From 6aa572189ce22068e3b3f05c13ebd12948a715bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kathleen Susat <kathleen.susat@uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 13:22:20 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] FACS ab jetzt Flow Cytometry
---
src/contents/results.tsx | 15 +++++++--------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/contents/results.tsx b/src/contents/results.tsx
index 2882e97a..29f05c1f 100644
--- a/src/contents/results.tsx
+++ b/src/contents/results.tsx
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ export function Results() {
</Section>
<Section title="Experimental Design" id="ExpDes">
<Subesction title="Proof of Concept" id="Results1">
- <h4>acc. to David Liu (Anzalone et al. 2019)</h4>
<H4 text="Proof-of-concept"/>
<H5 text="Workflow"/>
<p>The prepared pDAS12124-preedited plasmid serves as a positive control to validate the success of the experiment. A technical control with the pZMB938 plasmid confirms successful transfection of the cells. In the main part of the experiment, pDAS12489-2in1 and pCMV-PE2 are co-transfected. Successful transfection is visualised by GFP signals.</p>
@@ -100,9 +99,9 @@ export function Results() {
<H5 text="Workflow"/>
<p>With this experiment we wanted to compare the efficiency of pegRNAs with and without silent edits.</p>
<H5 text="Conclusion"/>
- <p>The FACS analysis shows that pegRNA without silent edits (pegRNA1) had a 2.05 times higher transfection efficiency than pegRNA with silent edits (pegRNA2).</p>
+ <p>The Flow Cytometry analysis shows that pegRNA without silent edits (pegRNA1) had a 2.05 times higher transfection efficiency than pegRNA with silent edits (pegRNA2).</p>
<TwoHorizontal
- description="FACS analysis of pegRNAs with and without silent edits."
+ description="Flow Cytometry analysis of pegRNAs with and without silent edits."
num={8}
pic1="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5247/photos/facs-results-mechanism/se-nose.png"
pic2="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5247/photos/facs-results-mechanism/bild8.png"
@@ -116,7 +115,7 @@ export function Results() {
<div className="figure-wrapper">
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5247/photos/facs-results-mechanism/bild9.png" style={{height: "10%", width: "auto"}}/>
- <figcaption> <b>Figure 9.</b>FACS results of all screened pegRNAs</figcaption>
+ <figcaption> <b>Figure 9.</b>Flow Cytometry results of all screened pegRNAs</figcaption>
</figure>
</div>
<H4 text="Application lung epithelial cell lines"/>
@@ -134,7 +133,7 @@ export function Results() {
<H5 text="Workflow"/>
<p>pCMV-PE2 was co transfected with pDAS12489 and pCMV-PE_CO-Mini was co transfected with pDAS12489 in HEK293 cell line.</p>
<H5 text="Conclusion"/>
- <p>The FACS results show that transfection with pCMV-PE2 as the prime editing complex had editing efficiency of 52.90% when normalized on pDAS12124-preedited. When pCMV-PE_CO-Mini was used as a prime editing complex it had a transfection efficiency of 2.54% (see Figure 11, 12).</p>
+ <p>The Flow Cytometry results show that transfection with pCMV-PE2 as the prime editing complex had editing efficiency of 52.90% when normalized on pDAS12124-preedited. When pCMV-PE_CO-Mini was used as a prime editing complex it had a transfection efficiency of 2.54% (see Figure 11, 12).</p>
<TwoVertical
description="Microscopy of HEK 72h post transfection with lipofectamine 3000. Co-transfection of pDAS12489 with pCMV-PE2 or pDAS12489 with LV-PE_CO-Mini. Both show fluorescence signals."
num={11}
@@ -144,13 +143,13 @@ export function Results() {
<div className="figure-wrapper">
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5247/photos/facs-results-mechanism/pe2-pe-co.png" style={{height: "10%", width: "auto"}}/>
- <figcaption> <b>Figure 12</b>FACS analysis to compare prime editing complexes PE2 and PE_CO-Mini</figcaption>
+ <figcaption> <b>Figure 12</b>Flow Cytometry analysis to compare prime editing complexes PE2 and PE_CO-Mini</figcaption>
</figure>
</div>
<H5 text="Workflow"/>
<p>We compared the 3 different Prime Editing complexes (pCMV-PE2, pCMV-PE2_CO-Mini & pCMV-PE6c) to check which one has the best transfection efficiency.</p>
<H5 text="Conclusion"/>
- <p>The FACS measurement shows the fluorescence rate cells co-transfected with pDAS12489 and pCMV-PE6c as a prime editing complex. The editing efficiency off PE6c was by far the highest (81.88%) (see Figure 13, 14). The efficiency was 1.55 higher than the efficiency when pCMV-PE2 was used as prime editing complex (see Figure 13).</p>
+ <p>The Flow Cytometry measurement shows the fluorescence rate cells co-transfected with pDAS12489 and pCMV-PE6c as a prime editing complex. The editing efficiency off PE6c was by far the highest (81.88%) (see Figure 13, 14). The efficiency was 1.55 higher than the efficiency when pCMV-PE2 was used as prime editing complex (see Figure 13).</p>
<div className="figure-wrapper">
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5247/photos/facs-results-mechanism/bild13.png" style={{height: "10%", width: "auto"}}/>
@@ -158,7 +157,7 @@ export function Results() {
</figure>
</div>
<TwoHorizontal
- description="FACS results for evaluation of PE6c performance."
+ description="Flow Cytometry results for evaluation of PE6c performance."
num={14}
pic1="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5247/photos/facs-results-mechanism/pe2-pe-co-pe6c.png"
pic2="https://static.igem.wiki/teams/5247/photos/facs-results-mechanism/bild12.png"
--
GitLab