Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K1899004"

Line 6: Line 6:
 
repressed by phlF repressor ([[Parts:BBa_K1725040|BBa_K1725040]])
 
repressed by phlF repressor ([[Parts:BBa_K1725040|BBa_K1725040]])
 
induced by 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol ( DAPG ) inducer.  
 
induced by 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol ( DAPG ) inducer.  
 
+
<br><br>
 
===Results===
 
===Results===
 
Experiments on comparing the strength of <i>phlFp</i>, <i>tetp</i> and <i>lacp</i>, were performed. Results indicated that <i>phlFp</i> is the strongest among the three, with 1.96 times and 6 times stronger than that of <i>tetp</i> and <i>lacp</i>, respectively.
 
Experiments on comparing the strength of <i>phlFp</i>, <i>tetp</i> and <i>lacp</i>, were performed. Results indicated that <i>phlFp</i> is the strongest among the three, with 1.96 times and 6 times stronger than that of <i>tetp</i> and <i>lacp</i>, respectively.

Revision as of 11:05, 15 October 2016


phlFp promoter

phlFp is a constitutive promoter. repressed by phlF repressor (BBa_K1725040) induced by 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol ( DAPG ) inducer.

Results

Experiments on comparing the strength of phlFp, tetp and lacp, were performed. Results indicated that phlFp is the strongest among the three, with 1.96 times and 6 times stronger than that of tetp and lacp, respectively.

Fig 1. Comparison on the strength of phlFp, tetp and lacp. Negative control represents BBa_E0240. Characterization was done using E. coli strain JW0336. Cells were first precultured overnight and were subcultured to mid-log phase where GFP emission measurements were made using an EnVision® multilabel reader. This result was obtained by combining 3 characterization data obtained in 3 different days. Error bar present SD from 3 biological replicates.

Sequence and Features


Assembly Compatibility:
  • 10
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
  • 12
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
  • 21
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
  • 23
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
  • 25
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
  • 1000
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]