The predict results for this experiment were lawns on all LB plates, colonies on the “+
Plasmid “ kanamycin plate, and colonies two of the “+ plasmid “ Ampicillin plates. This experiment did not come out as predicted due to the lack of growth from some of the groups. Our results consisted of brown lawns on all the LB plates , no growth on any of the plates for plasmid one, one green colony for plasmid two on the edge of the LB/Amp plate, and two white colonies on the edge of the the LB/Amp plate. After testing the plasmids for the green fluorescent protein using a black light we concluded that plasmid 3 was ampicillin resistant, plasmid 2 was GFP/ Ampicillin resistant, and plasmid 1 was Kanamycin resistant. We saw lawns on all the Luria Broth …show more content…
In order to find our success in transformation we used the formula for transformation efficiency. As see in our results we came wih a result of zero which means that the plasmid was not taken in by the bacteria and transformation was not successful at all. The lack of growth in these plates could have been caused by minor differences in our procedure. There were very small differences in procedures between growth such as the amount of time spent in the water bath or forms of agitation. Considering we were trying to contain the amount of interaction with the E.coli there was no way for groups to have a timer which left it to the members of the group to estimate times such as 90 seconds rather than have it exactly timed. This was not the only difference between groups there was also a difference in the way the tubes were agitated after adding the Luria broth. The groups that did not have growth used the vortex to agitate their sample while those who did see growth just used their hands to agitate. Other aspects that could’ve caused these results are a lack of time incubated with the beads , fluctuating water temperature in the water bath, or flaws in
Plasmid “ kanamycin plate, and colonies two of the “+ plasmid “ Ampicillin plates. This experiment did not come out as predicted due to the lack of growth from some of the groups. Our results consisted of brown lawns on all the LB plates , no growth on any of the plates for plasmid one, one green colony for plasmid two on the edge of the LB/Amp plate, and two white colonies on the edge of the the LB/Amp plate. After testing the plasmids for the green fluorescent protein using a black light we concluded that plasmid 3 was ampicillin resistant, plasmid 2 was GFP/ Ampicillin resistant, and plasmid 1 was Kanamycin resistant. We saw lawns on all the Luria Broth …show more content…
In order to find our success in transformation we used the formula for transformation efficiency. As see in our results we came wih a result of zero which means that the plasmid was not taken in by the bacteria and transformation was not successful at all. The lack of growth in these plates could have been caused by minor differences in our procedure. There were very small differences in procedures between growth such as the amount of time spent in the water bath or forms of agitation. Considering we were trying to contain the amount of interaction with the E.coli there was no way for groups to have a timer which left it to the members of the group to estimate times such as 90 seconds rather than have it exactly timed. This was not the only difference between groups there was also a difference in the way the tubes were agitated after adding the Luria broth. The groups that did not have growth used the vortex to agitate their sample while those who did see growth just used their hands to agitate. Other aspects that could’ve caused these results are a lack of time incubated with the beads , fluctuating water temperature in the water bath, or flaws in