|
|
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | | | |
| | ===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>- BBa_E0240</b>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The fold change between<b> pSB3K3-PhlFp - BBa_E0240</b> and negative control<b> (pSB3K3-BBa_E0240)</b> and that of <b>pSB3K3-BBa_J23101-B0032-C0040-B1006- PhlFp -E0240</b> is around 13.2 times and 7.01 times respectively.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is due to the toxicity of <bbcode>BBa_C0040 <bbcode>(TetR). The toxicity reduces the growth rate of the<i> E. coli</i> 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 <i> PhlFp</i> at this stage.
| |
| | ===User Reviews=== | | ===User Reviews=== |
| | <!-- DON'T DELETE --><partinfo>BBa_K1899005 StartReviews</partinfo> | | <!-- DON'T DELETE --><partinfo>BBa_K1899005 StartReviews</partinfo> |
Latest revision as of 23:21, 17 October 2016
Applications of BBa_K1899005
User Reviews
UNIQ13c01fd28aa49ed9-partinfo-00000000-QINU
UNIQ13c01fd28aa49ed9-partinfo-00000001-QINU
