Team:TU Munich/Results/BBF RFC25

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Question7:)
(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: 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: [1].
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?





UPO-Sevilla took part in Freiburg's Cuckoo Clock Competition

The result: Our Request for Comments (RFC)


Text describing the idea.