[BBF Standards] housecleaning for physical assembly

[Drew Endy]

Thanks Kim,

Great comments!

What other thoughts or experiences do other folks have?



On May 3, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Kim de Mora wrote:

> Drew,
>
>   I think it should obvious that the Biobrick 1.0 standard is not  
> what we want as it doesn't allow the construction of fusion  
> proteins.  The silver Biofusion standard has its merits, but I fear  
> there may problems with the biochemistry of the scarring site.  I  
> have successfully made functional fusion proteins with it.  I also  
> believe that I'm having trouble with the scarring site blocking a  
> short import tag in my project.  I'll know the results of this in a  
> few weeks.
>
>   I like Raik's 3.0 Expression parts, although having longer tails  
> may lead to more difficult PCR's which could be a problem if you are  
> trying to make a yeast gene knockout construct.  I also don't like  
> the incompatibility idea, although whatever we choose should be  
> implemented now before there are many more (yeast) Biobricks in the  
> registry.  I'm going to make a naive suggestion: maybe an organism  
> specific Biobrick system that utilizes the least occurring sites  
> that can be made by fermentas?  This would save time in one instance  
> and add much more in others...
>
>   And finally I don't agree with the idea of suggesting an untested  
> standard.  How many times have engineers said "it looks fine on  
> paper" only to discover the horrible truth out in the real world?   
> Thats my 2 cents worth.  Cheers!
>
> Kim