"
Team:Edinburgh/Conclusions
From 2011.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
}); </script></html> | }); </script></html> | ||
<div class="main_body"> | <div class="main_body"> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p class="h1">Conclusions</p> | ||
In our abstract, we asked a number of questions that our feasibility study was intended to answer. | In our abstract, we asked a number of questions that our feasibility study was intended to answer. | ||
Revision as of 17:28, 12 September 2011
Conclusions
In our abstract, we asked a number of questions that our feasibility study was intended to answer.
Would the efficiency of cellulases be increased by having different types close together?
- Very probably. Our C model and Kappa model showed that synergy makes sense in silico.
Could this be done by displaying them on a cell outer membrane?
- This seems a promising approach. <partinfo>BBa_K265008</partinfo> seems a promising carrier for placing enzymes at high copy number on the E. coli outer membrane.
Could it be done by displaying them on a phage?
- Further work is needed to answer this question. There are theoretical reasons to expect that this is a challenging problem.
Does the BioSandwich DNA assembly method work properly?
- Like other homology-based assembly methods, it produces both correct and incorrect assemblies. But we successfully used it to produce <partinfo>BBa_K523013</partinfo>.
How would a biorefinery involving either system actually be constructed?
- Our biorefinery page includes a process flow diagram that illustrates this.
Would such a biorefinery be economically viable?
- Our biorefinery page also attempts to answer this question. Such a biorefinery could indeed be economically viable.
What are the social implications of creating such a biorefinery?
What are people's thoughts and feelings regarding this project?
Should we (meaning society) actually build such a biorefinery?
