
 
<p>Below we see an experiment where the AubI expresses higher when mixed with 10% of any other sender, these results are with the Las receiver. This evidence further confirms that AubI simply works best when mixed versus being used alone. The 40% AubI mixed with 10% negative sender, 10% EsaI and 10% CerI all expressed higher than the 50% AubI alone. </p>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/8/86/A42.png>
 
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e1/A43.png>
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c2/A44.png>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/8/86/A42.png   " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/9d/A45.png>
+
  
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e1/A43.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c2/A44.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 +
<center><img src=" https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/9d/A45.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/5/52/A16.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/5/52/A16.png>
 
  
 
<p>Below, another test showed some notable results. As seen clearly in the last graph, the BraI showed a higher expression when mixed with 10% of a second sender (even when that sender was a negative control sender). The 10% BraI + 40% AubI mixed expressed higher than the 50% AubI by itself. Close behind the 50% AubI was the 50% LasI. Interesting result because the AubI expresses higher than the matching sender LasI to its own LasR receiver.</p>
 
<p>Below, another test showed some notable results. As seen clearly in the last graph, the BraI showed a higher expression when mixed with 10% of a second sender (even when that sender was a negative control sender). The 10% BraI + 40% AubI mixed expressed higher than the 50% AubI by itself. Close behind the 50% AubI was the 50% LasI. Interesting result because the AubI expresses higher than the matching sender LasI to its own LasR receiver.</p>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/a6/A20.png>
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/46/A48.png>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/a6/A20.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/46/A48.png   " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/a0/A49.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src=" https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e1/A43.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/a0/A49.png>
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e1/A43.png>
 
  
 
<p>Below, another test showed some notable results. As seen clearly in the last graph, the 40% AubI showed a higher expression when mixed with 10% of a second sender (even when that sender was a negative control sender). The 10% BjaI + 40% AubI mixed expressed higher than the 50% AubI by itself. Interesting result because the AubI expresses higher when mixed with another sender, seemingly with both LuxR and LasR. </p>
 
<p>Below, another test showed some notable results. As seen clearly in the last graph, the 40% AubI showed a higher expression when mixed with 10% of a second sender (even when that sender was a negative control sender). The 10% BjaI + 40% AubI mixed expressed higher than the 50% AubI by itself. Interesting result because the AubI expresses higher when mixed with another sender, seemingly with both LuxR and LasR. </p>
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/46/A24.png>
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/b/bd/A52.png>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/46/A24.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/b/bd/A52.png   " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src="https://2017.igem.org/File:A43.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
  
<img src=https://2017.igem.org/File:A43.png>
 
  
 
<p> barely induces the Las receiver. May be orthogonal (below).</p>
 
<p> barely induces the Las receiver. May be orthogonal (below).</p>
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/7/70/A54.png>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/7/70/A54.png   " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
 +
<center><img src=" https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/7/70/A54.png  " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
 +
 
  
<img src=https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/31/A55.png>
+
<center><img src=" https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/31/A55.png " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
<img src=https://2017.igem.org/File:A48.png>
+
<center><img src=" https://2017.igem.org/File:A48.png " alt="Design Flowchart" style="max-width: 600px; width: 80%"></center>
  
  

Revision as of 20:32, 31 October 2017