Team:TU Munich/Results/BBF RFC25
From 2012.igem.org
VolkerMorath (Talk | contribs) (→Question7:) |
VolkerMorath (Talk | contribs) (→Question7:) |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
- | <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> | + | <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></html> |
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 17:21, 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?
The result: Our Request for Comments (RFC)
Text describing the idea.