Paris/October 4
From 2007.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
(→Houston we got a problem, the upstream construction for wanner lose the Chloramphenicol resistance) |
(→Houston we got a problem, the upstream construction for wanner lose the Chloramphenicol resistance) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
----> the clones grew on Amp but not on Cm... <br> | ----> the clones grew on Amp but not on Cm... <br> | ||
it confirms the hypothesis of a loss inside the CmR gene.<br> | it confirms the hypothesis of a loss inside the CmR gene.<br> | ||
| - | ---->of course the results for the sequencing will gice the last word. They should come on Friday in late afternoon. | + | ----> of course the results for the sequencing will gice the last word. They should come on Friday in late afternoon. We called the sequencing facility. |
Revision as of 12:34, 4 October 2007
Minipreps
- from S49 = pKD46
- pY-2P-IntC
Transformation of W121 and FR781 with pKD46
Houston we got a problem, the upstream construction for wanner lose the Chloramphenicol resistance
[Frt-CmR-Frt-pTet>>lox66-gfpTripart] (L58)
- First, we got an abnormally short length for the PCR with the wanner primers (about 1,7kb instead of 2,1kb; see October 2)
- Then i did a PCR on the same plasmid (L58) with the primers O18&O19. We got the same pattern of length (1,7kb and another one at about 3,5kb)
- To investigate the possibility to have lost 400kb in the CmR gene leading to the loss of resistence to Cm for the strain, i put some clones of L58 on plates with either Ampicilline or Chloramphenicol (10µg/mL).
> the clones grew on Amp but not on Cm...
it confirms the hypothesis of a loss inside the CmR gene.
> of course the results for the sequencing will gice the last word. They should come on Friday in late afternoon. We called the sequencing facility.
