James Lloyd 🧬
banner
jamespblloyd.bsky.social
James Lloyd 🧬
@jamespblloyd.bsky.social
Synthetic AstroBotatnist. Engineer of synthetic gene circuits in plants. 🇬🇧🇪🇺 now in 🇦🇺. He/They.
Google Scholar: http://shorturl.at/dnHVZ
Compbio blog: badgrammargoodsyntax.com
I’ve only had time to review grants, no papers, this year because I refuse to outsource it to AI and I have been overwhelmed.

Not proud to be slacking my duties. But grants reviewing is a requirement for me, papers are optional. I hope to return to the duty next year.
November 11, 2025 at 11:26 AM
This computational work was possible because of the great team of Moji, Pratosh & Georgina. Also building on the great computational tool TranSuite (pre-print below):
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

This is a big problem in translation prediction, picking the wrong ORF, but is too often overlooked
November 6, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Because automated protein structure prediction is becoming more common, I wondered what impact this would have on protein structure predictions. Taking the "wrong" ORF indicated a longer predicted protein, missing a small part of the C-terminal. But the reality is just a small protein would be made!
November 6, 2025 at 2:14 PM
To show that this improvement extended beyond just two example genes I noticed manually, we re-examined some old RNA-seq from an NMD mutant in Arabidopsis. Sure enough, known NMD features were higher in the revised start/stop (open reading frame; ORF) annotations.
November 6, 2025 at 2:14 PM
So it started when I was showing a visiting High School student the Arabidopsis genome and noticed an error. The wrong start and stop codon was labelled for some NMD targets (PTB1 & RS2Z33).

Using TranSuite (modified & updated) we showed that the biologically correct start/stop were now annotated!
November 6, 2025 at 2:14 PM
October 31, 2025 at 10:30 PM
This is a fantastic extension of the memory circuits for plants, and shows how much hard work is needed to de-bug unexpected problems when faced in synthetic biology. This is a testament to the determination and creative of Patrick and the team. I am beyond proud to work with such fantastic people.
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Patrick also showed split-recombinases can work with new bioconjugation domains. Then he went big and showed that a 6-input AND gate with a >100 fold induction was possible by using three split recombinases in the same circuit, pushing the limits of computation in plant cells!
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Patrick, not satisfied with the 2-input AND gate we had published in 2022, designed & built a 3-input AND gate with the new recombinases he had de-bugged, seeing a >300 activation in the 3-input on-state and negligible noise in all other conditions. Fantastic.
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Additionally, circuit performance was tested not only in Arabidopsis, the model plant, but also in tomato! So we can see these circuits can function in a crop as well!
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
And with all we had learned, Patrick expanded our toolkit of recombinases, bringing VCre & SCre back into the roster, after I had rejected them in the 2022 study. This builds a strong foundation to allow us to build new, more complex circuits.
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Importantly, similar genetic parts for circuits cannot be assumed to behave the same!

Unexpected differences can have disastrous effects when constructing a circuit. Deep characterisation of parts, as done here, is needed to better understand which is best to use in which context.
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
This goes to show that few pairs of Recombinase-Target sites behave the same. FLP site enhances, but the B3 protein enhances. The Cre family all interfere, but only the lox site has an inhibitory effect - I guess we just got epically unlucky with pairing that recombinase with that promoter!
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Then Patrick tested if Act2 was affected by other recombinase target sites: B3, VCre & SCre sites had no effect.

But FLP target site augmented expression!

What about the protein level? Cre interferes, also SCre & VCre. FLP did nothing. B3 enhances expression. A cryptic transcription factor?
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Patrick then tested lox negation w/ a range of promoters. Act2 was repressed, but so too was TCTP & Ubi10. Only 35S & NOS did not experience negation from a lox site. Indicating interesting PRO+lox site interactions…is this common in non-plants? I think people better start checking ASAP.
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM
In my original study, I shied away from 35S promoter, given fears reviewers would condemn it, but that the OCS terminator might not repress the transcriptional output from 35S, but Patrick found that the off-state with 35S running immediately into the OCS terminator was still very effective.
October 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM