Team:WashU/DesignSynecho
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
BrianBasco (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==The Gene== | ==The Gene== | ||
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V1CC044VgSY/T9oz9McUKFI/AAAAAAAAAFk/DzPhWQ7CX-M/s800/gene.jpg | https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V1CC044VgSY/T9oz9McUKFI/AAAAAAAAAFk/DzPhWQ7CX-M/s800/gene.jpg | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Exposition== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first thing we did was figuring out the carotenoid biochemical pathway from beta carotene to our desired products safranal, crocin and picrocrocin. We noticed that the pathway was very complex and lengthy. Therefore we wanted to simplify things by finding an organism that endogenously produced one of the intermediates close to our final products. Our advisers suggested using Synechocystis PCC 6803, which produced beta carotene and many of its derivatives including Zeaxanthin which Crocus sativus uses to produce Safranal, Crocin, and Picrocrocin. E. Coli was also an option because we had found 2 constructs from the parts registry that we could use to make E. Coli produce Zeaxanthin. | ||
+ | |||
+ | One of the first decisions we had to make was to pick which organism we wanted to work with. It was a difficult decision because each had their own positives and negatives. E. Coli was easy to clone, fast growing and we could measure our products using spectroscopy. However since our goal is to produce a compound that people will eventually use in their food, we were hesitant because of the public perception of E. Coli. Synechocystis PCC 6803 was naturally competent, it naturally produces zeaxanthin, however it has a slow growth cycle and you cannot measure our products with spectroscopy. We ultimately decided to use both E. Coli and Synechosystis. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Rising Action== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Climax== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Falling Action== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Dénouement== |
Revision as of 16:31, 19 June 2012