Difference between revisions of "Team:Wageningen UR/Collaborations"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<section id="delft"> | <section id="delft"> | ||
<h1><b>Delft</b></h1> | <h1><b>Delft</b></h1> | ||
| − | <p> <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:TU_Delft/Collaborations#wageningen"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/b0/T--Wageningen_UR--delftlogo.jpg" align="left"></a> The team of TU Delft has been working on the creation of a biolaser in the form of a a biosilica-covered cell expressing fluorescent proteins. The biosilica-layer traps some of the photons sent out by fluorescent proteins that can be used to excite other fluorescent proteins. This leads to increased overall fluorescence intensity in the cells. We measured their strains in our plate reader.</p> | + | <p> <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:TU_Delft/Collaborations#wageningen"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/b0/T--Wageningen_UR--delftlogo.jpg" align="left"></a> The team of TU Delft has been working on the creation of a biolaser in the form of a a biosilica-covered cell expressing fluorescent proteins. The biosilica-layer traps some of the photons sent out by fluorescent proteins that can be used to excite other fluorescent proteins. This leads to increased overall fluorescence intensity in the cells. We measured some of their strains in our plate reader.</p> |
<p> | <p> | ||
| − | During our own project | + | During our own project we have worked with the microplate reader extensively. We tested eight different constructs in a microplate reader: three different BioBricks for expression of various fluorescent proteins and five different devices for the expression of GFP, each with a different promoter. |
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
<figure> | <figure> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
| − | + | On top of that, the Delft team performed an experiment for us. An essential part of our <i>in vitro</i> toxicity assay were vesicles made from the gut membrane of <i>Varroa</i> mites. We were hoping for a picture showing the presence of these vesicles. The TU Delft team helped us with this by making pictures of our vesicles using an transmission electron microscopy!The pictures as shown in Figure 2. In short, we are content with the results we got and the practice we had through this collaboration. | |
<figure> | <figure> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/f1/T--Wageningen_UR--TEM.jpg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/f1/T--Wageningen_UR--TEM.jpg"> | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| − | |||
</section> | </section> | ||
Revision as of 18:19, 19 October 2016
Collaborations
Our philosophy when it comes to collaboration is that “collaboration leads to the development of a more accepted and desirable innovation”. Based on this, we did not only collaborate with other iGEM teams, but also with students from the Design Academy Eindhoven. The students from the DAE helped us gain insight into how people perceive our project and synthetic biology in general, while the collaboration with iGEM teams helped us move forward in a scientific way. We collaborated with two other iGEM teams: TU Delft and Groningen. During this process, we learned a lot about their projects and helped each other out with experiments and ideas. The beauty of this is that we got some valuable input from both teams. Here you will find more details of these two collaborations
Delft
The team of TU Delft has been working on the creation of a biolaser in the form of a a biosilica-covered cell expressing fluorescent proteins. The biosilica-layer traps some of the photons sent out by fluorescent proteins that can be used to excite other fluorescent proteins. This leads to increased overall fluorescence intensity in the cells. We measured some of their strains in our plate reader.
During our own project we have worked with the microplate reader extensively. We tested eight different constructs in a microplate reader: three different BioBricks for expression of various fluorescent proteins and five different devices for the expression of GFP, each with a different promoter.
On top of that, the Delft team performed an experiment for us. An essential part of our in vitro toxicity assay were vesicles made from the gut membrane of Varroa mites. We were hoping for a picture showing the presence of these vesicles. The TU Delft team helped us with this by making pictures of our vesicles using an transmission electron microscopy!The pictures as shown in Figure 2. In short, we are content with the results we got and the practice we had through this collaboration.
Groningen
For the Groningen iGEM team, we tested and improved their system "CryptoGERM". CryptoGERM was developed to encrypt messages in the DNA of Bacillus subtilis spores, that can only be decoded using a key that is also in a spore.
We received a message to decrypt from Groningen. As we tested the system in an early stage, when it was not fully developed, we used a translator webpage instead of spores containing the key.
The procedure is as follows:
- Grow spores.
- PCR the encoded message.
- Sequence the PCR product.
Unfortunately, the first attempts of PCR amplifying the message failed. We tried to perform colony PCR and tested different adjustments of the protocol: longer initial denaturation time, less DNA as template and addition of DMSO. However, we could not obtain the correct PCR fragment. Subsequently, we tried to isolate the genomic sequence of the bacteria first. After doing this we obtained a nice PCR product that was sent for sequencing. Thus, we proposed to change the protocol from colony PCR to PCR from isolated and purified genomic DNA.
The sequence we obtained was entered into their decoder, leaving us with the following message: The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes.
