|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | | |
| | __NOTOC__ | | __NOTOC__ |
| − | This experience page is provided so that any user may enter their experience using this part.<BR>Please enter
| |
| − | how you used this part and how it worked out.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Applications of BBa_K1899005=== | | ===Applications of BBa_K1899005=== |
| − | https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/thumb/2/25/Comparison_of_the_Strength_of_tetR_and_PhlFp.jpeg/748px-Comparison_of_the_Strength_of_tetR_and_PhlFp.jpeg
| |
| − | <b>Fig a) Comparison of Technical Triplicate Results of pSB3K3-BBa_J23101-B0032-C0040-B1006- PhlFp -E0240 and pSB3K3-<i>PhlFp</i>(<bbpart>_BBa_K1899004_ BBa_E0240</b>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The fold change between pSB3K3-PhlFp - BBa_E0240 and negative control (pSB3K3-BBa_E0240) and that of pSB3K3-BBa_J23101-B0032-C0040-B1006- PhlFp -E0240 is around 13.2 times and 7.01 times respectively.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is due to the toxicity of BBa_C0040(TetR). The toxicity reduces the growth rate of the E. coli containing this plasmid. The strong promoter BBa_J23101 makes this effect more significant when doing the characterisation. Though the data are collected with all OD within the mid-log range, there is still a distance between them, making a significant difference in the RFU. It is ungrounded to say TetR interferes the functionality of PhlFp at this stage.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===User Reviews=== | | ===User Reviews=== |
Latest revision as of 23:21, 17 October 2016
Applications of BBa_K1899005
User Reviews
UNIQ03b7bff28b0e5ff4-partinfo-00000000-QINU
UNIQ03b7bff28b0e5ff4-partinfo-00000001-QINU
