Difference between revisions of "Team:BostonU HW/HP/Silver"
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
<div class="main main-raised" id="Community"> | <div class="main main-raised" id="Community"> | ||
<div class="container text_box"> | <div class="container text_box"> | ||
| − | <h2> | + | <h2>Phenomyx</h2> |
<div class="row"> | <div class="row"> | ||
<div class="text_section" style="margin-bottom:3%;"> | <div class="text_section" style="margin-bottom:3%;"> | ||
<div class="text"> | <div class="text"> | ||
| − | + | During the course of the Fall semester the team also had to opportunity to tour Phenomyx, a microfluidics startup located at LabCentral in Boston. The tour was led by Salil Desai, their founder and Chief Technology Officer, who took us through their fabrication and testing space. During the course of the tour we were able to learn from his industry experience in microfluidic devices. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | + | While discussing our fluid functionality checklist we were able to discuss our quantitative and qualitative metrics in some detail. A key point of the discussion was the importance of utilizing general metrics, instead of protocol or design specific metrics, when grading a chip. This way we can ensure that our system can be applied to chips at large without being specific to individual designs. This advice has been integral as we ensured that our finalized protocol used metric we were able to apply to any device design. The possibility of integrating our checklist into a software system was also pitched as a possible progression of MARS. Although we were unable to meet this goal for 2017, it provides an exciting direction for future iGEM teams to build on our project. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 16:11, 29 October 2017
Integrating Our Microfluidics Knowledge
As our work on MARS progressed, many of the interactions we engaged in over the Summer had a direct impact on the project. Specific areas that were developed and modified as a result of our synthetic biologist and industry interactions are influencing the structure and content of our MARS chip archive, increasing accessibility to researchers through Microfluidics 101, and building the fluid functionality checklist. Through integrating the feedback, comments and advice received from various sources, we were able to significantly improve and refine MARS as a whole.
Biological Design Center and iGEM Outreach
In order to determine what would make microfluidics more practical and accessible for synthetic biologists we reached out to the Biological Design Center at Boston University. The BDC promotes collaboration between scientists in order to create new biological innovations. We asked the BDC researchers what types of biological protocols are performed day-to-day in the lab. Based on their feedback we were able to identify eight common protocols performed by synthetic biologists:
These eight common protocols informed both the layout of our MARS Repository into Isolation, Modification, and Quantification, as well as the chips within it. Of our nine MARS chips, eight were designed to each perform one of these synbio protocols.
We also reached out to the iGEM community via a poll; to see this poll, click here. (LINK) The purpose of this poll was to gauge how much the iGEM community knows about microfluidics, what procedures they perform every day in the lab, and what would get them interested in microfluidics. In total, we received 42 responses from teams all across the world. The results from this poll are summarised below.
POLLLLLLLLLL
These results validated our educational components of MARS. The introduction to microfluidics and video tutorials serve to educate the iGEM and greater synbio community about what microfluidics are and how to use them. Furthermore, this poll validated our choice of nine synthetic biology protocols to move onto microfluidic devices housed in the MARS archive.
These eight common protocols informed both the layout of our MARS Repository into Isolation, Modification, and Quantification, as well as the chips within it. Of our nine MARS chips, eight were designed to each perform one of these synbio protocols.
We also reached out to the iGEM community via a poll; to see this poll, click here. (LINK) The purpose of this poll was to gauge how much the iGEM community knows about microfluidics, what procedures they perform every day in the lab, and what would get them interested in microfluidics. In total, we received 42 responses from teams all across the world. The results from this poll are summarised below.
POLLLLLLLLLL
These results validated our educational components of MARS. The introduction to microfluidics and video tutorials serve to educate the iGEM and greater synbio community about what microfluidics are and how to use them. Furthermore, this poll validated our choice of nine synthetic biology protocols to move onto microfluidic devices housed in the MARS archive.
Phenomyx
During the course of the Fall semester the team also had to opportunity to tour Phenomyx, a microfluidics startup located at LabCentral in Boston. The tour was led by Salil Desai, their founder and Chief Technology Officer, who took us through their fabrication and testing space. During the course of the tour we were able to learn from his industry experience in microfluidic devices.
While discussing our fluid functionality checklist we were able to discuss our quantitative and qualitative metrics in some detail. A key point of the discussion was the importance of utilizing general metrics, instead of protocol or design specific metrics, when grading a chip. This way we can ensure that our system can be applied to chips at large without being specific to individual designs. This advice has been integral as we ensured that our finalized protocol used metric we were able to apply to any device design. The possibility of integrating our checklist into a software system was also pitched as a possible progression of MARS. Although we were unable to meet this goal for 2017, it provides an exciting direction for future iGEM teams to build on our project.
While discussing our fluid functionality checklist we were able to discuss our quantitative and qualitative metrics in some detail. A key point of the discussion was the importance of utilizing general metrics, instead of protocol or design specific metrics, when grading a chip. This way we can ensure that our system can be applied to chips at large without being specific to individual designs. This advice has been integral as we ensured that our finalized protocol used metric we were able to apply to any device design. The possibility of integrating our checklist into a software system was also pitched as a possible progression of MARS. Although we were unable to meet this goal for 2017, it provides an exciting direction for future iGEM teams to build on our project.
