Team:Austin Texas/kit
From 2014.igem.org
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
'''What's your most important result?''' DISCUSS THAT FINDING FIRST. | '''What's your most important result?''' DISCUSS THAT FINDING FIRST. | ||
+ | Our ncAA measurement kit was able to successfully compare the fidelity and efficiency of seven different synthetase/tRNA pairs. We were able to confidently say that one synthetase/tRNA pair had a higher fidelity than another. While the measurements may not be perfectly accurate due to the nature of this test, the measurement kit is designed more around ease of use, cost-efficiency, and portability. The ncAA measurement kit can be used to quickly test a synthetase/tRNA pair's quality with minimal effort, as opposed to other more accurate but more intensive or expensive measures such as mass spectrometry. While mass spectrometry can give much more definitive information about a synthetase/tRNA pair, there are many different factors that could make it unreasonable for undergraduate research. It is a technique that requires a fair amount of skill to do properly, and can be very costly as well. Thus, our measurement kit works best as a preliminary test to get a solid frame of reference for how a synthetase/tRNA pair works in a cell. This application could greatly speed up the process of developing a new synthetase/tRNA pair, as well as characterizing large groups of synthetase/tRNA pairs. | ||
Are these three paragraphs discussing the results/significance of the results? Yes, we want to talk about possible sources of error, but we don't need three paragraphs for that. We want to talk about what our results mean in a larger context: Does the kit work? Can it be easily improved on? What does our kit do for other labs, for other iGEM teams? For the field of ncAAs? Is the kit definitive by itself? Were there limitations? What might influence good/bad results? Can we unequivocally argue that dopa/3-amino and other ncAA synthetases are worthless? | Are these three paragraphs discussing the results/significance of the results? Yes, we want to talk about possible sources of error, but we don't need three paragraphs for that. We want to talk about what our results mean in a larger context: Does the kit work? Can it be easily improved on? What does our kit do for other labs, for other iGEM teams? For the field of ncAAs? Is the kit definitive by itself? Were there limitations? What might influence good/bad results? Can we unequivocally argue that dopa/3-amino and other ncAA synthetases are worthless? |
Revision as of 02:58, 17 October 2014
|