"
Judging/Variance/UC Davis
From 2009.igem.org
(New page: ===Request=== Hello - The UC Davis 2009 iGEM team would like to request a variance to allow us to submit several parts in Tom Knight's proposed fusion format (see below). We'd be happy t...) |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
incompatible to BBa format | incompatible to BBa format | ||
incompatible to BioFusion format | incompatible to BioFusion format | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Judges' Response=== | ||
| + | Marc, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thank you for your email. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Would this be the same proposal that is summarized in BBF RFC#12, and also known as BioBrick Assembly Standard #12, as presented in BBF RFC#29? | ||
| + | |||
| + | You can find BBF RFC#12 and #29 online here: | ||
| + | http://openwetware.org/wiki/The_BioBricks_Foundation:RFC | ||
| + | |||
| + | If "yes" then you don't need approval for a variance request, you just need to clearly note that you are using a known BioBrick physical assembly standard. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If "no" then please reply so that we can discuss in more detail. | ||
| + | |||
| + | All best, | ||
| + | Drew | ||
Latest revision as of 19:45, 2 September 2009
Request
Hello - The UC Davis 2009 iGEM team would like to request a variance to allow us to submit several parts in Tom Knight's proposed fusion format (see below). We'd be happy to answer any specific questions. Thank you, Marc Facciotti
Tom Knight's BBb proposal Tom Knight has recently proposed to replace BBa by the following format: Prefix Suffix 5' GAATTC...ACTAGT EcoRI SpeI ...part... GCTAGC...CTCGAG 3' NheI PstI Fusing two parts would then leave the following scar: 5' ...part A... GCTAGT A S ...part B... 3' Advantages in-frame fusion of protein parts benign protein scar N-end rule save introduction of only one new enzyme NheI is comparatively rare in the E. coli genome -- less background fragments from genomic DNA NheI can be heat-inactivated Disadvantages incompatible to BBa format incompatible to BioFusion format
Judges' Response
Marc,
Thank you for your email.
Would this be the same proposal that is summarized in BBF RFC#12, and also known as BioBrick Assembly Standard #12, as presented in BBF RFC#29?
You can find BBF RFC#12 and #29 online here: http://openwetware.org/wiki/The_BioBricks_Foundation:RFC
If "yes" then you don't need approval for a variance request, you just need to clearly note that you are using a known BioBrick physical assembly standard.
If "no" then please reply so that we can discuss in more detail.
All best, Drew
