Difference between revisions of "Talk:Part:BBa R0040"

Latest revision as of 20:35, 14 July 2006

I think the language used to describe the behavior of R0040 is confusing. I know it's supposed to be synthetic biology parlance, but writing that it's an "inverting regulator driven by the TetR protein. Action is inhibited by the addition of tetracycline or its analog atc" just strikes me as obfuscating the system. I guess what we are supposed to understand is that this promoter is "inverting" in the sense that its behavior inverts from promoting strongly to not strongly by the action of the "driver" TetR. The next sentence is ambiguous and a little misleading: it sounds as if tet or atc actually inhibit the promoter - don't they actually act by inhibiting or "disarming" the repressor TetR?

I think the main source of confusion stems from a conceptual disagreement: biologically, this part is a promoter, nothing more, but the description treats it implicitly as a compound promoter-repressor-inducer system. It's not a system. It's a promoter. --Macowell 13:42, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

Also, someone change the nickname to pTet! tetR is really confusing!--Macowell 16:35, 14 July 2006 (EDT)