IGEM:MIT/2005/Teamfeedback: Difference between revisions
>Ymk No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
also i know we kinda dismissed the idea of Drosophila cells, but it seems that people work on Drosophila embryonic cells all the time (especially in project lab). My friend and I were discussing this and he mentioned schneider-2 cells.. it might be interesting to get some advisor feedback on this issue and provided our pathways fail us, have back-up plans. | also i know we kinda dismissed the idea of Drosophila cells, but it seems that people work on Drosophila embryonic cells all the time (especially in project lab). My friend and I were discussing this and he mentioned schneider-2 cells.. it might be interesting to get some advisor feedback on this issue and provided our pathways fail us, have back-up plans. | ||
Re: embryonic cells seem inconsistent with the goals listed elsewhere on the wiki [[../Http://model.mit.edu/igem/index.php?title=Goals/]], but might be interesting for discovery of biological phenomena--nk | |||
Revision as of 18:50, 28 June 2005
I'm very interested in how the work on Tar is going.. it seems like a very viable alternative to ToxR. Who's doing work on Tar and how far along is it? Do we know the cascade yet? any problems?
also i know we kinda dismissed the idea of Drosophila cells, but it seems that people work on Drosophila embryonic cells all the time (especially in project lab). My friend and I were discussing this and he mentioned schneider-2 cells.. it might be interesting to get some advisor feedback on this issue and provided our pathways fail us, have back-up plans.
Re: embryonic cells seem inconsistent with the goals listed elsewhere on the wiki [[../Http://model.mit.edu/igem/index.php?title=Goals/]], but might be interesting for discovery of biological phenomena--nk
