INPUT-module regulator
From 2006.igem.org
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===[[One Regulator (ar)]]=== | ===[[One Regulator (ar)]]=== | ||
In the implementations listed [[One Regulator (ar)|here]], the input PoPs regulates the production of a sole protein that somehow acts as activator and repressor. With only one regulator, production and degradation are perfectly uniform, which is good, but in some cases, it might be harder to obtain a symmetrical activity, which is bad. | In the implementations listed [[One Regulator (ar)|here]], the input PoPs regulates the production of a sole protein that somehow acts as activator and repressor. With only one regulator, production and degradation are perfectly uniform, which is good, but in some cases, it might be harder to obtain a symmetrical activity, which is bad. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''To be continued. Details of the literature research on the two strategies above should be extended by Christophe and Hervé themselves''' | ||
Latest revision as of 08:31, 19 September 2005
Check the following page for lists of transcriptional regulators in E.Coli: [http://www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon/Network_motifs_in_coli/ColiNet-1.1/regInterFullFiltered.html] [http://biocyc.org/ECOLI/new-image?object=BC-3.1.2.3]
Two Regulators (a,r)
In the strategies listed here, the input PoPS regulates two proteins, an activator and a repressor. That has the advantage of being very simple, but requires that both proteins have roughly similar production and degradation speed.
One Regulator (ar)
In the implementations listed here, the input PoPs regulates the production of a sole protein that somehow acts as activator and repressor. With only one regulator, production and degradation are perfectly uniform, which is good, but in some cases, it might be harder to obtain a symmetrical activity, which is bad.
To be continued. Details of the literature research on the two strategies above should be extended by Christophe and Hervé themselves
