The case for decoupling assembly and submission standards to maintain a more flexible registry of biological parts

Journal of Biological Engineering

Jeffrey E Barrick¹  Michael J Hammerling¹  Neil R Gottel¹  Marco D Howard¹  Yousef Okasheh¹  Jordan W Monk¹  Catherine Mortensen¹  Yunle Huang¹  Ben Slater¹  Razan N Alnahhas¹ 

[1] Department of Molecular Biosciences, Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Center for Systems and Synthetic Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA

关键词: Submission standard;    Assembly standard;    Registry of standard biological parts;    BioBrick;    Gene synthesis;    Gibson assembly;    DNA assembly;    Biological part;    Synthetic biology;   

Others  :  1133621
DOI  :  10.1186/1754-1611-8-28

 received in 2014-08-25, accepted in 2014-11-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

The Registry of Standard Biological Parts only accepts genetic parts compatible with the RFC 10 BioBrick format. This combined assembly and submission standard requires that four unique restriction enzyme sites must not occur in the DNA sequence encoding a part. We present evidence that this requirement places a nontrivial burden on iGEM teams developing large and novel parts. We further argue that the emergence of inexpensive DNA synthesis and versatile assembly methods reduces the utility of coupling submission and assembly standards and propose a submission standard that is compatible with current quality control strategies while nearly eliminating sequence constraints on submitted parts.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Alnahhas et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Canton B, Labno A, Endy D: Refinement and standardization of synthetic biological parts and devices. Nat Biotechnol 2008, 26:787-793.
• [2]Knight T: Draft standard for BioBrick biological parts. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/45138 webcite
• [3]Gimble FS, Wang J: Substrate recognition and induced DNA distortion by the PI-SceI endonuclease, an enzyme generated by protein splicing. J Mol Biol 1996, 263:163-180.
• [4]Hammerling M, Gottel NR, Alnahas RN, Slater B, Huang Y, Okasheh Y, Howard M, Mortensen C, Monk J, Detelich M, Lannan RS, Pitaktong A, Weaver E, Das S, Barrick JE: BBF RFC 95: Open Sequence Initiative: a part submission standard to complement modern DNA assembly techniques. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/81334 webcite
• [5]Ellis T, Adie T, Baldwin GS: DNA assembly for synthetic biology: from parts to pathways and beyond. Integr Biol (Camb) 2011, 3:109-118.
• [6]Kahl LJ, Endy D: A survey of enabling technologies in synthetic biology. J Biol Eng 2013, 7:13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Wang Y-H, Wei KY, Smolke CD: Synthetic biology: advancing the design of diverse genetic systems. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2013, 4:69-102.
• [8]Esvelt KM, Wang HH: Genome-scale engineering for systems and synthetic biology. Mol Syst Biol 2013, 9:641.
• [9]Ma S, Tang N, Tian J: DNA synthesis, assembly and applications in synthetic biology. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2012, 16:260-267.
• [10]Vilanova C, Porcar M: iGEM 2.0–refoundations for engineering biology. Nat Biotechnol 2014, 32:420-424.