From 2007.igem.org

This is a draft of the part documentation guidelines used to evaluate parts Submitted for Acceptance. We want every part to have a paragraph or more of text on the main page, preferably with a diagram (but not necessarily), that clearly answers the questions posed in 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the guidelines.

Contents 1 Part Main page 2 Part Design page 3 User Experience Page 4 Hard Info 5 Best Documentation Candidates

Part Main page

• 1 Part title
• 2 Abstract Part Description
  • 2.1 What is it needed for? Function.
  • 2.2 How does it work
  • 2.3 How do you use it?
• 3 Dependencies (other parts, chemicals, strains) (explicitly stated)
• 4 Subparts figure
• 5 Diagram is encouraged
  • 5.1 Inputs and outputs should be clearly labelled

Part Design page

• 6 How did you build it? What you would need to know if you wanted to re-create the part? For instance, include as warranted info about:
  • Primers used if DNA was PCRed out of a natural system
  • Mutagenesis performed (i.e. for standards compliance)
  • Codon optimization
  • Removal or addition Biobrick cloning sites
  • Synthesis details, if DNA synthesized
• 7 Source of part material - i.e. where did the provided sequence in Hard Info come from? If in online database, provide accession no. else provide pertinent info about the sequencing run (perhaps links to sequence read files, uploaded to registry?)
  • 7.1 Species, Strain
  • 7.2 Sequence: accession number & database used for sequence, or details about sequencing run.
  • 7.3 What lab is the strain from / what company supplied it, what is the order number?
• 8 References (at least 2 – if not, justify it and provide links to the other resources used - i.e. online open-access textbook, OWW page, etc.)
• 9 Pitfalls – designs that didn't work, revisions necessary, or an explicit statement that everything worked as planned
• 10 MTAs, patents - Significant IP? Do we want an explicit answer? Really? (we should make the heading automatically link to the disclaimer page about IP & iGEM issues) Providing complete attribution to everyone who worked on/is affiliated with the part.
  • 10.1 Attribution - who worked on this part? (whole team, certain members of the team if they divided into subteams,etc.)
  • 10.2 Acknowledgement - who worked on parts that went into this part?
  • 10.3 Sponsorship - who provided funding for the development of this part?

User Experience Page

• 11 Experience - explicitly state how the part worked in your lab; provide any available experimental details generated from testing the part (including uploading data files to the registry wiki)

Hard Info

• 12.1 Sequence
• 12.2 Significant features - If any of the features from the features list is mentioned/talked about in your part description, make sure that it is part of the sequence and features

Best Documentation Candidates