IGEM:Stanford/2009/Meetings/2/24/09
Meeting Info
- When: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 from 7:30 to 9
- Where: Y2E2 105
- Leaders: Nghi
- Secretary: Ariana
Agenda
quick announcement of agenda
- Bobby's presentation
- decided on a two-hour presentation extravaganza on 3/4.
- update on fund-raising effort
- PSURPS this Saturday from 1 to 3 PM in Old Union Clubhouse Ballroom
- evaluate our current progress
Notes
Announcements: Next week’s meeting will be the last meeting of the quarter. We will have a two-hour extravaganza during which each group will present (15 minutes per group.) Agilent and the Director of Corp. Relations at the Med School are interested in attending one of our meetings. This Friday, we have a meeting with Jarvetson, who funds Synthetic Genomics. This Saturday, 1-3 in the Alumni Centers for PSURPS, come and stop by! This is a potential sales-pitch and we will have an iGEM poster up/ a booth. CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIKI
I. Summary of Bobby’s Presentation: Nanoparticles, Bacteria, Viruses. i. Bacteria-mediated delivery of nanoparticles and cargo into cells through a combination of biotin-conjugated antibodies and streptavidin-conjugated nanoparticles. The latter carries the cargo and after being phagocytosed by target cells (specificity achieved through use of particular antibodies), the nanoparticles naturally detach from the cargo inside the lysozomes, which are at lower pH. Examples: mice glowing on inside, Osel’s use of lactobacillus to deliver cancer drugs.
ii. Plant viruses (CPMV—nonpathogenic) as oral drug mechanisms. The advantages of this are CMPV’s stability, ingestability, and ease of controlling/manipulating CPMV.
iii. At the frontiers of synthetic biology: Nanocages and gels, which are used for virus mimicry. The mock virus consists of a molecular cage surrounding a polymer core (which is replaced by chemically reactive groups); because the cage is hydrophilic on the outside, it can easily pass through the bloodstream. iv. Ideas: insane: constructing a synthetic structure that mimics a bacteria or virus; slightly less sane: recreate and improve upon the nanocage model to create “intelligent molecules that seek and destroy diseased cells,” perhaps by using ribozymes to control the expression of particular antigens (for example, listeria can cause nonphagocytic bacteria to become phagocytic; we could do this as a proof of concept.)
II. Sales-Pitching: We’ll each learn how to do sales-pitches Spring Quarter. Recently Thinh completed the skeleton of a Slidac that we should all become familiar with/can use as a framework for creating our own.
III. Evaluation/Recap/Thoughts: directions/expectations, Major Grants, project, support Nghi: There has been good gelling within the team and good ideas coming out in our talk about the project. Still worried about the budget given our time constraints and wants more team support for the mini-projects because iGEM is more than just the science—it’s about the science and all the behind-the-scenes activities that are necessary for the science to happen. For example, writing letters to faculty, identifying resources, locating chemicals we will need. Also, we need to think beyond the competition, Annie: Nghi should create a laundry list of the things he’s been doing so that team members can volunteer themselves for these projects and contribute. Leon: it’s hard to present for others about iGEM when we still don’t know what our project is. Isis: it’s more about the competition/iGEM in general than about our specific project. Nghi: USE THE WIKI! Mark: small meetings are great because they are more stream-lined, efficient, and intensive Anasuya: large meetings should be kept for logistical issues and we should increase the number of small group meetings while cutting down on the time devoted to a meeting of the whole group Isis: once we figure out our project, doing the above suggestion will be easier. Recap on Major Grants: we should start earlier next time, but now we know what to expect. Suggestions for next time: earlier draft deadlines, peer-editing.
