17mcguiret (Talk | contribs) |
17mcguiret (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 8,023: | Line 8,023: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<center> | <center> | ||
− | <img><img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/ | + | <img><img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/7/7c/T--ASIJ_Tokyo--ASIJ_222.png"></img></center |
<p class="sansserif"><font size="4"> | <p class="sansserif"><font size="4"> | ||
The goal of our project was to construct a biobrick capable of plastic degradation. We created three biobrick constructs. Each of these constructs contained PETase, ChloroR, osmY, and an Anderson Promoter. The principal difference between these three constructs was the strength of the Anderson promoter incorporated in the construct. Depending on their predicted ability to promote the secretion of the enzyme PETase by the <i>E. coli</i> bacterium, these Anderson promoters were labelled as weak, moderately-strong, or strong. | The goal of our project was to construct a biobrick capable of plastic degradation. We created three biobrick constructs. Each of these constructs contained PETase, ChloroR, osmY, and an Anderson Promoter. The principal difference between these three constructs was the strength of the Anderson promoter incorporated in the construct. Depending on their predicted ability to promote the secretion of the enzyme PETase by the <i>E. coli</i> bacterium, these Anderson promoters were labelled as weak, moderately-strong, or strong. |
Revision as of 07:22, 18 October 2016
Results
Overview
Table 1: Change in Average Mass of PET Film (g) per Promoter
Day 0 | Day 7 | Day 13 | |
---|---|---|---|
Strong | 0.05175 | 0.05175 | 0.05175 |
Moderately-Strong | 0.071 | 0.071 | 0.07125 |
Weak | 0.06675 | 0.06825 | 0.06725 |
Graph 1: Average PET Mass Sample over Time