|
|
Line 365: |
Line 365: |
| <li>Out of 244 participants between 10 to 22.10.2010, 57% of the | | <li>Out of 244 participants between 10 to 22.10.2010, 57% of the |
| participant had scientific degrees from B.Sc to Professor and 18% | | participant had scientific degrees from B.Sc to Professor and 18% |
- | had graduate degrees. 18% of participants are enrolled in their teams | + | had graduate degrees. 18% of participants are enrolled in their |
- | as either Instructors or Advisors. </li> | + | teams as either Instructors or Advisors. </li> |
| <li>95 teams have responded to the survey while we are still waiting | | <li>95 teams have responded to the survey while we are still waiting |
| to hear from 33 teams. 74% teams participated with one or more members | | to hear from 33 teams. 74% teams participated with one or more members |
| to the survey. </li> | | to the survey. </li> |
| <li>75% of participants were interested with synthetic biology field | | <li>75% of participants were interested with synthetic biology field |
- | for academic purposes. | + | for academic purposes.</li> |
- | <h4>Browsing the Registry of Standard Parts </h4>
| + | </ul> |
- | <ul>
| + | <h4>Browsing the Registry of Standard Parts </h4> |
- | <li>56% of participants think that it is not easy to search
| + | <ul> |
- | for the parts in Registry of Standard Parts. Many comments indicate
| + | <li><strong>56% of participants think that it is not easy to search for |
- | a need for a better search engine and more flexible keyword
| + | the parts in Registry of Standard Parts.</strong> Many comments indicate |
- | search options, especially excepting aliases. Also many are
| + | a need for a better search engine and more flexible keyword search |
- | longing for recognizable parts names, which will ease searching
| + | options, especially excepting aliases. Also many are longing for |
- | with keyword. </li>
| + | recognizable parts names, which will ease searching with keyword. |
- | <li>Partnership with Google and enforcing standardized parts
| + | </li> |
- | names are suggested </li>
| + | </ul> |
- | <li>As a global organization iGEM can offer the Parts Registry
| + | <p>Partnership with Google and enforcing standardized parts names |
- | in different languages and more illustrations describing how
| + | are suggested </p> |
- | the system works. </li>
| + | <p>As a global organization iGEM can offer the Parts Registry in |
- | </ul>
| + | different languages and more illustrations describing how the system |
| + | works.</p> |
| <h4>Content of Registry of Standard Parts </h4> | | <h4>Content of Registry of Standard Parts </h4> |
- | <ul>
| + | <ul> |
- | <li>57% of participants agree that the number of parts registered
| + | <li><strong>57% of participants agree that the number of parts registered |
- | in the Registry of Standard Parts is not enough for their projects.
| + | in the Registry of Standard Parts is not enough for their projects.</strong> |
- | </li>
| + | |
- | <li>55% of participants think that there are enough and useful
| + | |
- | parts distributed in iGEM Plates that we can use in our projects.
| + | |
- | </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>Even though most agree the number of parts in the registry is
| + | |
- | impressive, still they find it limited when it comes to design different
| + | |
- | devices for diverse applications especially in different species
| + | |
- | other than E. Coli. Participants believe that if there are more
| + | |
- | functional standardized parts, especially protein coding sequences
| + | |
- | and promoter-RBS , they can design devices according to the needs
| + | |
- | of the community instead of designing what can simply be assembled
| + | |
- | into a device. </p>
| + | |
- | <p>Encouraging development of vectors and standards for new species
| + | |
- | and new standardized parts in different research areas is suggested.
| + | |
- | </p>
| + | |
- | <p>Enforcing submission of right DNA sequences and working conditions
| + | |
- | for each part is suggested. </p>
| + | |
- | <p>Few recommend expanding iGEM into a collaborative effort rather
| + | |
- | than an undergraduate tournament, which will increase the number
| + | |
- | and the diversity of the parts designed and submitted all throughout
| + | |
- | the year. </p>
| + | |
- | <h4>Submission to the Parts Registry </h4>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>52% of participants said that they have not encountered
| + | |
- | difficulties during submitting parts. Even though participants
| + | |
- | are satisfied with the web interface of the registry, most complains
| + | |
- | about the pSB1C3 as the new standard plasmid to submit DNA.
| + | |
- | </li>
| + | |
- | <li>71% of participants are like minded with our team's opinion,
| + | |
- | which is that The nomenclature of part IDs such as construct,
| + | |
- | device, composite parts, protein generator, is confusing as
| + | |
- | there is no consensus on how to use them correctly. </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>Terminology and categorization used on iGEM’s Parts Registry
| + | |
- | should be re-described and correct use of terminology should be
| + | |
- | enforced during the submission process. </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>75% of participants agree that different, specified submission
| + | |
- | interfaces should be designed for contructs, promoter, RBS,
| + | |
- | CDS and terminals is needed during Registry of Standard Parts.
| + | |
- | But, there are very strong and valid arguments against it such
| + | |
- | as, losing the flexibility of the registry will not allow future
| + | |
- | submission of unclassified parts. </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>We suggest keeping the parts submission interface as is, until
| + | |
- | these concerns are addressed. </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>75% of participants agree that Out-dated, un-available and
| + | |
- | not-characterized parts in the Registry of Standard Parts should
| + | |
- | be removed to an archive after the consent of the designer.
| + | |
- | </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>“It would be great to see some sort of organization like this!
| + | |
- | I agree that unavailable parts should be followed up on and removed
| + | |
- | if necessary. I also think that parts which are not sufficiently
| + | |
- | documented should be highlighted in some way. Once these parts are
| + | |
- | identified, teams can actively characterize them as part of their
| + | |
- | projects or as side projects.” </p>
| + | |
- | <p>“Think about these things: (i) who decides when a part is out-dated,
| + | |
- | and how can that person know that an old part cannot have a novel
| + | |
- | use in the future? (ii) likewise, an uncharacterized part may be
| + | |
- | both characterized and used in the future” </p>
| + | |
- | <p>We suggest building a backup system, such as an archive, to sort
| + | |
- | out the rarely used, un-available and un-categorized parts until
| + | |
- | they are in line with the enforced standards. </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>91% of participants have same opinion with us, which is
| + | |
- | that standardization of the nomenclatures used for each different
| + | |
- | composition of parts is necessary.
| + | |
- | <h4>Standards that should be enforced and Additional New Standards
| + | |
- | </h4>
| + | |
- | <p>According to our survey, from high rated to low, these standards
| + | |
- | have been rated which s be used while assigning a name to parts
| + | |
- | </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>33% Type of part </li>
| + | |
- | <li>17% Input </li>
| + | |
- | <li>17% Output </li>
| + | |
- | <li>14% Version </li>
| + | |
- | <li>10% Year </li>
| + | |
- | <li>9% Group </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>Along with above, having short recognizable part names along
| + | |
- | with function and performance , Genbank/EMBL link and organism
| + | |
- | information is important. </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>93% of participants have said that for the parts that
| + | |
- | are marked as “WORKS” distinguishing the parts with quantitative
| + | |
- | experimental validation vs parts without this information
| + | |
- | is important. Most participants have encountered with similar
| + | |
- | problems about parts that don’t work under their lab conditions
| + | |
- | or works but not they were claimed for. </li>
| + | |
- | <li>89% of participants have same opinion with us, which
| + | |
- | is that iGEM should sub-categorize the “WORKS” comment into
| + | |
- | 1) “Quantitative” for parts which are characterized with
| + | |
- | experiments and 2) “Qualitative” for parts which are not
| + | |
- | characterized will be an appropriate measure for standardization
| + | |
- | of Biobrick database. </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>In order to overcome these problems we suggest enforcing
| + | |
- | the working conditions title for the registry entrance, in order
| + | |
- | to collect quantitative experimental details on submitted parts,
| + | |
- | which might slow down the registration process but will definitely
| + | |
- | increase the quality of the database. </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>61% of participants agree that POPS (Polymerase Per
| + | |
- | Second) should be assigned to every part or biobricks with
| + | |
- | a promoter, where appropriate. - 57% of participants have
| + | |
- | been agree that RIPS (Ribosome per Second) should be assigned
| + | |
- | to every part or biobricks with a RBS brick. </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>Though most participants agree the need for POPS and RBS
| + | |
- | information , they are concerned about the workload it would
| + | |
- | bring to individual labs. </p>
| + | |
- | <p>“To do this, the Registry need to define a reliable and easy
| + | |
- | method of determining the PoPS for teams to use. However, I
| + | |
- | would say that there are better systems for quantifying promoter
| + | |
- | output than PoPS, and they should be used instead, if possible”.
| + | |
- | </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>67% of participants have thought that entering POPS
| + | |
- | information should not be mandatory while submitting new
| + | |
- | parts. Similarly, 65% of participants disagree that entering
| + | |
- | RIBS information should be mandatory while submitting new
| + | |
- | parts </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>Even though the researchers feeling the need for this information
| + | |
- | they are shying away from requesting it as a mandatory title
| + | |
- | for parts registry as it would be difficult for underfunded
| + | |
- | and inexperienced groups to perform these measurements. </p>
| + | |
- | <p>We strongly suggest starting a forum on how to quantify the
| + | |
- | performance of promoters and genes to bring an easy to measure
| + | |
- | standard for the efficiency of the parts. Additionally iGEM
| + | |
- | should the responsibility and provide the measurements for the
| + | |
- | each promoter and gene included in the distributions. The second
| + | |
- | choice would be even better in terms of standardization as all
| + | |
- | the measurement will be performed by one center under similar
| + | |
- | conditions and with experienced researchers, which will allow
| + | |
- | user to compare and contrast the efficiencies of the parts more
| + | |
- | accurately. </p>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>82% of participants have thought that information on
| + | |
- | working conditions of the parts should be mandatory while
| + | |
- | submitting new parts. Most find submiting the detailed experimental
| + | |
- | information and working conditions is crucial and even easier
| + | |
- | than submitting measurements of POPS or RBS. </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <h4>Definitions you would like to see at the Registry of Standard
| + | |
- | Parts </h4>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>Transcriptional efficiency 13% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>Protein lifetime 10% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>Ribosome binding efficiency 10% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>mRNA lifetime 9% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>Translation initiation and efficiency 9% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>Protein concentration 9% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>Cooperative effects with other molecules 9% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>Protein-DNA binding rates and efficiencies 8% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>RNA polymerase affects 8% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>System copy count 8% </li>
| + | |
- | <li>Protein multimerization 6% </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>Additional titles includes: Catalytic rates and affinities
| + | |
- | for substrates, leakiness of promoter in lack of stimulus, POPS
| + | |
- | at various inducer/repressor concentrations. </p>
| + | |
- | <h4>Efficiency of the Database Entries </h4>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>86% of participants would like to see a ranking/rating
| + | |
- | system for the parts by the other iGEM users which will
| + | |
- | be one indication of if a part is working and how well in
| + | |
- | different laboratories. Few had concerns about how well
| + | |
- | the rating system will work for rarely used parts while
| + | |
- | the widely used parts would even more popular due the the
| + | |
- | rating system. Still many believes this would be one futher
| + | |
- | towards a peer-reviewed quality control system for the parts.
| + | |
- | </li>
| + | |
- | <li>61% of participants agreed that parts should be updated
| + | |
- | regularly by the designers, where most agreed at least when
| + | |
- | there is new information on the parts. It has also been
| + | |
- | suggested to give permission to all the users of that part
| + | |
- | for updating information. </li>
| + | |
- | <li>73% of participants have been agree with us that excluding
| + | |
- | the low ranking parts or the parts with negative feedback
| + | |
- | from the future plates will increase efficiency of the system.
| + | |
- | The major concern about excluding any part is losing the
| + | |
- | variety of parts in the database. Few recommends excluding
| + | |
- | only the parts that are not working. </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | <p>“Efficiency shouldn't be top priority in a database. First
| + | |
- | and foremost, data is the top priority. Excluding those parts
| + | |
- | would make the system more efficient” </p>
| + | |
- | <p>“Some parts may be rare or new and have low efficiency, but
| + | |
- | can be very important! Getting rid of them would eliminate any
| + | |
- | chance of improvement to these parts, which not only a qualifier
| + | |
- | for an iGEM gold medal, but also one of the focuses of biobricks.”
| + | |
- | </p>
| + | |
- | <p>We suggest excluding the parts not-working, low rated or
| + | |
- | with negative feedbacks from the annual distribution plates
| + | |
- | but still archive them and make their data available through
| + | |
- | the parts registry. So the while the individuals labs are receiving
| + | |
- | plates with higher rated, fully working parts for their projects,
| + | |
- | anyone who wants to work on a more exotic part can search through
| + | |
- | the achieves and re-vitalize the parts stored there. The challenge
| + | |
- | of re-vitalization of parts can be encouraged as an collaborative
| + | |
- | effort. </p>
| + | |
- | <h4>New Options for the Parts Registry Database </h4>
| + | |
- | <ul>
| + | |
- | <li>96% of participants are like minded with us that it
| + | |
- | will be useful to have a link out to the gene/protein information
| + | |
- | of the parts and - %97 of participants have been agree that
| + | |
- | they would like to know if a part is also involved in known
| + | |
- | biological pathways . </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
- | For receiving pathway information more participants have voted
| + | |
- | for NCBI Cog (59%) than KEGG pathways (38%) when the responses
| + | |
- | for both has been distributed among the choices according to
| + | |
- | response rates. Adding the blast option to the parts registry
| + | |
- | has also been suggested to locate parts of interest. We are
| + | |
- | sure all of us would like to see gene-protein and pathway information
| + | |
- | if these information was integrated into the database and offered
| + | |
- | automatically for each entry in the database.
| + | |
- | <p>We are planning to provide this information about the parts
| + | |
- | to all parts registry users as a build-in option in the next
| + | |
- | version of BioGuide in iGEM 2011. </p>
| + | |
- | <h4>NEW PARTS REGISTRY FORM SUGGESTED FOR THE NEW STANDARDS</h4>
| + | |
- | <p>Link out to the form</p>
| + | |
- | </li>
| + | |
- | </ul>
| + | |
| </li> | | </li> |
| + | <li><strong>55% of participants think that there are enough and useful parts |
| + | distributed in iGEM Plates that we can use in our projects. </strong></li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>Even though most agree the number of parts in the registry is impressive, |
| + | still they find it limited when it comes to design different devices |
| + | for diverse applications especially in different species other than |
| + | E. Coli. Participants believe that if there are more functional standardized |
| + | parts, especially protein coding sequences and promoter-RBS , they can |
| + | design devices according to the needs of the community instead of designing |
| + | what can simply be assembled into a device. </p> |
| + | <p>Encouraging development of vectors and standards for new species |
| + | and new standardized parts in different research areas is suggested. |
| + | </p> |
| + | <p>Enforcing submission of right DNA sequences and working conditions |
| + | for each part is suggested. </p> |
| + | <p>Few recommend expanding iGEM into a collaborative effort rather than |
| + | an undergraduate tournament, which will increase the number and the |
| + | diversity of the parts designed and submitted all throughout the year. |
| + | </p> |
| + | <h4>Submission to the Parts Registry </h4> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>52% of participants said that they have not encountered difficulties |
| + | during submitting parts.</strong> Even though participants are satisfied |
| + | with the web interface of the registry, most complains about the |
| + | pSB1C3 as the new standard plasmid to submit DNA. </li> |
| + | <li><strong>71% of participants are like minded with our team's opinion, |
| + | which is that The nomenclature of part IDs such as construct, device, |
| + | composite parts, protein generator, is confusing as there is no |
| + | consensus on how to use them correctly.</strong> </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>Terminology and categorization used on iGEM’s Parts Registry should |
| + | be re-described and correct use of terminology should be enforced during |
| + | the submission process. </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>75% of participants agree that different, specified submission |
| + | interfaces should be designed for contructs, promoter, RBS, CDS |
| + | and terminals is needed during Registry of Standard Parts.</strong> But, |
| + | there are very strong and valid arguments against it such as, losing |
| + | the flexibility of the registry will not allow future submission |
| + | of unclassified parts. </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>We suggest keeping the parts submission interface as is, until these |
| + | concerns are addressed. </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>75% of participants agree that Out-dated, un-available and not-characterized |
| + | parts in the Registry of Standard Parts should be removed to an |
| + | archive after the consent of the designer.</strong> </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>“It would be great to see some sort of organization like this! I |
| + | agree that unavailable parts should be followed up on and removed if |
| + | necessary. I also think that parts which are not sufficiently documented |
| + | should be highlighted in some way. Once these parts are identified, |
| + | teams can actively characterize them as part of their projects or as |
| + | side projects.” </p> |
| + | <p>“Think about these things: (i) who decides when a part is out-dated, |
| + | and how can that person know that an old part cannot have a novel use |
| + | in the future? (ii) likewise, an uncharacterized part may be both characterized |
| + | and used in the future” </p> |
| + | <p>We suggest building a backup system, such as an archive, to sort |
| + | out the rarely used, un-available and un-categorized parts until they |
| + | are in line with the enforced standards. </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>91% of participants have same opinion with us, which is that |
| + | standardization of the nomenclatures used for each different composition |
| + | of parts is necessary.</strong></li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <h4>Standards that should be enforced and Additional New Standards |
| + | </h4> |
| + | <p><strong>According to our survey, from high rated to low, these standards |
| + | have been rated which s be used while assigning a name to parts<strong> </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>33% Type of part</strong> </li> |
| + | <li><strong>17% Input</strong> </li> |
| + | <li><strong>17% Output</strong> </li> |
| + | <li><strong>14% Version/<strong> </li> |
| + | <li><strong>10% Year</strong> </li> |
| + | <li><strong>9% Group</strong> </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>Along with above, having short recognizable part names along with |
| + | function and performance , Genbank/EMBL link and organism information |
| + | is important. </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>93% of participants have said that for the parts that are marked |
| + | as “WORKS” distinguishing the parts with quantitative experimental |
| + | validation vs parts without this information is important.</strong> Most |
| + | participants have encountered with similar problems about parts |
| + | that don’t work under their lab conditions or works but not they |
| + | were claimed for. </li> |
| + | <li><strong>89% of participants have same opinion with us, which is that |
| + | iGEM should sub-categorize the “WORKS” comment into 1) “Quantitative” |
| + | for parts which are characterized with experiments and 2) “Qualitative” |
| + | for parts which are not characterized will be an appropriate measure |
| + | for standardization of Biobrick database.</strong> </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>In order to overcome these problems we suggest enforcing the working |
| + | conditions title for the registry entrance, in order to collect quantitative |
| + | experimental details on submitted parts, which might slow down the registration |
| + | process but will definitely increase the quality of the database. |
| + | </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>61% of participants agree that POPS (Polymerase Per Second) |
| + | should be assigned to every part or biobricks with a promoter, where |
| + | appropriate. - 57% of participants have been agree that RIPS (Ribosome |
| + | per Second) should be assigned to every part or biobricks with a |
| + | RBS brick.</strong> </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>Though most participants agree the need for POPS and RBS information |
| + | , they are concerned about the workload it would bring to individual |
| + | labs. </p> |
| + | <p>“To do this, the Registry need to define a reliable and easy method |
| + | of determining the PoPS for teams to use. However, I would say that |
| + | there are better systems for quantifying promoter output than PoPS, |
| + | and they should be used instead, if possible”. </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>67% of participants have thought that entering POPS information |
| + | should not be mandatory while submitting new parts. Similarly, 65% |
| + | of participants disagree that entering RIBS information should be |
| + | mandatory while submitting new parts </strong></li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>Even though the researchers feeling the need for this information |
| + | they are shying away from requesting it as a mandatory title for parts |
| + | registry as it would be difficult for underfunded and inexperienced |
| + | groups to perform these measurements. </p> |
| + | <p>We strongly suggest starting a forum on how to quantify the performance |
| + | of promoters and genes to bring an easy to measure standard for the |
| + | efficiency of the parts. Additionally iGEM should the responsibility |
| + | and provide the measurements for the each promoter and gene included |
| + | in the distributions. The second choice would be even better in terms |
| + | of standardization as all the measurement will be performed by one center |
| + | under similar conditions and with experienced researchers, which will |
| + | allow user to compare and contrast the efficiencies of the parts more |
| + | accurately. </p> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>82% of participants have thought that information on working |
| + | conditions of the parts should be mandatory while submitting new |
| + | parts.</strong> Most find submiting the detailed experimental information |
| + | and working conditions is crucial and even easier than submitting |
| + | measurements of POPS or RBS. </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <h4>Definitions you would like to see at the Registry of Standard Parts |
| + | </h4> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>Transcriptional efficiency 13% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>Protein lifetime 10% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>Ribosome binding efficiency 10% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>mRNA lifetime 9% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>Translation initiation and efficiency 9% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>Protein concentration 9% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>Cooperative effects with other molecules 9% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>Protein-DNA binding rates and efficiencies 8% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>RNA polymerase affects 8% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>System copy count 8% </li> |
| + | <li><strong>Protein multimerization 6% </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>Additional titles includes: Catalytic rates and affinities for substrates, |
| + | leakiness of promoter in lack of stimulus, POPS at various inducer/repressor |
| + | concentrations. </p> |
| + | <h4>Efficiency of the Database Entries </h4> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>86% of participants would like to see a ranking/rating system |
| + | for the parts by the other iGEM users which will be one indication |
| + | of if a part is working and how well in different laboratories.</strong> |
| + | Few had concerns about how well the rating system will work for |
| + | rarely used parts while the widely used parts would even more popular |
| + | due the the rating system. Still many believes this would be one |
| + | futher towards a peer-reviewed quality control system for the parts. |
| + | </li> |
| + | <li><strong>61% of participants agreed that parts should be updated regularly |
| + | by the designers, where most agreed at least when there is new information |
| + | on the parts.</strong> It has also been suggested to give permission to all |
| + | the users of that part for updating information. </li> |
| + | <li><strong>73% of participants have been agree with us that excluding the |
| + | low ranking parts or the parts with negative feedback from the future |
| + | plates will increase efficiency of the system.</strong> The major concern |
| + | about excluding any part is losing the variety of parts in the database. |
| + | Few recommends excluding only the parts that are not working. |
| + | </li> |
| + | </ul> |
| + | <p>“Efficiency shouldn't be top priority in a database. First and foremost, |
| + | data is the top priority. Excluding those parts would make the system |
| + | more efficient” </p> |
| + | <p>“Some parts may be rare or new and have low efficiency, but can be |
| + | very important! Getting rid of them would eliminate any chance of improvement |
| + | to these parts, which not only a qualifier for an iGEM gold medal, but |
| + | also one of the focuses of biobricks.” </p> |
| + | <p>We suggest excluding the parts not-working, low rated or with negative |
| + | feedbacks from the annual distribution plates but still archive them |
| + | and make their data available through the parts registry. So the while |
| + | the individuals labs are receiving plates with higher rated, fully working |
| + | parts for their projects, anyone who wants to work on a more exotic |
| + | part can search through the achieves and re-vitalize the parts stored |
| + | there. The challenge of re-vitalization of parts can be encouraged as |
| + | an collaborative effort. </p> |
| + | <h4>New Options for the Parts Registry Database </h4> |
| + | <ul> |
| + | <li><strong>96% of participants are like minded with us that it will be |
| + | useful to have a link out to the gene/protein information of the |
| + | parts and - %97 of participants have been agree that they would |
| + | like to know if a part is also involved in known biological pathways.</strong> </li> |
| </ul> | | </ul> |
| + | <p><strong>For receiving pathway information more participants have voted for NCBI |
| + | Cog (59%) than KEGG pathways (38%) when the responses for both has been |
| + | distributed among the choices according to response rates.</strong> Adding the |
| + | blast option to the parts registry has also been suggested to locate |
| + | parts of interest. We are sure all of us would like to see gene-protein |
| + | and pathway information if these information was integrated into the |
| + | database and offered automatically for each entry in the database.</p> |
| + | <p>We are planning to provide this information about the parts to all |
| + | parts registry users as a build-in option in the next version of BioGuide |
| + | in iGEM 2011. </p> |
| + | <h4>NEW PARTS REGISTRY FORM SUGGESTED FOR THE NEW STANDARDS</h4> |
| + | <p><a href="">Link out to the form</a></p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |