Team:Newcastle/Diary/Minutes/1307

Date	13th July 2016
Time	From 15:00
Place	CBCB Level 2 Meeting Room
Attendees	Kerry (chair), Jake (minutes), Emilijia, Josh, Rupert, Ollie, Lauren
Apologies	Kristina, Neil
Previous Meeting	6th July 2016

Meeting Minutes

1. The minutes of the last meeting were unanimously approved.

2. Standing Items

   1. Provided some feedback on the sponsorship opportunities we are currently pursuing.

      1. We’ve heard from SynbiCITE and they can provide mentoring and facilities access. Since we’re unclear on what this actually entails we have emailed for further information.
      2. We have sponsorship from an electronics company, Proto-Pic and they have helpfully supplied us with some components for the Raspberry Pi.

      3. We are planning on emailing the RSC as they have some support for school groups but can not do so until the request for funding starts in August.

         1. In response to this it was also suggested that we contact the Microbiology Society as they do similar funding.

   2. The sixth-form synthetic biology open day was raised as an upcoming event/deadline.

      1. It was highlighted that content need to be be prepared in advance for this.
      2. The team detailed the current plan involving a card game to show synthetic biology constructs.
      3. Arranged a meeting with Tom to go over materials on 18 July 2016, 2:00 PM BST - 4:00 PM BST. The meeting doesn’t need everyone, only those who are interested in taking part in the schools day.
   3. A meeting with Natalio Krasnogor has been arranged and is taking place on 25 July.

   4. On the topic of using RFP instead of GFP it was noted that this works better for our ‘bulb’ construct as it does not require an excitation source like GFP (UV).

      1. Suggested we use mCherry as some has already been mini-prepped up from the iGEM parts distribution.

3. Normal business

   1. Track selection was identified as an upcoming deadline (12th August). The team reviews the 3 current track ideas: Foundational Advance, Information Processing and New Application. Foundational advance was eliminated as it was felt unsuitable for our project by all team members.
   2. Team is to return next week with the pros and cons of choosing each of the remaining tracks: New Application or Information Processing.

   3. Some detail on the workings of the microbial fuel cell (from the NCBE Reading kit) was requested.

      1. Some time was spent drawing out the flow of the electrons from Glucose -> Yeast electron transport chain -> Methylene Blue -> electrode. Additionally some thought was given on how to make this accessible for school children/sixth-formers as the question might be raised at the schools taster day.
      2. Exactly how the electrons leave the yeast cells was identified as an area lacking in detail. It was suggested that we investigate this from a theoretical/engineering point of view in terms of increasing the electron output of the yeast to improve our fuel cell.
      3. It was noted that a number of smaller microfluidics mold based fuel cells could be used to replace the larger fuel cell we currently have in the final system.

      4. Noted that the concerns of power output were not sufficient to discard the fuel cell as an idea since output should be enough to drive an LED thereby serving as a trigger for the rest of the system (e.g. activating some blue light sensitive bacteria).

         1. Action to check for blue light sensing protein YF in registry and parts distribution. See also NYMU Tapei 2013.
      5. Decided to stick with the current fuel cell set up but make it compatible with our brick/component standard.

   4. Components

      1. Noted that if the 3D printing becomes too time consuming then we need to be able to switch to the press-stud system used in the existing kits easily.

   5. Colony Counter

      1. The new idea for a low cost colony counter was floated. On the whole it was thought to be a good idea but some concerns about time constraints were raised. It was also suggested that we investigate if we could use any of our biological parts in its construction as a proof of concept and way of tying the project together.

   6. Meetups

      1. Scotland is estimated to be 29th July.

      2. Boston

         1. Jamboree registration is coming up, send required information to Claire to get the team registered. Instructors will sort themselves out depending on if they are attending or not.

4. Medal Criteria

   1. To meet bronze 4 need to add rpoH RBS into the parts registry, we can already do this. Just need to collate together the references. There is some other work we can do around this, namely predicting if it is going to be a strong or a weak RBS using sequence prediction - action for further investigation of how to do this.

   2. For silver 1 we need to be able to explain why what we observe when our construct comes back happens. Should prepare theory in advance so we are prepared for this. Including plan for what happens if the construct causes constitutive glow.

      1. Two ways of testing the construct, with heat shock and current. The stanford paper for the original experiment stated that the fluorescence signal oscillated when current was applied and not when direct heat shock was used. Requires further investigation once we have construct.
      2. Number of team members requested the stanford paper be sent around again - action to be sent with minutes after meeting.

   3. For integrated human practices (gold medal criteria) it was identified that our current strategy of surveys was inadequate and that we need to identify long term stakeholders and document meetings with them over time. It was then suggested that we pick only two gold criteria and exclude this because it can take too much time. Team decided on criteria 2 and 4. They are:

      1. Improve the function OR characterization of an existing BioBrick Part or Device and enter this information in the Registry. Please see the Registry help page on how to document a contribution to an existing part. This part must NOT be from your 2016 part number range.
      2. Show your project working under real-world conditions. To achieve this criterion, you should demonstrate your whole system, or a functional proof of concept working under simulated conditions in the lab (biological materials may not be taken outside the lab).
   4. There was some confusion over the difference between criteria 2 and 4 (above). We believe that 2 is essentially to show it working whilst 4 means to integrate it into a larger system. Action to email iGEM contact for clarification.

5. Other

   1. Primers for cloning strategy

      1. These come from IDT or Sigma depending on who is ordering/paying for them. Benchling can be used to generate the primers (action - complete for next meeting) it uses a common back-end tool so should be fine.

   2. ‘Lightbulb’ construct

      1. Has been ordered, used mCherry miniprep DNA to supply plasmid to DNA 2.0 as mini prepped GFP concentration was unknown.
      2. The question of how we check we have the right sequence was raised. Noted that DNA 2.0 will send us the sequence with the construct. Additionally we can have it sequence ourselves if we can design primers.

   3. Cell stocks

      1. Action to move into cold storage, urgently.

   4. Thermal conductivity experiments

      1. In addition to those underway at Exeter, need to perform some in CBCB to determine expected temperature change of various media. Action arrange a time with Neil to do this.

   5. Beyond the bench

      1. Action to come up with a list of questions we are considering for the beyond the bench aspect.

         1. One of these should be a ‘showstopper’ question that we’ll focus on.

      2. Current plan is to produce a timeline of where we see our components in the future, e.g. linking the fuel cell to self-renewing circuitry, alternative environments (such as mars), etc.

         1. The notion of living circuitry and the ethical questions that poses was also raised as a topic for consideration. It was discussed that this can be done as a series of self-reflections.
         2. With regards to ethics it was suggested that we contact the PEALS research centre at the university as they often run workshops in this area (action for next meeting).

         3. Suggested we also consider the philosophical questions raised by our work.

            1. Suggested we give a talk at Skeptics in the Pub. (action to investigate further).