Team:EPF Lausanne/Calendar/11 September 2013

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 9: Line 9:
-These two constructs were the two last ones that I had not yet verified by PCR. So I innoculated them in order to do a MiniPrep and a Test PCR.
-These two constructs were the two last ones that I had not yet verified by PCR. So I innoculated them in order to do a MiniPrep and a Test PCR.
-
''Note'' <BR>
+
'''Note''' <BR>
Because time was running short, we decided to characterize only the following constructs: <BR>
Because time was running short, we decided to characterize only the following constructs: <BR>
1.) HyaPromoter+GFP <BR>
1.) HyaPromoter+GFP <BR>

Revision as of 16:46, 3 October 2013

Taxi.Coli: Smart Drug Delivery iGEM EPFL

Header

Sensing

PCR of hya-construct (sensing), MMP2-construct (effector) and MMP9-construct (effector)
-After the Minipreps of the innocuated bacteria I did a 20ul PCR reaction in order to check if the Bacteria did indeed contain my plasmids using primers specific only to the insert. The PCR results showed that the hya-constructs and the MMP2-construct were correct but that the construct with MMP9 did not work. These conclusions were also supported by the Microscopy we did for the constructs MMP2 and MMP9. The Bacteria with the MMP9 construct were bright green which they should not have been since instead of GFP they should express MMP9 whereas the MMP2 Bacteria did not express GFP.

Innoculation of the constitutive promoter construct and the GelE construct containing Bacteria
-These two constructs were the two last ones that I had not yet verified by PCR. So I innoculated them in order to do a MiniPrep and a Test PCR.

Note
Because time was running short, we decided to characterize only the following constructs:
1.) HyaPromoter+GFP
2.) CadPromoter+GFP
3.) ConstitutivePromoter+GFP
4.) AraCPromoter+GelE
5.) AraCPromoter+MMP2


Nanoparticles

Loading of Nanoparticles
-Made rGFP loaded nanoparticles.
-Made FITC-dextran nanoparticles.