Difference between revisions of "Team:Cadets2Vets/Demonstrate"

Line 11: Line 11:
 
<h2 style= "color:#00ffff"> Testing the Circuit </h2>
 
<h2 style= "color:#00ffff"> Testing the Circuit </h2>
 
</p>
 
</p>
−
<li> WHat to do In order to test if our ticket works, we followed the procedure for the ticked cell free system on the procedures page using the ticket containing our
+
 
 +
<li>  
 +
Before running the actual circuit, we ran control experiments to determine whether or not the GFP would indeed function as a reporter, meaning it can be regulated by a riboswitch.
 +
</p>
 +
<li>
 +
The first control experiment was constitutive: meaning that the GFP would always be produced. This was essentially only used to ensure that the GFP works in the paper ticket.
 +
</p> <li>
 +
The second control experiment was regulated via riboswitch SWH meaning that the GFP would be triggered. This tested if the GFP could be controlled/ regulated.
 +
<p/> <li>
 +
The results from both of these experiments are shown in  the pictures below
 +
 
 
</p>
 
</p>
 
<p>
 
<p>
Line 19: Line 29:
 
<p>
 
<p>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/92/Ticket_1.png" alt="HTML5 Icon" style="width:300px;height:300px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/9/92/Ticket_1.png" alt="HTML5 Icon" style="width:300px;height:300px;">
−
<span>Ticket after running first run- GFP produced</span>
+
<span>Ticket after first control experiment was run (Constitutive GFP). The GFP was placed in the far left column, and only water was placed in the column next to it so that a control was present. BY comparing the far left column to the collum next to it, one can see the quantifiable difference between the wells with and without GFP.    </span>
 
</p>
 
</p>
  
 
<p>
 
<p>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/3f/Ticket_3.png" alt="HTML5 Icon" style="width:300px;height:300px;">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/3f/Ticket_3.png" alt="HTML5 Icon" style="width:300px;height:300px;">
−
<span>Ticket after running second run- GFP produced</span>
+
<span>Ticket after running second run (regulated GFP using SWH) This experiments used the same controls in order to compare the GFP column to the control (water) column.</span>
 
</p>
 
</p>
  

Revision as of 17:54, 19 June 2017

HOME
TEAM
PROJECT
Description
Design
Experiments
Notebook
InterLab
Contribution
Model
Results
Demonstrate
Improve
Attributions
PARTS
Parts
Basic Parts
Composite Parts
Part Collection
SAFETY
HUMAN PRACTICES
Silver HP
Integrated and Gold
Public Engagement
AWARDS
Applied Design
Entrepreneurship
Hardware
Measurement
Model
Plant
Software
JUDGING FORM

Cadets2Vets

Goal of Our Circuit

  • Our circuit was designed to utilize specific parts so that when the Ecoli cells containing this gene circuit are exposed to arsenic, the Green Florescent Protein (GFP) is produced making the ticket glow under a blue light.

    Testing the Circuit

  • Before running the actual circuit, we ran control experiments to determine whether or not the GFP would indeed function as a reporter, meaning it can be regulated by a riboswitch.

  • The first control experiment was constitutive: meaning that the GFP would always be produced. This was essentially only used to ensure that the GFP works in the paper ticket.

  • The second control experiment was regulated via riboswitch SWH meaning that the GFP would be triggered. This tested if the GFP could be controlled/ regulated.

  • The results from both of these experiments are shown in the pictures below

    HTML5 Icon The original ticket before running

    HTML5 Icon Ticket after first control experiment was run (Constitutive GFP). The GFP was placed in the far left column, and only water was placed in the column next to it so that a control was present. BY comparing the far left column to the collum next to it, one can see the quantifiable difference between the wells with and without GFP.

    HTML5 Icon Ticket after running second run (regulated GFP using SWH) This experiments used the same controls in order to compare the GFP column to the control (water) column.

    ★ ALERT!

    This page is used by the judges to evaluate your team for the medal criterion or award listed above.

    Delete this box in order to be evaluated for this medal criterion and/or award. See more information at Instructions for Pages for awards.

    Demonstrate

    Gold Medal Criterion #4

    Teams that can show their system working under real world conditions are usually good at impressing the judges in iGEM. To achieve gold medal criterion #4, convince the judges that your project works. There are many ways in which your project working could be demonstrated, so there is more than one way to meet this requirement. This gold medal criterion was introduced in 2016, so check our what 2016 teams did to achieve a their gold medals!

    Please see the 2017 Medals Page for more information.

    What should we do for our demonstration?

    Standard teams

    If you have built a proof of concept system, you can demonstrate it working under real world conditions. If you have built a biological device that is intended to be a sensor, can you show it detecting whatever it is intended to sense. If it is intended to work in the field, you can show how this might work using a simulated version in the lab, or a simulation of your device in the field. Please note biological materials must not be taken out of the lab.


    Special track teams

    Special track teams can achieve this medal criterion by bringing their work to the Jamboree and showcasing it in the track event. Art & Design, Measurement, Hardware and Software tracks will all have showcase events at the Giant Jamboree. Please note biological materials must not be taken out of the lab.