Difference between revisions of "Team:DTU-Denmark/Design Promoter"

Line 82: Line 82:
 
<br><br>
 
<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>
 
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. .  
+
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 under the design considerations sections on the pages of their respective parts.  
 
</p>
 
</p>
  

Revision as of 13:24, 21 October 2019

Promoter Design

During the design of the promoters we had many considerations as to making them as useful as possible. One of the highest priorities for our project was to ensure that our promoter parts could be used by others as well.

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 under the design considerations sections on the pages of their respective parts.

More text soon

Soon.



Sources here will also come soon

The logos of our three biggest supporters, DTU Blue Dot, Novo Nordisk fonden and Otto Mønsted fonden The logos of all of our sponsors, DTU, BioNordica, Eurofins Genomics, Qiagen, NEB New England biolabs, IDT Integrated DNA technologies and Twist bioscience>