Friday, January 10, 2014
Experimental Question Analysis
Our data showed us that based on the pollen species we looked at there was no clear distinction between the perennial and annual flowers pollen. Our hypothesis was that the perennials would have a greater quantity of pollen than the annuals. However our data and experiment didn't allow us to see this part, the pollen was not visible enough on the actual plant to get an idea. When viewing the pollen on the stub there seemed to be a similar amount with all the samples. Our other prediction was that the perennials would have a different structure or appearance than the annual. However, this was was not supported in our findings, all of the pollen grains had a different surface appearance and shape. The two that had the closest texture were the Winter Pansy (annual) and Red Tulip (perennial), but the surface textures were only similar not the same. When we looked into our plants further we found that the Alstromeria and the Red Tulip (perennials) shared a distant ancestor with the Winter Pansy (annual) supporting our hypothesis that annuals and perennials are very different. We found this data by creating a protein phylogenetic tree based on the rubisco protein. This means that based on the experiment we conducted, based on appearance, we were not able to make any conclusions, and we did not have enough evidence to support our hypothesis.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Analysis of Phylogenetic Trees
Our trees differ from one another. Our hypothesis was that the Winter Pansy, an annual flower, would have different pollen/shape than the perennial flowers. However, the trees we made showed that the Winter Pansy was more related to the perennials than they were to each other. The tree we made is based solely on appearance, where as the protein sequence tree is based on the amino acids of the rubisco protein inside the flowers. The uniprot tree shows that the Winter Pansy is less closely related to the perennials, which stem from a similar ancestor. So our hypothesis was almost correct. The Winter Pansy differs on a genetic level but not on appeareance level.
Error Analysis
Our experiment went fairly well, however one error was that we were only able to use the pollen from three flowers. Specifically we only had one annual flower's (Winter Pansy) pollen to study; on the other hand we were able to look at the pollen of two perennials. Essentially this means that we didn't have comparisons for both types of pollen, having another annual pollen would have allowed for better analysis between the pollen of perennial and annual flowers. With more pollen we also could have had more trials, because we only had one try. Another issue we had was that the pollen was very hard to see, especially because the flowers were broken into a mess of pieces. We had to guess where to collect pollen from, and because we could not see the pollen we had to hope we got a good sample.
We also have to consider that the sample could have been contaminated, the pollen we collected off the flower could have belonged to another plant. The specimen could have contained pollen carried to it by the wind, or by an animal. We also could have contaminated the species ourselves; the pollen collecting brushes could have accidentally been mixed between species, crossing the pollen.
Another place for error could have been the SEM stub, we had to focus very closely on a small area on the stub, it was difficult to look around a lot. We could have also mixed pollen on the stub, due to its small size, the compressed air blowing and the larger size of the pollen collecting brush.
There is always room for error in an experiment, we did our best to avoid mistakes as much as possible. If we do this project again we know what we would change in order to make this experiment more accurate.
We also have to consider that the sample could have been contaminated, the pollen we collected off the flower could have belonged to another plant. The specimen could have contained pollen carried to it by the wind, or by an animal. We also could have contaminated the species ourselves; the pollen collecting brushes could have accidentally been mixed between species, crossing the pollen.
Another place for error could have been the SEM stub, we had to focus very closely on a small area on the stub, it was difficult to look around a lot. We could have also mixed pollen on the stub, due to its small size, the compressed air blowing and the larger size of the pollen collecting brush.
There is always room for error in an experiment, we did our best to avoid mistakes as much as possible. If we do this project again we know what we would change in order to make this experiment more accurate.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Procedure
Steps to SEM sample:
1) Place the carbon tape in the center of your stub
2) Get your tweezers and make three sections for your three pollen samples (one paint brush for each plant pollen)
3) Once you have divided your stud, collect pollen from your plant and place it on your stub. Do this buy dipping your paint brush in each pollen sample and dabb it onto the desired area on your pollen stub
4)
When you have all three pollen samples, spray liquid air in a circular
motion starting from 1.5 feet to 2in. Do this multiple times to make
sure access pollen is removed and will not damage the SEM
5) Place your stub in the cup from the SEM. Twist it to the left till it is level to the cup
6) Once you hear the "click", spin the top of your cup four times to the right
7) Place the cup into the SEM by holding onto the handle on the cup and wait for the green light to come on
8) Gently push down the door and press the "maze" button
9) Then map your sample by pressing the "map" button
10) Press settings, label, and enter your plant name, period number and first initials of your teammates
11) Start scanning your pollen sample by pressing the plus sign
12) To focus on your image use "A", and to contrast, it is above the focus button
13) To zoom, turn the knob to the right
14) To take pictures press the camera button
15) To measure, press on "Archive" and select on the picture you are wanting to measure
16) Press on the ruler and press on the two locations you are wanting to measure from and save the picture
17) When you are done taking pictures and measuring them, press the eject button and conferm with the check mark
18) Wait for it to unlock and open the door and pull the cup out
19) Twist the top of the cup clockwise and and when the stub is to the top, pull the stub out
20) Place your stub in the box and the cup on-top of the SEM
How we gathered pollen: We
gathered pollen from winter pansy, red tulip and alstroemeria. Flowers
were dried and placed in a small container (provided by Ms.Lindahl). A
small paint brush designated for each flower is then dipped in the
container to gather the small pollen grains.
Equipment:
Leica - We used the Leica microscope to get our 35x pictures. How the Leica microscope works is the microscope is connected to a computer. You place your pollen or flower on the microscope stage and the image come up onto the computer. You can adjust the light and focus settings to make your image sharper. The Leica images focuses on one specific item and blurs the outsiders.
SEM - We used the SEM Phenom FEI to get more in depth images of our plants pollen. On the SEM we got images ranging from 340x to 5450x. We could see the shape and measure the size of our pollen and even get a close up look on the surface of our pollen. The SEM has two major parts. One part where you place your pollen stub thats inside of a cup into, which is connected to a computer that shows you your image.
Growth Media: We were not successful in our pollen growing. Our pollen stayed the same throughout the experiment.
Scientific Names:
Winter Pansy - Viola tricolor
Red Tulip - Tulipa
Alstroemeria - Alstroemeria aurea
Equipment:
Leica - We used the Leica microscope to get our 35x pictures. How the Leica microscope works is the microscope is connected to a computer. You place your pollen or flower on the microscope stage and the image come up onto the computer. You can adjust the light and focus settings to make your image sharper. The Leica images focuses on one specific item and blurs the outsiders.
SEM - We used the SEM Phenom FEI to get more in depth images of our plants pollen. On the SEM we got images ranging from 340x to 5450x. We could see the shape and measure the size of our pollen and even get a close up look on the surface of our pollen. The SEM has two major parts. One part where you place your pollen stub thats inside of a cup into, which is connected to a computer that shows you your image.
Growth Media: We were not successful in our pollen growing. Our pollen stayed the same throughout the experiment.
Scientific Names:
Winter Pansy - Viola tricolor
Red Tulip - Tulipa
Alstroemeria - Alstroemeria aurea
What we are looking for: We are looking to see if their is a difference in the pollen of perenial and annual flowers.
We optimized our images by capturing interesting and important pictures that helped show the differences in the pollen. Under the Leicia microscope, we photographed the different pollen of each flower by the stigma. In the SEM we photographed the Winter Pansy, Red Tulip and Alstroemeria under various views. We captured what the pollen looks like, the size of each pollen and the surface of the pollen.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)