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) (→The Survey: Integrating opinions and ideas from the community.) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<div class="bezel mfull"> | <div class="bezel mfull"> | ||
Text describing the idea. | Text describing the idea. | ||
- | + | ====Number of participants: 26==== | |
<html><iframe width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://maps.google.de/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=216909865466309474267.0004c9aae18244c15fcc0&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=37.71859,-44.648437&spn=64.954661,112.5&z=3&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="https://maps.google.de/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=216909865466309474267.0004c9aae18244c15fcc0&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=37.71859,-44.648437&spn=64.954661,112.5&z=3&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">Participants of TU München iGEM 2012 survey</a> auf einer größeren Karte anzeigen</small></html> | <html><iframe width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://maps.google.de/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=216909865466309474267.0004c9aae18244c15fcc0&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=37.71859,-44.648437&spn=64.954661,112.5&z=3&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="https://maps.google.de/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=216909865466309474267.0004c9aae18244c15fcc0&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=37.71859,-44.648437&spn=64.954661,112.5&z=3&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">Participants of TU München iGEM 2012 survey</a> auf einer größeren Karte anzeigen</small></html> | ||
Revision as of 16:10, 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.
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: RFCxx about standardization of BioBrick part descriptions
Text describing the idea.