MattAFrench (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
<p><center>Our team decided to take part in the iGEM interlab study this year. This study | <p><center>Our team decided to take part in the iGEM interlab study this year. This study | ||
− | is organised by iGEM and is aimed at tackling a prominent issue regarding experimental fluorescent reporter data. At present, experiments using fluorescent reporters are almost | + | is organised by iGEM and is aimed at tackling a prominent issue regarding experimental fluorescent reporter data. At present, experiments using fluorescent reporters are almost incomparable; separate groups often interpret fluorescence measurements in largely different ways, making it hard to properly compare results. To combat this, the interlab study is |
− | incomparable; separate groups often interpret fluorescence measurements in largely different | + | |
− | ways, making it hard to properly compare results. To combat this, the interlab study is | + | |
performed each year, iteratively refining an optimal protocol for fluorescence measurement. | performed each year, iteratively refining an optimal protocol for fluorescence measurement. | ||
− | Theoretically, this would be followed by anyone and yield comparably robust units of | + | Theoretically, this would be followed by anyone and yield comparably robust units of fluorescence, facilitating more meaningful comparisons of data between researchers. |
− | fluorescence, facilitating more meaningful comparisons of data between researchers. | + | |
The study required us to measure a number of different fluorescent test devices sent to us by iGEM HQ, we followed their protocol and then shared the results we obtain. Teams around the world do the same; collectively, we provide a large set of data illustrating how similar the results were, potentially highlighting any aspects in which the protocol could be improved and, hopefully, showing that this is possible. This is quite an important issue, we felt we should participate and help in any way we could! | The study required us to measure a number of different fluorescent test devices sent to us by iGEM HQ, we followed their protocol and then shared the results we obtain. Teams around the world do the same; collectively, we provide a large set of data illustrating how similar the results were, potentially highlighting any aspects in which the protocol could be improved and, hopefully, showing that this is possible. This is quite an important issue, we felt we should participate and help in any way we could! | ||
</span></center></p> | </span></center></p> |
Revision as of 15:56, 24 October 2017
INTERLAB
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/8/80/Unott_interlab_plate.jpeg)
Introduction
Methods
Results
LUDOX-S40 and Fluoroscein Reference Measurements
Standard Results
Interpretive Data