8 thoughts on “C18 – Tukeler

    1. Yes, technically any method could be used to induce DNA damage, like another compound or even UV light. To my knowledge, the reason we went with HU was because it is easy to obtain and effective.

    1. I wouldn’t say it’s the most important, but it is generally the most well-known when it comes to cancer research as it has been studied a lot in the past. RAD51 is involved in DNA damage repair, which is why it is a tumor suppressor gene and loss of heterozygosity would result in cancer.

    1. RFC1 does have homologs in other organisms, including humans. The replication factor C subunit 1 isoform 2 (homo sapiens) has a 38% similarity to the subunit in Tetrahymena Thermophila, which is why we named it RFC-1. R: replication, FC: factor C, and 1: subunit 1. But other homologs that are less significant in other organisms exist as well. The whole gene belongs to the bacteria though and I don’t believe there is a 100% match in any other organism which is usually the case with genes anyway.

    1. I think that our research laid the grounds for future research to be done regarding RFC-1’s role in DNA damage repair. Our last gel which included the DNA damaged RFC-1 and UT RFC-1 had a couple errors in loading/running the PCR which is I think why we didn’t get our expected results. So, the experiment can be repeated in the future to further explore if RFC-1 is truly not involved in DNA damage repair. Also, other DNA damage inducing agents can be used to see if different results are obtained.

Leave a Reply to Alara Tukeler Cancel reply