Team:Oxford/modelling biosensor

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 144: Line 144:
.pink_news_block {
.pink_news_block {
-
        margin-bottom: 1em;
+
     
         background: #DEA5A4;
         background: #DEA5A4;
         border-bottom-left-radius:4%;border-bottom-right-radius:4%;border-top-left-radius:4%;border-top-right-radius:4%; margin-top:2%; padding-left:2%;padding-right:2%;padding-top:.5%;padding-bottom:.5%;
         border-bottom-left-radius:4%;border-bottom-right-radius:4%;border-top-left-radius:4%;border-top-right-radius:4%; margin-top:2%; padding-left:2%;padding-right:2%;padding-top:.5%;padding-bottom:.5%;
-
width:90%;
+
width:100%;
}
}

Revision as of 09:06, 9 September 2014


Biosensor



Predicting the mCherry fluorescence
[[File:OxiGEM IP.jpg|350px|right|alt text]]
To model the first double repression, we took the fact that we won’t need to know the amount of tetR in the system and used the assumption that ATC is effectively activating the expression of dcmR, albeit parameterised by different constants. This assumption should be justified by the fact that we will be able to precisely control the addition of ATC and we will be able to measure the fluorescence of the mCherry.

We modelled this first step using both deterministic and stochastic models.


[[File:OxiGEMBioeconomy_Quote.jpg|840px|center|alt text]]

alt text

Intellectual Property is an increasingly important and controversial aspect of scientific advance, and synthetic biology is perhaps the paradigmatic area illustrating the effects of this growing legal influence. When thinking about how teams could turn their ideas from iGEM projects into viable real-world solutions, we realized that intellectual property is a crucial area to address. Our team has produced a report exploring how teams can approach this task and how iGEM intellectual property policy can make the transition easier.