Editing of APEGGA article
I spent a few hours re-working the promotion article that we will be submitting to APEGGA for publication in September. My focus was primarily on improving the flow of the article and bringing in specific examples that are tangible to people with little to no background in the field.
Another modelling meeting
Carol, Chinee and I came up with a list of what we will need from our lab/modelling teams to collect data for our characterisation/simulation efforts; when we need this done; and who will be responsible for each part of the project. Carol has the hand-written version and will be typing it up and circulating it shortly.
Finding specific examples of where characterisation would be useful
This part was difficult, and after talking to Sonja, we decided a simple explanation of how we need to know how our circuit behaves in the lab so that we can better predict its behaviour out of the lab will suffice for presentation purposes. From the transfer function/static performance, we get a sense of the equilibrium behaviour at different input AI-2 concentrations. From the dynamic performance, we can figure out the response time and compare it to that of an entire system where our part in question is being used as a component.
We also talked about how to account for the effects of cell division, which could confound our plate readings. First, we decided it was best to characterise in the mid-exponential phase (as opposed to plateau), as dead cells would cause unknown effects that could be very difficult to explain. To account for cell division, we plan to take baseline measurements of the mutant + reporter circuits, as well as a baseline of signalling + reporter, over a long period of time. This will give us a sense of how important cell division is in the interpretation of our results.
"
