Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K3725040:Design"
Michellejing (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The construction of a disease-specific biosensor required us to find a gene unique to the pathogen. When the switch turns on and GFP is expressed, we can confirm that the specific pathogen is present. For the detection of Phytophthora cryptogea, Lambert iGEM focused on the X24 gene. This gene was selected because it was required for pathogenicity and was unique to the species of interest. Biosafety note, the trigger sequence is not the full transcript sequence and therefore poses limited biosafety. We obtained the sequence via UniProt, an online database of protein sequences. Lambert iGEM used the code from Takahashi et. al provided by Megan McSweeney from the Styczynski Lab at the Georgia Institute of Technology to design the switch and trigger sequences on NUPACK. The team selected the pair from NUPACK with the lowest normalized ensemble defect (NED) to maximize the chances of successful compatibility. Once we obtained the sequences for the toehold pair, we constructed the toehold and trigger via SnapGene. | The construction of a disease-specific biosensor required us to find a gene unique to the pathogen. When the switch turns on and GFP is expressed, we can confirm that the specific pathogen is present. For the detection of Phytophthora cryptogea, Lambert iGEM focused on the X24 gene. This gene was selected because it was required for pathogenicity and was unique to the species of interest. Biosafety note, the trigger sequence is not the full transcript sequence and therefore poses limited biosafety. We obtained the sequence via UniProt, an online database of protein sequences. Lambert iGEM used the code from Takahashi et. al provided by Megan McSweeney from the Styczynski Lab at the Georgia Institute of Technology to design the switch and trigger sequences on NUPACK. The team selected the pair from NUPACK with the lowest normalized ensemble defect (NED) to maximize the chances of successful compatibility. Once we obtained the sequences for the toehold pair, we constructed the toehold and trigger via SnapGene. | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <center>[[File:T--Lambert GA--T7PhytoTriggerCircularConstruct.png|500px]]</center> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <center><I>Figure 1: This graph compares the mean lux values of the C. elegans toehold switch, trigger, and the dual plasmid. The toehold switch and trigger have very similar lux values to LB and plain cells, whereas the dual plasmid has a higher lux value, indicating fluorescence.</I></center> | ||
<partinfo>BBa_K3725040 SequenceAndFeatures</partinfo> | <partinfo>BBa_K3725040 SequenceAndFeatures</partinfo> | ||
Revision as of 01:39, 21 October 2021
T7 Fusarium Trigger
Design
The construction of a disease-specific biosensor required us to find a gene unique to the pathogen. When the switch turns on and GFP is expressed, we can confirm that the specific pathogen is present. For the detection of Phytophthora cryptogea, Lambert iGEM focused on the X24 gene. This gene was selected because it was required for pathogenicity and was unique to the species of interest. Biosafety note, the trigger sequence is not the full transcript sequence and therefore poses limited biosafety. We obtained the sequence via UniProt, an online database of protein sequences. Lambert iGEM used the code from Takahashi et. al provided by Megan McSweeney from the Styczynski Lab at the Georgia Institute of Technology to design the switch and trigger sequences on NUPACK. The team selected the pair from NUPACK with the lowest normalized ensemble defect (NED) to maximize the chances of successful compatibility. Once we obtained the sequences for the toehold pair, we constructed the toehold and trigger via SnapGene.
- 10COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
- 12COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
- 21COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
- 23COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
- 25COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
- 1000COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]
Design Notes
Design Considerations
Source
Part Source