Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

Impossible astronaut - impossible experiences in a lab


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,201 posts
109
Excellent

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:01 AM

Hi all,
have you ever encountered something in your work that was just "impossible" to be happening?
Like samples running positive when they missed the key ingredient, really unprobable things hapenning together, poltergeits in a lab screwing the samples mysteriously (Posted Image), or just anything you find just sooo strange.
If you found an explanation for this "impossible" thing later, share it also.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will start. (sorry it's a pretty long story, but I thing it's worth it.. hope it's worth it.. you can't tell these stories at home, for obvious reasons Posted Image )

I'm optimising two melting curve genotyping assays. If you don't know the method, it uses two adjacent hybridisation probes, like this (on left, Simple probe has a different principle).
Posted Image

Basically one of the probes stays attached (anchor) and the other dissociates depending on the complementarity (sensor), mismatched nucleotide causes earlier dissociation during the slow temperature increase. The mutation you want to detect lies within the sensor sequence. You can see in the graph the genotypes that differ in Tm of the sensor. In my case one probe is 3' Fluorescein, that get's excited and the other one is 5' LC640 that you see emitting in the 640 channel. The energy gets transfered through FRET.

Now obviously you can get signal only when these two are together, because otherwise only fluorescein probe is emitting, in a different channel.

As I said I had two completely different assays on different genes, but was optimising them together. I told my technician all the details and gave her a design scheme for both assays. There were names of the primers and probes and so.
The test run on two samples was positive in only one of the genes, the other one failed I didn't know why, but even the positive result was very very ugly and had a low fluorescence levels. Anyway it was distinguishable, so I desided to run all 10 samples I had, hoping to find a heterozygote or mutant (I only had patients with high risk of this polymorphism, no positive control) to get the second peak, and then continue to optimise on the samples with different genotypes only, to save the reagents and templates. One sample of 10 showed the heterozygote pattern, so I choose this one and one wild-type for further tests.

Then I got to work on this myself on Saturday because the technician left for vacation, I found out, that she took anchor probe from one assay and sensor probe from the other assay, so the appropriate pairs in reactions were unmatched. So in each reaction, there were two fluorescent probes, that binded different genes and therefore they couldn't ever get near each other to transfer the energy and give a signal.

I was happy to find out where the problem was and prepared the reactions the right way. I got nice results on both assays, this time the fluorescence was all right and everything. Just one weird thing, the sample heterozygous in the previous bad run, was now wild-type and not heterozygote.

I went back to analysing what actually was in each reaction in the previous failed experiments, I thought originally that in the "positive" assay, there was the corresponding sensor probe, and from some strange reason it did emit fluorescence on it's own and detected the polymorphism in question. But I found out that in the reaction 1) there was actually the corresponding anchor probe 2) the anchor probe has fluorescein marker. Huh? Posted Image

So how can fluorescein probe be visible in the 640 channel? The answer to this is probably more simple, there is some part of fluorescein spectra overlaping to the 640 channel. Since there was no other signal, this very low, almost background showed as a distinguishable peaks. OK...
But how can an anchor probe (that lies adjacent to the place of polymorphism and should contain no mutations) show heterozygote pattern? I looked into the sequence of the gene in question and did indeed found an intronic polymorphysm within the sequence of anchor probe. That's why the sample with the right probes showed as wild-type, it was heterozygous in a different polymorphism.

So what happend is due to the mixed up reactions, I detected a polymorphism different than was the assay designed to find Posted Image
Now, isn't this impossible? Posted Image
(if you ask whether this would cause potential problem with other samples having this intronic polymorphism, then it probably wouldn't, the sensor probe is designed to have lower Tm than anchor [which is called anchor logically because it stays there, while the other dissociates] and the Tm pattern for the right pair of probes is much lower that any variation in binding of the anchor)



And by the way, the name of the topic "Impossible astronaut" comes from a great sci-fi series Doctor Who, if you love science-fiction and fun, you shouldn't mis it!

Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#2 Inbox

Inbox

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 331 posts
21
Excellent

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:32 AM

My Gel casting tray one flap broke. we joined it again by using chloroform. I will say chloroform is fevi-quick in this case atleast.

#3 mdfenko

mdfenko

    an elder

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,805 posts
133
Excellent

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:56 AM

My Gel casting tray one flap broke. we joined it again by using chloroform. I will say chloroform is fevi-quick in this case atleast.

are you sure it wasn't methylene chloride?
talent does what it can
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do

#4 Inbox

Inbox

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 331 posts
21
Excellent

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:33 AM

I used Chloroform. But if somebody going to try, please handle carefully (anaesthetic action). do not touch pipette tip to tray or if it touched do not reinsert in chloroform.

Is methylene chloride has similar property?

Edited by prabhubct, 20 October 2012 - 06:43 AM.


#5 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,539 posts
101
Excellent

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:13 AM

the anaesthetic action is the smallest problem I'd care about when using it...anyway a safe handling also minimises that problem...
I guess you dissolved the plastics parts partly and then pressed the parts together? Methylene chloride is less toxic alternative, but not everybody has it in the lab...Posted Image

One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

That is....if she posts at all.


#6 Inbox

Inbox

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 331 posts
21
Excellent

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:54 AM

Not in my lab research or something. Animal ethics issue may be, but don't raise it, I will say its hypothetical thenPosted Image .

If cobra comes in accidental contact with phenol it dies. I don't know mechanism of action but it may be its corrosive action and suffocation. May be at drainage site of chemical waste less chance of finding reptiles (or cobra atleast ). It may be of some use in environmental studies.

#7 Inbox

Inbox

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 331 posts
21
Excellent

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:08 AM

Today people were using Phenyl to draw cobra out of it's hole. It did not kill just helped to drive it out of its hole.

Edited by prabhubct, 26 October 2012 - 05:39 AM.





Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.