(→Guideline of the project) |
(→Guideline of the project) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
When we set up our project, we knew it would be tough to have our final tools. That is why we have organized our work and decided beginning with intermediate devices. | When we set up our project, we knew it would be tough to have our final tools. That is why we have organized our work and decided beginning with intermediate devices. | ||
− | In the laboratory, we then focused on the tool used to visualize the interaction between both dCas9s. For that purpose, we designed a biobrick in order to characterize the assembly of the split GFP. This biobrick is composed of one part of FRB / FKBP12 system fused to the other part of tripartite split-GFP system (GFP 10 / GFP 11) plus GFP 1.9 in the same plasmid. Furthermore, a model was built in order to determine the optimal distance between the two dCas9s proteins for GFP to fluoresce. | + | In the laboratory, we then focused on the tool used to visualize the interaction between both dCas9s. For that purpose, we designed a biobrick in order to characterize the assembly of the split GFP. This biobrick is composed of one part of FRB / FKBP12 system fused to the other part of tripartite split-GFP system (GFP 10 / GFP 11) plus GFP 1.9 in the same plasmid. |
+ | |||
+ | Furthermore, a model was built in order to determine the optimal distance between the two dCas9s proteins for GFP to fluoresce. This model was based on two devices : one biobrick composed of tripatrite split-GFP plus two dCas9s and another biobrick composed of the two target sequences of the dCas9 and the two sgRNAs coding sequence. For this second biobrick, we wanted to test several distances (50 bp, 75 bp, 100 bp and 150 bp) between the two target sequences of the dCas9, in order to determine the best distance for tripartite split-GFP to fluorescence, regarding to the established a model. | ||
=Perspective= | =Perspective= |
Revision as of 11:25, 9 October 2016