Team:Buenos Aires/Project/Schemes
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Manugimenez (Talk | contribs) (→Crossfeeding) |
(→Schemes) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= Schemes = | = Schemes = | ||
+ | |||
+ | During the design phase of the project we though of several alternative schemes, each of which have pros and cons. Here we do a short summary of these schemes. | ||
== Crossfeeding == | == Crossfeeding == | ||
- | |||
- | |||
{| | {| | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
|In this scheme, quorum sensing (QS) controls the density of each strain in an independent manner. | |In this scheme, quorum sensing (QS) controls the density of each strain in an independent manner. | ||
- | The system has already been implemented for a single strain, using the LuxR/LuxI system from Vibrio fischeri, and the CcdB killer protein (E in the figure) under control of a LuxR responsive promoter (You et. Al. 2004). This strain was shown to stabilize its growth at a cell density below saturation. | + | The system has already been implemented for a single strain, using the ''LuxR/LuxI'' system from ''Vibrio fischeri'', and the CcdB killer protein (E in the figure) under control of a LuxR responsive promoter (You et. Al. 2004). This strain was shown to stabilize its growth at a cell density below saturation. |
Our idea is to extend the system, creating new strains with the same overall functioning but different autoinducers so as to avoid interference with each other. Tuneability can be achieved by modulating both production and sensitivity to the autoinducer. | Our idea is to extend the system, creating new strains with the same overall functioning but different autoinducers so as to avoid interference with each other. Tuneability can be achieved by modulating both production and sensitivity to the autoinducer. | ||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
{| | {| | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
- | |This scheme is a modification of the | + | |This scheme is a modification of the ''independent population control'', where the autoinducers produce some effect on the other strain(s) beside modulating the growth of the strain that produces it. |
This coupling between strains can increase robustness and give rise to some interesting behaviors as oscillations. | This coupling between strains can increase robustness and give rise to some interesting behaviors as oscillations. | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
{| | {| | ||
|- | |- | ||
- | |This scheme is quite different to the previous ones in the sense that there is a single strain that has several stable states (e.g. A and B). | + | |This scheme is quite different to the previous ones in the sense that there is a single strain that has several stable states (e.g. '''A''' and '''B'''). |
Each state activates the transcription of different sets of genes. The transition between states is given in a stochastic manner, but the probability of transition can be externally modulated. Each cell will spend a fraction of the time in each state independently of other cell. | Each state activates the transcription of different sets of genes. The transition between states is given in a stochastic manner, but the probability of transition can be externally modulated. Each cell will spend a fraction of the time in each state independently of other cell. | ||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
* All components need to be incorporated in the same strain, thus no circuit integration or isolation is possible (see applications section). | * All components need to be incorporated in the same strain, thus no circuit integration or isolation is possible (see applications section). | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | == References == | ||
+ | |||
+ | # You L., Sidney Cox III R., Weiss R., Arnold1 F. H. (2004). Programmed population control by cell–cell communication and regulated killing. Nature 428, 868-871. | ||
+ | # Derossi D., Chassaing G., Prochiantz A.. (1998). Trojan peptides: the penetratin system for intracellular delivery. Trends Cell Biol 8-2. 84-87. | ||
+ | # Shou W., Ram S., Vilar J. M. G. (2006). Synthetic cooperation in engineered yeast populations. PNAS 104-6 1877-1882 |
Latest revision as of 18:41, 18 September 2012
Contents |
Schemes
During the design phase of the project we though of several alternative schemes, each of which have pros and cons. Here we do a short summary of these schemes.
Crossfeeding
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
|
|
Independent Population Control
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
|
|
Cross-population control
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
|
|
Stochastic State Transitions
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
|
|
References
- You L., Sidney Cox III R., Weiss R., Arnold1 F. H. (2004). Programmed population control by cell–cell communication and regulated killing. Nature 428, 868-871.
- Derossi D., Chassaing G., Prochiantz A.. (1998). Trojan peptides: the penetratin system for intracellular delivery. Trends Cell Biol 8-2. 84-87.
- Shou W., Ram S., Vilar J. M. G. (2006). Synthetic cooperation in engineered yeast populations. PNAS 104-6 1877-1882