12 thoughts on “C60 – Renner

  1. Were there any specific journal articles or websites that had research similar to yours? How did they relate to your research in particular?

    1. There was very little knowledge about the Badcp gene on the web. If there was some I would have been able to find it so I could site their information as a source for the poster and final manuscript. Overall, there was very little knowledge about this gene online.

    1. If it has been done before with the Badcp gene, I am not entirely sure. I know my classmates might also be studying this gene. This has been done with other genes such as Rad51. The gene expression analysis of Rad51 shows that Rad51 is involved in the DNA damage repair pathway.

    1. Personally, I would just go a lot slower. There was a lot going on during that lab and we all felt a bit rushed during it, if we had more time I think our results would have been more conclusive.

    1. Again, I would just try to go slower, we were so rushed during this specific lab. We also did lots of things that could have messed up the data. I’m pretty sure we completely put the wrong concentrations in a couple of tubes, so we had to restart after that making the rest of the lab super rushed. Because we were so rushed I think there might have been more room for error but, we felt that our data was conclusive enough and we did not go in and try to redo our lab.

  2. It seems that a few groups have had similar issues with contamination in their experiment. What exactly would you change about the experiment design in the future to prevent such contamination?

    1. I do not necessarily think there is anything wrong with the experimental design, I just think that I messed up something in the data that lead to contamination. I think this relates to the time we have in lab, I think if I spent a bit more time and just went slower our results would have no contamination.

  3. Thanks for your presentation! Why might you see the increased expression of the Badcp gene during DNA damage repair if it is not involved in DNA damage response? In other words, what is an alternative explanation for this increase in transcription?

    1. This is a great question. Our data suggests that this gene shows minimal involvement in the repair pathway, so why does this gene have an increased expression during cell damage? Honestly, I have no idea, it could be because of many different reasons and this requires further study of this gene. It could have something to do with this gene’s protein domain. Badcp has a GTP binding protein domain where it will choose to bind to GTP rather than GDP in the cytosol. Maybe DNA damage in Tetrahymena thermophila cells makes Badcp bind to GTP, so maybe more Badcp needs to be expressed so it can bind to more GTP, but this also raises the question about why GTP needs to be bound. To answer your question in simple terms, I am not entirely sure and I think we would have to study this gene a bit more to figure this out, but this is a great question!

Leave a Reply