Team:TU Munich/Results/BBF RFC25
From 2012.igem.org
VolkerMorath (Talk | contribs) (→The Survey: Integrating opinions and ideas from the community.) |
VolkerMorath (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
- | + | =The Idea: Its all about standardization...= | |
<hr/> | <hr/> | ||
<div class="bezel mfull"> | <div class="bezel mfull"> | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
- | + | =The Survey: Integrating opinions and ideas from the community.= | |
<hr/> | <hr/> | ||
<div class="bezel mfull"> | <div class="bezel mfull"> | ||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
+ | </div> | ||
- | + | =The result: RFCxx about standardization of BioBrick part descriptions= | |
- | + | <hr/> | |
- | + | <div class="bezel mfull"> | |
- | + | Text describing the idea. | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 16:00, 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.
<right>
Participants of TU München iGEM 2012 survey auf einer größeren Karte anzeigen</right>
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: RFCxx about standardization of BioBrick part descriptions
Text describing the idea.