3. Fieldwork Data I
Sample
Extraction
Date & Time
Collected
Site
Features
Humidity Temperature pH
Sample A -
Centro Médico
01/28/15
5:42 pm
Urban Moist 302 K 7.33
Sample B-
Spout
01/29/15
6:45 am
Semi Rural Moist 296 K 6.50
4. Fieldwork Data II
Sample Extraction
Date & Time
Collected
Site Features Humidity Temperature pH
Sample C -
Asomante, Aibonito
01/29/15
7:30 a.m.
Semi Rural Moist 293 K 5.00
Sample D- Toita,
Cayey
01/28/15
5:30 pm
Rural Moist 298 K 5.50
19. ● Howard Hughes and RISE Program at UPR Cayey
● Dr. Michael Rubin
● Mr. Giovanni Cruz
● National Institute of Health
Editor's Notes
Abneil
Good afternoon, we are group #4
We will be talking about tropical soil bacteria Isolation & Characterization
You know our names
We will have bacteria designator
Anibal
Both samples were moist
Sample A being Urban, had a more basic pH than the rural
Ramon
Moist
pH did not have a big difference
AbneilSample A: Was taken beside a pipeline that comes from the surgery floor
Sample B: Is right beside a spout that people from the area believe that could be very contaminated
Ann
Sample C: area that will be used to build an urbanization
Sample D: Surrounded by La Plata River
Abneil
This Geographic information system map recorded where each sample was collected.
Sample A: was collected San Juan
B: was collected in Caguas
C: in Aibonito
D:here in Cayey
Anibal
Regarding the GIS map we showed previously we have different bacterial designator codes,
PCR & Electrophoresis gave positive
Ramon
Our antibiotic production was negative.
The PCR and Electrophoresis was negative.
Abneil
Sample A & B were purified in R2A mediums instead of ISP4 because they showed better efficacy
Ann
Sample C and D were purified in ISP4
Fungus grew and the medium had to change to LB
Anibal
Sample A: Gram stain was repeated thrice
Sample B: Was repeated twice and we concluded that they were both Gram Positive
Homogeneous
Ramon
Sample C: Gram stain from the isolation #3
Sample D: gram stain with the purification #4
Was no Homogeneous
Abneil
The plate interpretations for Sample A & B were similar in form and Margin but different in elevation.
Ann
Both their forms were circular
C was flat , Margin Curled
D was convex, Margin Entire
Anibal
The reaction of our bacterias to m.Luteus and e.Coli proved negative since they did not inhibit them
Ramon
The bacteria dont inhibit E.coli and M.lutheus
Ann
Sample A(1) bacteria proved positive,
Sample B both bacteria proved positive with the initial primers
C & D were negative but should be exposed to future work regarding them both.