Team:Alberta/Optimization
From 2009.igem.org
Sciocleseus (Talk | contribs) |
Sciocleseus (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 154831 by Sciocleseus (Talk)) |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
<div style="height: 400; background:#FFFFFF; colorou line-height:100% padding: 3px 0px;"> | <div style="height: 400; background:#FFFFFF; colorou line-height:100% padding: 3px 0px;"> | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
<h1>The Uracil Dilemma</h1> | <h1>The Uracil Dilemma</h1> |
Revision as of 20:54, 21 October 2009
|
Optimizing Linear AssemblyMuch work has been done to try and increase the efficiency by which we generate the Bytes, anchor them, assemble them, and terminate them. A general outline of the optimizations we have considered and worked on are shown below as well as their effects on the process.
|
The Uracil Dilemma
The original format of the universal primers did not have the uracils distributed evenly within the primer. The result was poor efficiency in construction on a bead. Our hypothesis was that the uracils, if they were distributed more evenly, would create smaller pieces of ssDNA that would more easily melt off the Byte to generate fully ssDNA 12 base overhangs. The first version of our USER ends is shown below. By changing primers to their current form we have consequently increased efficiency of construction 2.5 times that of the first version.
|
BioByte ProcessingAn essential step in assembly with BioBytes if the preparation of the Bytes. Following PCR the product is USERTM digested to nick the DNA. Finally, the Bytes are purified away from these small ssDNA pieces to prevent their binding to the sticky ends during assembly and consequently negatively influencing the efficiency of construction. The following describes the results of optimization experiments conducted to increase efficiency of BioBytes.
|