🚀 go-pugleaf

JEDilworth wrote:
> Hate to say I told you so........but it just didn't sound like a gram negative to
> me.

Nah, don't feel bad about it. I'm just glad I learnt how to do 16s 
sequencing. Now I'm going to look for new bacteria, I just need to find 
some place where other people haven't been looking before.

Btw, I'm still working with the Ganges bacteria (Paenibacillus alvei). 
It seem to have a plasmid of less than 30kb, so I'm going to see if I 
can establish it in some other bacteria and see if some of the phenotype 
from the Paenibacillus is transferred to the new one, for instance 
antibiotics production. I need some practical work to do inbetween 
reading to exam :)

Trond Erik


> 
> Bacillus will only sporulate under adverse conditions. If you're providing it with
> breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a great plate, it has no need to form spores.
> 
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
> Microbiology (Clinical) 28 years
> 
> Trond Erik Vee Aune wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yes, it was highly motile and swarmed in a very fascinating way. That's
>>why I decided to identify it. I looked for spores in the microscope, but
>>couldn't see any, so maybe the cells were in the wrong growth phase.
>>
>>Trond Erik
>>
>>
>>>>>Anyway, I got very good match against Paenibacillus alvei. According to
>>>>
>>>>web-resources this genus do produce different types of antibiotics as
>>>>well as being able to swarm in different ways
>>>>(http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/239.pdf). The strange thing
>>>>is that it is not a gram negative bug as I thought after staining, but
>>>>one of you microbiologists suggested that I was a Bacillus strain, so I
>>>>guess we geneticists are much better at sequencing than staining ;)
>>>>Anyway, I'm pretty pleased that I finally got an identification, but of
>>>>course a little disappointed that it wasn't a new bacterium
>>>
>