MI / Genetics of Disease · September 21, 2026 · 80 minutes

Dilution and ELISA model report

Parts 1 to 3 in one report: your checked September 17 dilution record, your checked September 18 ELISA model record and one new consolidation page

This page has four parts, in the order you use them. Part 1 is what you need to know. Part 2 says what to do, in plain English. Part 3 shows the work done once on a separate example. Part 4 is your own record and the tasks. Everything you write goes in one product.

Hand the paper report to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF. Do not submit twice.

Wk5 Lab report: Dilution and ELISA model submission Start with the five steps

Part 1 of 4 · Background and definitions

Required reference

Paper-record workflow. This is a teaching diagram, not a plate image, a dilution procedure or an assay protocol.

OPEN YOUR TWO RECORDS
September 17 dilution table + prediction | September 18 Parts A to C
(unfinished or missing? use the reprinted blank record first)
                       |
                       v
CHECK PART 1 (Check 1)
Given 1000 units/mL, illustrative | four 1:10 steps | each row uses the row above ÷ 10
unit on every result | prediction stays conditional | no graph
                       |
                       v
CHECK PART 2 (Check 2)
Three labels: antigen, antibody, antibody's binding site
Four statements from supplied labels | two-well comparison under the model relationship
one limit: no decision rule, no control results supplied
                       |
                       v
WRITE PART 3
3A: what the values are, what the rows are, what a call would need
3B: the first thing you would check before trusting a record like this
3C: period and code, date, parts included, route
                       |
                       v
SUBMIT ONCE
Parts 1, 2, 3 in order | paper to Mr. Mendoza or one PDF to the Wk5 Lab report item
No re-upload to the September 17 or 18 assignments

Full text equivalent

Start with your two paper records from September 17 and 18. If one is unfinished or missing, complete it from the reprinted blank record in this handout, which carries the same supplied inputs. Check Part 1 with Check 1: one given starting row at 1000 units/mL labeled illustrative, four 1:10 steps that each divide the row above by 10, the unit units/mL on every result, and one prediction sentence that stays conditional on the printed assumption. There is no graph. Check Part 2 with Check 2: a diagram labeling antigen, antibody and the antibody's binding site with a short explanation and its limit; four statements that report only the supplied color and label of each well; a comparison of two named wells under the printed model relationship; and one limit naming a missing decision rule or control results. Then write Part 3: three sentences stating what the dilution values are, what the well rows are and what a positive or negative call would need; one sentence naming the first check you would make before trusting such a record; and the cover fields. Put the parts in order and submit once, on paper or as one PDF. The finished report never claims a solution, an assay, an observation, a measurement or a diagnosis.

Optional restart cue

Find the first unchecked box on Check 1 or Check 2. Fix that item on your own record and keep going in order. Part 3 comes last. Do not start a second report and do not add a graph.

A Y-shaped antibody and a blob antigen, labeled antibody, antigen, antibody's binding site at one arm tip, and the contacted part of the antigen, an epitope. — Figure 1. The four words Check 2 asks for, on a drawing that is not a well or a result. A conceptual drawing, not a molecular image. Open full size (on a phone, open it and pinch to zoom).

The complete reading, which the tasks quote

Open the sections in order for the rules, the limits and the route.

Genetics of Disease / Medical Interventions · Monday, September 21, 2026 · Required briefing

R1. Your one report

Today you assemble one Dilution and ELISA model report with three parts. Part 1 is your September 17 dilution record. Part 2 is your September 18 ELISA model record, Parts A to C. Part 3 is one new page where you say what the report can and cannot support. You submit the three parts together, once.

The Schoology item is called a lab report. Read that as the name of the item, not as a description of what you did. Last week you made two paper records from supplied inputs. You did not prepare a solution, run an assay, read a plate or handle a specimen, and the report says so. A paper-model report is still a real record: it has inputs, calculations, labels and limits that another reader can check.

If your September 17 or 18 record is unfinished or missing, this handout reprints both blank records with the same supplied inputs. Complete the unfinished one first, then continue.

R2. Check the dilution record

Your assigned record starts at 1000 units/mL. That value is an illustrative input for calculation, not a measurement of a real solution. It is followed by four 1:10 steps. For this record, 1:10 means one part of the preceding sample plus nine parts solvent, ten total parts, so each resulting concentration is the preceding concentration divided by 10. Keep the unit units/mL with every result.

Use Check 1. Count one given row and four step rows. In each step, the preceding value must be the result of the row just above it, not 1000 again. The divisor is 10, not 9. Every result carries its unit. If a row is wrong, cross it out so it stays readable and write the corrected calculation beside it. A corrected record is a stronger record than a hidden one.

Your prediction sentence stays conditional. It uses the printed assumption: for this classroom model, assume signal increases with concentration within its useful range. The sentence predicts the direction of signal change across your four steps and does not say that a test produced that result. This lesson supplied no measured standards and required no standard curve, so your report has no graph. Do not add one.

The separate 800 ng/mL 1:2 worked model from September 17 shows the method with different numbers and a different unit. It is optional support on the portal, not a part of this report.

R3. Check the ELISA model record

Part A is a conceptual diagram with three labels: antigen, antibody and the antibody's binding site. The binding site is on the antibody; the contacted part is on the antigen. Epitope is optional detail. Your one-or-two-sentence explanation says binding is selective, connects binding to a detectable signal in the color-based ELISA concept, and keeps the limit that selective binding does not guarantee an error-free test, because cross-reaction can occur (an antibody binding something other than the target it was raised against).

Part B reports four supplied rows: Well 1, dark blue, 100 ng/mL; Well 2, medium blue, 10 ng/mL; Well 3, light blue, 1 ng/mL; Well 4, nearly clear, ~0.1 ng/mL. The ~ means approximately; keep it. These are supplied color descriptions and concentration labels. Each of your four statements reports only what its row supplies. A statement that says you observed a reaction or measured a concentration is not supported, because you did not.

Part C keeps the printed relationship visible: for this supplied model, darker blue is associated with a higher assigned concentration. That is the model's stated relationship, not a rule for every ELISA format; some formats run the opposite way. Your comparison names two wells and says it holds within the supplied model. Your limit names something the record cannot establish or one kind of reference information it lacks. The record supplies no decision rule, no known control results, no measured signals and no calibration curve. Naming one of those is enough. Do not invent it.

Use Check 2 and correct readably, the same way as Part 1.

R4. What the report can and cannot support

Write Part 3A as three sentences, one for each item below. Use these ideas in your own words.

The dilution values. They are calculated from an illustrative input by a stated rule. They are not measurements, and no solution was made. The record shows the input, the divisor and the unit so a reader can repeat the arithmetic.
The four well rows. They are supplied color descriptions and concentration labels. They are not observations you made and not concentrations calculated from a measured curve. The comparison between two wells holds only under the model's stated relationship.
A positive or negative call. Neither record can make one. A call would need the test's decision rule (how the test decides what counts as positive) and known control results (references with expected results used to check a test). This report does not supply them, and you do not invent them.

The paragraph is a statement of limits, not an apology. A reader trusts a record that says exactly how far it goes.

R5. A record another reader can check

A calculation is useful only when another reader can follow its input, units and assumptions. Your two records already practice that: the preceding-row chain, the unit on every result, the illustrative label, the ~ on Well 4, and the limit sentence. Part 3B asks for one sentence naming the first thing you would check before trusting a record like this one, and why. Choose one:

Does each step use the row just above it, with the divisor shown?
Does every result carry its unit?
Is the given input labeled illustrative, so no one mistakes it for a measurement?
Are labels kept separate from observations?
Before any positive or negative call, are the decision rule and the control results present?

You may name a different check from your own records, as long as a stranger could confirm it on the page.

R6. Submit once, and how this connects

Put the parts in order: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Fill in the cover fields with your period and code, today's date, the parts-included boxes and the route box. Hand the paper report to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF to Wk5 Lab report: Dilution and ELISA model submission by the due time shown in Schoology. Do not submit twice, and do not upload the September 17 or 18 work to its old assignment again. Notebook pages stay in your notebook.

This report is local John Hay practice connected to PLTW Medical Interventions Activity 1.1.5, ELISA. Completing it does not complete that official activity, does not run an assay and does not clear any later bench work. Any wet lab your teacher assigns later has its own preparation and instructions.

If you were absent, or lose your place: use the September 17 and September 18 portal lessons for the same supplied inputs, finish any unfinished record, then write Part 3 and submit the one report. No separate absence response, virtual lab, photo or notes upload is required.

References already used in the September 17 and 18 lessons: ELISA background, Introduction and Quality Control; Assay Guidance Manual, Immunoassay Formats, Control Samples and Calibration Curve Model Selection; Janeway, Immunologists' Toolbox. They are background, not extra assignments.

All vocabulary definitions

Illustrative input: A value supplied for calculation. The September 17 starting value of 1000 units/mL is an illustrative input for calculation, not a measurement of a real solution.
1:10: For this record, 1:10 means one part of the preceding sample plus nine parts solvent, ten total parts, so each resulting concentration is the preceding concentration divided by 10.
units/mL: The September 17 unit, read as units per milliliter. Keep it with every result.
ng/mL: The September 18 unit, read as nanograms per milliliter. Do not substitute units/mL for ng/mL.
The ~ symbol: The ~ means approximately; keep it. Well 4 is labeled ~0.1 ng/mL.
Supplied label: A color description or concentration label the record gives you. These are supplied color descriptions and concentration labels, not observations you made.
Cross-reaction: An antibody binding something other than the target it was raised against.
The test's decision rule: How the test decides what counts as positive.
Known control results: References with expected results used to check a test.
Conditional prediction: A prediction that stays inside a printed assumption. It does not say that a test produced that result.

Part 2 of 4 · Directions in plain English

What you will do today, in order

Make one report: Parts 1 to 3. Part 1 is your September 17 dilution record. Part 2 is your September 18 ELISA model record, Parts A to C. Part 3 is one new consolidation page. Today is a submission and consolidation day. No solution, plate, reagent or equipment is used, and the report says so.

Open your two records. Get out your September 17 table and prediction and your September 18 Parts A to C. If either is unfinished or missing, use the reprinted blank record in this handout; it has the same supplied inputs. Fill in the cover fields: period and code, today's date.
Check Part 1. Use Check 1. One given row at 1000 units/mL, labeled illustrative. Four 1:10 steps, each dividing the row just above by 10, with units/mL on every result. One prediction sentence that stays conditional on the printed assumption. Cross out and correct readably. No graph.
Check Part 2. Use Check 2. Three labels on the diagram, an explanation with its limit, four statements that report only each well's supplied color and label, a two-well comparison under the printed model relationship, and one limit naming what the record lacks. Correct readably.
Write Part 3. 3A: three sentences from R4, one each on the dilution values, the well rows and what a positive or negative call would need. 3B: one sentence from R5 naming the first thing you would check before trusting a record like this, and why.
Assemble and submit once. Order the parts 1, 2, 3, tick the parts-included boxes and the route box. Hand the paper report to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF to Wk5 Lab report: Dilution and ELISA model submission by the due time shown in Schoology. Do not upload the September 17 or 18 work to its old assignment again.

Show the 80-minute plan

0 to 10 minutes: Teacher launch. Identify the one report, its three parts and the paper-model boundary. Do the do-now and fill in the cover fields. Tasks 3C.
10 to 25 minutes: Part 1 check. Use Check 1 on your dilution table and prediction. Correct readably. Use R2 if a row is unclear. Tasks 1A, 1B.
25 to 40 minutes: Part 2 check. Use Check 2 on Parts A to C. Correct readably. Use R3 and the September 18 text diagram if a part is unclear. Tasks 2A, 2B, 2C.
40 to 55 minutes: Individual writing with teacher support. Write the 3A paragraph: three sentences, one for each item in R4. Tasks 3A.
55 to 68 minutes: Finish and assemble. Write the 3B carry-forward check from R5. Put Parts 1, 2 and 3 in order and tick the parts-included boxes. Tasks 3B, 3C.
68 to 80 minutes: Check and submit. Read the report once as a stranger would. Hand in paper or submit one PDF. Confirm the paper is handed in, or that the PDF shows as submitted. Tasks handoff.

Slides and optional notes

Guided notes and a partner check are optional; neither is a submission.

Download PPTX Optional guided notes (PDF)

Part 3 of 4 · Worked example

Optional support, never a report part

The separate 800 ng/mL 1:2 worked model from September 17 shows the method with different numbers and a different unit. It is optional support on the portal, not a part of this report.

The separate reasoning example from September 18 shows the report-then-conclude habit on a different well set. Both are linked below; neither supplies a number or a well answer for your report.

September 17 portal lesson September 18 portal lesson

Part 4 of 4 · Your work

4.1 Required record and the reprinted blanks

Download the blank response record (PDF)Open the printable response record

Genetics of Disease / Medical Interventions | Monday, September 21, 2026

Today is a submission and consolidation day. No solution, plate, reagent or equipment is used, and the report says so. The finished report never claims a solution, an assay, an observation, a measurement or a diagnosis.

Cover block

Period and code, not your name: ____________________
Date: ____________________
Parts included: [ ] Part 1 [ ] Part 2 [ ] Part 3
Route: [ ] paper handed to Mr. Mendoza [ ] one PDF to the Wk5 Lab report item

Part 1. Your September 17 dilution record

Check your five-row dilution table against Check 1: one given starting row at 1000 units/mL labeled illustrative; four steps after it; each step divides the row above by 10; a calculation and units/mL in every result. Correct any row readably. Tick each Check 1 box you can confirm.

Check 1

[ ] One given starting row at 1000 units/mL, labeled illustrative
[ ] Four steps after the stock row, no fifth step
[ ] Each step uses the row just above it, divided by 10
[ ] A calculation and units/mL in every result
[ ] One prediction sentence that uses the printed assumption and does not claim a measured result

Check your one prediction sentence: it uses the printed assumption, it predicts the direction of signal change across your four steps, and it does not say a test produced that result. Tick the Check 1 box for the prediction.

The same blank record, for an unfinished or missing September 17 page

Use 1000 units/mL as your starting concentration; it is illustrative, not measured. Plan 4 1:10 steps after the starting-stock row. Each step uses one part of the preceding sample and nine parts solvent: ten total parts. Resulting concentration = preceding concentration ÷ 10. Keep units/mL with every result.

Row	Preceding concentration (units/mL)	Calculation	Resulting concentration (units/mL)
Starting stock, given	Not applicable	Given illustrative input	1000
Step 1: use starting stock	____________________	____________________	____________________
Step 2: use Step 1	____________________	____________________	____________________
Step 3: use Step 2	____________________	____________________	____________________
Step 4: use Step 3	____________________	____________________	____________________

Assumption: For this classroom model, assume signal increases with concentration within its useful range. Your prediction is conditional on that assumption. It is not a measured result or a rule for every assay format.

Your sentence: Predict the direction of signal change across your four steps under that assumption. Explain how the planned concentration change supports your prediction.

________________________________________________________________________________

This lesson does not supply measured standards or require a standard curve. Your report has no graph. Do not add one.

Part 2. Your September 18 ELISA model record

Check 2

[ ] Diagram labels antigen, antibody and the antibody's binding site
[ ] Explanation names selective binding and its connection to a detectable signal
[ ] Explanation keeps the limit that selective binding does not guarantee an error-free test
[ ] Four statements, each supported only by its supplied row, ~ kept on Well 4, no observation claimed
[ ] Comparison names two wells and keeps the printed model relationship explicit
[ ] Limit names a conclusion the record cannot establish or the reference information it lacks

The same blank record, for an unfinished or missing September 18 page

Part A. Draw and label antigen, antibody, antibody's binding site. The binding site is on the antibody; the contacted part is on the antigen. Epitope is optional detail.

Reference diagram: ANTIBODY [binding site] <--> [contacted part] ANTIGEN

Your diagram:

________________________________________________________________________________

Your brief explanation: Write one or two sentences: selective binding, its connection to a detectable signal in the color-based ELISA concept, and the limit that selective binding does not guarantee an error-free test.

________________________________________________________________________________

Part B. Supplied model descriptions and concentration labels, not observations made or concentrations calculated from a measured curve. Do not substitute units/mL for ng/mL.

Well ID	Supplied color description	Supplied concentration label	Your short statement supported by this row
Well 1	Dark blue	100 ng/mL	____________________
Well 2	Medium blue	10 ng/mL	____________________
Well 3	Light blue	1 ng/mL	____________________
Well 4	Nearly clear	~0.1 ng/mL	____________________

Part C. For this supplied model, darker blue is associated with a higher assigned concentration. This is the model's stated relationship, not a rule for every ELISA format. Some formats have the opposite relationship between concentration and signal.

Your comparison: Name two wells. In one sentence, compare their supplied color descriptions and concentration labels under the stated model relationship. Make clear that you are comparing supplied model labels, not new measurements.

________________________________________________________________________________

These four rows do not establish positive or negative test results. That would require the test's decision rule and known control results. The concentration labels are supplied; you did not calculate them from measured signals or a calibration curve.

Your limit: Write one sentence naming a conclusion this record cannot establish or one kind of reference information that would be needed to check that conclusion. Do not invent a control result, cutoff or experimental procedure to fill the gap.

________________________________________________________________________________

Part 3. Consolidation page

3A. Write three sentences, one for each of the three items below: what the dilution values are and are not; what the four well rows are and are not; what a positive or negative call would need that this report does not supply.

________________________________________________________________________________

3B. Write one sentence naming the first thing you would check before trusting a record like this one, and why. Choose from the checks below or name your own from your two records.

Does each step use the row just above it, with the divisor shown?
Does every result carry its unit?
Is the given input labeled illustrative, so no one mistakes it for a measurement?
Are labels kept separate from observations?
Before any positive or negative call, are the decision rule and the control results present?

________________________________________________________________________________

3C. Fill in the cover fields: period and code, today's date, the parts-included boxes for Parts 1, 2 and 3, and the route box for paper or one PDF. The cover block is at the top of this page.

Submit once

Complete one Dilution and ELISA model report, Parts 1 to 3. Hand the paper report to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF to Wk5 Lab report: Dilution and ELISA model submission by the due time shown in Schoology. Use your period and code. Do not submit twice, and do not upload the September 17 or 18 work to its old assignment again. Keep notebook pages in your notebook.

4.2 The eight responses in one report

1A. Check your five-row dilution table against Check 1: one given starting row at 1000 units/mL labeled illustrative; four steps after it; each step divides the row above by 10; a calculation and units/mL in every result. Correct any row readably. Tick each Check 1 box you can confirm. Use the row just above, not 1000 again. Divide by 10, not 9. If a row is wrong, cross it out neatly and write the corrected calculation beside it.
1B. Check your one prediction sentence: it uses the printed assumption, it predicts the direction of signal change across your four steps, and it does not say a test produced that result. Tick the Check 1 box for the prediction. The word if, or the phrase under this assumption, keeps the sentence conditional.
2A. Check Part A: your diagram labels antigen, antibody and the antibody's binding site (binding site on the antibody), and your explanation says binding is selective, connects binding to a detectable signal, and keeps the limit that selective binding does not guarantee an error-free test. Tick the Check 2 boxes for Part A. Epitope is optional. The binding site belongs to the antibody; the contacted part belongs to the antigen.
2B. Check Part B: one short statement for each of Well 1 to Well 4, each supported only by that row's supplied color description or concentration label, with the ~ kept on Well 4 and no claim that you observed or measured anything. Tick the Check 2 box for Part B. A statement such as 'Well 3 is labeled light blue and 1 ng/mL' is supported. 'Well 3 is positive' is not.
2C. Check Part C: your comparison names two wells and says it holds under the printed model relationship; your limit names a conclusion the record cannot establish or one kind of reference information that would be needed. Tick the Check 2 boxes for Part C. The record supplies no decision rule and no control results. Naming one of those as missing is enough.
3A. Write three sentences, one for each item in R4: what the dilution values are and are not; what the four well rows are and are not; what a positive or negative call would need that this report does not supply. Use the words calculated, illustrative, supplied label, decision rule and control results. Do not invent the missing information.
3B. Write one sentence naming the first thing you would check before trusting a record like this one, and why. Choose from the R5 list or name your own from your two records. Pick something a stranger could check on the page: the preceding-row chain, the unit on every result, the illustrative label, or the presence of a decision rule and controls.
3C. Fill in the cover fields: period and code, today's date, the parts-included boxes for Parts 1, 2 and 3, and the route box for paper or one PDF. Use your period and code, not your name, on the cover block.

Connection to PLTW

This paper report does not clear any bench work. Any later wet lab has its own teacher-directed preparation and instructions, which are not part of this report.

Activity 1.1.5 ELISA
myPLTW: existing authorized access route; no action required for this report
ELISA background, NCBI Bookshelf NBK555922: Previously approved background from the September 17 and 18 lessons, not a new assignment
Assay Guidance Manual, NCBI Bookshelf NBK92434: Previously approved background from the September 17 and 18 lessons, not a new assignment
Janeway, Immunologists' Toolbox, NCBI Bookshelf NBK10755: Previously approved background from the September 17 and 18 lessons, not a new assignment

Submit the one report once

Wk5 Lab report: Dilution and ELISA model submission

Help when you need it

Need help? Choose a starting point

Need a running start

R2 and R3 restate every rule you need.

On track

Parts 1 to 3 in one report: your checked September 17 dilution record, your checked September 18 ELISA model record and one new consolidation page

Stuck? Get unstuck

If you lose your place, find the first unchecked box on Check 1 or Check 2, fix that item on your own record, and keep going in order. Part 3 comes last. Stay in the same report.

Push me further

An optional partner check of Check 1 and Check 2; no partner reply is submitted.

Restart at your first unchecked box

If you lose your place, find the first unchecked box on Check 1 or Check 2, fix that item on your own record, and keep going in order. Part 3 comes last. Stay in the same report.

If you were absent

Use the September 17 and 18 portal lessons for the same supplied inputs. Complete any unfinished record first, from the same blank record and reading. Then write Part 3 and submit the one report. Do not invent a measurement, a control result, a positive or negative call or a graph.

If your teacher is absent

Complete the same one report from the supplied records and this handout. No bench work, no plate, no new data. Submit paper or one PDF as directed on the handout.

Check your one report

I keep the given starting value labeled illustrative and show a calculation and unit in every step.
I report the four supplied wells as labels, not as observations or measurements.
I keep the model relationship and my prediction conditional.
I state what the report cannot establish and what a real result would need.
I submit one complete report once, to the correct assignment.

Take home: A record another reader can check carries its inputs, its units, its assumptions and its limits.

Keep this report. Tomorrow's assignment in the week's list is the CER on false results. It does not use today's records as test data.