Team:Austin Texas/interlab study

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Sequencing Data)
Line 127: Line 127:
http://parts.igem.org/Promoters/Catalog/Anderson
http://parts.igem.org/Promoters/Catalog/Anderson
-
we sequenced our constructs, aligned them to the reference part sequences
+
After sequencing our constructs, we aligned them to the reference part sequences.
-
construct 1 and 2 were consistent with the references
+
While constructs 1 and 2 were consistent with the references, we were surprised to see two point mutations in construct 3.  This seemed highly unlikely to have occurred.  As such, we consulted the parts registry and found that the sequence analysis of the spring 2014 plate shows two point mutations consistent with our sequence reads.
-
construct 3 was inconsistent, two point mutations--highly unlikely to be random mutations
+
-
we consulted the parts registry, sequence analysis of spring 2014 plate shows two point mutations consistent with our sequence reads
+
[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Austin_Texas/interlab_study/sequences/I20260 Sequence of construct BBa_I20260]<br>
[https://2014.igem.org/Team:Austin_Texas/interlab_study/sequences/I20260 Sequence of construct BBa_I20260]<br>

Revision as of 00:23, 17 October 2014