BU06:Research
From 2006.igem.org
m |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Sequence details: | Sequence details: | ||
| - | [http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/ntt/documents/proposals2000/MIT9904-10/proposal.html According] to Tom Knight, the ''Photorhabdus luminescens'' luxCDABE operon that he cloned is NCBI accession number [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=155405 M90093]. I checked this sequence against the biobrick restriction enzymes (EcoRI, XbaI, SpeI, PstI, NotI) using the [http://bioinformatics.org/sms2/rest_summary.html Sequence Manipulation Suite]. Results: EcoRI cuts at the ends of the sequence (+2 and -4; i.e., the original sequence | + | [http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/ntt/documents/proposals2000/MIT9904-10/proposal.html According] to Tom Knight, the ''Photorhabdus luminescens'' luxCDABE operon that he cloned is NCBI accession number [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=155405 M90093]. I checked this sequence against the biobrick restriction enzymes (EcoRI, XbaI, SpeI, PstI, NotI) using the [http://bioinformatics.org/sms2/rest_summary.html Sequence Manipulation Suite]. Results: EcoRI cuts at the ends of the sequence (+2 and -4; i.e., the original sequence is intended to be cut out of its vector with EcoRI); XbaI cuts in the middle (+2411); and SpeI, PstI, and NotI do not cut M00093. The question therefore becomes, did Tom Knight's group add or remove restriction sites? We have the DNA, we can test this in lab. |
Revision as of 04:47, 10 June 2006
Making E. coli Glow
Preliminary Design: -Light Sensing Inhibitor- -> -Light emission device-
Light Sensing Inihibitor: [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_I15008 BBa_I15008] , [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_I15009 BBa_I15009] , [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_I15010 BBa_I15010] , [http://partsregistry.org/Part:BBa_R0082 BBa_R0082]
Light Emission Device: (from lux [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon operon]) THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
Light Sensor Parts: http://partsregistry.org/Featured_Parts:Light_Sensor and paper : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7067/full/nature04405.html (this paper simply explains how the device works!)
It seems to repress gene expression by having red light inhibit phosphorylation which would activate a promoter. We would replace the LacZ protein coding region with our lux [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon operon].
Part: BBa_F1610 codes for LuxI, should we need it...
Sequence details:
[http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/ntt/documents/proposals2000/MIT9904-10/proposal.html According] to Tom Knight, the Photorhabdus luminescens luxCDABE operon that he cloned is NCBI accession number [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=155405 M90093]. I checked this sequence against the biobrick restriction enzymes (EcoRI, XbaI, SpeI, PstI, NotI) using the [http://bioinformatics.org/sms2/rest_summary.html Sequence Manipulation Suite]. Results: EcoRI cuts at the ends of the sequence (+2 and -4; i.e., the original sequence is intended to be cut out of its vector with EcoRI); XbaI cuts in the middle (+2411); and SpeI, PstI, and NotI do not cut M00093. The question therefore becomes, did Tom Knight's group add or remove restriction sites? We have the DNA, we can test this in lab.
