Team:EPF-Lausanne/Our Project/Summary

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 57: Line 57:
''' 4) comparing the results of both characterization
''' 4) comparing the results of both characterization
-
Three of our mutants plus the wild-type were tested both ''in vivo'' and ''in vitro''. The results were consistent between the two experiments. The V36F exhibits the same behaviour as the wild-type while the P39K shows no interaction to the DNA at all. The E37A triple mutant, however, has contradictory results: the MITOMI data indicate that this mutant has a change in specificity, with a consensus sequence being different from the wild-type Ptet. However, it still recognizes Ptet well, showing that there is still crosstalk with the endogenous promoter.
+
Three of our mutants plus the wild-type were tested both ''in vivo'' and ''in vitro''. The results were consistent between the two experiments. The V36F exhibits the same behaviour as the wild-type while the P39K shows no interaction to the DNA at all. The E37A triple mutant, however, has contradictory results: the MITOMI data indicate that this mutant has a change in specificity, with a consensus sequence being different from the wild-type Ptet. However, it still recognizes Ptet well, meaning that there is still crosstalk with the endogenous promoter.
[[File:EPFL_Comparison_char.png|500px]]
[[File:EPFL_Comparison_char.png|500px]]
 +
 +
We were able to change the specificity of some of our mutants; however this change was not big enough to have a fully orthogonal mutant that would not recognize the wild-type consensus sequence.
{{:Team:EPF-Lausanne/Templates/Footer}}
{{:Team:EPF-Lausanne/Templates/Footer}}

Revision as of 20:00, 28 October 2011