SynBERC:MIT/Calendar/2008-6-18

(6/18/08)
Thanks to Scott Mohr for taking down the notes we generated! Here they are (lightly edited by Scott)


 * 1) “Domestication of Parts” Bringing in new parts from nature/biotech.
 * 2) Are there obvious industrially relevant stuff that’s outside drugs/biotech (flavor/scents)?
 * 3) Reliable F plasmid system.
 * 4) Many compatible plasmid origins.  We should never have to worry about having incompatible origins
 * 5) More sensitive reporters that work at low copy number.  (Could work with high-copy number until assembly is complete, then “drop” the construct into the genome.)
 * 6) Process of domestication.
 * 7) Inducible expression systems (< 10) --  characterization not well done; not applicable across systems (and on the chromosome).
 * 8)  Repressible expression systems.
 * 9)  Inducible degradation not currently standardized.
 * 10)  Autotrophic markers (?)
 * 11)  More antibiotics.
 * 12)  RNA...
 * 13)  Recode genes so that they can be easily expressed in E. coli.
 * 14)  Make the work easier.
 * 15)  BioBricks in general.
 * 16)  DNA synthesis.
 * 17)  Genome integration for BBs (&lambda;-rel).
 * 18)  CAD tools/Registry tool for assembly.
 * 19)  (Articulate in detail and this might just happen!)
 * 20)  Number of systems built.
 * 21)  Sequence analysis after construction.
 * 22)  E. coli that grows way faster.
 * 23)  Cheaper growth medium etc.
 * 24)  Naturally competent strain (on the wishlist for a SB model organism).
 * 25)  Engineering infrastructure and theory.
 * 26)  How to measure.
 * 27)  How to design scalable parts (specs.).
 * 28)  Interoperability.
 * 29)  Re-usability of pafrts in different contexts.
 * 30)  What is the most reproducible system?
 * 31)  -- low copy, high copy.
 * 32)  -- strain.
 * 33)  Benchmarks for interoperability or anything else.
 * 34)  Protein fusions.
 * 35)  Reliable RNA stability.
 * 36)  Industry relevance.
 * 37)  Typical in engineering, SB lacking.
 * 38)  Scale-up to industrial level.
 * 39)  Corn steep liquor or high OD media used in industry.
 * 40)  No antibiotics in industry.
 * 41)  (c) and (d) cut costs and are differences with academic labs.
 * 42)  Public policy
 * 43)  Safe chassis.
 * 44)  Get Ken on retainer!
 * 45)  Action items.
 * 46)  Compare list with MIT’s intellectual assets.
 * 47)  Push MIT to fill gaps.
 * 48)  Reach out to other fields.
 * 49)  Start a “Manhattan Project” aimed at some clear, important target and involving development of all the preceding SB technology categories.
 * 50) Do you mean a Manhattan Project (i.e., classified production of weapons) or an Apollo Project (i.e., open production of some constructive artifact or capability)? Endy 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) *BC 22:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC):I believe the project was intended to be open and for the good of all, the idea was that people from many disciplines (or at least all sub-fields within Synthetic Biology) would be need to contribute (a hallmark of the Manhattan Project).