"
Team:British Columbia/Medal
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Tingchiawong (Talk | contribs) m |
Tingchiawong (Talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
<html></div><div id=collab2><b>INSA Lyon</b>:</br> | <html></div><div id=collab2><b>INSA Lyon</b>:</br> | ||
| - | <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lyon-INSA/humanPractice"> | + | <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lyon-INSA/humanPractice">INSA Lyon</a> cited our Intellectual Property survey results and provided feedback on our patent guide. |
</html> | </html> | ||
Revision as of 04:59, 2 October 2012
Bronze Medal Requirements
Register the team, have a great summer, and plan to have fun at the Regional Jamboree.
Successfully complete and submit this iGEM 2012 Judging form.
Create and share a Description of the team's project using the iGEM wiki and the team's parts using the Registry of Standard Biological Parts.
Plan to present a Poster and Talk at the iGEM Jamboree.
Enter information detailing at least one new standard BioBrick Part or Device in the Registry of Standard Biological Parts. Including:
1. Primary nucleic acid sequence
2. Description of function
3. Authorship
4. Safety notes, if relevant
5. Acknowedgment of sources and references
Submit DNA for at least one new BioBrick Part or Device to the Registry.
Silver Medal Requirements
Demonstrate that at least one new BioBrick Part or Device of your own design and construction works as expected; characterize the operation of your new part/device.
Enter this information and other documentation on the part's 'Main Page' section of the Registry
Part Number(s): , , , , , , ,
Gold Medal Requirements
Criteria 1: Improve an existing BioBrick Part or Device and enter this information back on the Experience Page of the Registry.
We standardized the fluorescent protein BioBricks by putting them under the same constitutive promoters and plasmid. Thereby, we have improved the fluorescent markers by making them into three more usable parts that can be used as a new tool kit for future iGEM teams.
Part Number(s): , ,
We put inducible promoters in front of TrpA, TyrA and MetA-encoding genes so that they can be utilized in regulating growth in the context of both single organisms and also consortia.Part Number(s): , ,
Criteria 2: Help another iGEM team by, for example, characterizing a part, debugging a construct, or modeling or simulating their system.
We helped the University of Calgary team troubleshoot the rhamnose promoter that they were having trouble with and proved that it was not functional through careful experiments. Our two teams also distributed the work of making BioBricks of the DSZ genes.
Criteria 3: Outline and detail a new approach to an issue of Human Practice in synthetic biology as it relates to your project, such as safety, security, ethics, or ownership, sharing, and innovation.
We identified intellectual property as an issue that impacts the work of the majority of the iGEM community. To address this, we created an iGEM-specific patent guide to act as a primer that can be used to help iGEMers navigate intellectual property issues.
Eligibility for Special Prizes
Best Human Practice Advance:
IP survey and guide: We designed and administered an intellectual property survey to gather high impact data from more than 300 members of the iGEM community. The information was useful to other iGEMers, such as Team INSA Lyon who cited the majority of our data for their human practice. Our team also engaged people outside of the iGEM community, such as a patent agent, patent lawyer, University of British Columbia University-Industry Liaison Office and technical experts. The end result, with use of feedback from experts and other iGEM teams, was an intellectual property guide geared specifically towards the iGEM competition.
Assessing the industrial relevance of our research: We went to the Chevron refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia and talked to an industry professional about the processes and costs pertinent to our project. We also communicated with Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures (AITF) and Oil Sands Leadership Initiative (OSLI) to discuss the progress of our project and obtain some industrial insights.
Best Model:
Consortia Model: To model the population dynamics of our engineered consortia, we used wet lab data to improve the accuracy. Our model improves on the two-organism consortia model found in literature by simulating the significantly more complex synthetic three-organism community, which has not yet been done to our knowledge. Furthermore, our model was designed to be easily adaptable to any consortia experiment in general.
Pathway Model: Our distributed pathway model streamlines and informs future consortia project planning. Our model explained experimental observations found in literature of synergistic pathways in consortia and demonstrated that distributed metabolisms, like the one we are engineering, occur in nature. This model helps investigators probe for possible new metabolisms derived from combining different organisms with different metabolic capacities.
Best Foundational Advance:
BioBrick standard biological parts are DNA sequences of defined structure and function designed to be incorporated into living cells to construct new biological systems. Synthetic biologists have been building BioRooms by engineering single microbes that contain purposeful compositions of BioBricks to perform tasks such as bio-sensing, bio-degradation, bio-transformation or bio-synthesis. However, most of these BioRooms are designed to be self-containing, self-sufficient systems in stark contrast to how microbes normally exist in community in natural environments.
The UBC iGEM 2012 team sets a foundational advance by engineering microbial BioRooms that are compatible with each other and can be regulated based on their interdependencies. In the future, it may be possible to mix and match BioRooms to create BioFactories with novel synergistic metabolisms.
Inter-Team Collaborations
Calgary
TU Munich:We participated in TU Munich's survey on the improvement of part descriptions.
INSA Lyon:
INSA Lyon cited our Intellectual Property survey results and provided feedback on our patent guide.
