Team:ETH Zurich/Project/Conclusions
From 2008.igem.org
Luca.Gerosa (Talk | contribs) (→Conclusions) |
Luca.Gerosa (Talk | contribs) (→Conclusions) |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
* we modelled the mechanical behaviour of the chemostat machinary and evaluated parameters and feasibility range using Ordinary Differential Equation modeling ([[Team:ETH_Zurich/Modeling/Chemostat_Selection|link]]). | * we modelled the mechanical behaviour of the chemostat machinary and evaluated parameters and feasibility range using Ordinary Differential Equation modeling ([[Team:ETH_Zurich/Modeling/Chemostat_Selection|link]]). | ||
* we proposed the Ordinary Differential Equation modeling of the genetic switch circuit, taking paramters values from literature and performing sensitivity analysis in order to analyse key variables in the model ([[Team:ETH_Zurich/Modeling/Switch_Circuit|link]]). | * we proposed the Ordinary Differential Equation modeling of the genetic switch circuit, taking paramters values from literature and performing sensitivity analysis in order to analyse key variables in the model ([[Team:ETH_Zurich/Modeling/Switch_Circuit|link]]). | ||
- | * we provided all the software used to generate our results to the community | + | * we provided all the software and data used to generate our results to the community ([[Team:ETH_Zurich/Modeling/Download|link]]). |
Revision as of 03:00, 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 expect to be found in essential 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 DNA 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:
|