Lab 5 Worksheet – UV Experiment – Answer Key
Q1. Regarding the wild-type strain data set alone, describe the results from this
experiment. What conclusion can you draw with respect to your null hypothesis that
sunscreen will have no protective benefit from UV radiation on yeast survival?
Students should make an argument along these lines:
In the context of the wild-type strain:
The plates with the highest UV exposure/ saran-wrapped plates, yielded the lowest average
number of colonies (0.5)
The sunscreen-protected plates yielded a higher average number of colonies (0.5)
These results reject the null-hypothesis that sunscreen will have no protective benefit for
yeast survival. (1)
Q2. Regarding the light-sensitive mutant strain data set alone, describe the results from
this experiment. What conclusion can you draw with respect to your null hypothesis that
sunscreen will have no protective benefit from UV radiation on yeast survival?
Students should make an argument along these lines:
In the context of the mutant strain:
The plates with the highest UV exposure/ saran-wrapped plates, yielded the lowest average
number of colonies (0.5)
The sunscreen-protected plates yielded a higher average number of colonies (0.5)
These results reject the null-hypothesis that sunscreen will have no protective benefit
for yeast survival. (1)
Q3. Compare the data between the wild-type yeast strain and the light-sensitive mutant
strain and describe the results in your own words. Based on this data, what conclusions
can you draw with regard to your second null hypothesis that there will be no difference
between yeast strains in response to similar UV-blocking conditions?
Students could mention anything related to:
• The mutant strain is not as efficient in its ability to resist/ survive damage caused by
UV radiation causing cellular death compared to the wild-type strain (especially in
"None" and SPF 15 groups) (1)
Lab 5 Worksheet – UV Experiment – Answer Key
Students should reject their null hypothesis that wild-type and mutant strains will show no
difference in response to similar UV-blocking conditions. (1)
Q4. What is the biological significance of your experimental results? Your response should
be concise and touch on each exposure condition and yeast strain, and the functionality of
DNA repair pathways. How do your results compare with literature on this topic? (Refer to
the paper posted in Lab 4 folder: Alhamdy and Alsowayan, 2020)
Results suggest that any level of blocking (SPF 15, 50, or foil) is equally protective for wild-
type cells, but light-sensitive mutant yeast only remain viable when UV is completely
blocked by foil or SPF 50 sunscreen. (1)
DNA repair is much more functional in sunscreen exposures of wild-type cells compared
with mutants as observed with higher survival of wild-type (1)
Lit comparison: (1)
• Regular sunscreens use was shown to reduce the effect of UV exposure with similar
results to ours (e.g. Alhamdy and Alsowayan, 2020)
Q5. The data presented in the graph is a compilation of data from all groups across all 33
lab sections. Compared with your own graph that you submitted, why are the SEM error
bars smaller in this graph in Figure 1 above? What information can you infer from the error
bars when trying to determine meaningful differences between samples? Give an example
from the graph in Figure 1.
Fewer samples in student graphs will result in larger SEM bars (OR more samples in
compiled graph will give smaller SEM bars (1)
Generally if error bars overlap with each other, there is no meaningful difference (and vice
versa). (1)
Can look at error bars between WT "none" vs WT Foil/sunscreens, or WT SPF15 vs Mut
SPF15 (for differences) (1 for any example that works)
