Team:Tec-Monterrey/projectresults

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 606: Line 606:
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/9/9a/Results02.png">  
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/9/9a/Results02.png">  
-
<br><style=bold>CelD + estA protein fusion profiles</style></center>
+
<br>
 +
1.1. CelD + estA protein fusion profiles</style></center>
<br>
<br>
Line 640: Line 641:
-
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/4/40/Results03.png"> </center>
+
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/4/40/Results03.png">  
-
<br>
+
-
<p class="textojustif"> Click here to read our pdf file with results!</p>
+
-
<p class="textojustif"> <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/8/8b/Roseta_results.pdf">Roseta Results pdf</a>
+
-
<br>
+
<br>
<br>
 +
1.2.1. Whole-Cell CelD+estA Activity </center>
<br>
<br>
 +
<p class="textojustif">
<p class="textojustif">
Line 656: Line 655:
<p class="textojustif">
<p class="textojustif">
Figure 2. Whole-Cell Cellulase Activity. The IUPAC Filter Paper Assay was assessed to the celD+ estA and the Negative Control (C-). The glucose concentration in celD + estA strain was of 332.04 µM and in the Negative Control (C-) was of 275.85 µM.
Figure 2. Whole-Cell Cellulase Activity. The IUPAC Filter Paper Assay was assessed to the celD+ estA and the Negative Control (C-). The glucose concentration in celD + estA strain was of 332.04 µM and in the Negative Control (C-) was of 275.85 µM.
-
 
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
 +
 +
<center>
 +
1.2.1. Cell-Lysate CelD+estA Activity </center>
 +
<br>
 +
<p class="textojustif">
<p class="textojustif">
In the cell-lysate cellulase activity assay (Figure 3) ,there is a difference in the glucose concentration in both the, soluble and insoluble fractions,  The difference in the soluble fraction with its negative control was of 35 µM while the difference in the insoluble fraction was of 110 µM. The result of the t-test was the rejection of the null hyphothesis, suggesting that the difference between them is also significant.  The glucose concentration in the soluble fraction of celD-estA was of 358 µM and in the Negative Control (C-) was of 323 µM.In the insoluble fraction, the glucose contentration  of the celD-estA was 374 µM and in the Negative Control (C-) was of 264 µM.
In the cell-lysate cellulase activity assay (Figure 3) ,there is a difference in the glucose concentration in both the, soluble and insoluble fractions,  The difference in the soluble fraction with its negative control was of 35 µM while the difference in the insoluble fraction was of 110 µM. The result of the t-test was the rejection of the null hyphothesis, suggesting that the difference between them is also significant.  The glucose concentration in the soluble fraction of celD-estA was of 358 µM and in the Negative Control (C-) was of 323 µM.In the insoluble fraction, the glucose contentration  of the celD-estA was 374 µM and in the Negative Control (C-) was of 264 µM.
Line 674: Line 677:
<br><center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/1/1b/Results04.png">  
<br><center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/1/1b/Results04.png">  
-
<br> SacC Expression Results</center>
+
<br>  
 +
2.1. OmpA+sacC Construction
 +
</center>
-
<br>
 
<br>
<br>
<p class="textojustif"> The final genetic contrustion for ompA + sacC was accomplished without the translation terminator sequence (<a href="http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K633015">BBa_K633015</a>).  
<p class="textojustif"> The final genetic contrustion for ompA + sacC was accomplished without the translation terminator sequence (<a href="http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K633015">BBa_K633015</a>).  
Line 696: Line 700:
<br>
<br>
 +
 +
<center>
 +
2.3. OmpA+sacC Expression
 +
</center>
 +
 +
<br>
<p class="textojustif"> A visible protein band of the expected molecular wight (62.8 kDa) of the fusion protein (ompA+sacC) could not be confirmed by SDS-PAGE (Figure 5). However, as Lee <i>et al.</i> (2004) have proven, the fusion protein could hardly be detected by Coomassie blue staining as its expression was below the detection level of the method used, our result may be due to the same reason.  
<p class="textojustif"> A visible protein band of the expected molecular wight (62.8 kDa) of the fusion protein (ompA+sacC) could not be confirmed by SDS-PAGE (Figure 5). However, as Lee <i>et al.</i> (2004) have proven, the fusion protein could hardly be detected by Coomassie blue staining as its expression was below the detection level of the method used, our result may be due to the same reason.  
<br>
<br>
Line 716: Line 726:
<br>
<br>
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/4/40/Results03.png">
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/4/40/Results03.png">
-
<br>SacC is active in whole cell assays! </center>
 
<br>
<br>
 +
<center>
 +
2.3. SacC is active in whole cell assays </center>
<br>
<br>
 +
<br>
 +
<p class="textojustif">
<p class="textojustif">
Whole cells of the <i>E. coli</i> strain (BL21SI) +sacC+ompA produced a fructose concentration of 350.71±60.97 uM which is 149.36 uM higher than the negative control cells (Figure 6), a T-test with 2 tails and alpha value of 0.05 was carried out, and the null hypothesis of  "the population means are the same" was rejected, indicating that there is difference between the fructose concentration in the control strain and those of the sample strains. And although further investigation is required, the evidence we have is a strong indicator that the enzyme is active in the outer membrane of <i>E. coli</i>.  
Whole cells of the <i>E. coli</i> strain (BL21SI) +sacC+ompA produced a fructose concentration of 350.71±60.97 uM which is 149.36 uM higher than the negative control cells (Figure 6), a T-test with 2 tails and alpha value of 0.05 was carried out, and the null hypothesis of  "the population means are the same" was rejected, indicating that there is difference between the fructose concentration in the control strain and those of the sample strains. And although further investigation is required, the evidence we have is a strong indicator that the enzyme is active in the outer membrane of <i>E. coli</i>.  

Revision as of 18:15, 19 October 2011

wiki

iGEM