9 thoughts on “C14 – Brent

  1. What do you think some of your possible contaminations could have been a result from? And what other genes do you think you would look at?

    1. The contaminations can derive from the enviornment in which it they were stored. Since our PCR tubes were stored next to other researchers’ tubes, bacteria from handling/touching the tubes (especially the lids) could have somehow gotten into our samples. To examine other genes, I think putting our gene into the phamerator and finding properities that are identical to other genes of Tetrahymena should be looked out.

    1. Binding to gDNA is a result of a contamination because we used the method of reverse transcription PCR where the +RT/-RT controls are amplified through the template DNA, cDNA. If the samples bind at gDNA, this is binding to a non-specific amplification which means the sample was contaminated.

    1. We used reverse transcription because we want to convert RNA to DNA since working with RNA is complicated and having DNA bands allows us to see if the specific gene primers induced with DNA Damage can be quantified in order to determine the expression on whether it is involved in the DNA damage repair pathway.

    1. Honestly, I’m not so sure because when we had our gene assigned, there was little to no information in regards to our gene (for example: no domains, annotations, etc…). Because the data is not signficant in our research to conclude that it is involved in DNA damage repair, I believe maybe it’s role could be related to hereditary information? Maybe something that is a component of genetic materials?

  2. Do you personally believe that Hypedc3 has any future implications in research? Or were you unable to really decide that with what was done?

Leave a Reply