Team:ETH Zurich/Process/Validation
From 2011.igem.org
(→Analysis) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{:Team:ETH Zurich/Templates/Header/Process|currPage=Validation}} | {{:Team:ETH Zurich/Templates/Header/Process|currPage=Validation}} | ||
{|class="roundContainer" | {|class="roundContainer" | ||
- | |style="font-size:2em; height: 30px" class="process"| | + | |style="font-size:2em; height: 30px" class="process"|Evaluation |
| | | | ||
{|class="processTitle linkMap" align="right" | {|class="processTitle linkMap" align="right" |
Revision as of 02:23, 22 September 2011
Evaluation |
| |||
This page presents a biological experiment which showed that the setup of the flow channel works as predicted by the models (compare plots in the modeling section). |
Experimental SetupTo validate that we can create a gradient of a small molecule along our agarose filled tube, we filled a tube (2 mm diameter, 7 cm long) with agarose and E. coli (see Figure 1). The E. coli cells were engineered to express an IPTG-inducible GFP. The cells were incubated at 37 °C overnight. One end of the tube was connected to a sample medium (1 ml) containing 10 mM IPTG solution. |
ResultsFluorescence pictures of the tube (see Figure 2) showed a clear gradient of the fluorescence signal over approximately 5cm of the tube. After 5cm, the signal strength dropped under the background noise. |
AnalysisWe quantified the fluorescence signal using a moving average of 80×80 pixel, which moved along the symmetry axis of the tube (see Figure 3). The fluorescence distribution of this experiment has a similar shape as the distributions predicted by the model (see modeling section). The difference in the experimental results compared to the simulations can be explained mainly due to the different diffusing molecules: the simulations where obtained for acetaldehyde, whereas the experiments were carried out with IPTG. We expect the different values of the diffusion as well as of the degradation constants of the two molecules to be the main reason for the differences. |