Team:Alberta/MedalRequirements
From 2009.igem.org
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<!-- <div align="justify" style="padding-left:20px; padding-right:20px"> --> | <!-- <div align="justify" style="padding-left:20px; padding-right:20px"> --> | ||
<div align="justify"> | <div align="justify"> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h3> Bronze: </h3> | ||
+ | <p><b>Design and document Biobrick parts:</b> We’ve entered over 400 Biobrick parts in the Registry of Standard Biological Parts. See the Parts registry link the deliverables tab for a complete list. In summary, we’ve submitted: </p> | ||
+ | <li>2 backbone plasmids</li> | ||
+ | <li>12 promoters in pAB or pBA </li> | ||
+ | <li>2 terminators in pAB or pBA</li> | ||
+ | <li>12 reporters, selectable markers and genes in pAB or pBA </li> | ||
+ | <li>5 trp synthesis genes in pSB1A3 </li> | ||
+ | <li>2 primers for sequencing out of pAB and pBA </li> | ||
+ | <li>4 USER primers for the Biobyte assembly method</li> | ||
+ | <li>188 primer pairs for essential E.coli genes</li> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>All submitted parts have been verified as the correct size using test digests and gel electrophoresis, and 28 parts have been sequenced to verify correct insertion in pAB or pBA. Sequencing files are posted on the Parts Registry as advanced sequence analyses.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Submit DNA:</b> | ||
+ | <p>We’ve submitted DNA for 31 parts, including 24 parts in pAB or pBA, 5 genes in the standard biobrick plasmid pSB1A3, and both the pAB and pBA plasmids. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h3>Silver:</h3> | ||
+ | <b>Demonstrate that at least one new part works as expected: </b> | ||
+ | <p>All 188 pairs of primers for essential genes submitted to the parts registry have been tested in PCR and shown to give a product of the correct size. pAB/BA primers for sequencing inserts in pAB/BA also worked as intended when used to verify part insertion. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Characterize the operation of at least one new biobrick part and enter this info: </b> | ||
+ | <p>The pAB and pBA plasmids and USER primers have been extensively tested in order to optimize the Biobytes assembly method, as documented in the DNA assembly section of this wiki. We’ve also tested several components in pAB and pBA using the Biobytes assembly method, and verified by gel electrophoresis and sequencing that they assemble properly. Moreover, we’ve characterized the behavior of parts for Biobyte assembly in a microfluidic chip, demonstrating successful construct production on a micro-scale.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h3>Gold:</h3> | ||
+ | <p>Only one of the following criteria must be met for Gold. However, our team has met all four possible criteria:</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Characterize or improve an existing biobrick part or device:</b> | ||
+ | <p>The GFP and RFP parts we have submitted in pAB and pBA are derived from preexisting biobrick parts. By adapting these parts to the Biobytes plasmids, we allow them to be used in the Biobytes assembly method, expanding their usefulness. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>Furthermore, we adapted the Anderson collection of promoters to the Biobytes method. We removed NheI and AvrII cut sites from the consensus promoter and added two nucleotides downstream of the -10 region to place an A as the +1 nucleotide. These promoters are currently being tested by cloning them upstream of a ribosome binding site-red fluorescent protein segment, and checking for red colonies. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Help another iGEM team: </b> | ||
+ | <p>We constructed a plasmid for the University of Lethbridge team. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Develop and document a new technical standard:</b> | ||
+ | <p> We have written and submitted an RFC detailing how the biobytes assembly method can be used, and including detailed protocol for how to perform this assembly method.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <b>Outline and detail a new approach to the issue of human practices:</b> | ||
+ | <p> As a novel approach to human practices, we worked with eight internationally competitive debaters to produce a debate about the ethical and societal implications of developing artificially engineered organisms. This debate was filmed and is posted and summarized on our wiki for the benefit of the public. The extensive experience of the debaters brings an expertise about policy issues not commonly seen among science and engineering students. The diverse background of the debaters allows a wide range of opinions to be reflected that could have been imagined by an iGEM team alone. The format of debate allows both sides of an issue equal opportunity, and requires the use of well-reasoned arguments and evidence. Moreover, debates are fast paced and engaging, capturing an audience’s attention. The debate is a valuable resource for educating synthetic biologists about public reactions, assessing public knowledge about genetic engineering, helping policy makers make well-reasoned decisions, and helping the public form their own opinion of synthetic biology. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>Moreover, we reached out to high school, summer camps, libraries and colleges, doing demonstration debates about ethics and presentations on the science of synthetic biology. We’ve reached over 230 students already and are scheduled to reach over 400 students by January. We’ve developed and posted resources for teaching synthetic biology to a wide range of age groups. From the feedback we’ve collected and analyzed students almost unanimously feel learning about synthetic biology is valuable. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <h3> Special Prizes:</h3> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p> <b> Best Model:</b> We’ve developed a novel system for comprehensively analyzing the entirety of the known metabolic network of E. coli. Through this system, one can assess the net biomass production of an E. coli in which any combination of metabolic gene are present, and thus assess which combinations of pathways are necessary for cell survival. We used this model to predict the minimal set of metabolic genes required for E.coli survival, towards the goal of producing a minimal E. coli genome. This minimal gene list included 117 essential genes never previously identified as essential for a minimal genome. Moreover, a graphical user interface has been developed for exploring the results of our minimal metabolism modeling. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p> <b>Best New Standard and Best Foundational Advance: </b> The Biobytes RFC outlines what is currently the only method for DNA assembly that is fast, modular, sequential and in vitro. </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
<font size="2"> | <font size="2"> |
Revision as of 14:57, 20 October 2009
|
Medals and Area Prize DeliverablesBronze:Design and document Biobrick parts: We’ve entered over 400 Biobrick parts in the Registry of Standard Biological Parts. See the Parts registry link the deliverables tab for a complete list. In summary, we’ve submitted: All submitted parts have been verified as the correct size using test digests and gel electrophoresis, and 28 parts have been sequenced to verify correct insertion in pAB or pBA. Sequencing files are posted on the Parts Registry as advanced sequence analyses. Submit DNA:We’ve submitted DNA for 31 parts, including 24 parts in pAB or pBA, 5 genes in the standard biobrick plasmid pSB1A3, and both the pAB and pBA plasmids. Silver:Demonstrate that at least one new part works as expected:All 188 pairs of primers for essential genes submitted to the parts registry have been tested in PCR and shown to give a product of the correct size. pAB/BA primers for sequencing inserts in pAB/BA also worked as intended when used to verify part insertion. Characterize the operation of at least one new biobrick part and enter this info:The pAB and pBA plasmids and USER primers have been extensively tested in order to optimize the Biobytes assembly method, as documented in the DNA assembly section of this wiki. We’ve also tested several components in pAB and pBA using the Biobytes assembly method, and verified by gel electrophoresis and sequencing that they assemble properly. Moreover, we’ve characterized the behavior of parts for Biobyte assembly in a microfluidic chip, demonstrating successful construct production on a micro-scale. Gold:Only one of the following criteria must be met for Gold. However, our team has met all four possible criteria: Characterize or improve an existing biobrick part or device:The GFP and RFP parts we have submitted in pAB and pBA are derived from preexisting biobrick parts. By adapting these parts to the Biobytes plasmids, we allow them to be used in the Biobytes assembly method, expanding their usefulness. Furthermore, we adapted the Anderson collection of promoters to the Biobytes method. We removed NheI and AvrII cut sites from the consensus promoter and added two nucleotides downstream of the -10 region to place an A as the +1 nucleotide. These promoters are currently being tested by cloning them upstream of a ribosome binding site-red fluorescent protein segment, and checking for red colonies. Help another iGEM team:We constructed a plasmid for the University of Lethbridge team. Develop and document a new technical standard:We have written and submitted an RFC detailing how the biobytes assembly method can be used, and including detailed protocol for how to perform this assembly method. Outline and detail a new approach to the issue of human practices:As a novel approach to human practices, we worked with eight internationally competitive debaters to produce a debate about the ethical and societal implications of developing artificially engineered organisms. This debate was filmed and is posted and summarized on our wiki for the benefit of the public. The extensive experience of the debaters brings an expertise about policy issues not commonly seen among science and engineering students. The diverse background of the debaters allows a wide range of opinions to be reflected that could have been imagined by an iGEM team alone. The format of debate allows both sides of an issue equal opportunity, and requires the use of well-reasoned arguments and evidence. Moreover, debates are fast paced and engaging, capturing an audience’s attention. The debate is a valuable resource for educating synthetic biologists about public reactions, assessing public knowledge about genetic engineering, helping policy makers make well-reasoned decisions, and helping the public form their own opinion of synthetic biology. Moreover, we reached out to high school, summer camps, libraries and colleges, doing demonstration debates about ethics and presentations on the science of synthetic biology. We’ve reached over 230 students already and are scheduled to reach over 400 students by January. We’ve developed and posted resources for teaching synthetic biology to a wide range of age groups. From the feedback we’ve collected and analyzed students almost unanimously feel learning about synthetic biology is valuable. Special Prizes:Best Model: We’ve developed a novel system for comprehensively analyzing the entirety of the known metabolic network of E. coli. Through this system, one can assess the net biomass production of an E. coli in which any combination of metabolic gene are present, and thus assess which combinations of pathways are necessary for cell survival. We used this model to predict the minimal set of metabolic genes required for E.coli survival, towards the goal of producing a minimal E. coli genome. This minimal gene list included 117 essential genes never previously identified as essential for a minimal genome. Moreover, a graphical user interface has been developed for exploring the results of our minimal metabolism modeling. Best New Standard and Best Foundational Advance: The Biobytes RFC outlines what is currently the only method for DNA assembly that is fast, modular, sequential and in vitro. ---- |