Difference between revisions of "Team:Uppsala/Improve"

Line 210: Line 210:
  
 
                             <!-- Here you put your paragraphs -->  
 
                             <!-- Here you put your paragraphs -->  
                             <p><br>Original AmilCP sequence (<a  href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K592009"><strong>BBa_K592009</strong></a>) was optimized by us for expression in <i>E.coli</i> K12 strain using the IDT tool for codon optimization. The sequence was then put in front of a strong constitutive promoter and RBS along with a double terminator. It can be found in the registry as <a  href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K592009">  <strong>BBa_K592009</strong></a>. The sequence, and the original native AmilCP sequence with the same elements was then ordered as customized gene fragments (gBlocks) from IDT inserted in pUCIDT, a cloning vector containing ampicillin resistance.<br><br>
+
                             <p><br>Original AmilCP sequence (<a  href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K592009"><strong>BBa_K592009</strong></a>) was optimized by us for expression in <i>E.coli</i> K12 strain using the IDT tool for codon optimization. The sequence was then put in front of a strong constitutive promoter and RBS along with a double terminator. It can be found in the registry as <a  href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K2669003">  <strong>BBa_K2669003</strong></a>. The sequence, and the original native AmilCP sequence with the same elements was then ordered as customized gene fragments (gBlocks) from IDT inserted in pUCIDT, a cloning vector containing ampicillin resistance.<br><br>
  
 
Unfortunately IDT wasn’t able to synthesise the codon optimized Austin Texas sequence even though multiple attempts were made. Each attempt resulted in switch of a base, causing an early stop codon to form. Hence we never were able to compare our codon optimized sequence with the sequence from the Austin Texas. We continued with our experiment and decided to make a stability assay where we compared the expression between our two Biobrick parts containing optimized AmilCP sequences and the original AmilCP sequence from the iGEM registry.
 
Unfortunately IDT wasn’t able to synthesise the codon optimized Austin Texas sequence even though multiple attempts were made. Each attempt resulted in switch of a base, causing an early stop codon to form. Hence we never were able to compare our codon optimized sequence with the sequence from the Austin Texas. We continued with our experiment and decided to make a stability assay where we compared the expression between our two Biobrick parts containing optimized AmilCP sequences and the original AmilCP sequence from the iGEM registry.

Revision as of 01:16, 18 October 2018