From 2009.igem.org

Revision as of 19:46, 2 September 2009 by Meagan (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Dear judges,

Please find enclosed our request to use an improved standard of BioBricks. With best regards, Roman

BioBrickStandard Slovenia 2009

Judges' response

Hi Roman,

Thanks for your email.

Just a quick initial question from the judging team before we digest everything that you sent.

Are you simply using BioBrick Assembly Standard #25 (Frieburg, c/o K. Mueller et al.)?

Or, are you extending / improving this standard in some way?

If you are directly using #25, as it is already specified, then no variance is required. Just clearly note that you are using assembly standard #25.

If you are improving Mueller et als work in some way, then you take the document that you sent us and turn it into a BBF RFC so that a new assembly standard can be documented.

Please let us know!

Thanks again and all best, Drew

Team response

Hi Drew,

I believe that our text is a bit complicated, since it is comprosing two types of modifications. We are improving the standard of Mueller et al, and will prepare the RFC as you suggested. Best regards,


Judges' response


Ok/great. Thanks for the clarification! Sounds good.


Team response

Dear Drew and judges,

Please find enclosed our RFC with proposed BB standard improvement that our team is using this year to vary the length of a linker between peptide domains. On our wiki there is some additional information and if you need more information we will be pleased to provide it. With best regards,



Judges' response

Email above redirected to rfc AT biobricks DOT org for follow-up.

Redirecting the below as a request for a BBF RFC.


Best, Drew