Team:Calgary/Project/Collaboration/ParisBettencourt

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 7: Line 7:
<h1>Paris Bettencourt</h1>
<h1>Paris Bettencourt</h1>
-
<p>Biosensors are a common theme in iGEM and synthetic biology. However there are not many nucleotide biosensors in the registry. This year team Calgary developed a pathogenic <i> E. coli</i> biosensor and Paris Bettencourt is developing a<i> M. tuberculosis </i> sensor. Both the teams are using relatively new technology to create these sensors, namely, Transcription Activator Like Effector (TALE) and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR) and these are both DNA sensors.</p>
+
<p class="noIndent" style="clear: both;">The Paris Bettencourt-Calgary iGEM collaboration started last June when a few members from each team met at the SB6.0 synbio conference in London. After a few beers and lab stories, we learned that despite coming from the opposite sides of the globe, we were using synthetic biology to build biosensors to sense DNA. Although our systems were targeted to different problems, we were struck by a number of commonalities between these projects. Please see the below table for a breakdown of these differences.</p>
-
<p>TALEs are modular in nature and they contain domains called <b>repeat variable domains (RVD)</b> which are 34 amino acid repeats with and amino acid number 12 and 13 are variable which determines which nucleotide the TALE binds to. The specificity of these amino acids have been solved and therefore making custom TALEs targeting any sequence is very easy. CRISPRs are small extrachromosomal DNA that binds to DNA recognition protein called Cas9. The CRISPR/Cas9 complex target a sequence called protospacer which can be any sequence starting with NGG. </p>
 
-
<p>One of the binding elements of both these projects is the modular nature of both the TALEs and CRISPRs and the fact that they are both nucleotide sensors. These elements can be customized to detect any DNA of interest we desire. Therefore, we can use both of these systems to detect pathogenic <i>E. coli </i> or <i>M. tuberculosis</i> and any other oligonucleotide sequence we desire. However, the striking differences between the systems are how the teams are using these systems. Calgary is developing an <i>in vitro</i> biosensor that can be used by people in the field and Paris-Bettencourt is developing an in vivo biosensor that is used as a diagnostic tool in a laboratory environment. </p>
 
-
<p>This collaboration started when Paris and Calgary met at SB 6.0 in Imperial College London. We quickly figured out that both the teams are investigating platform technologies for nucleic acid biosensors. We looked through the registry and found that there were only 6 nucleic acid biosensors submitted to the registry in the six years that iGEM has been alive. This helped us identify a need for more nucleic acid biosensors and made us wonder what other types of biosensors are out there in the registry. This gave birth to SensiGEM, a collaborative biosensor database developed by Calgary and Paris Bettencourt[LINK]. </p><p>To begin our collaboration both the teams reviewed biosensors that are already in the registry and has been part of iGEM thus far. Both the teams had video conferences weekly to think about basic questions regarding our projects as well as biosensors such as:<p>
+
<p>As we talked our projects, we recalled how we could not find DNA biosensor parts in the registry. Moreover, we complained about the lack of organization of biosensors in the parts registry. The veteran iGEMers on each team recalled how biosensors had consistently finished as grand prize winners in previous years of iGEM. We were curious about how biosensors have evolved since the beginning of iGEM and how our projects fit into the context of the iGEM Parts Registry.</p>
-
<p><b>What is a biosensor?
+
<p>We decided to collaborate to answer these questions. Since our initial meeting in London, members of each team have conferenced weekly on Skype. After accustoming ourselves to the eight hour time difference, we developed SensiGEM, a joint database in which we catalogued all the biosensors in the history of iGEM.</p>
-
</b> After an extensive literature review we settled on the definition being <i> a biological or biologically derived system which contains a sensor element (DNA, RNA and protein) and a reporter element (visual, pH, colour, gene expression).</i></p>
+
<p>Before sinking our teeth into past Wikis, we realized that we had different definitions of biosensors. We asked each other a fundamental question: What is a biosensor? We developed the following definition:</p>
 +
<p><i>A biosensor is an engineered system that relies on a biological systems or components to detect and report a condition. The condition(s) detected and reported could encompass an environmental, biological, chemical or synthetic aspect or compound in the sensor’s environment or surroundings.</i></p>
 +
 +
<p>Once we agreed on the nature of biosensors, we split up the Wikis from 2007 onward between Calgary and Paris Bettencourt. We analyzed every Wiki since 2007 by hand, incorporating the projects which matched our biosensor definition into the collaborative SensiGEM database. We designed this database with future iGEM teams in mind, with tools for efficient navigation biosensors according to inputs, outputs, and their intended application. We foresee this database as a resource which future iGEM teams can contribute their biosensor projects.</p>
-
<p><b>What are the elements of a biosensor? </b><i>A biosensor can contain <i>in vitro</i> sensory elements such as TALEs, isolated transcription factors, repressors and/or they could contain <i>in vivo</i> sensory elements such as promoters, riboswitches and aptamers. In addition to the sensory element the biosensor must have a reporter element such as change in colour, florescence and gene expression.</i></p>
+
<p>We did some preliminary analysis on biosensors in iGEM and the results of these analysis can be found below.</p>
-
 
+
-
<p><b>What are some of the biosensors that are already in the registry?</b><i> Some of the most common types of biosensors found in the registry thus far are chemical biosensors, followed by abiotic biosensors. However there is are only 6 nucleic acid biosensors in the registry thus far. Given the large number of projects in iGEM (963) and a vast array of biosensor projects (227) the number of nucleic acid sensor is microscopic. </p>
+
<figure>
<figure>
Line 29: Line 28:
</figcaption>
</figcaption>
</figure>
</figure>
-
 
-
<p><b>What are some of our strengths (for both projects) and weaknesses (both projects)? <-- MAYBE THIS IS NOT A NECCESSITY</b> </p>
 
-
<p>WE NEED TO ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS AND THE STATS WILL FIT IN NICELY I THINK.</p>
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
<p>To extend the scope of this collaboration and to further show that the TALEs and CRISPRs are indeed modular in nature.  
<p>To extend the scope of this collaboration and to further show that the TALEs and CRISPRs are indeed modular in nature.  

Revision as of 08:04, 27 September 2013

Paris Bettencourt

The Paris Bettencourt-Calgary iGEM collaboration started last June when a few members from each team met at the SB6.0 synbio conference in London. After a few beers and lab stories, we learned that despite coming from the opposite sides of the globe, we were using synthetic biology to build biosensors to sense DNA. Although our systems were targeted to different problems, we were struck by a number of commonalities between these projects. Please see the below table for a breakdown of these differences.

As we talked our projects, we recalled how we could not find DNA biosensor parts in the registry. Moreover, we complained about the lack of organization of biosensors in the parts registry. The veteran iGEMers on each team recalled how biosensors had consistently finished as grand prize winners in previous years of iGEM. We were curious about how biosensors have evolved since the beginning of iGEM and how our projects fit into the context of the iGEM Parts Registry.

We decided to collaborate to answer these questions. Since our initial meeting in London, members of each team have conferenced weekly on Skype. After accustoming ourselves to the eight hour time difference, we developed SensiGEM, a joint database in which we catalogued all the biosensors in the history of iGEM.

Before sinking our teeth into past Wikis, we realized that we had different definitions of biosensors. We asked each other a fundamental question: What is a biosensor? We developed the following definition:

A biosensor is an engineered system that relies on a biological systems or components to detect and report a condition. The condition(s) detected and reported could encompass an environmental, biological, chemical or synthetic aspect or compound in the sensor’s environment or surroundings.

Once we agreed on the nature of biosensors, we split up the Wikis from 2007 onward between Calgary and Paris Bettencourt. We analyzed every Wiki since 2007 by hand, incorporating the projects which matched our biosensor definition into the collaborative SensiGEM database. We designed this database with future iGEM teams in mind, with tools for efficient navigation biosensors according to inputs, outputs, and their intended application. We foresee this database as a resource which future iGEM teams can contribute their biosensor projects.

We did some preliminary analysis on biosensors in iGEM and the results of these analysis can be found below.

Figure 1. Comparison between the total number of biosensors in iGEM and the number of nucleotide sensors.

To extend the scope of this collaboration and to further show that the TALEs and CRISPRs are indeed modular in nature. Also list some characterization idea/ studies we might do as a future direction.