Here’s a little science for my students. I am going a little bit crazy trying to get a binding assay to work using fluorescence polarization (FP). The basic idea is this: take a constant amount of a fluorescent molecule (aptamer, Apt), add something that changes its fluorescence polarization (ligand, L), and measure the FP. As ligand is added, fluorescence polarization should change.

We measure the initial FP, add ligand, measure the FP again and look at the change. The total FP should be the weighted average of the bound and unbound quantities. So, we can model the delta-FP as a binding curve. We know the total Apt and L. For a given Kd we can calculate predicted concentrations of all the species. Delta-FP is proportional to the concentration of bound aptamer in in the product. That’s freshman chemistry and algebra.

We If we guess the equilibrium constant and guess the maximum FP, we can compare to the experimental results. After a lot of guess-and-check (called a nonlinear fit and done automatically with the Excel Solver Add-in) we get a binding curve (line) that sort-of matches the data (dots). It suggests a Kd of ~100 nM which is within an order of magnitude of the Kd of this aptamer as measured by dot-blot… but look at those error bars. That’s the standard deviation among 3 replicates. Not good.

Why are these error bars so big? Sample preparation or instrument? We pipetted 24 samples of our 20 nM aptamer across one row of wells on the 384-well plate. The same solution went into each well. Results were disappointingly inconsistent.

The well-to-well standard deviation is .02, which is as large as our maximum delta-FP signal. That’s not usable. The scan-to-scan repeatability is not as bad. The orange and blue data are repeated scans of the same row.  Since the scan-to-scan repeatability is OK, we used delta-FP (before and after adding ligand) for the binding assay (rather than raw FP). The standard deviation of the delta-FP is .002. The change after adding ligand is as large as .015. So, maybe there’s something, but it’s still not good.

Why is it so bad and how can we fix it? We can go a higher on aptamer concentration. That will give better SNR and maybe overwhelm whatever the variable interference is from well-to-well. We can also take numerous data points for each well and average them. If the plate reader’s positional reproducibility is the problem, averaging should help.

I bought an overstock optical filter for the lab’s plate reader (Beckman DTX-880). I want to analyze Hoechst dye fluorescence (excitation 350 nm, emission 453 nm). My new filter is the right size for the excitation filter slider, but too small for the emission filter slider. That’s probably because the 450 nm – 480 nm is a  very common excitation size but not a common emission size.

So, I need to either order another emission filter and custom size it to 18 mm diameter ($500) or I need to cut a little filter adapter ($free). I need something that will hold the 12 mm filter securely and block light. I envisioned something like this made from black plastic:

So I drew up 2 layers in Inkskape. The first layer made a partial engrave of a “rim” about 1mm into the 2mm thick plastic. The second layer cut the hole for the filter and then cut the part out of the plastic sheet:

The end result worked out pretty well. The funny thing is that this laser cutter cost ~$300. So it has paid for itself already. Admittedly, it did take some troubleshooting… so maybe the cost benefit was not quite so clean. I had to replace the laser tube (which the company did supply) and I had to replace the power supply ($100). At this point I still call it a win.

There are plenty of places where rooftop solar is at grid parity. We are approaching a time when stored solar electricity will be the cheapest power available even at night. Back in 2012, I estimated the battery price that would allow 24/7 solar to be as cheap as coal/nuclear electricity. I figured that stored solar would be in range of grid parity when batteries were ~$250 per kWh. In 2013, the EIA estimated that we would reach that price point in 2040.

The future is here early. Tesla and GM/LG are quoting prices from $140 to $190 per kWh. I suspect that if we tried to roll out a lot of grid-scale batteries, the additional demand would drive up the price (if only due to lithium supply problems). That being said, if you can do it with lithium, it’s doable with other chemistry. The constraints for stationary grid batteries are different than for vehicle batteries. Size and mass are less critical than price, for instance.

When long term energy scarcity is not a problem, I feel pretty optimistic about a lot of things.