Synthetic Biology:BioBricks: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* I actually have some issues with how the 'standard' should be defined. In particular, there are lots of BioBricks-compatible parts with different filler sequences. For example, does removing the NotI sites make something a non-BioBricks part? The extra bases inserted after XbaI and before SpeI, do we consider that part of the standard? I have had times when I wanted to remove or change the bases in there for some reason. [[User:Austin|Austin]] 19:24, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT) | * I actually have some issues with how the 'standard' should be defined. In particular, there are lots of BioBricks-compatible parts with different filler sequences. For example, does removing the NotI sites make something a non-BioBricks part? The extra bases inserted after XbaI and before SpeI, do we consider that part of the standard? I have had times when I wanted to remove or change the bases in there for some reason. [[User:Austin|Austin]] 19:24, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT) | ||
* The ends of the bricks have nothing to do with making something a BioBrick. E.g., if you take for granted the idea that we are moving towards synthesis-based "standard assembly" then everything might quickly become scarless. So, it may be worth considering a Bricks standard and then a linker standard. Standard Assembly version 1 is one linker standard. Meanwhile, the standard Brick is more about the set of information needed to define that part's function in some useful way (e.g., so that it can used reliably in combination). [[User:Endy|Endy]] 11:34, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) | |||
== Protocols == | == Protocols == | ||
Revision as of 08:34, 19 September 2005
Stub for BioBricks information. Much more info should be added about the actual BioBricks protocols/standards.
Standard Part Definition
- I actually have some issues with how the 'standard' should be defined. In particular, there are lots of BioBricks-compatible parts with different filler sequences. For example, does removing the NotI sites make something a non-BioBricks part? The extra bases inserted after XbaI and before SpeI, do we consider that part of the standard? I have had times when I wanted to remove or change the bases in there for some reason. Austin 19:24, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- The ends of the bricks have nothing to do with making something a BioBrick. E.g., if you take for granted the idea that we are moving towards synthesis-based "standard assembly" then everything might quickly become scarless. So, it may be worth considering a Bricks standard and then a linker standard. Standard Assembly version 1 is one linker standard. Meanwhile, the standard Brick is more about the set of information needed to define that part's function in some useful way (e.g., so that it can used reliably in combination). Endy 11:34, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
