Difference between revisions of "Team:DTU-Denmark/Design Promoter"
LouiseAlmer (Talk | contribs) |
LouiseAlmer (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
<div class="sm-no-float col-md-8"> | <div class="sm-no-float col-md-8"> | ||
| − | <h2> | + | <h2>Promoter design considerations</h2> |
| − | <p> | + | <p>Our software was designed to produce promoters that would be compatible with a large range of cloning systems and be easy to de novo synthesize. |
| − | + | <br><br> | |
| + | We have designed the LEAP promoters not just to be compatible with the new iGEM Type IIs RFC[1000] standard, but with a range of other assembly standards as well. The domestication of promoters was done by making a prioritized list of standards to be compatible with. Using this prioritized list, the scoring system seen in table 01 was implemented into the software used to design the promoters. <br> | ||
| + | This scoring system resulted in a large number of the promoters in the final promoter library being compatible with some of the most widely used Type IIs standards, as seen in figure XX. . | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
Revision as of 13:17, 21 October 2019
Promoter Design
Promoter design considerations
Our software was designed to produce promoters that would be compatible with a large range of cloning systems and be easy to de novo synthesize.
We have designed the LEAP promoters not just to be compatible with the new iGEM Type IIs RFC[1000] standard, but with a range of other assembly standards as well. The domestication of promoters was done by making a prioritized list of standards to be compatible with. Using this prioritized list, the scoring system seen in table 01 was implemented into the software used to design the promoters.
This scoring system resulted in a large number of the promoters in the final promoter library being compatible with some of the most widely used Type IIs standards, as seen in figure XX. .
More text soon
Soon.
Sources here will also come soon
>