"
Team:UCL/Notebook
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
<p class="major_title">July</p> | <p class="major_title">July</p> | ||
<p class="minor_title">1st July</p> | <p class="minor_title">1st July</p> | ||
| + | Tom – Extracted information from private wiki and shutdown performed by Philipp Boeing. Prepared for narration of stop-motion. Also discussed project proposals with StJohn and Ruxi. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Alex, Catrin, Emily, Andy – Continued work on the stop-motion project. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | StJohn & Ruxi – Formed project proposals for the laboratory experiments. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p class="minor_title">2nd July</p> | ||
| + | The team had a meeting with Philipp Boeing, primarily about Human Practice and which direction should be taken in terms of gaining awareness and also funding for the project. Ruxi and StJohn then continued working on experimental protocol preparation while the rest of the team visited the Science Museum to look at their Alzheimer's exhibit for inspiration on both project development and artistic direction that our human practices should take. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p class="minor_title">3rd July</p> | ||
| + | The Majority of the group continued to work on the proposals as some of the components were found to be difficult to obtain or not feasible. Tom began the YSB poster design, Robin continued on the modelling proposal. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p class="minor_title">4th July</p> | ||
| + | The entire group attended safety training demonstrated by Brian O’Sullivan. A meeting was also held with experts in the field concerning microglia, Jenny Reagen amongst others. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Tom continued on poster design, with Catrin looking at previous posters for inspiration. Andy met with Bethan Wolfenden to talk about debating, the rest of the group. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p class="minor_title">5th July</p> | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Tom & Catrin – Worked on the poster and finished it, as well as the presentation | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Alex, Andy and Weiling – Focussed on human practises, pafrticularly essay writing and documentary planning. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | KC, Ruxi and StJohn – Continued work on proposals and sent completed documents to Darren. | ||
| + | |||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p class="minor_title">8th July</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Meeting with Darren leads to more work on proposals, particularly procurement and logistics of items required for laboratory work. The group also spent a lot of time discussing titles for the project, with ‘Plaque Buster’ and ‘Memory Guardian’ being the more popular names in an alternate voting system. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p class="minor_title">9th July</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Following the meeting with Darren yesterday, the group met and rectified the experiments system to make it clearer and more achievable to obtain bronze, silver and gold medals, reducing the number of new parts required from 12 to 3 essential ones, for example. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 12:33, 5 September 2013
January
First meeting was held after the team had been assembled. Introductions to each other and team building exercises take place to familiarise to help everyone get to know each other. Discussions take place with previous iGEM team members from UCL so the new team gain some context and guidance concerning how to approach an iGEM project.
Each member of the new team was told to present for 5 minutes on a 2012 based team, commenting on their strengths and weaknesses. Further discussions about the general area 'track' that the team would be interested in. Given that many team members have a medical sciences background, medical based ideas were favoured among the majority of the team.
February
First meeting was held after the team has been assembled. Introduction to each other and team building exercises take place to familiarise the team members with each other. Discussions take place with previous iGEM team members from UCL so the new team have some context and guidance concerning how to approach any iGEM project.
• Weight control yoghurt
• Anti-cancer yoghurt
• Zebrafish water cleaning system for Third World
• Athletic Drug testing
• Clean Urban Air
• Neural network with glowing bacteria and fibre optics
Visited a DIY SynBio group at The Arts Catalyst for feedback on our project ideas and to display posters we can created for them, in order to get feedback from the members of the public who came to the venuw for synbio workshops. Some of the members there were previous iGEM candidates from several countries, with many liking the anti cancer yoghurt idea. In general, the publlic found medical projects more appealing, partly becuase they tried to solve tangible problems that cannot be mitigated soley by 'electrical' or 'mechnaical' technologies. The 'neural networks' idea gathers interest with scientists at Cancer Reserach UK and members of the public alike becuase bringing apllying synethtic biology to study neuroscience seems both innovative and relatively original. The zebrafish idea gathers interest becuase of the novel chassis. The other ideas do not do so well due to commonly being seen in iGEM, and being common promises of synthetic biology in general.
March
Final meetings before exams, both internally and at the Arts Catalyst. In the mean time we had taken on board our feedback, and took the best ideas from each of the most popular project to come up with a new idea that combined takling a medical condition, with neuroscience, with using a novel chassis in an Alzheimer's disease project. The idea pool has now been narrowed down to:
• Anti-cancer yoghurt
• Zebrafish
• Alzheimer's disease
• Neural Network
Members of the group also held a probiotic yoghurt workshop for the anti-cancer project, where members of the public made yoghurt. The audience were informed about the project and opinions were gathered. Again, the fact that the porject was medical was well received, though some ethical concerns were raised so that we knew we would have to make bioethics a big part of our project from the start.
April & May
Exam period - iGEM work to commence full time after the slog through exams.
June
5th June
Group discussion concerning the project idea to be carried forward - favouring the 'Anti cancer project'. Roles were then assigned to team members present for intial research roles for the week: Cancer research roles: 1. Ruxi Comisel - Proteins upregulated in cancer of the intestines. Specifically in the outer epithelial cell (enterocytes) – in microvilli. Also, what actually is... gut cancer? A general overview would be useful… 2. Khaicheng Kiew - Our chassis (bearing in mind that we will also build it in E. coli as a backup). We need to think what would make a good chassis in our case (ie. naturally found in the gut in an obvious one), and how well does the chassis fit. 3. Alex Bates - What will the killing mechanism be? A broad overview of cancer treatments is required, specifically detailing how a bacterium can administer the treatment. Considerations: a. The bacteria may secrete a toxin etc – how will we ensure that it doesn’t simply diffuse through the gut? b. If it is a toxin, what sort of biosynthetic pathway is required? c. Does the bacteria trigger apoptosis in the cancer cells (ie. an intracellular killing mechanism)? How can this be done from an extracellular bacterium? Perhaps beta-arrestin? d. Are there any treatments which we can take advantage of specifically because we are using bacteria? e. For example, a protein which creates holes in the cancer cells? Does using a bacterium open up the possibility of using a different cure that currently isn’t in use because we cannot target it to cancer cells – could the use of bacteria allow this? 4. Weiling Yuan - Targeting – do we use antibodies? What previous projects have used bacteria expressing antibodies? Are there any other ways of doing this? Perhaps the latching and initiation mechanisms can be incorporated into one protein? 5. StJohn Townsend - Initiation – mechanoreceptor activated upon latching? What other ways are there of doing this? 6. Tom Johnson - Past iGEM projects which we could incorporate into our own: Cancer projects, Gut projects, Protein engineering, Antibodies expressed in bacteria etc.7th June
The team discusses findings from the initial research - further agreement that the 'Anti Cancer' project seemed to be the best idea, preparation of 'project sheets' to be sent to Dr. Darren Nesbeth for review and subsequent meetings.11th June
looked a bit at the possible chassis species: salmonella, clostridium, helicobacter, E. coli. according to the tissue type/cancer type we shall decide which works with which. We start with E. coli in the lab. We considered a pro-drug approach - bacterially directed enzyme pro-drug therapy which suggests that we may establish a transformed bacterial population with an enzyme capable to activate an ingested prodrug. This pro-drug would be connected to an antibody (possibly part of the tail) and would also have linking consensus sequence targeted by the enzyme produced locally by our bacteria. From this above point Alex distinguished 2 scenarios built on the circuit sketch that he and Laia posted a while ago. These would be: 1) Kill unit produces tailed protein pro-drug (possibly tailed perforin) and signaling molecule, A. When A reaches a threshold amount, perforin and a protease to remove the confounding tail is produced, bacteria lyses and activated pro-drug acts on surrounding cells. 2) No protease is produced, because the tail can be cleaved off by matrix metalloproteases. Goals for the end of this week: - Alex, Andy and Weiling continue investigating possible candidates to fill in the parts for the scenarios -Tom, KC and Ruxi make sure we have everything set up to start the work in the lab: protocol, parts etc.12th June
Ruxi and Tom went through a general cloning protocol but then realised that the best way to prepare for the lab is to get familiarised with the iGEM distribution kits. We discovered that we are given almost everything we need in order to get it right. Alex filled in the form with our proposal requested by Darren - we have the sequences and details of potential new biobricks. We formulated a new proposal regarding the Alzheimer’s disease amyloid plaque degradation. Andy searched potential cancer killer molecules: - CD95 - Fas agonist (http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v14/n4/full/4402051a.html) - Tumor Necrosis Factor, Histamine - induces inflammation - HAMLET (human a-lactalbumin) - induces apoptosis - endostatin, thrombospondin - reduce cancer growth Weiling looked at potential promotors: - RacA (based on increased DNA damaged due to radiation) to start the killing cascade and CD95 as a potential killer molecule - Lux pR promotor - Lld promoter - Vgb promotor - HIP-1 (about gastric Oxygen levels: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/11/96) For promoter 1 (switches on the pro-drug and signaling molecule transcription), a very good candidate is HIP 1 promoter - hypoxia-inducible promoter which drives reporter gene expression under both acute and chronic hypoxia. It was developed in attenuated Salmonella species. Take a look here: http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/cbt/article/2951/mengesha5-9.pdf We need to register this part!13th June
Alex sent the 3 main project proposals to Dr. Darren Nesbeth for review. Tom and Andy edited the wiki page adding various sections and elaborating on previously created pages. Weiling researched on killing mechanisms being able to target hypoxic regions of solid tumors and promoters in hypoxia environments. Catrin - General project research Ruxi - Further researched the potential promoters esp HIP 1 and the Fas regulated programmed apoptosis. We attended a Synthetic Biology talk by Neil Dixon, University of Manchester (Tom and Andy). Had a general meeting for discussion of what has been accomplished so far, and the subsequent actions, which are to be undertaken by team members. Further documents were also submitted to Dr. Darren Nesbeth concerning 'team roles'. The team then began to do individual research or other activity: Tom and Robin - Edited the iGEM wiki, added team information and removed the unnecessary tutorial information, replacing it with more useful information and streamlining the whole interface. Weiling and Alex - Further development of circuit ideas, taking inspiration from previous iGEM ideas as well as further research into the CD95L molecule. Ruxi and Catrin - Research into latching molecules for a bacteria to tumour interface to increase target specificity. Idea encounted from Hong Kong 2012 where Colon Cancer was targeted.14th June
Tom - Website design for: Main Page, UCL information, Team based pages and Notebook pages Robin - Coding in HTML for website Ruxi, Caitlin, Weiling - Further investigation of Hong Kong 2010 to see what parts may be improved or of use to the project, these were: a blue light activated promoter, how can the quorum sensing and CagA be exploited, a negative regulatory system for drug secretion. Alex - searched for potential bacterial receptor to be modified in order to be a good target for something else in the environment/cancer cell surface.17th June
The group had a meeting to discuss what had been achieved so far and what needed to be done today. Tom - Continued on website design and wrote several pieces concerning UCL to be used on the website when it goes live. Robin - Continued on website coding. Weiling & Catrin - Researched for project sponsors and potential contacts. Alex, Ruxi, StJohn & Andy - Continued research into the project ideas.18th June
The group met with advisors Darren Nesbeth and Philipp Boeing to discuss the three project suggestions. The 'Neural Network' proposal was effectively ruled out due to the high risk and low probablility of project success in terms of medals. The anti-cancer project was previously the favoured idea, but after extensive review ,the Alzheimers project gained favour due to being relatively new (and hence exciting) to iGEM compared to a cancer project, which has been done several times already at iGEM. No final decision has been made however, work has continued on researching both projects. The wiki is also still being worked on. The team also had a social gathering: pizza for lunch.19th June
The group continued work on all three projects in order to send improved proposals to Darren Nesbeth by the end of the day. Many professors and experts were also emailed to seek guidance, in particular for the Alzheimer's project which seems to be particularly difficult.20th June
Tom - Prepared a presentation to be given next week about iGEM to prospective UCL students to raise interest in the engineering faculty and also the iGEM competition. After this was complete, joined the rest of the group in research. Also performed wiki coding for the team page and notebook page. The group continued what was started yesterday: Rectifying the proposals, with both sent off at the end of the day once they were complete. A group meeting was held at the end of the day to gauge interest and vote for the most popular idea, followed by a social gathering.21st June
Tom - Continued wiki design, coding and content uploads. Alex - Continued to redraft the proposal for Alzheimer's StJohn - Continued to redraft the proposal for Cancer KC - Researched into other iGEM teams to colloborate with and initiated correspondence via email The team then discusses which project was favoured. It was fairly even but Alzheimer's was slightly more popular.24th June
Tom continued wiki design whilst the rest of the group performed research. Once this was complete, the group had a meeting with Yanika Borg and Philipp Boeing concerning the two project ideas. Philipp favoured the Alzheimer's project whilst Yanika was somewhat undecided. A vote was taken with Alzheimer's being the prefered project by the group as a whole once more, although consensus was not fully reached. The group agreed to decide on the project on Wednesday proceeding a meeting with Prof. Lazaros Lukas.25th June
The group continued with general research, and also went to the Wellcome trust to seek any extra information, although this was unfruitful.27th June
The group voted 29 -11 in favour of Alzheimer's after a meeting with Prof. Lazaro Lukas, who was helpful and seemed excited about the project. The group also met advisor Yanika Borg and she agreed with the choice. The group also scheduled lab safety training for next thursday.28th June
Tom presented to prospective students about the iGEM project for the day. Weiling, Alex, Andy & Catrin began to produce a 'stop motion' explanation of the Alzheimer's project. KC, Robin and StJohn discussed lab protocols and also modelling ideas.29th June
Tom, Alex, Catrin, Emily, Andy – Continued work on the stop-motion project. KC, Ruxi & StJohn – Continued work on the proposals for the meeting with Dr. Nesbeth on Thursday.July
1st July
Tom – Extracted information from private wiki and shutdown performed by Philipp Boeing. Prepared for narration of stop-motion. Also discussed project proposals with StJohn and Ruxi. Alex, Catrin, Emily, Andy – Continued work on the stop-motion project. StJohn & Ruxi – Formed project proposals for the laboratory experiments.2nd July
The team had a meeting with Philipp Boeing, primarily about Human Practice and which direction should be taken in terms of gaining awareness and also funding for the project. Ruxi and StJohn then continued working on experimental protocol preparation while the rest of the team visited the Science Museum to look at their Alzheimer's exhibit for inspiration on both project development and artistic direction that our human practices should take.3rd July
The Majority of the group continued to work on the proposals as some of the components were found to be difficult to obtain or not feasible. Tom began the YSB poster design, Robin continued on the modelling proposal.4th July
The entire group attended safety training demonstrated by Brian O’Sullivan. A meeting was also held with experts in the field concerning microglia, Jenny Reagen amongst others. Tom continued on poster design, with Catrin looking at previous posters for inspiration. Andy met with Bethan Wolfenden to talk about debating, the rest of the group.5th July
Tom & Catrin – Worked on the poster and finished it, as well as the presentation Alex, Andy and Weiling – Focussed on human practises, pafrticularly essay writing and documentary planning. KC, Ruxi and StJohn – Continued work on proposals and sent completed documents to Darren.8th July
Meeting with Darren leads to more work on proposals, particularly procurement and logistics of items required for laboratory work. The group also spent a lot of time discussing titles for the project, with ‘Plaque Buster’ and ‘Memory Guardian’ being the more popular names in an alternate voting system.9th July
Following the meeting with Darren yesterday, the group met and rectified the experiments system to make it clearer and more achievable to obtain bronze, silver and gold medals, reducing the number of new parts required from 12 to 3 essential ones, for example.
