Team:ETH Zurich/Project/Conclusions
From 2008.igem.org
(→Conclusions) |
(→Conclusions) |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Conclusions == | == Conclusions == | ||
- | In this iGEM project we addressed the question of how the minimal genome of a particular organism, E.coli, could be identified to develop a minimal strain for researchers working in the field of synthetic biology. The motivations that made the search of a minimal genome strain appealing were two fold: the search for fundamental yet missing biological properties that are expected to be found in essential systems and the desire of providing a convinient chassis for synthetic biology. In this project identified two requirements for our ideal minimal genome: | + | In this iGEM project we addressed the question of how the minimal genome of a particular organism, E.coli, could be identified. Our aim was to develop a minimal strain for researchers working in the field of synthetic biology. The motivations that made the search of a minimal genome strain appealing were two fold: the search for fundamental yet missing biological properties that are expected to be found in essential systems and the desire of providing a convinient chassis for synthetic biology. In this project we identified two requirements for our ideal minimal genome: |
- | * to be as simple as possible | + | * to be as simple as possible by achieving a maximal reduction in genome size and gene content. |
* to be viable, meaning that we were aiming for strains able to provide a reactive and productive background on which to add synthetic functionalities. | * to be viable, 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 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 opposite direction, constructing complex organisms starting from a relatively small 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: |
* reduction of the chromosome could be achieved by controlled expression of restriction enzymes and ligase by using a genetic circuit. | * reduction of the chromosome could be achieved by controlled expression of restriction enzymes and ligase by using a genetic circuit. |
Revision as of 03:38, 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. Our aim was to develop a minimal strain for researchers working in the field of synthetic biology. The motivations that made the search of a minimal genome strain appealing were two fold: the search for fundamental yet missing biological properties that are expected to be found in essential systems and the desire of providing a convinient chassis for synthetic biology. In this project we identified two requirements for our ideal minimal genome:
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 opposite direction, constructing complex organisms starting from a relatively small 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:
|