dirt enthusiast
Today's Document
h
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
hello vonnie
cherry valley forever

ellievsbear

#extradirty
One Nice Bug Per Day
Show & Tell

JVL
Keni
almost home
sheepfilms

if i look back, i am lost
Three Goblin Art
Stranger Things

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
styofa doing anything
i don't do bad sauce passes

seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from Thailand

seen from Lithuania

seen from Lithuania

seen from United States

seen from Lithuania

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from France

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from South Korea

seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Colombia
@jasminusone
Am I your favorite notification?
My brain deserves patience, repetition, and rest.
2000ml pitcher
2000ml of DI water
400ml of 5M (or 5 NaCl
40mL of 0.5M Tris pH 7.5
BME 0.070mL or 70µL
Slide 1: Discussion Overview
Title: Discussion
Goal: Evaluate success of Golden Gate Assembly (GGA)
Assessed by:
Colony color (RFP vs GFP vs colorless)
PCR verification
Focus: Compare experimental (P5-33A) vs controls
Slide 2: Transformation Success
Colonies observed on all plates
Confirms:
Successful ligation
Successful transformation into E. coli
Control plates showed expected:
Red colonies (RFP)
Green colonies (GFP)
👉 System works under proper conditions
Slide 3: Experimental Results (P5-33A)
Colonies mostly:
Green (GFP)
Colorless
Very few or no red colonies (RFP)
Ratio of red to green:
P5-33A ≈ 0.43
Controls ≈ 0.54–0.57
👉 Indicates reduced RFP expression
Slide 4: PCR Verification
Expected bands:
✅ 196 bp → successful assembly
❌ 276 bp → incorrect assembly
Observations:
196 bp band present
276 bp band absent
👉 DNA assembly occurred correctly
👉 BUT expression does not match genotype
Slide 5: Key Interpretation
Assembly = successful (genotypic level)
Expression = inconsistent (phenotypic level)
👉 Important concept:
DNA can be correct
Protein expression can still fail
Slide 6: Possible Explanations
Weak or improper promoter activity (RFP)
Mutation or frame shift in RFP gene
GFP may outcompete expression
RFP maturation is slower than GFP
Variation in plasmid uptake / copy number
Slide 7: Colorless Colonies
Possible causes:
Non-recombinant plasmids
Incomplete assembly
No reporter gene expression
👉 Suggests inefficiency in cloning or expression
Slide 8: Conclusion
GGA produced correct DNA constructs
P5-33A showed poor RFP expression
Highlights:
Difference between genotype vs phenotype
Future improvements:
Sequence verification
Promoter optimization
Improved assembly conditions
The goal of this experiment was to evaluate the success of Golden Gate Assembly (GGA) constructs and assess gene expression through colony phenotype (red, green, or colorless) and PCR verification. The results indicate partial success of assembly, with clear evidence of transformation but inconsistent expression of the RFP gene.
From the transformation plates, colonies were successfully obtained across multiple conditions, confirming that the ligation and transformation steps were functional. The presence of green fluorescent colonies (GFP) and red colonies (RFP) in control groups supports that the reporter systems were capable of expression under proper conditions. However, in the experimental group (P5-33A), colonies were primarily colorless or green, with little to no red fluorescence observed. This suggests that RFP expression was significantly reduced or absent in this construct.
Quantitatively, the ratio of red to green colonies (~0.43 for P5-33A) was lower compared to control groups (~0.54–0.57), reinforcing that the experimental construct exhibited reduced RFP output relative to GFP. This imbalance indicates either:
inefficient assembly of the RFP-containing fragment,
improper insertion orientation, or
regulatory issues affecting transcription or translation of the RFP gene.
PCR analysis (as sketched in the gel diagram) further supports these observations. The expected band at ~196 bp (successful assembly) was present, while the 276 bp band (unsuccessful or incorrect assembly) was absent in successful samples. This confirms that some correctly assembled constructs were produced, but PCR alone does not guarantee proper gene expression. Therefore, even though assembly occurred at the DNA level, functional expression of RFP was still compromised.
Several experimental factors may explain the poor RFP expression:
Promoter or regulatory inefficiency – The promoter driving RFP may have been weaker or improperly assembled.
Mutation or frame shift – Small sequence errors during assembly could disrupt RFP translation.
Competition between reporters – GFP expression may dominate due to stronger folding efficiency or expression kinetics.
Transformation variability – Differences in plasmid uptake or copy number could affect expression levels.
Protein maturation differences – RFP matures more slowly than GFP, which may result in underestimation of red colonies.
Additionally, the presence of colorless colonies suggests either:
non-recombinant plasmids,
incomplete constructs, or
failure in reporter gene expression altogether.
Overall, while the experiment demonstrates successful DNA assembly and transformation, it highlights a key limitation: genotypic success does not always correlate with phenotypic expression. The P5-33A construct, in particular, showed poor RFP expression, indicating that further optimization—such as verifying sequence integrity, improving promoter design, or adjusting assembly conditions—is necessary.