Difference between revisions of "Team:Michigan/Medals"
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
<p style="text-align:left; font-size:20px;"><font face="verdana"><b>1. Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick Part or Device of your own design and construction works as expected. Document the characterization of this part in the Main Page section of the Registry entry for that Part/Device. This working part must be different from the part you documented in Bronze medal criterion #6.</b><br> | <p style="text-align:left; font-size:20px;"><font face="verdana"><b>1. Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick Part or Device of your own design and construction works as expected. Document the characterization of this part in the Main Page section of the Registry entry for that Part/Device. This working part must be different from the part you documented in Bronze medal criterion #6.</b><br> | ||
We verified and classified our parts/devices by means of flow cytometry analysis. We validated the expression strength of three different alpha-factor responsive promoters by creating circuits in which fluorescent reporters were being driven by the promoter. We induced these promoters with purified alpha factor and measured them with flow cytometry to determine the expression strength of each promoter. The promoters characterized were pFig2c (<a style="color:#44C2CC" href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1829002" target="_blank">BBa_K1829002</a>), pBar1 (<a style="color:#44C2CC" href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1829001" target="_blank">BBa_K1829001</a>), and pAga1 (<a style="color:#44C2CC" href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1829005" target="_blank">BBa_K1829005</a>); all are endogenous yeast promoters that participate in the mating response pathway. | We verified and classified our parts/devices by means of flow cytometry analysis. We validated the expression strength of three different alpha-factor responsive promoters by creating circuits in which fluorescent reporters were being driven by the promoter. We induced these promoters with purified alpha factor and measured them with flow cytometry to determine the expression strength of each promoter. The promoters characterized were pFig2c (<a style="color:#44C2CC" href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1829002" target="_blank">BBa_K1829002</a>), pBar1 (<a style="color:#44C2CC" href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1829001" target="_blank">BBa_K1829001</a>), and pAga1 (<a style="color:#44C2CC" href="http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1829005" target="_blank">BBa_K1829005</a>); all are endogenous yeast promoters that participate in the mating response pathway. | ||
| − | <br> | + | <br></font><br></p> |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
<div class="col-md-12"> | <div class="col-md-12"> | ||
</p></div> | </p></div> | ||
Revision as of 23:05, 19 October 2016
Medals
Bronze Requirements
1. Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick Part or Device of your own design and construction works as expected. Document the characterization of this part in the Main Page section of the Registry entry for that Part/Device. This working part must be different from the part you documented in Bronze medal criterion #6.
We verified and classified our parts/devices by means of flow cytometry analysis. We validated the expression strength of three different alpha-factor responsive promoters by creating circuits in which fluorescent reporters were being driven by the promoter. We induced these promoters with purified alpha factor and measured them with flow cytometry to determine the expression strength of each promoter. The promoters characterized were pFig2c (BBa_K1829002), pBar1 (BBa_K1829001), and pAga1 (BBa_K1829005); all are endogenous yeast promoters that participate in the mating response pathway.
Silver Requirements
Any project must have solid roots and be viable in order to be able to implement it in real life. To achieve this, our team was sure to meet with health professionals both involved in the field of tuberculosis and/or synthetic biology, which helped shape the direction and concept of our project from its scientific concept in the wet lab all the way to its possible implementation as a market product. Our team consulted with the president of the Relief for Africa foundation, Rama Kannenje, who indicated the prevalent need for point-of-care diagnostics. Additionally, experts like Grace Hsia, the CEO of Warmilu, brought to our attention the widespread poverty in countries where tuberculosis is endemic. During our participation in the Ann Arbor Health Hacks we also met with many health professionals who contributed ideas that improved our project.
You can read in more detail about how we implemented professional’s opinions into our project in our integrated practices tab.
Gold Requirements
Starting with the simplest of safety principles in the lab and moving up, the team was able to assure a safe design phase as well as provide an environmentally safe final project. Conventional laboratory safety procedures as mandated by the University of Michigan’s department of safety and common good practice were followed. When considering the hazards posed to organisms by the project, E. coli was the only organism used. Even then it was only included as a cloning and expression agent, and never left the wet lab. Also included in our design is a theoretical bio-part that would ensure that the project’s DNA cannot spread into environmental organisms using DNase. This part could be applied broadly in future synthetic biology projects as a self-erasing kill switch that cannot damage the protected DNA of other organisms.
You can read in more detail about safety issues regarding our project in our safety tab.
