IGEM:IMPERIAL/2009/Feedback & Debriefs/Feedback 24 8

Feedback 24/08/09

Minutes from debrief 24/08/09

advisors : jim, matthieu, vincent, kirsten, geoff Dry lab – tianyi J ; Class data from sb course, can we reuse the results there? No still need to go into labs to get data. K : which strain will we use for the growth ? Top10? G : makes sense to use a strain that is Dam +ve. TW : description of preliminary modeling. M1 lacI and IPTG. Brief overview of models. IPTG concentration is constant. Has consumption been assumed? How long does lacI last? A long time….. TW : toxicity of IPTG, diff growth curves - Graphs a bit arbitrary atm (time axes). Also add labels.

G : have to use big differences in concentration to see differences in the outputs of protein. NP : value of toxicity experiments? G : would be good, but may not get an effect. More important maybe is to look at the induction curve, and how reliable the ´´off´´ state is. CH : we have a characterized b sub one which may be useful. jC: for Geoff, new issues – ethics, bb in registry… CF : ethics, in judging criteria. Decided to put together a little project. 5 mins interview per personm, to raise questions about the social implications of the project and SB in general. Create a common framework to share with the other teams for not only this year and other years. Working with Caitlin. GB : how about some kind of focus group who we could present to? Maybe some students to present to? Would give a good external perspective. Obv has to happen at a fairly mature stage of the project. Start off internally within the group, then maybe later could present it to a wider audience to get some feedback. JC : another session with Tuur? May be quite useful for thinking about the project in a wider picture. JC : BBs already in registry. Cellulases and otsAB JF : OtAB didn’t work, conclusion was to use diff promoter etc. cellulose was different, ours is multi functional and protease resistant. Ie different and better. CF : wiki, 2 or 3 diff templates atm. Main points of fb : don’t put too much information under the individual models. E.g. modeling and wetlab, seems a bit too much to wade through for navigation. Upload the key results from both wet and dry lab, emphasizing the positives (and BBs uploaded!) , then link to a wet/dry lab hub, through which the in depth results can be accessed. Would make navigation much simpler, without sacrificing detail. WETLAB JF : cloning strategy order, and slic strategies. Slic primers nearly finished. Want the CRP ready for next Monday, and the Harvard biobrick. All biobricks extracted from registry. Gold medal criteria First, characterizing a biobrick. Sorted, OtsAB and Harvard should be ok Second, helping another team. Needs work, get in contact with Cambridge/ UCL perhaps. May need to send out BBs if ppl want them. Ethics framework could qualify as well. Third, documentation FOR a new technical standard. Possibility, documentation on ´how to model.´ Fourth, social implications, work in progress