Tetrahymena Lab Report

During this lab, Sfr13 mutant and wild type Tetrahymena’s number of India Ink vacuoles and sizes were observed over multiple trials, and then the averages were compared to see if there was any difference between the mutant and WT. Furthermore, the two strains of Tetrahymena were stained with mCherry fluorescence, so that the oral grooves could be examined and compared under fluorescence microscopy. This experiment was designed to eliminate as much bias as possible by replicating the experiment over 4 trials, one by each member of the team working on this project. Since this Sfr13 mutant strain has not been studied in depth, we chose the sample size this large to have replicated results that could be averaged for a more accurate representation of the population of Tetrahymena. Furthermore, the size was recorded to determine if that also correlated with the data being collected, which would eliminate the possibility that the correlation observed was due to size and not malformation of the oral groove.
It was concluded that there is a correlation between the oral groove formation and feeding rate; however, other factors, such as size, would prevent the conclusion that the malformed oral grooved caused the Tetrahymena to feed slower. These two strains were chosen because …show more content…
Then, observations were made of the mCherry fluorescence under a fluorescent microscope with a “Flur 20X” objective and FIT-C Filter Set, which produced green light and made the specimen’s basal body formation glow red (shown in Fig. 6). Each strain of fixed cells was prepared on a separate wet mount slide, and the observations made were focused mainly of the shape and intensity of fluorescence coming from the oral groove location on the Tetrahymena. Any significant observation made was attempted to be recorded