The BioBricks Foundation:Standards/Technical/Formats: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
''Pros:'' | ''Pros:'' | ||
- de-facto standard | |||
''Cons'' | ''Cons'' | ||
- no protein fusions (frame shift, stop codon) | - no protein fusions (frame shift, stop codon) | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
''Pros:'' | ''Pros:'' | ||
''Cons'' | - in-frame fusion of protein parts | ||
- compatible to 1.0 non-coding parts | |||
''Cons:'' | |||
- not compatible to 1.0 protein parts (frame shift) | |||
- Arg in scar can be problematic | |||
- Thr-Arg at the N-term. is a destabilization signal (N-end rule) | |||
== "3.0" (Freiburg iGem team) == | == "3.0" (Freiburg iGem team) == | ||
Revision as of 04:57, 26 February 2008
Biobrick Formats: This working group aims to specify Biobrick DNA formats.
Aim / Application scenarios for this standard
[ add ]
Overview over proposed Biobrick formats
All biobrick formats proposed so far follow the same basic scheme where restriction and ligation of two biobricks forms a new biobrick.
1.0 classic Format
This is the de-facto standard used by most iGem teams and most biobricks in the MIT registry.
Pros:
- de-facto standard
Cons
- no protein fusions (frame shift, stop codon)
"2.0" Biofusion (Silver lab)
The Silver lab modified the classic format to allow for protein fusions:
Pros:
- in-frame fusion of protein parts - compatible to 1.0 non-coding parts
Cons:
- not compatible to 1.0 protein parts (frame shift) - Arg in scar can be problematic - Thr-Arg at the N-term. is a destabilization signal (N-end rule)
"3.0" (Freiburg iGem team)
"2.0-3.0" (CRG proposal)
