Team:Grenoble/Human Practice/Cost

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 38: Line 38:
</br>
</br>
</br>
</br>
-
This first prototype is easy to use:  A sample of the surface to test can be taken by a swab and then put in the test tube containing the bacterial solution. After about 5 hours we can check the tube.  If we have a fluorescent response then the tested surface is contaminated by Staphylococcus Aureus. (see <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Grenoble/Human_Practice/Meeting">meeting</a>modeling section entire module for an assessment of time response)
+
This first prototype is easy to use:  A sample of the surface to test can be taken by a swab and then put in the test tube containing the bacterial solution. After about 5 hours we can check the tube.  If we have a fluorescent response then the tested surface is contaminated by Staphylococcus Aureus. (see <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Grenoble/Modeling/Conclusion">modeling section entire system</a> for an assessment of time response)
 +
</br>
 +
</br>
 +
Then, sEnsiColi average response time is at about 5 hours which is twice the response time of a PCR (PCR needs between 2 and 3 hours to deliver the result). Then in term of rapidity sEnsiColi isn’t really competitive compared to a PCR method.
 +
</br>
 +
</br>
 +
However, if we examine the reliability of the kit (see <a href="">https://2012.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Team:Grenoble/Modeling/Amplification/Stochastic</a>) it appears that thanks to the designed And Gate in the amplification module, the probability of having a false positive response doesn’t exceed 0.43%. Compared to the reliability of a PCR (93% <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Grenoble/Human_Practice/Cost#ref">[1]</a> ) this value is highly satisfying.
 +
</section>
 +
<section>
 +
<h2 id="ref">References</h2>
 +
</br>
 +
</br>
 +
[1] Ralf M. Hagen, Irene Seegmüller ,Jila Navai et al. Development of a real-time PCR assay for rapid identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from clinical samples. International Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2005, 295, 77–86.
</section>
</section>
</div>
</div>

Revision as of 23:21, 25 September 2012

iGEM Grenoble 2012

iGEM Grenoble iGEM
iGEM 2012
main page
Project

Design of the device and comparative study of cost

assessment

Specifications

Based on the requirements of the medical field (see the section meeting for further details), we set our pathogen detection specifications. So, sEnsiColi should be:

  • Sensitive
  • Reliable (little false positives)
  • Fast
  • Easy to use
  • Lower in price than the current methods.


The modeling part deals with the first three specifications: the deterministic model gives an answer for the sensitivity and the rapidity while the stochastic model gives an answer for reliability.

In this section we will especially deal with the easiness of use and the cost assessment of the device.

Design of sEnsiColi



Regarding the specifications above, we set two possible designs for sEnsiColi.

The first one is intended for prevention purposes such as assessing the contamination level of hospital’s rooms. The design of this detection-kit is given by the picture below:



This first prototype is easy to use: A sample of the surface to test can be taken by a swab and then put in the test tube containing the bacterial solution. After about 5 hours we can check the tube. If we have a fluorescent response then the tested surface is contaminated by Staphylococcus Aureus. (see modeling section entire system for an assessment of time response)

Then, sEnsiColi average response time is at about 5 hours which is twice the response time of a PCR (PCR needs between 2 and 3 hours to deliver the result). Then in term of rapidity sEnsiColi isn’t really competitive compared to a PCR method.

However, if we examine the reliability of the kit (see https://2012.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Team:Grenoble/Modeling/Amplification/Stochastic) it appears that thanks to the designed And Gate in the amplification module, the probability of having a false positive response doesn’t exceed 0.43%. Compared to the reliability of a PCR (93% [1] ) this value is highly satisfying.

References



[1] Ralf M. Hagen, Irene Seegmüller ,Jila Navai et al. Development of a real-time PCR assay for rapid identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from clinical samples. International Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2005, 295, 77–86.

Retrieved from "http://2012.igem.org/Team:Grenoble/Human_Practice/Cost"