1 / 53

Back to the Basics

Purdue iGEM 2013. Back to the Basics. The Biomakers. Back to the Basics. What Do W e M ean? Complex Projects Lack of Fundamental Control. The Taguchi Method. Cheaper, Faster Characterization. Explanation of Problem. Increase Robustness of Genetic Circuits

cael
Download Presentation

Back to the Basics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Purdue iGEM 2013 Back to the Basics

  2. The Biomakers

  3. Back to the Basics • What Do We Mean? • Complex Projects • Lack of Fundamental Control

  4. The Taguchi Method Cheaper, Faster Characterization

  5. Explanation of Problem • Increase Robustness of Genetic Circuits • Assess with Factorial Experiment

  6. The Taguchi Method • Used in Industry • Maintain quality • Our Project • Apply Taguchi to synthetic biology Sources: (2013). IGCSE and GCSE Industry. Retrieved from http://greenfieldgeography.wikispaces.com/IGCSE+and+GCSE+Industry Venil, C. K., & Lakshmanapermalsamy, P. (2009). Taguchi Experiment Design....Journal of Science & Technology

  7. Comparison of Methods • Full Factorial • All Possible Combinations • Often Not Feasible

  8. Experimental Design • Parameters • Orthogonal Arrays • Response Variable: GFP Venil, C. K., & Lakshmanapermalsamy, P. (2009). Taguchi experimental design for medium optimization…. Journal of Science & Technology

  9. Intended Data Analysis • Determining GFP Expressed Per Cell • Growth curve • Coulter counter • JMP Statistical Analysis Actual Data Hypothetical Data

  10. Challenges • Transformations • Competent cells • Altered growing conditions • 3A Assembly • Not feasible

  11. Future Work • Complete Assembly • Measure GFP per Cell for All Combinations • Compare Results of Taguchi vs. Full Factorial

  12. Bicistronic Design Increasing Reliability of Expression

  13. Explanation of Problem • Variation in Protein Expression • Increase Reliability of Genetic Constructs

  14. BCD Background • Bicistronic Design Sources:Mutalik, V., Endy, D., Guimaraes, J., Cambray, G., Lam, C., Juul, M., Tran, A., & Paull, M. (2013). Precise and reliable gene expression via standard transcription and translation initiation elements . Nature, 10(4)

  15. Monocistronic Design

  16. Bicistronic Design

  17. Supporting Data • Protein Expression Variability Decreased • Increase Protein Expression Reliability

  18. Monocistronic Design Bicistronic Design Sources:Mutalik, V., Endy, D., Guimaraes, J., Cambray, G., Lam, C., Juul, M., Tran, A., & Paull, M. (2013). Precise and reliable gene expression via standard transcription and translation initiation elements . Nature, 10(4)

  19. Design • BCD Parts Designed • Golden Gate Assembly

  20. Design

  21. Methods • Synthesized Constructs • Placed Ptrc* into pSB1C3 • Growth Rate Assay • Re-Assembled Constructs into pSB1C3 • Proof of Function

  22. Data • Promoter Submitted to the Registry • Growth Rate Assay •  Fluorescence Intensity

  23. Conclusion • Promoter Submitted to Registry • Implementation • Increase Reliability

  24. Future Work • Compare Biobrick BCDs to Original BCDs • Submit BCDs to iGEM HQ

  25. Standardized Datasheets Revolutionizing Characterization

  26. Explanation of Problem • Lack of Characterization

  27. Explanation of Problem • Lack of Characterization • Vague Requirements • Difficult to Judge

  28. Background Research • Standardized Protocol • Researched Past Protocols • Found Emails, Sent Survey • Survey Results Changed Direction

  29. First Draft • Prior Art • Drew Endy

  30. First Draft • Prior Art • Drew Endy • Boston iGEM

  31. First Draft • Prior Art • Drew Endy • Boston iGEM • First Draft • Design

  32. Feedback • Prior Art • Drew Endy • Boston iGEM • First Draft • Design • Implementation

  33. Feedback • Prior Art • Drew Endy • Boston iGEM • First Draft • Design • Implementation • Second Survey and Video Conferences • Ideas Generated

  34. Final Design and Feedback • BostonUiGEM Visit • Final Draft

  35. Final Design and Feedback • BostonUiGEM Visit • Final Draft • Third Survey and Feedback

  36. Conclusion and Future Work • Implementation • Continue Collaboration • Bba_K1225000

  37. Human Practices

  38. Intro and Overview • Outreach to Producers • Outreach to High School • Girl Scouts Workshop • Biomaker Bench

  39. High School Outreach • Teaching modeling to AP Biology Teachers • Educating next generation of Synthetic Biologists

  40. Girl Scout Outreach • Generate interest in STEM • Workshop Curriculum • Lecture • Experiment • Scientific method

  41. Biomaker Bench • Creating a Community Lab in Noblesville, IN • Business plan • Nonprofit organization

  42. Conclusion

  43. Accomplishments • Statistical analysis method to fit synthetic biology • Updated Drew Endy'sBicistronicDesign Constructs • Designed a Datasheet Standard for the Registry • Submitted a New Promoter and 4 BCD Constructs • Collaborated with over 75 iGEM Teams • Performed Outreach to Local Farmers and Producers • Taught High School Teachers About Modeling • Worked with the Girls Scouts of America • Community Lab Space in Noblesville, Indiana

  44. Attributions and Acknowledgements Advisers:Purdue University: Dr. Jenna Rickus Dr. Fernandez Dr. Kari Clase Dr. Dilkes Soo Ha Dr. Akridge Janie Brennan Jen Kahn Bindley Bioscience Center: Research Support: RajitarunMadangopal Boston University iGEM Dr. Larisa Avramova Drew Endy and the Endy Lab Dr. Lake Paul Dr. Tony Pedley

More Related