Team:ICT-Mumbai/Interlab
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
As can be seen from the figure above, the strengths of the promoters tested are as follows: J23101>J23106>J23117.
These three promoters are part of a family of constitutive promoters, of which J23100 is the strongest. The sequences of these promoters are depicted below. Nucleotides that differ from the those in promoter J23100 are depicted in red.
It is interesting to note that a single base change in J23117 at position 24 (from T to G) leads to a drastic change in promoter strength. The other changes in the sequence of J23117 with respect to J23100 are also found in J23101 and J23106, and as the latter two are quite strong promoters, in the absence of any other information, and taking the liberty of discounting any other alternative explanations, it may be presumed that these changes are not responsible for the decreased promoter strength observed in J23117.
The two RBS sequences used here cannot be compared to each other as B0034 is a conventional ‘monocistronic design’ (MCD), while J364100 is a ‘bicistronic design’ (BCD). However, it can be concluded that BCD leads to higher protein synthesis, compared to MCD.