UV Lab

pdf

School

Indiana University, Bloomington *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

113

Subject

Biology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

3

Uploaded by BaronSalmonPerson1029

Report
Emma Manion Biology Lab Professor Anderson 9 November 2023 Lab Report: Yeast and UV Introduction: UV light can be used to help kill cells. This is because UV light affects the growth of bacteria, as stated by Alhamdy and Al-Sowayan. This is done by damaging their DNA, in which the UV light causes a reaction. This can be fixed, but too much exposure can cause a large risk (death). This is helpful to know because many are exposed to UV light daily. According to the CDC, UV light has some benefits, but it can have negative effects depending on the duration of time spent in it. Relating this lab to humans can show the negative effects of excess exposure from the sun. Many disregard the negative impact, so understanding this lab is important to change that ideology. As stated by the American Cancer Society, long term exposure can lead to skin cause cancer, eye disease, sunburn, and more. Sunscreen is known to help in the battle against certain cancers from UV Light. In this lab, students will be tasked with understanding cells and how UV affects it. They will also observe if sunscreens, with different SPF, protects cells from death. For this lab, students will dilute the strain and place it under UV light for various amounts of time. The students observe the data to see the effects of UV light, furthering the understanding of the negative effects of excess exposure to UV light. If the cells are exposed to excess amounts of UV light, then cell death will occur. Cells with higher SPF will have higher survival rates. Methods: Procedure was followed as per lab instructions for the time course of yeast survival with increasing UV light exposure. First, we prepared a 10E-5 dilution of the Wild type strain. This was done by doing a serial dilution: 100 ul of yeast to 900 ul of sterile water in a tube. Next, add 100 ul of the previous tube to a second tube of 900 ul water. Then, add 100 ul of the second tube into a third tube of 900 ul water. Lastly, add 100 ul from the third tube and add 900 ul of water in tube four. After that was finished, we gathered 8 plates. Next, they will be labeled. We then took the spreader from the ethanol and put it over the burner to sterilize it. After obtaining 100 ul of the last dilution tube and placing it on the plates, the sterilized glass spreader was used to spread the sample. This process was repeated on all 8 plates. Next, we obtained 2 SPF lotions and weighed out 1g. Using saran wrap, we put the lotion on it and covered the petri dish. Lastly, we took the plates and put them under the UV light for various amounts of time. We made sure to cover the light with foil in between trials and cover the plates with clear wrap during exposure. In simpler terms, we took the lids off, covered the places with SPF covered wrap, took the foil off, then started the timer (one partner takes the foil off and the other starts the timer). This was then repeated for the designated times.
After a week had passed, we collected the data. We did this by counting the number of colonies present on the plates. After obtaining the class average, we were able to determine (class and group) percent mutation and survival. Results: Figure 1: Class Average for each condition Class averages 0 sec 60 sec 90 sec 120 sec No SPF 358 437 293 283 15 SPF 434 488 454 517 50 SPF 582 588 614 457 100 SPF 647 706 658 810 Figure 2: ANOVA results per each exposure time 0 second exposure all treatments ANOVA Results: F value = 0.679, P-value = 0.5795. Null Hypothesis is not rejected (accepted). There is no statistical difference between any of the SPF treatments for UV light protection for Yeast. 60 seconds exposure all treatments ANOVA Results: F value = 0.525, P-value = 0.6720. Null Hypothesis is not rejected (accepted). There is no statistical difference between any of the SPF treatments for UV light protection for Yeast. 90 seconds exposure all treatments ANOVA Results: F value = 0.764, P-value = 0.5331. Null Hypothesis is not rejected (accepted). There is no statistical difference between any of the SPF treatments for UV light protection for Yeast. 120 seconds exposure all treatments ANOVA Results: F value = 0.781, P-value = 0.5239. Null Hypothesis is not rejected (accepted). There is no statistical difference between any of the SPF treatments for UV light protection for Yeast.
Discussion: This lab allowed for one to see the effects SPF and UV light on cells. Our hypothesis was that if cells were exposed to excess amounts of UV light, cell death would occur. If SPF was introduced, higher values would prevent this. This was proven in the lab, which can be seen from the chart above. UV light can cause many types of cancer, stated by the American cancer society, but some can be prevented from SPF. While SPF of higher values were more effective, we concluded that the null hypothesis was accepted for all values (SPF). This means that the use of SPF can be useful at any value. References: Alhamdy, T. and Al-Sowayan, N.S. (2020) The Effect of Sunscreens on Yeast to Prevent Ultraviolet Damage. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, Retrieved 2023, October 22, from https://doi.org/10.4236/abb.2020.114009 . Facts and Figures 2008. American Cancer Society. (n.d.). Retrieved 2023, October 22, from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/content/STT_1x_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2008.asp?from=fast . UV Radiation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (28 June 2021). Retrieved 2023, October 22, from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/features/uv-radiation- safety/index.html#:~:text=UV%20exposure%20increases%20the%20risk,cancer%20in%20the%20United %20States . Lab manual but unsure how to cite it.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help