Presentation Outline
From 2006.igem.org
Revision as of 12:23, 9 October 2006 by Macampbell (Talk | contribs)
Things to keep in mind...
- We should have each team work as separate units to facilitate team spirit and ability to practice. However, we will share slides for continuity of presentations.
- We will probably have to let go of who did what in order to have two smooth presentations. We can have a color-coded schematic slide early on that shows where different parts were built but this does not affect who presents what. In fact, this chart will help people see how well the two schools worked in parallel.
- We need to have talks ready and two posters.
This outline is the one Karmella started and was edited by the Western team.
- INTRODUCTION (MO Western)
- Our goals
- Solve a mathematical problem using bacteria
- Integrate math and biology students holistically
- Work in tandem with two campuses to test parallel processing of PUIs for iGEM
- Design a device that would be more than just a widget
- Have a lot of fun learning
- Define the math problem: burnt pancake problem
- The Hin recombinase system in Salmonella – flagellar antigen variation
- Turning the Hin recombinase system into a BioBricks system - Hix, Hin, RE
- Schematic design of 1 & 2 pancake stacks
- Computing with E. coli - detecting orientation of DNA pancakes using the antibiotic resistance screen (two-pancake system, animation by Karmella)
- Design of 4 pancake constructs
- Mathematics behind solution and possible number of flips per n pancakes
- Biological equivalence problem - will be solved using backwards RFP (described later)
- Our goals
- METHODS (Western)
- Building new parts - Hix, Hin, antibiotic genes, backwards parts
- how we assembled small DNA segments too big for oligos (Lance’s web site)
- how we generated backwards biobrick parts with PCR (switch-a-roo)
- List of Basic Parts – Hin (+/- LVA), Hix, RE, etc.; end with this; highlight who did what
- Transition to Data
--Kahaynes 15:49, 6 October 2006 (EDT) (below)
| METHODS & DATA (Davidson) | |
| Lance | List of Basic Parts |
| Lance | Modeling the behavior of pancake flipping – deducing kinetics and size biases |
| Lance | Using modeling to choose which families of unsolved pancake stacks to start with |
| Erin | Single pancakes - illustration, animation (Karmella) of pLac-Hin control by LacI/ IPTG, DNA flipping, and pBad control by AraC/ arabinose |
| Erin | The problems of read-through - uncontrolled Tet expression, uncotrolled flipping (MO Western and Davidson data, Hin Western blot?) |
| Erin | New pSB1A4 vector insulates, but A4 has cloning problems |
| Samantha | Redesign - pancakes without TT's |
| Samantha | Two pancake constructs |
| Samantha | Biological equivalence - distinguishing 1,2 from -2,-1 using RFP-RBS, updated panckaes |
| CONCLUSIONS (Davidson) | |
| Sabriya | Consequences of devices - data storage, possible application for rearranging transgenes in vivo, proof-of-concept for bacterial computers, first in vivo controlled flipping of DNA?? |
| Sabriya | Next steps - can solve problem but need control over kinetics |
| Sabriya | Lessons learned - troubleshooting, communication, teamwork, publicity; Math and Biology meshed really well and even uncovered a new proof; Multiple campuses can increase capacity through communication and cooperation; Size of school is not a limiting factor; We had a blast and learned heaps |
