Difference between revisions of "Team:Queens Canada/InterLab"

Line 20: Line 20:
 
line-height: 1.5;
 
line-height: 1.5;
 
font size: 3;
 
font size: 3;
 +
color: #b0bee1;
 +
}
 +
 +
p1 {
 +
font face: Corbel;
 +
line-height: 1.5;
 +
font size: 10;
 
color: #b0bee1;
 
color: #b0bee1;
 
}
 
}
Line 127: Line 134:
 
<font face="Corbel" font style="line-height:1.5" font size="3" color="#b0bee1"></font>
 
<font face="Corbel" font style="line-height:1.5" font size="3" color="#b0bee1"></font>
 
<br>
 
<br>
−
<p>Neither of the test device 1 replicates showed any signs of growth during the 6 hour growth period after dilution to 0.02 ABS units. This was particularly odd as test device 1 had a similar initial cell density, when compared the other devices and controls prior to dilution.  (see figure 2). Test device 2 had the greatest increase in fluorescence compared to test device 3 which had significantly lower fluorescence (figure 1).  
+
<p1>Neither of the test device 1 replicates showed any signs of growth during the 6 hour growth period after dilution to 0.02 ABS units. This was particularly odd as test device 1 had a similar initial cell density, when compared the other devices and controls prior to dilution.  (see figure 2). Test device 2 had the greatest increase in fluorescence compared to test device 3 which had significantly lower fluorescence (figure 1).  
−
</p>
+
</p1>
  
 
<div class="align: center">
 
<div class="align: center">

Revision as of 14:00, 11 August 2017

Background



The ability to reproduce results in biological systems is difficult due to the stochastic nature of living cells and inconsistent laboratory practices [1]. Comparing quantitative results between experiments is often difficult with many variables impacting the results. These may include:

  • The various instruments used and their different calibrations
  • Variation in laboratory practices/protocols
  • Systematic variability e.g. differences in strains used, physical laboratory conditions
  • Variation in interpreting and communicating results

Queen's Canada iGEM team is very excited to be a part of the 2017 Interlab study [2]. This study builds on previous years attempts to compare results between multiple iGEM teams at an international level.


Aim

<

Queen's University iGEM team is participating in the 'Fourth International Interlaboratory Measurement Study' for the first time, which aims to better understand the measuring of fluorescence using a standardised protocol to quantify the variability across different laboratories.

Participating iGEM teams measured fluorescence exhibited from the green fluorescent protein (GFP) across six test devices that have different ribosome binding sequences (RBS). A positive and negative control are also used to calculate expression levels using fluorescence/OD600. At Queen's, we used a plate reader to measure fluorescence, following standard iGEM protocols. We hope that in the future the scientific community can better compare and communicate results with each other. This collaborative effort is a small but meaningful step towards that goal.




Methods and Materials



Interlab study protocols.

Interlab Study Protocols.

We transformed six plasmids containing the three constructs (J23101, J23106, J23117) as well as the positive and negative controls into the E. coli DH5a strain. After growing the cells, we started the calibration protocols of OD600 reference point using the LUDOX solution, FITC as the standard for fluorescence and the cell measurements of eight plasmids using the plate reader.



Protocol Link

Click Here: Interlab Protocol



Results and Discussion



absorbance at 600 nm
Fig 1. Fluorescein standard curve.

Neither of the test device 1 replicates showed any signs of growth during the 6 hour growth period after dilution to 0.02 ABS units. This was particularly odd as test device 1 had a similar initial cell density, when compared the other devices and controls prior to dilution. (see figure 2). Test device 2 had the greatest increase in fluorescence compared to test device 3 which had significantly lower fluorescence (figure 1).
Fluorescents of the test devices.
Fig 2. This graph shows the change in fluorescence of each test device over a 6 hour
incubation period. Test device 2 had the greatest increase in fluorescence.


absorbance at 600 nm
Fig 3. This graph shows the absorbance at 600 nanometres of each cell culture, which
provides an estimate for the number of cells in the samples.

Conclusions


  • The Macquarie iGEM team were grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Interlab Study for the first time.
  • As both replicates of test device 1 showed no signs of growth, we undertook our own investigations into the effect of the test device on our organism. We found that the test device 1 caused a lag in the onset of the log phase.
  • We look forward to participating in future Interlab projects.

References


  1. Kwok, R. 2010. Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature, 463, 288.
  2. Beal, J., Haddock-Angelli, T., Gershater, M., De Mora, K., Lizarazo, M., Hollenhorst, J. & Rettberg, R. 2016.
    Reproducibility of Fluorescent Expression from Engineered Biological Constructs in E. coli. PloS one, 11, e0150182.