From a7b7970fcc04e02037d56ddafdc385ba60bdd631 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arya Ajit Gohad <aryagohad21@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:50:06 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Update wiki/pages/engineering-learn.html,
wiki/pages/proof-of-concept.html
---
wiki/pages/engineering-learn.html | 5 +----
wiki/pages/proof-of-concept.html | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/wiki/pages/engineering-learn.html b/wiki/pages/engineering-learn.html
index eb76c52..0ca45d8 100644
--- a/wiki/pages/engineering-learn.html
+++ b/wiki/pages/engineering-learn.html
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Engineering Cycle - Learn
<!-- <center><h2>Learn</h2></center> -->
<!-- <hr> -->
<p>
- After testing out all 16 sequences in two batches of 6 and 10 each, we had all the data awaiting analysis. As a first step, we ranked all the sequences in decreasing order of their average fluorescence per optical density (F/OD) values at 24 hours mark (late-stationary phase). We tried to see if this ranking had any correlation with the expression values suggested by Salis Lab’s RBS Calculator (v.2.1.1). To our surprise, the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient came out to be 0.77 for the first batch of 6 UTRs, 0.39 for the second batch of 10 UTRs and barely 0.15 for all sequences put together. This could have happened because the RBS calculator has been designed for readings taken in the log phase. This concern was experienced by Xiao et al. in 2020, and the researchers gave a similar explanation as reasoning.
+ After testing out all 16 sequences in two batches of 8 and 11 each, we had all the data awaiting analysis. As a first step, we ranked all the sequences in decreasing order of their average fluorescence per optical density (F/OD) values at 24 hours mark (late-stationary phase). We tried to see if this ranking had any correlation with the expression values suggested by Salis Lab’s RBS Calculator (v.2.1.1). To our surprise, the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient came out to be 0.77 for the first batch of 6 UTRs, 0.39 for the second batch of 10 UTRs and barely 0.15 for all sequences put together. This could have happened because the RBS calculator has been designed for readings taken in the log phase. This concern was experienced by Xiao et al. in 2020, and the researchers gave a similar explanation as reasoning.
</p><p>
@@ -292,7 +292,4 @@ performing csPF UTR for our next experimental cycle.</li>
</div>
-
-
-
{% endblock %}
diff --git a/wiki/pages/proof-of-concept.html b/wiki/pages/proof-of-concept.html
index 0fc9bc5..bf3436f 100644
--- a/wiki/pages/proof-of-concept.html
+++ b/wiki/pages/proof-of-concept.html
@@ -19,7 +19,9 @@
The variations received in the expression values ratifies is in sync with our experimental design and expectations giving a valid proof of concept. This is our contribution to the iGEM Registry.</p><br>
- <br><center><img class="norm" src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4303/wiki/bar-graph.jpeg" alt="Image"><center>
+ <br><center><img class="norm" src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4303/wiki/bl-all-utrs.jpg" alt="Image"><center>
+
+ <br><center><img class="norm" src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/4303/wiki/dh-all-cp-graph.jpg" alt="Image"><center>
<div class="table-responsive">
<table class="table">
--
GitLab