LukasPlatz (Talk | contribs) |
LukasPlatz (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
As we performed GC-MS analysis, mass spectrometry data were also available which can be seen in Fig. 3 for the product peak that emerges at 9.2 minutes. It shows the fission of this product and can clearly be identified as our desired product (5). | As we performed GC-MS analysis, mass spectrometry data were also available which can be seen in Fig. 3 for the product peak that emerges at 9.2 minutes. It shows the fission of this product and can clearly be identified as our desired product (5). | ||
− | {{Heidelberg/templateus/Imagesection|https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/1/16/T--Heidelberg--MSAnilineCompound.png|Figure 3:|Mass chromatogram shows the breakdown of the product (5). The product itself corresponds to a mass of 251 | + | {{Heidelberg/templateus/Imagesection|https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/1/16/T--Heidelberg--MSAnilineCompound.png|Figure 3:|Mass chromatogram shows the breakdown of the product (5). The product itself corresponds to a mass of 251 daltons.|}} |
Furthermore, we performed experiments on the compound (1) which differs from compound (2) in its amino functional group. The product is eluted after 11.7 minutes retention time (Fig. 4) and also confirmed as the right product via mass spectrometry in Fig. 5. Worth mentioning, there is still educt (1) present which emerges at 6.9 minutes retention time, indicating incomplete conversion. Calculations showed a conversion rate of 47.5% for the product (4). | Furthermore, we performed experiments on the compound (1) which differs from compound (2) in its amino functional group. The product is eluted after 11.7 minutes retention time (Fig. 4) and also confirmed as the right product via mass spectrometry in Fig. 5. Worth mentioning, there is still educt (1) present which emerges at 6.9 minutes retention time, indicating incomplete conversion. Calculations showed a conversion rate of 47.5% for the product (4). | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{Heidelberg/templateus/Imagesection|https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/e/ef/T--Heidelberg--GCNonAninlineCompound.png|Figure 4:|Gas chromatogram for the reaction of educt (2) and (3) to the product (4). 9.2 minutes retention time indicates product formation.|}} | {{Heidelberg/templateus/Imagesection|https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/e/ef/T--Heidelberg--GCNonAninlineCompound.png|Figure 4:|Gas chromatogram for the reaction of educt (2) and (3) to the product (4). 9.2 minutes retention time indicates product formation.|}} | ||
− | {{Heidelberg/templateus/Imagesection|https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/2/2b/T--Heidelberg--MSNonAnilineCompound.png|Figure 5:|Mass chromatogram shows the breakdown of the product (4). The product itself corresponds to a mass of 236 | + | {{Heidelberg/templateus/Imagesection|https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/2/2b/T--Heidelberg--MSNonAnilineCompound.png|Figure 5:|Mass chromatogram shows the breakdown of the product (4). The product itself corresponds to a mass of 236 daltons.|}} |
As these results only show activity for a previously engineered cytochrome c, we are convinced that our part is still functional despite not as effective as the mutant. This part as our best basic part is intended as a platform for future teams to evolve their own cytochrome c for their specific target molecule. | As these results only show activity for a previously engineered cytochrome c, we are convinced that our part is still functional despite not as effective as the mutant. This part as our best basic part is intended as a platform for future teams to evolve their own cytochrome c for their specific target molecule. | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 00:32, 2 November 2017