[BBF Standards] housecleaning for physical assembly

[Kim de Mora]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://biobricks.org/pipermail/standards_biobricks.org/attachments/20080503/938b866c/attachment.html