Laboratory 1 Report Chemosynthesis
Name Section
Hypothesis/ Introduction
Given the conditions of primitive earth, such as a reducing atmosphere, energy from ultraviolet radiation, and the presence of H2, methane, ammonia, water, and formaldehyde simple biological monomers such as amino acids could have been formed. These simple monomers with the addition of heat energy, such as from volcanic activity could then form polymers such as polypeptides.
Data and Observations:
Part A Chromatography Results: If there is no stain there is no R.F. value.
Distance to solvent front from baseline (mm)
|
Compound |
Stain(s) color |
Distance migrated(mm) |
R.F Value |
|
H2CO3 |
|||
|
NH4OH |
|||
|
Glucose |
|||
|
Glycine |
|||
|
Aspartic Acid |
|||
|
Proline |
|||
|
Experimental* |
|||
* May have more than one amino acid.
B. Polymer Synthesis: Polypeptides
|
Biuret Test Results Tube |
Observations |
|
Blank |
|
|
Experimental |
Conclusions:
Lab Report 2 Biochemistry of Milk Parts I &II
Name Section
Introduction (Hypothesis)
Data and Observations:
A. Analysis of Fraction 1
Sudan IV Test Results
|
Tube |
Observations |
|
Control H2O |
|
|
Fraction 1 |
Thin Layer Chromatogram Drawing
Biuret Test Results:
|
Fraction |
Blank |
F2 |
F3 |
F4 |
F5 |
Dialysate |
Sac Contents |
|
Color |
|
Carbohydrate Analysis
|
Color |
Blank |
F2 |
F3 |
F4 |
F5 |
Dialysate |
Sac Contents |
|
Benedicts |
|
||||||
|
Barfoeds |
|
Chromatography Results:
Distance to solvent Front (mm)
|
Substance |
Distance Migrated(mm) |
RF Value |
|
Alanine |
||
|
Aspartic Acid |
||
|
Lysine |
||
|
Proline |
||
|
Histidine |
||
|
Methionie |
||
|
F2 Digest |
||
|
F2 Control |
||
|
F3 Digest |
||
|
F3 Control |
Conclusions:
Lab Report 3 Enzymes and Enzyme Kinetics
Name Section
Hypothesis/Introduction
Amylase is a digestive enzyme that breaks bonds in starch to form glucose. It is found in a wide variety of organisms from bacteria, to humans. Since amylase is protein enzyme it should behave in a predictable way to pH, temperature, enzyme concentration in relation to substrate concentration as other enzymes that are proteins. In addition it should also have an optimal pH and temperature based on its protein properties and the organism that utilizes it.
Data and Observations:
Effects of Enzyme Concentration
|
Concentration |
Time to endpoint |
Reaction Rate (1/time to endpoint) |
|
10% |
||
|
5% |
||
|
2% |
||
|
1% |
Effects of Temperature on reaction Rate of Amylase at a Concentration of %
|
Temperature ( ° C) |
Time to Endpoint |
Reaction Rate (1/time to endpoint) |
|
0 |
Too slow to measure |
Close to 0 |
|
10 |
||
|
2? Room temp |
||
|
37 |
||
|
50 |
||
|
100 |
Never (why?) |
0 |
Effects of pH on Reaction Rate of Amylase at a concentration of %
|
pH of buffer |
Time to endpoint |
Reaction Rate ( 1/time to endpoint) |
|
3.4 |
||
|
5.0 |
||
|
6.8 |
||
|
8.0 |
Attached: 3 Graphs of the above three tables with the y-axis reaction rate and the x-axis is graph: 1. enzyme concentration, 2. Temperature, and 3. pH.
Conclusions:
Enzyme Inhibition: The Effects of Malonate on Succinyldehydrogenase
Introduction/Hypothesis
During the Kreb's Cycle in cellular respiration the enzyme succinyl-dehrogenase converts succinate to fumarate and yields energy by converting FAD to FADH2. As in many enzymatic reactions there is feedback control and malonate is suspected to be an inhibitor of this reaction. Since it is similar in structure to fumerate, I postulate that it will act as a competitive inhibitor by binding to the active site on the enzyme. The reaction rate will be affected mainly by the concentrations of the substrate and the inhibitor. If it is a noncompetitive inhibitor the reaction rate would be most affected by enzyme and inhibitor concentration as it would be binding to a different site on the enzyme. To test this we will use isolated ruptured mitochondria from germinating peas, which have a large number of active mitochondria.
Data and Observations:
|
Tube |
Pea Extract |
Succinate |
Malonate |
Phosphate Buffer |
Dye |
Description |
|
1 |
None |
2 ml |
None |
3 ml |
1 ml |
Blank control |
|
2 |
1 ml |
2 ml |
None |
2 ml |
1 ml |
Uninhibited control |
|
3 |
1 ml |
2 ml |
2 ml |
None |
1 ml |
Substrate = inhibitor |
|
4 |
1 ml |
2 ml |
1 ml |
1 ml |
1 ml |
Substrate > inhibitor |
|
5 |
1ml |
1 ml |
2 ml |
1 ml |
1 ml |
Substrate < inhibitor |
|
6 |
1 ml |
No additional |
2 ml |
2 ml |
1 ml |
No added substrate |
Comparison of tube color: no blue to most blue. Tube # and time it went colorless min.
|
Tube |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Color when 1st tube had no blue |
Darkest Blue Blank Control |
Conclusions:
Lab Report 4 Cells and Transport
Name Section .
Introduction and Hypothesis
Data and Observations
A. Diffusion Rates
|
Solute |
Molecular Weight |
Distance Moved mm |
Diffusion Rate mm/day |
|
K2Cr2O |
249.19 |
||
|
Methylene Blue |
319.87 |
||
|
Congo Red |
696.66 |
Observations
B. Osmosis (Water 1 ml/gram)
|
Tube Sugar Conc. |
Initial Weight grams |
Final Weight grams |
Notes about volume changes |
|
5%
|
|||
|
10%
|
|||
|
20%
|
|||
|
40%
|
|||
|
0%
|
C. Movement Across a Semipermeable Membrane
Outside the Sac Inside the Sac
|
Time (min) |
Eosin |
Starch |
Cl- |
SO4- |
|
5 |
NA |
|||
|
10 |
NA |
|||
|
20 |
Conclusions:
Lab Report 5 Respiration
Name Section .
Introduction/ Hypotheses:
A. Oxygen Consumption in Plants and Animals
B. Effect of Substrate on Respiration in Yeast
Data and Observations:
A. Oxygen Consumption in Plants & Animals
Oxygen Reading in ppm at time (min)
|
Organism |
Weight Grams |
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
Total Oxygen Consumption
|
Organism |
Total O2 in 20 min |
O2 consumed/ gram body weight |
Other observations |
Conclusions:
B. The Effect of Substrate on Respiration in Yeast
Data & Observations:
Level of Fluid in tube (mm)
|
Time (min) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
0 |
NC |
|||||||
|
10 |
NC |
|||||||
|
20 |
NC |
|||||||
|
30 |
NC |
|||||||
|
40 |
NC |
|||||||
|
50 |
NC |
|||||||
|
60 |
NC |
|||||||
|
Notes
|
||||||||
|
Sugar |
H2O |
Glu |
Fru |
Gal |
NS* |
Lac |
Malt |
Suc |
*NutriSweet
tI-tj
Tube Change in Volume vtI - vtj (mm)|
Time Period min |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
0-10 |
||||||||
|
10-20 |
||||||||
|
20-30 |
||||||||
|
30-40 |
||||||||
|
40-50 |
||||||||
|
50-60 |
||||||||
|
Total 0-60 |
||||||||
|
Water |
glu |
fru |
gal |
NS |
malt |
lac |
Suc |
Conclusions:
Lab Report 6 Photosynthesis
Name Section .
Introduction/ Hypothesis
The absorption spectrum of photosynthetic pigments should demonstrate the actual wavelengths (nm) of light utilized by the chloroplasts during photosynthesis. This should be verified by the actual action spectrum using live chloroplasts and an indicator dye that is reduced by H+ ions during the light reactions of photosynthesis.
A. Data and Observations: Absorption Spectrum Analysis
1. Observations on the Four Pigments:
(color and movement during chromatography )
2. Spectrum Analysis of the Four Pigments
Absorbence
|
Wavelength (nm) |
Chlorophyll a |
Chlorophyll b |
Xanthophyll |
b Carotene |
|
420 |
||||
|
440 |
||||
|
460 |
||||
|
480 |
||||
|
500 |
||||
|
520 |
||||
|
540 |
||||
|
560 |
||||
|
580 |
||||
|
600 |
||||
|
620 |
||||
|
640 |
||||
|
680 |
||||
|
700 |
||||
See Attached graph of absorbence spectrum data (y-axis = absorbence, x-axis = wavelength (nm) )
B. Action Spectrum Analysis of Living Isolated Chloroplasts
(The light filter only lets light of that wavelength to pass through to the
chloroplasts)
|
Light Filter |
Observations: Dye Reduction |
|
Red |
|
|
Blue |
|
|
Yellow |
Dye was reduced but not to the extent that it was in full light, red, and blue light |
|
Green |
|
|
Full Light |
|
|
Foil Covered No Light |
Conclusions:
Lab Report Module 11 Natural Genetic Engineering
Name Section .
Introduction/ Hypothesis:
Data and Observations:
Genetic Engineering Data Table (Number and appearance of colonies)
|
Nutrient Agar Only Control |
Nutrient Agar + chloramphenicol |
Nutrient Agar + Rifampicin |
Nutrient Agar + Chloamphnicol & Rifampicin |
|
Donor Ht 99
|
|||
|
Recipient J-53 R
|
|||
|
Mating Mixture after 4 Hours
|
|||
|
Mating Mixture after 6 hours |
Conclusions:
Modules 9 & 10 Lab Reports Drosophila Genetics I & II
Name Section .
Introduction/Hypothesis:
With its four large chromosomes and quick generation time Drosophila melanogaster should be a very useful organism for genetic studies. Our research will show that given recessive mutations for monohybrid, dihybrid, sex linked and autosomal linkage will behave as a good model for genetic research. By using a known marker we should be able to determine which chromosome a recessive allele is on. The traits we have chosen are: autosomal monohybrid , autosomal dihybrid , sex linked . In addition we will be determining which chromosome our autosomal mutation is on. We further believe that black body and vestigial wings are possibly linked. Analysis of crosses should illustrate this and tell us how many map units they are part. Data will be analyzed using the standard Chi- Square Test (X2).
Data and Observations:
I. Sex Linkage
Mutation P1 Female X wild type male Date mated:
F1 Observed data combined counts from the entire section. Date counted:
|
Phenotypes |
Number of Males |
Number of Females |
Total Flies Counted |
|
Wild type |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Grand Total |
Expected phenotypic ratio: .
Expected Number of Flies based on total flies observed
|
Phenotype |
Males |
Females |
|
Wild |
0 |
|
|
0 |
Chi- Square Results
Degrees of freedom = 1
X2 =
Probability =
F2 Generation Sex Linked Data Counts F1 female X F2 Male Date mated:
Observed Data Entire Section's Counts Date Counted:
|
Phenotype |
Males |
Females |
|
Wild |
||
|
Total |
Expected phenotypic ratio: .
Expected Number of Flies Based on Total F2 Counts
|
Phenotype |
Males |
Females |
|
Wild |
||
Chi Square Analysis Results:
Degrees of Freedom . X2 = .Probability = .
II. Data Monohybrid Inheritance
Mutation P1 Female X Wild Male Date mated:
F1 Generation expected and observed phenotypic ratios: all wild
F2 Generation Counts Monohybrid F1 female X F1 male Date mated:
Observed F2 Data Entire Section's Counts Date counted:
|
Phenotype |
Total |
|
Wild |
|
|
Grand Total |
Expected phenotypic ratio: .
Expected Number Based on F2 Counts
|
Phenotype |
Total |
|
Wild |
|
Chi Square Analysis Results:
Degrees of Freedom = 1 X2 = Probability = .
III. Data Dihybrid Inheritance
Mutations P1 Female X wild type male Date mated:
F1 female X F1 male Date mated: F1 phenotypes all wild
Observed F2 Generation Data Dihybrid Section's Counts Date counted:
|
Phenotype |
Total |
|
Wild |
|
|
Grand Total |
Expected phenotypic ratio: .
Expected number of Flies Based on Total F2 Counts
|
Phenotype |
Total |
|
Wild |
|
Chi Square Analysis results:
Degrees of Freedom = X2 = . Probability = .
IV. Marker Determination of the Location of the Autosomal Monohybrid Mutation
B- .
Phenotypic Counts F1 Data from P1 Virgin female X marker male
|
Phenotype |
Males |
Females |
Total |
|
Curly Dichaete |
|||
|
Curly Stubble |
|||
|
Plum Dichaete |
|||
|
Plum Stubble |
Phenotypes of F1 male .X virgin mutant female .
Date mated: .
F2 Phenotypic Data Section's Counts
|
Phenotype |
# Counted (sex is not important) |
Only people with a mutation on the 4th chromosome will have 8 phenotypes.
V. Data Autosomal Linkage of Black Body and Vestigial Wings
Number of Flies Per Phenotype
|
Lab Group |
wild |
Black: vestigial |
Vestigial |
Black |
|
1 |
||||
|
2 |
||||
|
3 |
||||
|
4 |
||||
|
5 |
||||
|
6 |
||||
|
7 |
||||
|
Grand total |
||||
|
% of total |
Number Expected without Crossing Over Based on actual totals
|
Number |
Wild |
Black Vestigial |
Vestigial |
Black |
|
0 |
0 |
% recombinants . Estimated Map Distance .
Conclusions: Modules 9 & 10 Drosophila Genetics
Lab Report Module 12 Human DNA Fingerprinting of an Alu Insertion in TPA- 25
Introduction/Hypothesis ( Should deal the genotypic and allelic frequencies of the presence or absence of the Alu TPA-25 insertion in your small section population and the entire larger population of Bio 151 and their comparison to the expected frequencies. Affect of size on Hardy- Weinberg calculations. Expected genotypic frequencies for the U.S. are as follows: homozygous present (+/+) 20.25%, heterozygous (+/-) 49.50%, and homozygous absent (-/-) 30.25%.)
Data and Observations: Number of Individuals
|
Section |
Total Overall |
Homozygous (+.+) |
Heterozygous (+,-) |
Homozygous (-,-) |
|
001 |
||||
|
002 |
||||
|
003 |
||||
|
004 |
||||
|
005 |
||||
|
006 |
||||
|
007 |
||||
|
008 |
||||
|
009 |
||||
|
010 |
||||
|
011 |
||||
|
012 |
||||
|
013 |
||||
|
014 |
||||
|
401 |
||||
|
402 |
||||
|
Grant Total |
Expected frequencies of the Alu genotypes: +/+ = 0.2025, +/- = 0.4950, and -/- = 0.3025.
The Results of Calculations of the Genotypic Frequencies of Alu Insertion
|
Genotype |
Your Section |
Entire Bio 151 Population |
|
+/+ Homozygous |
||
|
+/- Heterozygous |
||
|
-/- Homozygous |
The Results of Calculating the Allelic Frequencies
|
Allele |
Your Section |
Entire Bio 151 Population |
|
Present (+) |
||
|
Absent (-) |
Genetic Frequency Data and Chi Square Results
|
Observed your section |
Expected Your Section |
Observed All of Bio 151 |
Expected All of Bio 151 |
|
|
Homozygous (+/+) |
||||
|
Heterozygous (+/-) |
||||
|
Homozygous (-/-) |
||||
|
Degrees of Freedom |
||||
|
X2 Value |
||||
|
Probability |
Conclusions: