Team:Newcastle/Diary/Minutes/2007
| Date | 20th June 2016 |
|---|---|
| Time | From 16:15 |
| Place | CBCB Level 2 Meeting Room |
| Attendees | Ollie (chair), Jake (minutes), Emilijia, Josh, Rupert, Ollie, Lauren |
| Apologies | Kristina |
| Previous Meeting | 13th July 2016 |
Meeting Minutes
The minutes of the previous meeting were unanimously approved.
We reviewed the current action items and it was noted that the only urgent item was the Rupert had not yet applied for his visa (action for next meeting).
We recapped why we had eliminated the foundational advance track from our choices at the previous meeting for those not present. We also discussed our remaining two track choices: new application and information processing.
The number of teams competing in each track was highlighted: 11 for Information processing, 21 for foundational advance and 31 for new application.
It was noted that although some aspect of our work applies to information processing, that is a future goal rather than an outcome of our project. Consequently we discussed eliminating the information processing track so as not to focus on the wrong aspect and to keep our project broad.
Choosing a broader track than information processing was supported by our work at the sixth-form taster days where it was observed that pitching our project as a ‘big picture’ went down well. In particular it was seen that students were keen on the future implications/technologies stemming from our project. We would not be able to explore these if our focus was on information processing.
We also noted that keeping the project broad in scope provides for more interesting ethical discussions.
It was resolved to bring back the foundational advance track into consideration and the team will prepare a list of pros and cons for that track in addition to our existing summary (action for next meeting).
It was raised that our Experiment crowdfunding campaign launches next week on the 27th of July. Team members need to ensure they have a short bio prepared for then as this is required for the project to go live. Supervisors do not need to prepare biographies for them but should prepare one for the wiki now the template has been sent around. Alternatively, pre-written bios have been prepared for them to save time which they can check through and approve if they prefer.
Also on the wiki front it was highlighted that our front page could do with some improvement. It currently has some irrelevant testing text on it and doesn’t fully explain our idea. Action to redesign this week.
It was raised that in order to proceed with the flow cytometry aspect of the InterLab we need the GM approval forms. These have come back from the university but have not yet been forwarded to the team. Action to request these from Matt ASAP.
It was noted that we have a meeting with Natalio Krasnogor on monday. In response to this it was raised that Natalio would like a page for the center for synthetic biology site describing what we are doing. Action to prepare for the end of next week (29th of July).
Arranged to conduct the temperature change experiments on Tuesday (26th of July) in CBCB. Action to send calendar appointment to Neil.
Temperature probe for these experiments has arrived. Action to collect from Neil and ensure that it is working in advance of Tuesday.
It was raised that there was little information on predicting the efficiency of new RBSs using computational methods which was a plan for our new rpoH RBS. It was noted that this is usually done empirically although the Salis lab has done some work in this area that might be worth investigating – the paper might have a formula for novel RBSs. Action to investigate related literature.
The InterLab protocol has been changed, requiring different quantities and a new FITC curve. This renders the data we have collected so far unusable. It was questioned whether we have the time and resources to run the experiment again.
Noted that we are currently not very busy in the lab and that if we are repeating it again then we should do so before our construct arrives.
Noted that we still plan on doing the cytometry version of the InterLab so we won’t have no data to submit.
Resolved to repeat if we have time and it can be fitted around the other ongoing work (action to add to project plans).
The team outlined the plan for the experiments that will be performed when our construct comes back.
Noted that we still need to order the primers needed for this. For this we need the iGEM grant code. There was some confusion around whether we should be using this yet or not (action to check this with Tom and Jem). It was also noted that we may be able to use the free DNA from IDT for this (action to check before ordering).
The current plan is to do the heat shock test before cloning as this might not work. We will be performing the heat shock experiments following a protocol similar to that outlined for the InterLab. After we have performed the heat shock we will continue on to using electricity to induce the heating effect.
Battery
Discussed future plans for the battery including testing the effects of mixed communities from wastewater and short-circuiting to observe selection pressure (if any). It was noted that there are some risk assessment issues with using actual wastewater, Dana offered to prepare/source or locate the recipe for synthetic wastewater (action to follow up next week).
It was highlighted that as it stands currently there is synthetic biology in our microbial fuel cell and since this is iGEM we need to include this. Action to identify ways of incorporating synthetic biology, e.g. engineering the community in some way. This will also be discussed on Tuesday.
Since the main component of mixed communities is Geobacter it was suggested that we look at ways of engineering this chassis. At the same time it was noted that we thought there would be some issues with this as identified when we were initially exploring the rust idea at the start of the project. Action to review literature from rust idea and any other resources to assess feasibility.
Suggested that we can miniaturise our existing microbial fuel cell using microfluidics. Action to investigate this and produce designs.
Meetups
All of the meetups are sorted, incl. Flights and hotel in Boston. The only thing that hasn’t been arranged is registering to attend the Jamboree. This is due by the 31st of August. In order to proceed with this we need the discount codes from those instructors who have registered as judges (action to chase up before next meeting).
Sixth form day
Notated that the sixth form day was well received. We recapped the objectives for the second sixth form day. These were primarily the product design aspects, in particular we need to identify how the sixth-formers have influenced the final design. Secondly, using it as a way of testing how we are to pitch our idea.
It was re-iterated that we need to pay attention to the engineering lifecycle, in particular identifying and engaging with stakeholders throughout the project and that we should keep this in mind when writing what we learnt over these two days on the wiki (action to write up for wiki).
Simulator
The concept of standard virtual parts was discussed, these are modular models that ‘snap’ together. Action to read the existing literature on this. It was noted that it would be nice to have a standard virtual parts for each of our components.
We discussed how our existing models would fit into the simulator, including hard coding the ODEs from the rule bender models.
Medal Requirements
Currently for bronze 4 we have our new RBS in the registry (the natural RBS for rpoH). It was suggested we see if we can come up with a better part to meet this requirement (action).
In addition to having our RBS in the registry we need to add our hypothetical constructs to both the registry and the wiki. We will need to also write up some documentation to go on these pages (action).
On the collaboration front it was observed that we need something concrete (e.g. some biology) for the collaboration. Tom has said that the Edinburgh overgraduate iGEM team are keen to have our help. Don’t forget that it is the Scottish iGEM meetup next week (28th) and we need to prepare our collaboration ideas in advance of this (action).
Identifying the difference between gold requirement 3 and 4 is still outstanding, it was noted that there is some clarity in the Judging guide which will be added to the wiki on the medal requirements page for next week (action).
Finally, it was noted that Macquarie University have gotten back to us and we need to arrange to Skype them (action).
