Team:WashU/YLCExperiment
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<font size="5"><u>Introduction and Design</u></font><br><br> | <font size="5"><u>Introduction and Design</u></font><br><br> | ||
- | In order to give this demonstration at the Youth Learning Center (YLC), we | + | In order to give this demonstration at the Youth Learning Center (YLC), we wanted to create the necessary materials ahead of time. The <br> development of 5 parallel <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:WashU/BiologicalParts">constructs</a> (eYFP, GFP, mRFP1, eCFP, and mCherry) all with the same ribosome binding site (RBS) and <br> set of double terminators was our challenge. (Initially, two YFP constructs were considered with different RBS's, but no primers for <br> these were ordered.) We wanted to create parallel constructs so that the only differences in expression levels and colors would be <br> the open reading frame's protein and not the promoter or RBS efficiency. In a sense, we want to develop a simple BioPaint Set that <br> we could let the students at the YLC could view as a realistic application of genetic engineering. |
+ | <br> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
The decision to create a BioPaint set was developed after meeting with some of our advisors and discussing our options. We <br> developed several ideas including colors with different resistances, different plasmid backbones, and different promoters <br>(constitutive versus induced versus inhibited). Ultimately, the choice to make a BioPaint Set came down to feasibility and ability to <br> characterize previous BioBricks well as this was not our premier project of the summer. This project easily lent itself to these goals <br> and was thus selected for production. <br><br> | The decision to create a BioPaint set was developed after meeting with some of our advisors and discussing our options. We <br> developed several ideas including colors with different resistances, different plasmid backbones, and different promoters <br>(constitutive versus induced versus inhibited). Ultimately, the choice to make a BioPaint Set came down to feasibility and ability to <br> characterize previous BioBricks well as this was not our premier project of the summer. This project easily lent itself to these goals <br> and was thus selected for production. <br><br> | ||
We began our research into the parts. Although many BioBricks existed, we wanted to build our own so that we could control the <br> differences and create constitutive color with the greatest expression possible. As a result, we decided to use previous BioBricks to <br> create our products. J23100, a sigma-70 constitutive promoter in ''E. coli'', was initially selected as the promoter of choice. The five <br> fluorescent proteins were selected and can be found on our <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:WashU/BiologicalParts">parts page</a>. These were selected for their parallel constructs, engineered <br> coding regions, and convenience of their presence on the initial iGEM plates. <br><br> | We began our research into the parts. Although many BioBricks existed, we wanted to build our own so that we could control the <br> differences and create constitutive color with the greatest expression possible. As a result, we decided to use previous BioBricks to <br> create our products. J23100, a sigma-70 constitutive promoter in ''E. coli'', was initially selected as the promoter of choice. The five <br> fluorescent proteins were selected and can be found on our <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:WashU/BiologicalParts">parts page</a>. These were selected for their parallel constructs, engineered <br> coding regions, and convenience of their presence on the initial iGEM plates. <br><br> |
Revision as of 16:38, 13 July 2012