Team:DTU-Denmark/SPL
From 2010.igem.org
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
- | <table | + | <table cellpadding=10px> |
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <font color="# | + | <td width="163px" height="100%" valign="top"> |
+ | <font color="#990000" face="arial" size="3"> | ||
+ | <ul type="circle"> | ||
+ | <li><a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:DTU-Denmark/Basics">Basics</a></li><br> | ||
+ | <li><a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:DTU-Denmark/Regulatory_sytems">Regulatory Systems</a></li><br> | ||
+ | <li><a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:DTU-Denmark/Switch">The Switch</a></li><br> | ||
+ | <li><a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:DTU-Denmark/SPL">Synthetic Promoter Library</a></li><br> | ||
+ | <li><a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:DTU-Denmark/Team1">Anti-Repressor group</a></li><br> | ||
+ | <li ><a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:DTU-Denmark/Team2">Anti-Terminator group</a></li><br> | ||
+ | <li ><a href="https://2010.igem.org/Team:DTU-Denmark/BBrick_Characterisation">Characterisation of Biobricks</a></li><br> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </font> | ||
+ | </td> | ||
<td width="570 px"> | <td width="570 px"> | ||
- | < | + | <font color="#333333" face="arial" size="2.5"> |
+ | <h1>Introduction</h1> | ||
<p align="justify"> Modulation of gene expression such as of cellular enzyme activities[1] as well as regulation of transcription are amongst some of the areas where Synthetic Promoter Libraries (SPLs) are currently being used. SPL provides an alternative method for gene regulation compared to the old methods, namely those of gene knockout as well as strong over expression, these two usually executed on the basis of apparent rate limiting steps[1].<br> | <p align="justify"> Modulation of gene expression such as of cellular enzyme activities[1] as well as regulation of transcription are amongst some of the areas where Synthetic Promoter Libraries (SPLs) are currently being used. SPL provides an alternative method for gene regulation compared to the old methods, namely those of gene knockout as well as strong over expression, these two usually executed on the basis of apparent rate limiting steps[1].<br> | ||
When working with gene regulation, it is important to elucidate where expression levels are optimal of the given gene you are working with. Under these specifications it is essential to be able to have slight increments in expressional strength when attempting to optimize your gene.<br> | When working with gene regulation, it is important to elucidate where expression levels are optimal of the given gene you are working with. Under these specifications it is essential to be able to have slight increments in expressional strength when attempting to optimize your gene.<br> | ||
Line 159: | Line 172: | ||
<p align="justify">The spacer sequences that surround the consensus regions contribute significantly to the strengths of promoters[1]. In our design, we decided to both randomize the spacer sequences as well as randomize 2 bases in both of the consensus regions as seen in the provided diagram. N stands for 25% each of A, C, G and T, while R stands for 50% each of A and G, and W stands for 50% A and T. The point of randomizing both would be to obtain a promoter library that is not biased towards being all strong, by giving 2 bases within each of the consensus regions a 50% chance of being their original bases only 1/16 of all promoters will be strong, this being without taking into consideration the fraction of strong promoters obtainable from the randomized spacer sequences.<br> | <p align="justify">The spacer sequences that surround the consensus regions contribute significantly to the strengths of promoters[1]. In our design, we decided to both randomize the spacer sequences as well as randomize 2 bases in both of the consensus regions as seen in the provided diagram. N stands for 25% each of A, C, G and T, while R stands for 50% each of A and G, and W stands for 50% A and T. The point of randomizing both would be to obtain a promoter library that is not biased towards being all strong, by giving 2 bases within each of the consensus regions a 50% chance of being their original bases only 1/16 of all promoters will be strong, this being without taking into consideration the fraction of strong promoters obtainable from the randomized spacer sequences.<br> | ||
- | As previous studies indicate consensus regions outside of the -35 and -10 regions seem to contribute very little if anything at all in terms of altering promoter strengths, rather the spacer sequences surrounding the -35 and -10 regions seem to have the most significance[2]. This might be due to the three-dimensional structure that forms from the sequences that are arranged from the randomized spacer sequences[2].<br> | + | As previous studies indicate consensus regions outside of the -35 and -10 regions seem to contribute very little if anything at all in terms of altering promoter strengths, rather the spacer sequences surrounding the -35 and -10 regions seem to have the most significance[2]. This might be due to the three-dimensional structure that forms from the sequences that are arranged from the randomized spacer sequences[2].<br></p> |
- | + | </td> | |
+ | <td width="163px" height="100%" valign="top"> | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> |
Revision as of 10:53, 12 October 2010
Home | The Team | The Project | Parts submitted | Modelling | Notebook | Blog |
Introduction Modulation of gene expression such as of cellular enzyme activities[1] as well as regulation of transcription are amongst some of the areas where Synthetic Promoter Libraries (SPLs) are currently being used. SPL provides an alternative method for gene regulation compared to the old methods, namely those of gene knockout as well as strong over expression, these two usually executed on the basis of apparent rate limiting steps[1].
The spacer sequences that surround the consensus regions contribute significantly to the strengths of promoters[1]. In our design, we decided to both randomize the spacer sequences as well as randomize 2 bases in both of the consensus regions as seen in the provided diagram. N stands for 25% each of A, C, G and T, while R stands for 50% each of A and G, and W stands for 50% A and T. The point of randomizing both would be to obtain a promoter library that is not biased towards being all strong, by giving 2 bases within each of the consensus regions a 50% chance of being their original bases only 1/16 of all promoters will be strong, this being without taking into consideration the fraction of strong promoters obtainable from the randomized spacer sequences. |