Team:ETH Zurich/Project/Conclusions
From 2008.igem.org
Luca.Gerosa (Talk | contribs) |
Luca.Gerosa (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
* to be vital, meaning that we were aiming for strains able to provide a reactive and productive background on which to add synthetic functionalities. | * to be vital, meaning that we were aiming for strains able to provide a reactive and productive background on which to add synthetic functionalities. | ||
- | The approach we proposed was based on two main considerations. First, that the space solution of possible minimal genomes is huge and untractable without taking an heuristic approach. Second, that evolution probably worked in the contrary sense, by constructing complex organism starting from a very minimal set of genes. Combining the two concepts, we decided to take an evolutionary reductive approach. In order to do so, we had to invert two main biological mechanisms. First, losing part of the genome should made possible, while cells (for the evolution motivations discussed before) are indeed more equipped for uptaking chromosomal parts. Second, to give a fitness advantage | + | The approach we proposed was based on two main considerations. First, that the space solution of possible minimal genomes is huge and untractable without taking an heuristic approach. Second, that evolution probably worked in the contrary sense, by constructing complex organism starting from a very minimal set of genes. Combining the two concepts, we decided to take an evolutionary reductive approach. In order to do so, we had to invert two main biological mechanisms. First, losing part of the genome should made possible, while cells (for the evolution motivations discussed before) are indeed more equipped for uptaking chromosomal parts. Second, to give a fitness advantage to cell that has a reduced genome, things that to our knowledge have never been showed before. Moreover, these two mechanisms had to be implemented in a framework that permitted the sequential application of a mutation phase (reduction) and selection phase (fitness function) in order to form the cycle that is proper of an evolutionary algorithm. By bringing out the concept that cells are natural carriers of our possible solutions (they indeed carry a chromosome), we investigated the following solutions: |
+ | |||
+ | * reduction of the chromosome could be achieved by controlled expression of restriction enzymes and ligase. | ||
+ | * reduced strain can be made fitter by penalizing big chromosomal size through a nucleotide limitation in the feeding. | ||
+ | * populations of our solutions (cells) can be repetitevly subjected to reduction and selection phases by using a chemostat machinery. | ||
Revision as of 01:50, 30 October 2008
The approach we proposed was based on two main considerations. First, that the space solution of possible minimal genomes is huge and untractable without taking an heuristic approach. Second, that evolution probably worked in the contrary sense, by constructing complex organism starting from a very minimal set of genes. Combining the two concepts, we decided to take an evolutionary reductive approach. In order to do so, we had to invert two main biological mechanisms. First, losing part of the genome should made possible, while cells (for the evolution motivations discussed before) are indeed more equipped for uptaking chromosomal parts. Second, to give a fitness advantage to cell that has a reduced genome, things that to our knowledge have never been showed before. Moreover, these two mechanisms had to be implemented in a framework that permitted the sequential application of a mutation phase (reduction) and selection phase (fitness function) in order to form the cycle that is proper of an evolutionary algorithm. By bringing out the concept that cells are natural carriers of our possible solutions (they indeed carry a chromosome), we investigated the following solutions:
|