Team:Purdue/Project/Robustness

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 29: Line 29:
<h1>Future Work and Changes</h1>
<h1>Future Work and Changes</h1>
 +
 +
When continuing the work with robustness of genetic circuits, we will be taking the following changes into account:
 +
<br>1.      Finding promoter+RBS parts to reduce the amount of 3A assembly as well as the number of tests that need to be done.</br>
 +
<br>2.      Gaining the use of a gel purification kit for increasing our DNA results.</br>
 +
<br>3.      Finding a lab space with correct E. coli growth conditions that can be closely monitored.</br>
</html>
</html>
}}
}}

Revision as of 19:05, 24 September 2013


PurdueLogo2013.png

Robustness

Making Genetic Circuits Resistant to Change

Goal

Background

One of the overwhelming problems that synthetic biologists face on a daily basis is the variability in genetic constructs. With our ever persistent drive to find a way to develop a standard set of parts for synthetic biology, it is often overlooked that these “standard” parts do not interact the same way that a nut and a bolt do. Sure the threads of each must match for compatibility, but you are guaranteed that a matching set of nuts and bolts will hold together a table just as well as they will hold together a chair, or a piece of metal machinery, or the engine of your car.

When we place together a promoter with a new gene of interest we do not yet have these compatibility rules to know how a promoter will work with this gene of interest. We, as synthetic biologists, still don’t know that one promoter/gene will work the same way in one strain of E. coli as they will in another E. coli. For synthetic biology to truly emerge as a field that can capitalize in industry, we must find novel ways of engineering biological systems reliably using our own standard parts.

Protocol for Using the Taguchi Method

Experimental Design

Challenges and Failures

Transformations

There were many different factors that contributed to unsuccessful transformations. The first was improper lab technique as we went through the summer learning the basics of aseptic technique and growing cultures. The next was cells that had been thawed too many times rendering them incompetent which was not realized until later on in the process. Finally, changes in our working space altered the growing conditions so as to not be optimized for E. coli growth which set us back in our schedule.

We learned that although we take for granted the beneficial act of bacterial cells up-taking DNA, these cells cannot maintain a state of competency forever. In a natural environment this would increase their vulnerability to outside toxins that could also enter the cells through engorged pores.

3A Assembly

Our biggest mistake in the process of 3A assembly was purifying the DNA after digestion and ligation. Due to lack of lab equipment, purification via gel extracting was unavailable until just recently. Ethanol purification was tried, but failed as it seemed most of the DNA became trapped in the supernatant. This may be due to not enough sodium acetate for the DNA to precipitate out. Nonetheless, our DNA results were low which resulted in continued failed attempts at transformations.

Future Work and Changes

When continuing the work with robustness of genetic circuits, we will be taking the following changes into account:
1. Finding promoter+RBS parts to reduce the amount of 3A assembly as well as the number of tests that need to be done.

2. Gaining the use of a gel purification kit for increasing our DNA results.

3. Finding a lab space with correct E. coli growth conditions that can be closely monitored.