Difference between revisions of "Team:Arizona State/Collaborations"
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
<p>October 16th: LASA iGEM received pET28 vector</p> | <p>October 16th: LASA iGEM received pET28 vector</p> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 00:36, 1 November 2017
October 1st: Neha from LASA Austin contacts the ASU iGEM team searching for a collaboration regarding cloning vectors
October 2nd: ASU iGEM responds offering assistance in developing a cloning strategy for them
October 2nd: LASA iGEM responds with more information regarding the assistance needed to assemble multiple genes onto a single plasmid using a one-step cloning scheme.
October 2nd: ASU iGEM responds by agreeing to help design a strategy for cloning, and asks for more information regarding sequences and genes.
October 5th: LASA iGEM emails ASU iGEM with two plasmid sequences, their current strategy, cloning issues, and what they are trying to assemble.
October 6th: ASU iGEM responds asking for preferences regarding the cloning, such as exact parts to include, and order of the two cloned genes.
October 7th: LASA iGEM responds answering the questions asked previously
October 9th: ASU iGEM sends benchling pages corresponding to primers needed for cloning, along with sequences generated, vector to use, and an explanation of strategy. ASU iGEM offered to send the backbone vector needed for the cloning.
October 10th: LASA iGEM responds by asking for the vector to be sent, and acknowledging the strategy as viable in their lab with needed reagents.
October 11th: ASU iGEM mails pET28 vector to LASA iGEM needed for cloning
October 16th: LASA iGEM received pET28 vector
August 16th: ASU iGEM emailed SVCE_Chennai team in response to their posting for collaboration on the iGEM collaboration page. ASU inquired about Chennai’s promoter prediction tool and offered an option to collaborate and provide feedback and any critique of the program.
August 17th: SVCE_Chennai responded to the email and requested a skype session to discuss the collaboration further.
August 18th: ASU iGEM shared a schedule of availability since there is a 12.5 hour time difference between the two countries. ASU iGEM suggested some times for a skype call.
August 21st: SVCE_Chennai responded saying they were busy during the entire week but had availabilities to set up a Skype call on either Saturday or Sunday.
August 22nd: iGEM team member is unavailable and CC’s another team member who is available to attend a Skype chat with SVCE_Chennai on the weekend.
August 22nd: ASU iGEM team member who is available over the weekend emails SVCE_Chennai to confirm the availability for a Skype call.
August 25th: SVCE_Chennai responded to confirm a time for conversation on 9:30am Arizona time on Saturday Aug 26th.
August 25th: ASU iGEM team member responds via email to confirm the Skype appointment time for Saturday.
August 26th: Detailed Skype call between ASU iGEM and SVCE_Chennai (skype handle (igemsvce chennai) took place. The collaboration discussion included details about the promoter prediction tool that Chennai had written in Python. ASU iGEM talked about how the promoter tool could be a great asset as our team had some issues with leaky expression in our synthetic gene circuits and the promoter tool could help us predict if the issue was within our promoters. ASU iGEM also expressed that they could provide the Chennai team back with detailed information about how well the python code for the promoter prediction tool was working and if there was any other additional feedback and critiquing they had for them to improve the tool. Chennai stated that they would share the Python code for the prediction tool via email.
September 14th: Several emails later and no reply from the SVCE_Chennai team ASU iGEM reached out to our PI, Dr. Karmella Haynes, to try and get some help reaching Chennai as we were ready to complete our collaboration and were only waiting on the promoter tool code to be sent.
September 14th: Dr. Karmella Haynes emailed the SVCE_Chennai team to check in on them and offer help with any issues finishing the code or otherwise. There was never a response from Chennai.
September 26th: There was still no reply to any of ASU iGEM emails trying to get back in touch with Chennai for the completion of our collaboration. Dr. Karmella Haynes emailed the team leader/judge of Chennai trying to re-establish an open link for communication but there was still no success. ASU iGEM was able to reach the person who was in contact with Chennai but there was never any further contact with the actual team. There were a few more unsuccessful attempts to reach Chennai were attempted.