Difference between revisions of "Part:BBa K1899005"
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
<!-- Add more about the biology of this part here
 
<!-- Add more about the biology of this part here
−
===Usage and Biology===
+
===Results===
 +
[[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.
  
 
<!-- -->
 
<!-- -->

Revision as of 23:22, 17 October 2016


J23101-B0032-TetR-B1006- phlFp -GFP

This part is constructed for investigating the effect of tetR over PhlFp.

Sequence and Features


Assembly Compatibility:
  • 10
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[10]
  • 12
    INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[12]
    Illegal NheI site found at 7
    Illegal NheI site found at 30
  • 21
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[21]
  • 23
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[23]
  • 25
    COMPATIBLE WITH RFC[25]
  • 1000
    INCOMPATIBLE WITH RFC[1000]
    Illegal BsaI.rc site found at 1539