FinalLabReportGradingRubricSpring2022 ClassActivity3 xClassActivity4 xSpring2022ClassActivity1 xClassActivity5 xClassActivity2 xClassActivity6 xClassActivity7 x
Please look at the grading rubric.
Paper should be in APA style.
For the Results part include very table from the reports provided in the right order.
Reference minimum is 8 (please use scholar journals), and has to alphabetically organized.
GeneralMicrobiology Spring 2022 Final Lab Report Grading Rubric
Section Portion Explanation Points
Introduction
2-
3
paragraphs
(7 points)
Background information
Description of why isolation/identification of bacteria is important (1) and importance of microbiology is addressed
(1).
Should include citations here to support all information addressed (1)
3
Purpose of the experiment
stated
Student states the purpose behind conducting the experiment
1
Summary of methodology
addressing all parts of the
experiment.
Should include:
1 Serial dilution, viable titer, isolation, colony morphology, cellular morphology, biochemical tests, selective differential
media, API, Bergey’s, and Kirby Bauer
There should be NO mention of their bacterial unknown’s identity in the introduction
Research Questions that
encompass ALL parts of
the experiment
There should be a minimum of 2 questions in question format that address identification of an unknown bacteria and
antibiotic sensitivity.
2
Students can choose to address multiple questions for each part of the experiment but must encompass all parts, not
just some.
Results
No more than
8 tables (no
more than 10
pages)
2-3
paragraphs for
written
portion
(23 points)
Week 3:
Table showing three dilution plates (0.25) with population survey (including unique colonies) and general colony
morphology descriptions of the colonies on the plate (0.25)
Students address and fully explain if the patterns in dilution among the three plates make sense. (0.5)
Descriptions of chosen colony (only one included- five colonies and two isolation streaks were conducted in class but
only one was chosen) (0.5) and gram stains 40x and 100x pictures with cellular morphology included (0.5)
2
Dilution and Viable Titer Dilution, dilution factor, CFU and Viable Titer present, and information correct (0.25 each) 1
Week 4/5:
Isolation plate present with full colony morphology (7 characteristics: shape, size, color, margin, elevation etc.) (0.5)
Comparison of colony morphology to the previous (original) colony morphology (0.5)
1
Isolation and Gram Stains Both gram stains present (40x and 100x objective) – (0.5)
2
With shape, arrangement, color, and gram stain category listed and explained, student states correctly objective/
magnification (0.5)
If stains do not match or are mixed, a statement of possible error that occurred is included. If they do match, a
statement included about this. (0.5)
Comparison of the gram stain results to the previous (original) morphology and explanation on why (0.5)
Week 6:
Biochemical Tests
All tests mentioned. 5.5
(11 tests) In results column, students must mention for each test: positive/negative, color and pH (0.25 for each test)
In description column, students must mention for each test: overall reaction that occurred or enzyme that is present
and any other characteristics about the bacteria (eg. aerobic). Be as specific and detailed as possible (0.25 for each
test)
Week 7: All tests mentioned
2
Selective and Differential
(4 tests)
In results column, students must mention for each test: positive/negative, color, pH. (0.25 for each)
In the description column, students must mention for each test: overall reaction that occurred or enzyme that is
present. Be as specific and detailed as possible. (0.25 for each)
Week 7/8: API Test Kit picture shown, all tests described as either positive or negative (1)
1.5 API Test Kits API Reading sheet shown with results written and final 7-digit code (0.25)
API Web results included with mention of final identification of %ID. (0.25)
Week 8: Bergey’s manual steps used, and final identification shown (0.75) along with a screenshot of the flowchart used for
identification (0.25).
1
Bergey’s Manual
Students include a table comparing observed results to expected results for their API ID of their unknown
2
Week 9: Table contains all biochemical tests and API tests listed with observed results obtained throughout the semester (0.5)
Comparison of ID
Table contains expected results of each of the biochemical and API tests listed. Students can use the Bergey’s Manual
on Canvas (0.5)
Students highlight areas of the table in which observed and expected results do not match (0.5)
Table contains citations for all information obtained from outside resources (0.5)
Week 10/11: Picture of Kirby Bauer Assay included (0.5)
1.5
Kirby Bauer All 6 antibiotic measurements match the classifications (R/I/S) based on standards for known bacteria (1)
Results Write-up
Paragraph
Results write-up paragraph is present and includes all portion of the results in a summary format
4
Students are not repeating what is already stated in the results table but rather summarizing the important results
from each section.
Week 3: Dilution pattern comparison among three plates and viable titer (0.75)
Week 4/5: Does isolation plate morphology match dilution previous step? Is it a pure culture? (0.75)
Week 6/7: Which tests positive and which enzymes are present. (1)
Week 8: API identification stated (0.25)
Week 8: Bergey’s identification stated (0.25)
Week 10-11: Antibiotic classifications stated (0.5)
No discussion takes place within the paragraph (0.5)
Discussion
(10 points)
5 – 8
paragraphs
Student addresses colony and cellular morphology and if it matches expectation (through support from citation)
1
If no citation, -0.5 point
Students address biochemical tests and if it matches expectations. Which did/did not? (through support from
citation) 1
If no citation, -0.5 point
Comparison of API Kit to Bergey’s manual identification. Which was more effective? 1
Student addresses susceptible antibiotics and if it matches expectation (through support from citation)
1
If no citation, -0.5 point
Student addresses if research questions proposed in introduction were answered or not. 2
Possible sources of error stated AND why the error caused an issue within the experiment. Minimum two errors
discussed.
If there are no errors, the student addresses potential areas for error and why they would cause an issue.
2
Discussion of all potential environments your identified bacteria can be found. (1) Citations present to support (0.5)
Does this match your sampled environment? (0.5)
1
Discussion of the importance/relevance of identified bacterial sample 1
Future
Directions
1-2
paragraphs
(2 points)
Student proposes a new follow-up experiment and proposes methodology which makes sense and builds on the
information obtained in this lab report
Note: Do not point out errors in current experiment or suggest the same methodology used in this experiment
1
Student mentions the application of both current and future results in a real-world setting 1
References
(4 points)
References APA format used in references section: inclusion of hanging indentations and alphabetical order 1
In-text citations
In-text citations done correctly (Tomasetti et al. 2021) and is used to support information that is not original in
introduction section
0.5
In-text citations done correctly (Tomasetti et al. 2021) and is used to support information that is not original in
discussion section
0.5
All citations mentioned in references section are cited as in-text references throughout the text 0.5
A minimum of 8 references are used throughout the report. 0.5
Formatting
(4 points)
Introduction
Proper grammar and sentence structure flows. Sentences do not contain pronouns: I, our, me, us, we etc.
Section does not cross minimum or maximum guidelines (minus 0.5)
0.5
Results
Proper grammar and sentence structure flows. Sentences do not contain pronouns: I, our, me, us, we etc. (0.5)
Results write up section does not cross minimum or maximum guidelines (minus 0.5)
0.5
Each table has a numbered title and caption at its heading and information in the section flows properly (0.5) 1
Pictures included in results section are all cropped, formatted, and labelled (where applicable) consistently and its
aspect ratio is consistent with each image type
0.5
Discussion
Proper grammar and sentence structure flows. Sentences do not contain pronouns: I, our, me, us, we etc.
Section does not cross minimum or maximum guidelines (minus 0.5)
0.5
Future Directions
Proper grammar and sentence structure flows. Sentences do not contain pronouns: I, our, me, us, we etc.
Section does not cross minimum or maximum guidelines (minus 0.5)
0.5
Overall
All bacteria names are properly written throughout the report. Italicization with no improper capitalization 0.5
All tables and text are formatted similarly throughout: sizing is the same, font and font size throughout report are the
same
0.5
Total point assignment 50
Assignment Percentage in final grade 20%
Helpful link to APA formatting guidelines:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html
MCB3020L General Microbiology Laboratory
Activity #3
Section: U0
1
Lab Title: Further Isolation of Bacterial Sample: Characterization, Gram Staining and Re-streaking.
Date: 02/15/20222
Student Name: Thalia Ramos Gigato.
Student ID: 6141550
CLASS ACTIVITY WORKSHEET
Table 1: Isolation of chosen colony #1
Note: Some of this information is obtained from your previous class activity.
|
Sample |
Picture |
Description |
||||||||||||||
|
Isolated streak on nutrient agar plate #1 |
Colony Morphology:
Size: small Shape: punctiform Color: creamy white Margins: even Elevation: flat Surface: smooth Opacity: opaque Other: They aren’t as much spread out as the plates from last week. Does this match the previous colony chosen from serial dilution plates? Why or why not? Yes, they have the same colony morphology.
Is it pure? Why or why not? They look about the same. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Gram stains of tertiary streak |
40x objective |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Shape: rods Arrangement: cluster Color: pink Staining characteristics: Gram negative, thin peptidoglycan. Potential errors? None Do the 40x and 100x pictures match? Why or why not? Yes, because the bacteria look the same. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because the still have rod shape and are gram negative. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because they have the same characteristics. |
||||||||||||||
|
100x objective |
||||||||||||||||
|
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Arrangement: cluster Color: pink Staining characteristics: gram negative, thin peptidoglycan Potential errors? Yes, because they have the same chape, color, and arrangement. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because the bacteria is negative and present rod shape. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because they look the same. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Gram stains of the Tail Region |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Staining characteristics: gram negative, thin peptidoglycan Potential errors? Yes, because the bacteria have the same shape, color, and arrangement. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because it shows the same results. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because they share the same characteristics. |
|||||||||||||||
| Gram stains of the Tail Region | ||||||||||||||||
|
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Yes, they look the same. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because the bacteria have the same characteristics. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because they have same color, arrangement, and shape so it’s considered a pure colony. |
||||||||||||||||
Table 2: Isolation of chosen colony #2
Note: Use the guidelines above to help replicate the table for nutrient agar plate #2
|
Isolated streak on nutrient agar plate #2 |
Colony Morphology: Size: small Other: The colonies are close Does this match the previous colony chosen from serial dilution plates? Why or why not? |
|
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Staining characteristics: gram negative, thin peptidoglycan. Potential errors? Yes, because they show the same characteristics. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because the colony has the same characteristics. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because the bacteria have the same shape, arrangement, and color. |
|
|
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Staining characteristics: gram negative, thin peptidoglycan Potential errors? Yes, because the bacteria still have the same characteristics. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because by the characteristics we can assume is the exact same bacteria. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because it presents the same shape, arrangement, and color. |
|
|
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Staining characteristics: gram negative, thin peptidoglycan. Potential errors? Yes, because they have the same colony morphology. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because by the characteristics of the bacteria they are the same. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because the bacteria show the same shape, arrangement, and color. |
|
|
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Shape: rods Arrangement: cluster Potential errors? Yes, because the have the same characteristics. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from serial dilution)? Why or why not? Yes, because by the characteristics both show they are the same. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, because the have the same shape, arrangement, and color. |
1
Activity #4
Section: U0
1
Lab Title: Biochemical Testing of Isolated Bacterial Cultures.
Date: 02-22-2022
Student Name: Thalia Ramos Gigato
Student ID: 611550
Table 1: Isolation of chosen colony #1
|
Sample |
Picture |
Description |
|
Chosen nutrient agar plate with isolated streak |
Colony Morphology: Size: small Shape: punctiform Color: creamy white Margins: even Elevation: flat Surface: smooth Opacity: opaque Does this match the previous colony chosen from previous isolation streak? Why or why not? The plate has the same characteristics as the previous ones, the only difference was that this one has more bacteria on the tail region than the previous. Is it pure? Why or why not? Yes, it is pure because the bacteria look the same throughout the plate. |
|
|
Gram stain |
40x objective |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Shape: rods Arrangement: clustered Color: pink Staining characteristics: Gram negative, thin peptidoglycan Potential errors? N/A Do the 40x and 100x pictures match? Why or why not? Yes, they match because the bacteria have the same cellular morphology. Does this Gram stain result match the previous colony (obtained from isolation streak last week)? Why or why not? Yes, the Gram stain match the previous colony because the bacteria is pink meaning Gram negative with a thin peptidoglycan. Is it pure? Why? Yes, it is pure because the have the same color, arrangement, and shape. |
|
100x objective |
1
Activity #1 Section: U01
Lab Title: Introduction to Staining. Student Name: Thalia Ramos Gigato
Date: 01/25/2022 Student ID: 6141550
|
Staining Technique |
Species |
Objective |
Picture |
Description Cellular Morphology |
||||||||
|
Simple Stain |
Yeast- crystal violet |
40x |
Shape: cocci Gram positive |
|||||||||
|
Simple |
Yeast- Safranin |
Shape: cocci Arrangement: clustered Color: pink |
||||||||||
|
Gram Stain |
Escherichia coli |
Shape: rods Arrangement: mostly in pairs |
||||||||||
|
Staphylococcus aureus |
Shape: rods Color: purple Staining characteristics: Crystal violet, Safranin Gram positive |
|||||||||||
|
Bacillus megaterium (24h) |
Shape: rods |
|||||||||||
|
Bacillus megaterium (48h) |
Shape: rods Arrangement: clumped Color: purple |
|||||||||||
| Gram Stain |
Mycobacterium sp. |
Shape: cocci |
||||||||||
|
Acid fast stain |
Shape: spherical Gram positive |
|||||||||||
|
Shape: rod |
||||||||||||
|
Spores Stain |
Bacillus megaterium (24h) |
40x |
Shape: rods Arrangement: clumped Color: purple Staining characteristics: Gram positive |
|||||||||
|
Bacillus megaterium (48h) |
Shape: rods Arrangement: clustered Color: purple Staining characteristics: Gram positive |
MCB3020L General Microbiology Laboratory
CLASS ACTIVITY WORKSHEET
Section: U0
1
Group: 5
Environment: Plant
Name: Thalia Ramos
ID: 6141550
Date: 03/08/2022
Title: Biochemical Testing- Selective vs. Differential Media.
Table 1:
|
Test |
Picture |
Result |
Description |
|
OF Medium |
Tube with Oil (anaerobic): Reaction: positive Color: yellow ish pH: acidic conditions |
Metabolic reaction: Glucose wasn’t breaking down for the tube without oil, but it was broken down for the tube with oil meaning that the bacteria was able to fermentatively metabolize glucose. Enzymatic activity: Not applicable. Other: The unknown bacteria is anaerobic. |
|
|
Tube without Oil (aerobic): Reaction: negative Color: green pH: oxidative |
|||
|
Kligler’s Triple Iron Agar |
Reaction: — positive/negative? Positive Color: red slant and yellowish butt. pH: acidic Other: No gas and no H2S present |
Metabolic reaction: Glucose is only breaking down (fermented) Enzymatic activity: Other: The yellow color at the but is super light but it differentiates. |
|
|
Litmus Milk |
Reaction: — positive/negative? positive Color: blue pH: alkaline (basic) Other: Casein was breaking down into smaller components |
Metabolic reaction: Protein casein was metabolized Enzymatic activity: Lactose wasn’t fermented. Other: Unknown bacterial utilized milk components to metabolize. |
|
|
Nitrate Reduction |
Reaction: — positive/negative?
Positive Color didn’t change Color: no color change pH: basic Other: color looks light/clear yellowish |
Metabolic reaction: Nitrates have been broken down. Enzymatic activity: Nitrates are not in the solution Other: Bacteria didn’t break down nitrates into nitrites. Zinc was added. |
|
|
Gelatin Hydrolysis |
Reaction: — positive/negative?
Negative Color: light/clear yellow pH: acidic Other: Stay solid even after ice bath. |
Metabolic reaction: No liquefaction occurred meaning that gelatin wasn’t removed. Enzymatic activity: Gelatinase didn’t break down gelatin. Other: Gelatin wasn’t removed |
|
|
Urease |
Reaction: — positive/negative? Positive Color: pink agar- clear bacteria pH: alkaline (basic) Other: Can’t even differentiate between the colonies and the agar. |
Metabolic reaction: Urea was broken down by urease Enzymatic activity: Urea was broken down by urease enzyme Other: Ammonia formation |
|
|
Starch Hydrolysis |
Reaction: — positive/negative? Positive Color: purple in agar and yellowish in the bacteria colonies. pH: acidic Other: after a while colony turned whiter. |
Metabolic reaction: Iodine turned purple in the presence of starch. Enzymatic activity: alpha amylase hasn’t break down starch because still present in the agar plate. |
|
|
Methyl Red (48 hours) |
Reaction: — positive/negative? negative Color: yellow pH: basic |
Metabolic reaction: No fermentation was used Enzymatic activity: No dextrose/glucose was broken down into pyruvate Other: Used to test metabolic pathway (fermentation specifically) |
|
|
Voges-Proskauer (48 hours) |
Reaction: — positive/negative? Negative Color: no color change pH: basic |
Metabolic reaction: Glucose was not fermented using the 2,3 butanediol pathway. Enzymatic activity: Acetoin is not preset. Other: no glucose fermented |
|
|
Catalase |
Reaction: positive/negative? Positive Color: white pH: alkaline (basic) Other: catalase present |
Metabolic reaction: Reaction is positive because hydrogen peroxidase was broken down into water and oxygen. Enzymatic activity: catalase was present Other: Bacteria utilizes catalase enzyme. |
|
|
Oxidase |
Reaction: — positive/negative? Negative Color: no color change pH: acidic |
Metabolic reaction: Bacteria didn’t produce or utilized Cytochrome-C Enzymatic activity: No Cytochrome-C present because bacteria didn’t change color. |
1
Activity#2
Section: U01
Lab Title: Isolation and Identification of Bacteria from Wild Samples.
Date: 02/08/2022
Student Name: Thalia Ramos Gigato
Student ID: 6141550
Table 1: Population survey of environmental sample
|
Environment |
Picture |
Description |
Dilution Factor |
Viable Titer |
||||||||
|
Plant |
Population Survey Unique colonies: 22 Colony Morphology:
Size: small Shape: punctiform Color: creamy white Margins: even Elevation: flat Surface: smooth Opacity: opaque Other: spread out, more in the right side. |
102 |
CFU: 22 Viable Titer: 2.2×10^4 CFU/mL Calculations. (22CFU/0.1mL) x 10^2 = 22,000 = 2.2×10^4 CFU/mL |
|||||||||
|
Population Survey Unique colonies: N/A Colony Morphology: Size: N/A Shape: N/A Color: N/A Margins: N/A Elevation: N/A Surface: N/A Opacity: N/A Other: No colonies presented in the plate. |
104 |
CFU: No colonies viable Titer: Cannot be calculated Calculations N/A |
||||||||||
|
Population Survey Unique colonies: 33 Colony Morphology Size: small Other: The colonies appear smaller than the colonies on the plate 10^2 |
106 |
CFU: 33 Viable Titer 3.3×10^8 CFU/mL Calculations (33 CFU/0.1mL) x10^6= 330,000,000= 3.3×10^8 CFU/mL |
||||||||||
|
The first plate has many colonies but not as much as the third plate, while the second plate doesn’t have any colonies present, just appear sweaty. Also, the colonies on the 10^6 plate are smaller than the ones presented in the 10^2 plate. |
Table 2: Gram Stains characterization of chosen colonies
|
Isolated Colony |
Dilution |
||||||||
|
Section: U01 Group: 5 Colony #1 |
10^-2 |
Colony Morphology: Size: small Shape: circular Color: creamy white |
40x objective |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Shape: rods Arrangement: clustered, bacillus Color: pink Staining characteristics: The stain was pink indicating being Gram negative. |
|||||
|
100x objective |
|||||||||
|
Colony #2 |
10^2 | 40x objective |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Shape: cocci Arrangement: clumped, streptococcus Color: pink Staining characteristics: Since the stain turned pink indicates being Gram negative. |
Table 3: Other characterized colonies
|
Colony #3 |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Staining Characteristics: Since the stain turned pink indicates that it might be Gram negative. Other: After staining the bacteria turned pink which indicates possible being Gram negative but there are always the possibility of some cross contamination altering the results. |
| 100x objective | |
|
Colony #4 |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Arrangement: clustered, streptobacillus Color: purple Staining Characteristics: After staining the bacteria turned purple which indicates being Gram positive. Other: Since the rest of the bacteria have stained pink and this is the only one turning purple it could mean there was some cross contamination in the process. |
|
Colony #5 |
Cellular Morphology: Size: small Staining Characteristics: Since the bacteria appears pink it could indicate being Gram negative. Other: The bacteria appear to be Gram negative but there could be some cross contamination altering the results. |
CLASS ACTIVITY WORKSHEET
Section: U01
Group: #5
Environment: Plant
Name: Thalia Ramos Gigato
ID: 6141550
Date: 03/15/2022
Lab Title: Advanced Biochemical Testing and Bergey’s Manual of Bacteriology Identification.
Table 1:
|
Test |
Picture |
Result |
Description |
|
|
Mannitol Salt Agar (MSA) |
Reaction: NOT APPLICABLE No colonies grew on the plate. Color: clear pH: Not applicable Other: No presence of colonies. |
Metabolic reaction: No bacteria was able to grow in either differential or selective medium. Enzymatic activity: Based on what we can observe no bacteria grew on the plate meaning that it wasn’t halophile or halotolerant. Other: No acidic fermentation of mannitol sugar present. Type of bacteria based on selective or differential properties. Not applicable because no bacteria grew on the plate. |
|
Eosin-Y Methylene Blue Agar (EMB) |
Reaction: positive/negative? Negative Color: cream light purple pH: acidic Other: Can really observe well on the picture but it was a creamy light purple color. |
Metabolic reaction: The agar is mainly used as a differential medium, but it also contains lactose that when fermented gives a creamy purple color as a result. Enzymatic activity: Lactose was not fermented. Type of bacteria based on selective or differential properties. Gram-negative non-lactose utilizer. |
|
Blood Agar |
Reaction: Negative Color: white /transparent pH: alkaline Other: Gamma-hemolysis |
Metabolic reaction: Bacteria grew on the plate, but it didn’t cause hemolysis of red blood cells. Enzymatic activity: Differential medium is used in the plate to distinguish the two types of hemolysis, but no destruction of red blood cells occurred. Type of bacteria based on selective or differential properties. Gram negative bacteria. |
|
MacConkey Agar |
Reaction: Positive Color: pink pH: alkaline Other: In the picture doesn’t look too pink. |
Metabolic reaction:
The medium is both selective and differential but since it turned to be pink the bacteria used differential medium because lactose fermenting colonies are present. Enzymatic activity: Lactose was fermented. Type of bacteria based on selective or differential properties. |
Table 2:
|
API Test |
Reactions |
|
Colony morphology: Oxidase: Catalase: |
List each test and its result- including OX (positive/negative and reaction that occurred) ONPG: Negative DAH: Positive LDC: Negative ODC: Negative CIT: Negative H2S: Negative URE: Positive. It wasn’t yellow but since it had a color change it’s considered positive. TDA: Positive IND: Negative VP: Negative GEL: Negative GLU: Positive. No color change indicating the presence of ammonium. MAN: Negative INO: Negative SOR: Negative RHA: Negative SAC: Positive MEL: Negative AMY: Negative ARA: Positive List the 7-digit code: 2034022 |
|
Negative reaction Color: no color change pH: acidic |
|
|
Positive reaction Color: white pH: alkaline (basic) Other: catalase present Describe your results from the API Web page and your conclusion on your bacteria’s identification Based on the results and the number we obtained we can conclude that our bacteria is Proteus penneri. This bacteria is rod-shaped, catalase positive, and Gram-negative bacteria. |
Part 3:
Include a screenshot of the Bergey’s manual dichotomous key(s) used to identify your bacteria with markings showing the pathways taken to identify your bacteria and the final identification circled/highlighted.
Final Identification of unknown bacteria:
Proteus penneri
MCB3020L General Microbiology Laboratory
Lab #9:
Section: U0
1
Group: #5
Environment: Plant
Name: Thalia Ramos Gigato
ID: 6141550
Date: 03/22/2022
Lab Title: Isolation and Characterization of Bacteriophages.
CLASS A
CIT
IVITY WORKSHEET
Note: Highlight those rows in which the obtained result does not match the expected results. Use superscript to indicate in-text citations for your results.
|
Test |
Obtained Result |
Expected Result |
|||||||||
|
Insert name of bacterial species obtained from API system here: Proteus penneri |
|||||||||||
|
OF medium |
With oil: + Without oil: – |
-1 |
|||||||||
|
Kligler’s Triple Iron Agar |
+ |
+2 |
|||||||||
|
Litmus Milk |
+ |
+2 |
|||||||||
|
Urease |
+2 |
||||||||||
|
Starch Hydrolysis |
|||||||||||
|
Nitrate Reduction |
|||||||||||
|
Gelatin Hydrolysis |
– |
-2 |
|||||||||
|
Methyl Red |
– |
||||||||||
|
Voges-Proskauer |
+2 |
||||||||||
|
Oxidase |
-1 |
||||||||||
|
Catalase |
+1 |
||||||||||
|
Blood Agar |
|||||||||||
|
MacConkey Agar |
+ |
||||||||||
|
EMB (Lactose) |
– |
||||||||||
|
MSA (Mannitol) |
Not Applicable |
||||||||||
|
List the 20 (or 50) names from your specific API test kit in the following rows. |
|||||||||||
|
ONPG |
-2 |
||||||||||
|
DAH |
+ | +2 | |||||||||
|
LDC |
|||||||||||
|
ODC |
– |
||||||||||
| CIT | |||||||||||
|
H2S |
– |
||||||||||
|
URE |
+ |
||||||||||
|
TDA |
+ |
||||||||||
|
IND |
-2 |
||||||||||
|
VP |
|||||||||||
|
GEL |
|||||||||||
|
GLU |
+ | ||||||||||
|
MAN |
|||||||||||
|
INO |
– |
||||||||||
|
SOR |
|||||||||||
|
RHA |
|||||||||||
|
SAC |
+2 | ||||||||||
|
MEL |
|||||||||||
|
AMY |
– |
||||||||||
|
ARA |
+ |
+2 |
1Bergey’s Manual, 2nd Edition, 2004
2National Library of Medicine, 2016.
Question:
(A) Which results/tests were repeated in our experiments? List them.
The URE test was repeated, and it was positive for both.
(B) For each test, did the results match or not?
Some did match but 6 of them didn’t (highlighted ones).
1
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read moreOur specialists are always online to help you! We are available 24/7 via live chat, WhatsApp, and phone to answer questions, correct mistakes, or just address your academic fears.
See our T&Cs