4.5 Article

A BioBrick compatible strategy for genetic modification of plants

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1754-1611-6-8

Keywords

iGEM; Synthetic biology; Arabidopsis; Plant biotechnology

Funding

  1. Harvard University Center for the Environment Graduate Consortium
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC)
  3. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  4. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
  5. Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering
  6. Harvard's Office of the Provost
  7. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Undergraduate Education Program
  8. Arnold Arboretum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Plant biotechnology can be leveraged to produce food, fuel, medicine, and materials. Standardized methods advocated by the synthetic biology community can accelerate the plant design cycle, ultimately making plant engineering more widely accessible to bioengineers who can contribute diverse creative input to the design process. Results: This paper presents work done largely by undergraduate students participating in the 2010 International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition. Described here is a framework for engineering the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana with standardized, BioBrick compatible vectors and parts available through the Registry of Standard Biological Parts (www. partsregistry. org). This system was used to engineer a proof-of-concept plant that exogenously expresses the taste-inverting protein miraculin. Conclusions: Our work is intended to encourage future iGEM teams and other synthetic biologists to use plants as a genetic chassis. Our workflow simplifies the use of standardized parts in plant systems, allowing the construction and expression of heterologous genes in plants within the timeframe allotted for typical iGEM projects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available