Team:ETH Zurich/Project/Conclusions
From 2008.igem.org
Luca.Gerosa (Talk | contribs) (→Conclusions) |
Luca.Gerosa (Talk | contribs) (→Conclusions) |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
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.<br> | 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.<br> | ||
- | Wet laboratory experimental results: | + | '''Wet laboratory (experimental) results:''' |
* we designed and sent to be synthetized a novel proof of concept construct regarding to the restriction enzyme in-vivo activity. Moreover we designed experiments that would reveal key parameters of restriction enzyme in-vivo efficiency (link). | * we designed and sent to be synthetized a novel proof of concept construct regarding to the restriction enzyme in-vivo activity. Moreover we designed experiments that would reveal key parameters of restriction enzyme in-vivo efficiency (link). | ||
* we succesfully performed knockouts of thymidylate synthase as first step for selection method evaluation (link). | * we succesfully performed knockouts of thymidylate synthase as first step for selection method evaluation (link). | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
* we construct and characterized a new biobrick, able to stop ribosomal functionality upon induction, as a spin-off from our main stream project (link). | * we construct and characterized a new biobrick, able to stop ribosomal functionality upon induction, as a spin-off from our main stream project (link). | ||
- | Dry Laboratory (modelling) results: | + | '''Dry Laboratory (modelling) results:''' |
* we applied statistical analysis to evaluate optimality for our purpose of a large population of restriction enzymes (link) | * we applied statistical analysis to evaluate optimality for our purpose of a large population of restriction enzymes (link) | ||
* we used the state-of-the-art genome scale model for E.coli as framework for testing single cell response to our reduction and selection mechanisms. We performed modification of the model and simulations that permited to quantitatively validate the feasibility of our selection method and to predict a reduction up to 71% of the E.coli genome (link). | * we used the state-of-the-art genome scale model for E.coli as framework for testing single cell response to our reduction and selection mechanisms. We performed modification of the model and simulations that permited to quantitatively validate the feasibility of our selection method and to predict a reduction up to 71% of the E.coli genome (link). |
Revision as of 02:25, 30 October 2008
ConclusionsIn 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 search for fundamental yet missing biological properties that are expecte to be found in minimal systems and the desire of providing a convinient chassis for synthetic biology. In this contest we required our ideal minimal genome to have two properties:
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 evolutionary motivations discussed before) are indeed more equipped for uptaking chromosomal parts. Second, to give a fitness advantage to the 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:
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. Wet laboratory (experimental) results:
Dry Laboratory (modelling) results:
|