Boost your Grades with us today!
BMCC Biology Testing Horseweed Plant Extracts Results Paper
The plant used: Horseweed Result Acetone Extract Inhibited E. coli (Y or N) N If yes, clearing zone width (mm) Inhibited Staphylococcus e. (Y or N) 0 N Hexane Extract If yes, clearing Inhibited zone width E. coli (Y (mm) or N) 0 N If yes, clearing zone width (mm) Inhibited Staphylococcus e. (Y or N) 0 N If yes, clearing zone width (mm) 0 PLANT LIFE LAB ANTIMICROBIAL SCREEN Testing Plant Extracts for Antibacterial Activity Plants have a long history of use in traditional medicine, and in some cases the efficacy of these traditional remedies has been confirmed by scientific studies. Digoxin for heart rate regulation and the anti-malarial compound artemisinin are two examples. Two of the most important anti-cancer drug discoveries of the 20th century, vinblastine and taxol, are plant secondary metabolites. Given the large number of plant species in existence, there has been much interest in the last half century in screening additional plants for possible therapeutic properties. We will use a very simple filter disk assay to test crude plant extracts for antibacterial activity. This sort of procedure has been used fairly extensively as a first pass assessment of plant antimicrobial potential. This lab will extend over 3 weeks, not necessarily consecutive. Session 1, Extractions You will work in groups of 3-4 for this lab. 1. Bring in a plant sample to be tested. Dried material is preferred, since the high water content of fresh material may result in concentrations of plant secondary metabolites that are too dilute to be effective. Possibilities are: Surplus dried, pressed specimens that you don’t need for your plant collection. Herbs and spices from your kitchen. We will have a few extras on hand just in case. 2. Crush the material to a fine powder or homogenized pulp. Use mortars and pestles, a razor blade, pipet tips or other tools to chop and crush the plant material as well as possible. Fine particles will admit the solvent more readily. 3. For each type of crushed plant matter, place a small amount (no more than 0.5 mL) in each of 2 microcentrifuge tubes. You will extract one with acetone, which will dissolve many hydrophilic compounds, and the other with hexane, a non-polar solvent, which may extract more highly lipophilic compounds. Label the tubes. Working with gloves and goggles in the fume hood, add the appropriate solvent to each tube up to the 1 ml volume mark. Vortex and/or vigorously shake occasionally for 10 minutes. 4. Centrifuge the tubes at maximum speed to pellet solid matter at the bottom of the tube. This may take several minutes. 5. Pipet off the supernatants and transfer to clean labeled tubes. Place your tubes with their caps open in the tube rack at the back of the fume hood. We will allow the solvent to evaporate to concentrate any compounds that were extracted. 6. Clean up. Discard the tubes with the pellets in the waste collection receptacles. 55 PLANT LIFE LAB ANTIMICROBIAL SCREEN Session 2, Filter Disk Assay 1. Redissolve your dried extracts in a minimum volume of the same solvent as before. Try 50 uL. Vortex to dissolve. 2. Use a pencil to label filter paper disks (or squares) so you can later identify your group and the plant extract applied to each disk. 3. Use a pipeter and new tip to impregnate a labeled disk with the appropriate extract, and place in a sterile petri dish to dry. Avoid removing the lid any more than necessary to place the disk inside. You can leave the lid slightly ajar to promote air exchange and evaporation, but we want to block dust to minimize introducing unwanted microbes to the agar plates (Step 5). 4. Impregnate labeled disks with plain acetone or hexane to use as negative controls. Also impregnate one disk with 50 mg/L kanamycin solution as a positive control. Put in the petri dish to dry. 5. When the disks are dry, dip forceps into 70% ethanol, briefly flame over an alcohol lamp, and use them to place the disks on the surface of agar plates that have been spread with a dilute E. coli suspension. Again, avoid opening the lids any more than necessary to minimize the introduction of unwanted microbes. Be sure to place the disks as far from each other as possible. 6. Turn the plates upside down, label with your name or your group name and any other information. Leave for a minimum of 30 minutes to allow diffusion of the extracts before incubation. 7. We will incubate the plates at 37C overnight, then refrigerate. 56 PLANT LIFE LAB ANTIMICROBIAL SCREEN Session 3, Analysis and Results 1. Examine your plate(s). Carefully measure the width (in mm) of the inhibition zone (the area beyond the edge of the filter paper in which the bacterial do not grow). Compare to your positive and negative controls, and evaluate. 2. We will set up an “assignment” in the Lab folder on Blackboard that will ask you to post your results. We will combine everyone’s results into a single table and re-post to Blackboard. In your notebook, discuss your results and those of the rest of the class. – Did yours or any other tested extract have antibacterial activity? – How valuable could this assay be in discovering antibacterial plant compounds? – What are the limitations, and in what ways could it be improved to make a more sophisticated assay? – Would you expect that this in vitro assay would be a good predictor of antibacterial activity in vivo? Why or why not? 57
Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
Total Points: 100 | |||||