Difference between revisions of "Team:Harvard/Notebook"
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
<center> | <center> | ||
| − | <b>Growing curli producing <i>E. coli</i> on plates with congo red:</b><br> | + | <b>Growing curli producing <i>E. coli</i> on plates with congo red:*</b><br> |
<img src ="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c8/Harvard--CR.png"></center> <br><br> | <img src ="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c8/Harvard--CR.png"></center> <br><br> | ||
| − | <center><b>Isolating curli by vacuum filtration:</b> <br> | + | <center><b>Isolating curli by vacuum filtration:*</b> <br> |
| − | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/ef/Harvard--Vacuum.png"></center> | + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/ef/Harvard--Vacuum.png"></center><br><br> |
| − | <center><b>Running a congo red pull down assay:</b><br> | + | <center><b>Running a congo red pull down assay:*</b><br> |
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/41/Harvard--Pulldown.png"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/4/41/Harvard--Pulldown.png"> | ||
</center> | </center> | ||
| − | Detailed procedure found on our <a href="https://2017.igem.org/Team:Harvard/Protocols">protocol page</a>. | + | <br><br> |
| + | |||
| + | From running the protocols in parallel we decided that the pull down assay served as the most consistent proxy for curli production. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Detailed procedure found on our <a href="https://2017.igem.org/Team:Harvard/Protocols">protocol page</a>. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 21:09, 1 November 2017
Lab Notebook
Created the mathematical model for strain engineering parameters.
Started basic research about microfluidic device and bioreactor framework.
Started basic research about microfluidic device and bioreactor framework.
In order to screen the best assay for our intended project, we tried multiple protocols to measure the quantity of produced curli (our desired polymer to optimize the production of).
Growing curli producing E. coli on plates with congo red:*
Isolating curli by vacuum filtration:*
Running a congo red pull down assay:*
From running the protocols in parallel we decided that the pull down assay served as the most consistent proxy for curli production. *Detailed procedure found on our protocol page.
From running the protocols in parallel we decided that the pull down assay served as the most consistent proxy for curli production. *Detailed procedure found on our protocol page.
We designed an RBS library for csgG using the Salis Lab RBS Library Calculator,as well as the appropriate PCR primers to construct the library and ordered these sequences from IDT.
Day 1
Our DNA parts ordered the previous week arrived and we conducted PCRs with the primers we designed and a plasmid containing the sequences for csgA, csgB, csgC, csgE, csgF, and csgG obtained from the Joshi Lab to modify the RBS sequence in front of csgG.Day 2
After verifying our PCR products with a gel, we used Gibson Assembly to put our cloned parts in an expression vector with kanamycin resistance. We then transformed our newly formed plasmids into competent cells using heat shock and plated them on agar plates with kanamycin.Day 3
After leaving our plates in an incubator overnight, we imaged the plates FluorChem E and ran an image analysis script on the images to determine the brightest colonies, which correspond to the colonies with highest curli production. We then picked the 2 brightest colonies on each plate, as well as 2 other randomly chosen colonies, and cultured them in 5 mL falcon tubes with liquid LB and kanamycin.We ran a congo red pulldown assay on the cultures from the previous week to quantitatively measure the amount of curli produced. Then, we miniprepped the cell cultures to send out our parts for sequencing.
No lab work :(
We collected data for the InterLab study and ran the congo red pulldown assay again.
We ran the congo red assay for a third time.
No lab work :(
We conducted PCR on each of our miniprepped parts and cloned them into the pSB1C3 backbone for sample submission.
