Difference between revisions of "Team:ICT-Mumbai/Parts"
Adityakamat (Talk | contribs) |
Adityakamat (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
<h5>Part Table </h5> | <h5>Part Table </h5> | ||
| − | <p>Please include a table of all the parts your team has made during your project on this page. Remember part characterization and measurement data must go on your team part pages on the Registry. </p> | + | <!--<p>Please include a table of all the parts your team has made during your project on this page. Remember part characterization and measurement data must go on your team part pages on the Registry. </p>--> |
<div class="highlight"> | <div class="highlight"> | ||
Revision as of 03:11, 1 November 2017
Our project involves metabolism of ammonia by Escherichia coli to produce a blue-coloured dye, indigoidine. We had to choose between using a constitutive and an inducible promoter to drive expression of the genes that we wish to express in E. coli.
Expression from inducible promoters requires addition of an inducing molecule. However, as it would be cumbersome and tedious to add the inducer to the device that will house the engineered E. coli, and as it would also contribute to the cost, we decided to use a constitutive promoter to drive gene expression.
We reasoned that the constitutive promoter of choice should have the following two properties: (1) it should not be a very strong promoter, so as to not lead to any toxicity to the cell, and (2) it should be active in low-nutrient conditions. Based on these two considerations, the commonly used glycolytic promoters were ruled out as possible choices.
The ychH promoter has been described in literature to be active under low glucose conditions (Ref. 1). Moreover, it is not a very strong promoter, compared to those frequently employed to express recombinant proteins in E. coli (Ref. 2). Therefore, the ychH promoter became our promoter of choice.
Part Table
