Team:ETH Zurich/Project/Conclusions

From 2008.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
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 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:
+
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 synthetic 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 that can be reduced), we investigated the following solutions:
-
* reduction of the chromosome could be achieved by controlled expression of restriction enzymes and ligase.
+
* reduction of the chromosome could be achieved by controlled expression of restriction enzymes and ligase by using a genetic circuit.
-
* reduced strain can be made fitter by penalizing big chromosomal size through a nucleotide limitation in the feeding.
+
* reduced strain can be made fitter by penalizing large 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.
* populations of our solutions (cells) can be repetitevly subjected to reduction and selection phases by using a chemostat machinery.
Line 24: Line 24:
Lab experiment results:
Lab experiment results:
-
*
+
* we designed and sent to be synthetized a novel proof of concept construct that would reveal key parameters of restriction enzyme in-vivo functionalitis (link)
-
*
+
*  
*
*
Line 32: Line 32:
*
*
*
*
 +
<!-- PUT THE PAGE CONTENT BEFORE THIS LINE. THANKS :) -->
<!-- PUT THE PAGE CONTENT BEFORE THIS LINE. THANKS :) -->
|}
|}

Revision as of 01:59, 30 October 2008


In this iGEM project we addressed the question of how the minimal genome of a particular organism, E.coli, could be identified and made available in the form of minimal strain to researchers. The motivations that made the finding of a minimal genome strain appealing were two folds: the indication that in essentiality are hidden some of fundamental yet missing biological properties and the desire of providing a convinient chassis for synthetic biology. In this contest we required our ideal minimal genome to have two properties:

  • to be as simple as possible, meaning as much reduced in genome size and gene content as possible
  • 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 synthetic 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 that can be reduced), we investigated the following solutions:

  • reduction of the chromosome could be achieved by controlled expression of restriction enzymes and ligase by using a genetic circuit.
  • reduced strain can be made fitter by penalizing large 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.

Our efforts were spent in trying to prove the feasibility of our assumption from the experimental side (when possible) and using modelling techniques (when convinient). Here we report a brief summary of what we achieved with links to the detailed description.

Lab experiment results:

  • we designed and sent to be synthetized a novel proof of concept construct that would reveal key parameters of restriction enzyme in-vivo functionalitis (link)

Modelling results:


Retrieved from "http://2008.igem.org/Team:ETH_Zurich/Project/Conclusions"