Judging/Variance/UC Davis

From 2009.igem.org

Revision as of 19:45, 2 September 2009 by Meagan (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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