We used Primer3plus, NCBI Blast interface, and Benchling software to design the primers. Benchling gave us a visual of where our possible primers would anneal in the Badcp genome (cDNA and gDNA). Figure 1A is the gene expression profile of a known DNA damage repair protein RAD51 and we compared it to the gene expression profile of our specific gene, figure 1B, and saw that they had peaks in similar places. This led us to hypothesize that our gene could be involved in DNA damage repair.
Hi! Great presentation! I was wondering in context to your hypothesis and research conducted, was their previous experiments or scientific studies published on the expression of the Bad CP gene? and how did this impact the formulation of your hypothesis?
There was no previous studies or experiments on our gene that we could find. The closest study we found to our gene was a study on RAD51 which has been confirmed as a DNA damage repair protein. We got the gene expression profiles of both RAD51 and Badcp from ciliates.org and saw how they had peaks in similar peaks and troughs, which led to our hypothesis.
Looking the cDNA in figure 2 we saw that both bands, before and after DNA damage, had extremally similar expression levels, which was show by the brightness of the band. We also saw that with RAD51, a known DNA damage repair protein, that expression should increase after DNA damage if the gene is involved with DNA damage repair. Since the expression of our gene remained the same we concluded that it is not involved with DNA damage repair.
My question is this: Why was Rad51 used in your experiments and in the gel? It seems pretty important to the research but I am just a bit unclear on the reasoning for analyzing this protein.
When you were talking about Figure 2 and you said that the bands were exactly what you expected to see, what about them was what you expected? What would it have looked like if the primers didn’t anneal to the Badcp gene?
Sorry I thought I had mentioned the band sizes of the expected results. For cDNA our expected band size was roughly around 300 bp and slightly above 500 bp for gDNA.
My previous comment is not posting so I will try again, forgive me if you get 2. I was curious what is the purpose of analyzing the protein Rad51, which was not the protein of interest.
curesymposium.org 
How did you determine which primers to use to ensure that it would anneal in figure 1a?
LikeLike
We used Primer3plus, NCBI Blast interface, and Benchling software to design the primers. Benchling gave us a visual of where our possible primers would anneal in the Badcp genome (cDNA and gDNA). Figure 1A is the gene expression profile of a known DNA damage repair protein RAD51 and we compared it to the gene expression profile of our specific gene, figure 1B, and saw that they had peaks in similar places. This led us to hypothesize that our gene could be involved in DNA damage repair.
LikeLike
Hi! Great presentation! I was wondering in context to your hypothesis and research conducted, was their previous experiments or scientific studies published on the expression of the Bad CP gene? and how did this impact the formulation of your hypothesis?
LikeLike
There was no previous studies or experiments on our gene that we could find. The closest study we found to our gene was a study on RAD51 which has been confirmed as a DNA damage repair protein. We got the gene expression profiles of both RAD51 and Badcp from ciliates.org and saw how they had peaks in similar peaks and troughs, which led to our hypothesis.
LikeLike
What important results came from the gel images of the cDNA?
LikeLike
Looking the cDNA in figure 2 we saw that both bands, before and after DNA damage, had extremally similar expression levels, which was show by the brightness of the band. We also saw that with RAD51, a known DNA damage repair protein, that expression should increase after DNA damage if the gene is involved with DNA damage repair. Since the expression of our gene remained the same we concluded that it is not involved with DNA damage repair.
LikeLike
Figure 3 not figure 2, sorry.
LikeLike
Hey there Katie,
My question is this: Why was Rad51 used in your experiments and in the gel? It seems pretty important to the research but I am just a bit unclear on the reasoning for analyzing this protein.
Thank you!
Jake Carter
LikeLike
We used RAD51 in our experiments as it’s a known DNA damage repair protein and could act as a positive control.
LikeLike
When you were talking about Figure 2 and you said that the bands were exactly what you expected to see, what about them was what you expected? What would it have looked like if the primers didn’t anneal to the Badcp gene?
LikeLike
Sorry I thought I had mentioned the band sizes of the expected results. For cDNA our expected band size was roughly around 300 bp and slightly above 500 bp for gDNA.
LikeLike
Hi Katie,
My previous comment is not posting so I will try again, forgive me if you get 2. I was curious what is the purpose of analyzing the protein Rad51, which was not the protein of interest.
Thank you,
Jake Carter
LikeLike
Why does the Bart domain bind to the ARL2
LikeLike