8 thoughts on “C89 – Pasumansky

  1. Could you possibly use another type of bacteria for this same experiment and get the same outcome?

    1. T. Thermophilia is actually a eukaryotic ciliate not a bacteria! This experiment could be performed with other model organisms; however, since T. thermophilia has such a robust DNA damage repair pathway and since T. thermophilia is very well characterized it really is the best candidate.

  2. Hey Isaac, you did a great job at explaining the overall experiment and what procedures were conducted. My only question is why do you think that the bands are so much brighter in the primer design gel and so dim in the damage induced gel?

    1. That’s actually due to the program (FIGI) we used to analyze the gels. In the primer validation the intensity was just set higher than in the DNA damage gel so it resulted in much brighter bands.

  3. Hi!
    I’m not sure if I missed it, but could you explain how you got the quantification bar graph? Where is this data from?
    Great job!

    1. That data came from an analytical software called FIGI that allowed us to put numbers on band intensity. Then those numbers had the background subtracted from them and were normalized to allow for easy comparison.

  4. Your presentation and overall experimental process sounds super interesting! What do you think is the reason for the discrepancies between your results and the consensus gel?

    1. My best guess is likely that there was some issue with loading in our gel which resulted in dimmer bands for the untreated lanes, but it is interesting that our loading control showed expected results. There really isn’t a way to know for sure until replication of this experiment is done.

Leave a Reply