Botany Lab Report
Botany Lab
-------------------------------------------------
Introduction This study observed the effects of different body fluids and solutions relative to breaking down bacteria, specifically in the human body. The enzymes we studied, lysozomes, help the body lyse, or break down bacteria by targeting peptidoglycan in bacterial walls. The solutions and fluids studied were saliva, mucus, tears, a stock solution of lysozomes, and distilled water. The solutions were placed in agar containing Micrococcus Luteus and we observed the amount of bacteria that was lyzed around them. The measurements were taken by observing where the agar cleared around the solutions, as the agar was cloudy where bacteria was present. I hypothesized that saliva would …show more content…
Each group was also given a micropipetter, distilled water, paper discs for marking purposes (all courtesy of the Millsaps College Botany Lab) and a stock solution (containing 1 mg of lysozomes per ml, provided by Carolina Biological in Burlington, NC). The individual groups had to produce the other three solutions, mucus, saliva, and tears, to be tested in the agar. Each of the five solutions (distilled water, stock solution, saliva, mucus, and tears) were measured to 20 microliters and placed on the paper discs which were color coded in order to keep notes of the varying solutions. The Paper discs were spaced out along the pitre dish containing the agar, and the dishes were set aside for further testing. Measurements of the distance of clarity observed per each solution were taken 2 hours later, then 24 and 48 hours later. Each group had to observe the effects of the solutions on the pitre dishes for every dish that was prepared. The distance of clearing was measured in milliliters to test the strength of the lysozomes in each …show more content…
This could possibly mean that saliva may not contain as many lysozomes, as it may not be the primary mode for bacterial defense in the mouth, or the main mode of defense lies within the stomach. Saliva contained less lysosomes per ml than the stock solution, performing around 40% of the clearance observed by the stock solution (5 mm compared to 12.5 mm of clearance). Similarly, mucus performed less than I suspected, however, the data failed to reject my hypothesis that Mucus was the third most powerful lysing solution. The similarity in data between mucus and saliva may be an indicator that bacterial defense is less intense near the surface of the body, relative to the similar environments of the mouth and nose. Tears, which I originally thought would be next to last in effectiveness, out-performed all other lysing solutions at 17.75 mm clearance observed. This may mean that tears are the main bacterial defense near the eyes, not just a lubricant. The stock solution data failed to reject my hypothesis that it would be the second most effective lysing solution, and data was not far from what I expected, as it is a simple solution of lysozomes. Also failing to reject my hypothesis was the data from the distilled water solution, which observed no bacterial clearance due to
-------------------------------------------------
Introduction This study observed the effects of different body fluids and solutions relative to breaking down bacteria, specifically in the human body. The enzymes we studied, lysozomes, help the body lyse, or break down bacteria by targeting peptidoglycan in bacterial walls. The solutions and fluids studied were saliva, mucus, tears, a stock solution of lysozomes, and distilled water. The solutions were placed in agar containing Micrococcus Luteus and we observed the amount of bacteria that was lyzed around them. The measurements were taken by observing where the agar cleared around the solutions, as the agar was cloudy where bacteria was present. I hypothesized that saliva would …show more content…
Each group was also given a micropipetter, distilled water, paper discs for marking purposes (all courtesy of the Millsaps College Botany Lab) and a stock solution (containing 1 mg of lysozomes per ml, provided by Carolina Biological in Burlington, NC). The individual groups had to produce the other three solutions, mucus, saliva, and tears, to be tested in the agar. Each of the five solutions (distilled water, stock solution, saliva, mucus, and tears) were measured to 20 microliters and placed on the paper discs which were color coded in order to keep notes of the varying solutions. The Paper discs were spaced out along the pitre dish containing the agar, and the dishes were set aside for further testing. Measurements of the distance of clarity observed per each solution were taken 2 hours later, then 24 and 48 hours later. Each group had to observe the effects of the solutions on the pitre dishes for every dish that was prepared. The distance of clearing was measured in milliliters to test the strength of the lysozomes in each …show more content…
This could possibly mean that saliva may not contain as many lysozomes, as it may not be the primary mode for bacterial defense in the mouth, or the main mode of defense lies within the stomach. Saliva contained less lysosomes per ml than the stock solution, performing around 40% of the clearance observed by the stock solution (5 mm compared to 12.5 mm of clearance). Similarly, mucus performed less than I suspected, however, the data failed to reject my hypothesis that Mucus was the third most powerful lysing solution. The similarity in data between mucus and saliva may be an indicator that bacterial defense is less intense near the surface of the body, relative to the similar environments of the mouth and nose. Tears, which I originally thought would be next to last in effectiveness, out-performed all other lysing solutions at 17.75 mm clearance observed. This may mean that tears are the main bacterial defense near the eyes, not just a lubricant. The stock solution data failed to reject my hypothesis that it would be the second most effective lysing solution, and data was not far from what I expected, as it is a simple solution of lysozomes. Also failing to reject my hypothesis was the data from the distilled water solution, which observed no bacterial clearance due to