Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Please help! i attached the accompanying data tables for the questions Type numbered answers to the following questions: 1. Were there differences in the concentrations

Please help! i attached the accompanying data tables for the questions
image text in transcribed
image text in transcribed
image text in transcribed
Type numbered answers to the following questions: 1. Were there differences in the concentrations you calculated by absorbance for the native and denatured protein based on the A280? If so, what could account for the differences? Which condition do you think is more accurate and why? 2. Were there differences in the concentrations you calculated by absorbance for the native and denatured protein based on the A485? If so, what could account for the differences? Which condition do you think is more accurate and why? 3. Were there differences in the concentrations you calculated by A280 and A485? If so, what could account for the differences? Which method do you think is more accurate for measuring the GFP concentration and why? 4. Were there any differences in the fluorescence emission intensity between your native and denatured samples? If so, what could account for the differences? Figures and Tables Table 1: Native GFO Absorbance at 280nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 1 0.558 0.494 2 0.502 0.438 3 0.335 0.271 Average 0.465 0.401 Concentration Standard 0.095 0.095 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, UM ug/L 299 8 266 7 164 4 243 7 57 2. UM Table 2: Denatured GFP Absorbance at 280nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 4 0.349 0.217 5 0.457 0.325 6 0.293 0.161 Average 0.366 0.234 Concentration Standard 0.068 0.068 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, ug/ul 131 4 197 5 97 3 142 4 41 1 Table 3: Native GFP Absorbance at 485nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 4 0.349 0.217 5 0.457 0.325 6 0.293 0.161 Average 0.366 0.234 Concentration Standard 0.068 0.068 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, UM ug/ul 131 4 197 5 97 3 142 4 41 1 Table 4: Denatured GFP Absorbance at 485nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 10 0.035 0.001 11 0.038 0.004 12 0.036 0.002 Average 0.036 0.002 Concentration Standard 0.001 0.001 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, UM g/ 0.2 0.006 0.9 0.024 0.5 0.014 0.5 0.015 0.3 0.007 Table 5: Fluorescent Intensity of GFP Samples Average Standard Intensity Deviation Native 1.7 0.5 buffer GFP Native 320.9 329.1 GFP 319.3 328.6 Native, corrected Denatured 2.0 0.0 Buffer GFP 2.7 0.9 Denatured GFP 0.7 0.9 Denatured, corrected Type numbered answers to the following questions: 1. Were there differences in the concentrations you calculated by absorbance for the native and denatured protein based on the A280? If so, what could account for the differences? Which condition do you think is more accurate and why? 2. Were there differences in the concentrations you calculated by absorbance for the native and denatured protein based on the A485? If so, what could account for the differences? Which condition do you think is more accurate and why? 3. Were there differences in the concentrations you calculated by A280 and A485? If so, what could account for the differences? Which method do you think is more accurate for measuring the GFP concentration and why? 4. Were there any differences in the fluorescence emission intensity between your native and denatured samples? If so, what could account for the differences? Figures and Tables Table 1: Native GFO Absorbance at 280nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 1 0.558 0.494 2 0.502 0.438 3 0.335 0.271 Average 0.465 0.401 Concentration Standard 0.095 0.095 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, UM ug/L 299 8 266 7 164 4 243 7 57 2. UM Table 2: Denatured GFP Absorbance at 280nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 4 0.349 0.217 5 0.457 0.325 6 0.293 0.161 Average 0.366 0.234 Concentration Standard 0.068 0.068 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, ug/ul 131 4 197 5 97 3 142 4 41 1 Table 3: Native GFP Absorbance at 485nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 4 0.349 0.217 5 0.457 0.325 6 0.293 0.161 Average 0.366 0.234 Concentration Standard 0.068 0.068 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, UM ug/ul 131 4 197 5 97 3 142 4 41 1 Table 4: Denatured GFP Absorbance at 485nm Replicate # Raw Blank- Absorbance subtracted absorbance 10 0.035 0.001 11 0.038 0.004 12 0.036 0.002 Average 0.036 0.002 Concentration Standard 0.001 0.001 Deviation Sample Sample concentration, concentration, UM g/ 0.2 0.006 0.9 0.024 0.5 0.014 0.5 0.015 0.3 0.007 Table 5: Fluorescent Intensity of GFP Samples Average Standard Intensity Deviation Native 1.7 0.5 buffer GFP Native 320.9 329.1 GFP 319.3 328.6 Native, corrected Denatured 2.0 0.0 Buffer GFP 2.7 0.9 Denatured GFP 0.7 0.9 Denatured, corrected

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Water Quality Engineering Physical Chemical Treatment Processes

Authors: Mark M. Benjamin, Desmond F. Lawler

1st Edition

1118169654, 9781118169650

More Books

Students also viewed these Chemical Engineering questions