Difference between revisions of "Team:Austin UTexas/Collaborations"

Revision as of 03:25, 1 November 2017

Collaborations

To fulfill the silver medal requirement, we collaborated with the Texas Tech and Rice iGEM teams. We reached out to discuss ways in which all parties involved could cooperate and assist each other in order to enhance each team project.

In the spirit of collaboration, the UT Austin team reached out to both Rice and Texas Tech to formally invite both teams to participate in the University of Texas 2017 Fall Research Undergraduate Symposium. Upon this invitation, each team began electronically communicating with one another in order to brainstorm ways in which collaboration could benefit and improve each of the team projects.

Prior to the meetup, multiple ideas were considered for how each team could assist the others. On September 23, 2017, iGEM teams from Texas Tech University, Rice University, and the University of Texas met at the Undergraduate Research Symposium in Austin, Texas. Here, each team formally presented their projects to an audience and panel of judges as part of the program. After the symposium presentations concluded, all teams met to discuss specific collaboration details and provide feedback to one another. As a relatively new team, Texas Tech received extensive constructive criticism from us because we have more overall experience participating in the iGEM competition and completing the requirements. Texas Tech presented a draft of the initial PowerPoint presentation they were planning to showcase at the iGEM Jamboree. Darron Tharp, newcomer to the Texas Tech team and the iGEM competition, was the main presenter. Tharp showcased the research slides in their entirety, and afterwards, we critiqued each slide to help improve content, formatting, and presentation technique utilized. Texas Tech asked several questions about the jamboree that we clarified to the best of our ability. This series of feedback with the presentation was repeated with team Rice. After both teams had their presentations assessed and critiqued by team UT Austin and vice versa, the joint effort was continued by discussing a more direct means of collaborating.

At the meetup, a GroupMe chat was created with the student leaders from all teams. This was the main source of communication throughout the weeks ahead. We collaborated with Rice for our modeling. Eve Sharpee, from the UT Austin team, discussed different ways we could improve our modeling mechanisms on our presentation with Jack Terrell, head of modeling from Rice. In the coming weeks ahead, Rice answered our questions and provided guidance in creating the graphics that would be used for modeling in the iGEM Jamboree presentation and wiki page. We have very little experience modeling and using SimBiology, so Rice was very helpful in this regard.

Texas Tech is most familiar with chemical transformations, so we thought it would be mutually beneficial for our teams if Tech attempted Lactoabcillus plantarum transformations. We provided glycerol stocks of cells, 2mm cuvettes and MRS agar powder to the team. and we teams for Texas Tech to utilize electroporation if we acquired experience with electroporation. They are primarily familiar with chemical transformations, so Rachel Johnson corresponded with Brandon Palomo to offer advice on how to successfully electroporate. Quick recovery of electroporated cells, proper resistance and voltage on the machine and proper concentrations of plasmid and cell stocks were discussed as well as various pieces of advice that UT Austin has primarily learned through experience and routine use of electroporation. Texas Tech provided assistance by attempting to transform Lactobacillus plantarum with a variation of the Speer (1) protocol previously attempted by team UT Austin. As a way to troubleshoot issues encountered during the initial transformation attempts, we felt it would be helpful for another team to work with the protocol and identify if the procedure was too simplistic or if there was an issue with how team UT Austin performed the procedure. Texas Tech confirmed that the protocol first used by team UT Austin was not efficient and did not function as expected, leading team UT Austin to adapt a different procedure and eventually completing the successful transformation of Lactobacillus plantarum.

“The guidance and mentorship provided by the UT iGEM team has been an invaluable asset to our success and growth as a new iGEM team. Their knowledge and veteran experience with iGEM has given our team imperative insight into the challenges associated with the competition. Throughout the competition, their feedback has assisted our team with adjusting strategies concerning the oral presentation, wiki page development, experimental focus, and judging criteria completion. Their patience and genuine support has been greatly appreciated and we hope to continue this opportunity for future years to come.” Brandon Palomo, Team Leader Lubbock TTU iGEM Team

At the Austin Undergraduate Research Symposium,

Collaboration efforts by the Rice University iGEM team can be found here: Team:Rice/Collaborations

Collaboration efforts by the Texas Tech University iGEM team can be found here: Team:LUBBOCK_TTU/Collaborations

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 <p style="color: black; text-align:justify; font-family: verdana">At the meetup, a GroupMe chat was created with the student leaders from all teams. This was the main source of communication throughout the weeks ahead.
-We collaborated with Rice for our modeling. Eve Sharpee, from the UT Austin team, discussed various ways to improve our modeling mechanisms on our presentation with Jack Terrell, head team leader for modeling from Rice. In the coming weeks ahead, Rice answered questions from UT Austin and provided guidance in creating the graphics that would be used for modeling in the iGEM Jamboree presentation and wiki page. We have very little experience modeling and using SimBiology, so Rice was very helpful in that regard.</p>
+We collaborated with Rice for our modeling. Eve Sharpee, from the UT Austin team, discussed different ways we could improve our modeling mechanisms on our presentation with Jack Terrell, head of modeling from Rice. In the coming weeks ahead, Rice answered our questions and provided guidance in creating the graphics that would be used for modeling in the iGEM Jamboree presentation and wiki page. We have very little experience modeling and using SimBiology, so Rice was very helpful in this regard.</p>
-<p>Texas Tech is most familiar with chemical transformations, so we thought it would be mutually beneficial for our teams for Texas Tech to utilize electroporation  if we acquired experience with electroporation. They are primarily familiar with chemical transformations, so Rachel Johnson corresponded with Brandon Palomo to offer advice on how to successfully electroporate. Quick recovery of electroporated cells, proper resistance and voltage on the machine and proper concentrations of plasmid and cell stocks were discussed as well as various pieces of advice that UT Austin has primarily learned through experience and routine use of electroporation. Texas Tech provided assistance by attempting to transform <i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i> with a variation of the Speer (1) protocol previously attempted by team UT Austin. As a way to troubleshoot issues encountered during the initial transformation attempts, we felt it would be helpful for another team to work with the protocol and identify if the procedure was too simplistic or if there was an issue with how team UT Austin performed the procedure. Texas Tech confirmed that the protocol first used by team UT Austin was not efficient and did not function as expected, leading team UT Austin to adapt a different procedure and eventually completing the successful transformation of <i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i>. </p>
+<p>Texas Tech is most familiar with chemical transformations, so we thought it would be mutually beneficial for our teams if Tech attempted <i> Lactoabcillus plantarum</i> transformations. We provided glycerol stocks of cells, 2mm cuvettes and MRS agar powder to the team. and we  teams for Texas Tech to utilize electroporation  if we acquired experience with electroporation. They are primarily familiar with chemical transformations, so Rachel Johnson corresponded with Brandon Palomo to offer advice on how to successfully electroporate. Quick recovery of electroporated cells, proper resistance and voltage on the machine and proper concentrations of plasmid and cell stocks were discussed as well as various pieces of advice that UT Austin has primarily learned through experience and routine use of electroporation. Texas Tech provided assistance by attempting to transform <i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i> with a variation of the Speer (1) protocol previously attempted by team UT Austin. As a way to troubleshoot issues encountered during the initial transformation attempts, we felt it would be helpful for another team to work with the protocol and identify if the procedure was too simplistic or if there was an issue with how team UT Austin performed the procedure. Texas Tech confirmed that the protocol first used by team UT Austin was not efficient and did not function as expected, leading team UT Austin to adapt a different procedure and eventually completing the successful transformation of <i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i>. </p>
 “The guidance and mentorship provided by the UT iGEM team has been an invaluable asset to our success and growth as a new iGEM team. Their knowledge and veteran experience with iGEM has given our team imperative insight into the challenges associated with the competition. Throughout the competition, their feedback has assisted our team with adjusting strategies concerning the oral presentation, wiki page development, experimental focus, and judging criteria completion. Their patience and genuine support has been greatly appreciated and we hope to continue this opportunity for future years to come.”