Difference between revisions of "Team:Toulouse/Notebook"

Line 194: Line 194:
 
  bio trap against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. This last one was chosen to be our project on the grounds that it  
 
  bio trap against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. This last one was chosen to be our project on the grounds that it  
 
  was the most feasible. The trap would produce butyrate to attract the parasite and formate to kill it.
 
  was the most feasible. The trap would produce butyrate to attract the parasite and formate to kill it.
−
  </p>
+
  </p
 
  </div>
 
  </div>
 
   
 
   
Line 244: Line 244:
 
   </div>
 
   </div>
  
−
   
+
  <div class="group center">
 +
  <p align="justify" style="font-size:15px;">In conclusion of this meeting we decided that
 +
our bacteria shouldn’t produce both attractive and toxic molecules at the same time, this
 +
production should be cyclic to have the least effect on bee’s lifecycle since format is also toxic at a lesser extent for bees.
 +
</p>
 +
</div>
 
   
 
   
 
   <div class "subsubtitle">
 
   <div class "subsubtitle">

Revision as of 14:22, 3 September 2015

iGEM Toulouse 2015

Notebook


Calendar

Februrary

02/02/2015

First team meeting, our instructors informed us on the competition and how the team is organized. Our first mission is to prepare a presentation for the next week on the following themes:

  • Previous subjects. What are the themes explored by iGEM? Give examples of good projects and explain why they won?
  • Biobricks? What are they? What’s their advantages? What are the materials send by iGEM? How does the registry work?
  • Competition and deadlines. How does the competition works and what are the important deadlines?

Those presentations gave us the opportunity to understand more of the iGEM competition and to get to know each other (since we don’t all come from the same institutions)

Our first team meeting

09/02/2015

Every groups of two or three students presented one of the subjects seen above. Every presentation was followed by a Q&A so that everyone understood clearly the competition.

16/02/2015

The next step was to present every week 2 new Project ideas. The presentations were divided in the following parts.

  • Context
  • Goal
  • Originality
  • Strategy
  • Difficulty
  • Modeling
  • Device
  • Benefit
  • Ethic
  • Planning
  • Why is this project going to win?

From february to may

The following weeks were spent brainstorming. Everyone presented at least two projects ideas. Here are a few examples of the project that were reviewed:

  • Creation of a rapid detection kit for hepatitis
  • Degradation of Lignin
  • Use of ice nucleation proteins for water desalination
  • Creation of a small domestic pollution detector
  • ...

May

05/05/2015

Two projects were still in course to be chosen, the use of ice nucleating proteins to purify water and the creation of a bio trap against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. This last one was chosen to be our project on the grounds that it was the most feasible. The trap would produce butyrate to attract the parasite and formate to kill it.

13/05/2015

Two members of our team participated in the Toulouse exposcience. They presented a poster on synthetic biology and the iGEM Competition. They also organized banana DNA extraction experience for children. This event was a good occasion for us to start learning how to design a poster.

15/05/2015

We held our first meeting without instructors to discuss the design of the constructions needed to create our bacteria. Our reflexion led us to the conclusion that our construction would depend on the bees lifecycle. We therefore started searching for beekeepers that would agree to meet us.

18/05/2015

We met with Dr Boucher Christian HDR, DR1 INRA retired since 2012 and amateur beekeeper. The fact that Dr Boucher was both a researcher and a beekeeper made this meeting really beneficial for us. We learned every important stages in a bees life and how the varroa affected it. We also learned more about the beekeeping activity and the treatments used to fight against the parasite. Furthermore we could discuss our early genetic design and how to improve it.

In conclusion of this meeting we decided that our bacteria shouldn’t produce both attractive and toxic molecules at the same time, this production should be cyclic to have the least effect on bee’s lifecycle since format is also toxic at a lesser extent for bees.

25/05/2015

Two projects were still in course to be chosen, the use of ice nucleating proteins to purify water and the creation of a bio trap against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. This last one was chosen to be our project on the grounds that it was the most feasible. The trap would produce butyrate to attract the parasite and formate to kill it.

Τ
→
→
- - >

References