Tag Archives: PGS1

Bacterial Cultures – Colonies Selected by Steven from Steven’s Re-Streaked Plate

Inoculated 5mL of 1x LB + Kan50 (made by Steven on 3/23/11). Incubated O/N @ 37C, 250RPM. Will perform mini preps tomorrow. The following samples were selected (red text on the plate):

  • #9
  • #10
  • #13
  • #43
  • #45
  • #49
  • #56
  • #58
Share

Ligations – COX1/COX2 PCR Products

Performed ligations/cloning on a variety of COX1 genomic and COX 5′ RACE products using the TOPO TA Cloning Kit (Invitrogen). Used 2uL of gel-purified PCR product in each cloning rxn, 2.5uL of H2O, 1uL of salt solution, and 0.5uL of the Invitrogen pCR2.1 vector. Incubated samples for 5mins at RT. Used 2uL of the cloning reaction to transform TOP10 chemically competent cells (Invitrogen), mixed very gently, incubated on ice for 5mins, heat shocked at 42C for 30s and immediately placed on ice. Added 250uL of SOC Medium and incubated tubes at 37C, 200RPM for 1hr. Plated 50uL of each transformation on LB+Kan plates (made by Steven on unknown date with unknown Kan concentration) containing 40uL of 40mg/mL X-gal. Incubated O/N at 37C. Remaining volume of transformed bacteria were stored @ 4C.

Share

qPCR – C.gigas COX1/COX2 Tissue Distribution

Performed qPCR using pooled cDNA from 20110311. Pooled 2uL from each of the following samples groups: Dg 3hr C, Gill 1hr C, Gill 1hr E, Mantle 3hr C, and Muscle 3hr C. Master mix calcs are here. Plate layout, cycling params, etc can be found in the qPCR Report (see Results). Primers sets run were:

EF1_qPCR_5′,3′ (SR IDs: 309, 310)

Cg_COX1/2_qPCR_F (SR ID: 1192) + Cg_COX1_qPCR_R (SR ID: 1191)- Target = COX1

Cg_COX1/2_qPCR_F (SR ID: 1192) + Cg_COX2_454align1_R (SR ID: 1190) – Target = COX2

Results:

qPCR Report (PDF)

qPCR Data File (CFX96)

Graphs were generated using the BioRad CFX Manager v2.0 software. Expression was normalized to EF1. Also to note, gene efficiency was assumed as 100% by the software since no standard curve was run on the plate. As such, analysis of this data may not be exact.

It’s clear by examining the graphs that the primers being used to differentiate COX1 and COX2 (since they share a common primer: SRID 1192) are differentially expressed. This indicates that the primer sets are indeed amplifying different targets as hoped. This was the primary intention of this qPCR. However, we also now have an idea of tissue distribution of the two genes, as well as their response to V. vulnificus exposre after 1hr. Next step is to perform this qPCR on all the individuals from this experiment as well as the different tissues.

Share