9 thoughts on “D7C – Gruidel

  1. If the compound has been shown to cause apoptosis (good if you want to kill cancer cells) and an antioxidant (bad if you want to use radiation), what do you think the “real” result is? You mention this in your discussion but I’m curious about what you think you might see if you repeat these experiments and the food doesn’t dry out. -Pam

    1. Hi Pam! As you pointed out the compound does have conflicting properties for this experiment. During our research there seemed to be great potential of Quercetin due to its ability to induce apoptosis and its antioxidant properties, however since the goal was to test a compound as a potential form of multimodal treatment then the fact that it is an antioxidant which interferes with radiation means I would not consider this compound a hit. On its own Quercetin has potential, but it does not fulfill the goal of this experiment and our results, though I did state were inconclusive, indicate that to be true. If we did repeat these experiments with the correction of adding water to the food to prevent it from drying out, I think we would see similar results to the data found on 3/22. Shown at the highest concentration of 1mg/ml we see that there was a survival rate of about 75%. This shows that the compound acted as a radiation protector. At smaller concentrations in this set of data we do see a lower survival rate, but due to the fact that this compound is an antioxidant I believe that no matter its concentration it will act as a radiation protector. I believe that repeating this experiment will prove this to be true.

    1. Hi Sam! Our results were inconclusive based on the vastly different data we got from each dilution series. That being said, there was a slight indication that Quercetin would be a radiation protector. Meaning that it would not react well as a cancer treatment since it cannot work as a part of compound therapy (on the graph showing the results of the dilution series from 3/29 at our highest concentration of 1mg/ml there was a survival rating of about 80%, so here it actually did the opposite it was not killing the cancer, the third instar larvae on its own, and since we expect the radiation to have a 50% survival rate, that means the compound was inhibiting the radiation). Since it was indicated that the compound does not react well with radiation we would need further testing (testing the compound on non radiated larvae) to see how it interacts with cancer alone.

  2. What implications in your research results would lead you to conclude that Quercetin is toxic?

    1. Hi Alden! Further research is needed to figure out exactly if Quercetin is toxic, and at what concentration it becomes toxic. That being said, based on our results from 3/29 and 3/31 there was not a single concentration that provided a hit. At the highest concentration we tested at, 1 mg/ml, we actually see a slightly higher survival rate compared to the other concentration in both dilution series. Besides the indication that Quercetin is a radiation protector, the marginal difference of survival rate in both dilution series shows an odd jump from 1mg/ml to 0.5 mg/ml which could potentially mean the compound is less effective at higher concentrations. This does not necessarily mean that the compound is toxic at higher concentrations but it is something to look into based on these results.

  3. How did you chose to use DMSO for your negative control and Colchicine for a positive control?

    1. Hi Katie! These were the provided controls that were used in uniform for the entire class, but these were chosen for multiple reasons! Colchicine, the positive control, is a known chemotherapy so we knew that it would almost always have a survival rate of 0% which is helpful to compare potential compounds to. It is not still used today to to its extreme effectiveness but for the purposes of this lab it is useful. The negative control, DMSO, has a main focus of being a almost neutral base, sometimes for negative controls people use water, because it does not interfere with the results in any way. The goal of the negative control in this experiment was really to show the percent survival rate of the third instar larvae after radiation. That is why the survival rate of the negative control was 50%, this was our main indicator on if the compound was a hit, as it would show if the compound interacted synchronously with the radiation.

Leave a Reply