Team:TU Munich/Results/BBF RFC25

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Question7:)
(Question7:)
 
(4 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 51: Line 51:
 +
[[file:TUM12_Collaboration_medal1.png|50px]]
 +
[[file:TUM12_Collaboration_medal2.png|50px]]
-
 
+
<html><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:TU_Munich/Results/RFC" target="_blank"><img class="centerVerySmall" src="File:TUM12_Collaboration_medal1.png" alt="xxx completed TU Munich's survey on Standardization of BioBrick part descriptions"/></a></html>
-
<a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:Freiburg_Bioware/Team/Cuckoo_Clock" target="_blank"><img class="centerVerySmall" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/1/10/Freiburg10_Cuckoo_Clock_UPO-Sevilla.png" alt="UPO-Sevilla took part in Freiburg's Cuckoo Clock Competition"/></a>
+
</div>
</div>

Latest revision as of 17:37, 14 September 2012



Contents

The Idea: Its all about standardization...


Text describing the idea.

The Survey: Integrating opinions and ideas from the community.


Text describing the idea.


The survey can be found under: [http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/B8LZNXQ TU Munich iGEM Team's survey on standardization of BioBrick part descriptions]

Number of participants: 26


Participants of TU München iGEM 2012 survey auf einer größeren Karte anzeigen

The survey was sent to all contact addresses of iGEM Teams from this year.

Question 1:

Which iGEM Team do you belong to?

Question 2:

Do you use BioBricks from the registry for your project?

Question 3:

How would you describe the average quality of the part descriptions that you dealt with?

Question 4:

Do you think a standardization of the part descriptions could increase the usability of BioBricks in the future?

Question 5:

We propose to use a standardized form for the part descriptions of BioBricks in the Parts Registry similar to the following: [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_K801999:Design].
Would you like to use such a standardized template providing a structure in the source code that just needs to be completed?

Question 6:

Do you have suggestions what kind of additional information should be included in the standardized part descriptions? So far the following information are included: * keywords, abbreviations, other versions of the BioBrick, RFC standard, deleted restriction sites, truncations of the nucleotidesequence - if coding for proteins * amino acid replacements, posttranslational modifications, enzymatic activities, cytotoxicity, source of the construct, originating organism, codonoptimization, literature references, sequence references, structure references.

Question7:

Do you have any other suggestions how the usability of BioBricks could be increased by better describing them?


TUM12 Collaboration medal1.png TUM12 Collaboration medal2.png



xxx completed TU Munich's survey on Standardization of BioBrick part descriptions

The result: Our Request for Comments (RFC)


Text describing the idea.