IGEM:IMPERIAL/Methodology/IGEM WetLab Planning Tool

From OpenWetWare
Revision as of 13:32, 11 November 2006 by Vincent Rouilly (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Why an iGEM planning tool ?

  • During summer 2006, iGEM-Wetlab@imperial was a real mess (some parts were lost, some experiments were useless).
  • Time was lost due to poor stock management or labeling problems.
  • Most of the iGEM participants come to the competition without an extensive wetlab experience. Real need for guidelines and good practices.
  • Due to the standardization and modularity of the BioBricks there is room for a systematic approach to deal with the work flow of the wetLab.

Suggested concepts for an iGEM planning tool

  • BioBricks are the fundamental material:
    • An iGEM project could be fully described from a BioBrick perspective (creation, wetlab manipulation, assembly, characterization ...)
    • Biobricks can have different status, in regards to their wetlab manipulations:
      • Dry DNA from Registry plates
      • Transformed into a given cell strain
      • Mini/Maxi-preped
      • Digested
      • Ligated
      • Sequenced
      • Characterized
      • ....
  • Wetlab Protocols are transformations applied to the BioBrick status (updating their status).
    • they can be viewed as being some sort of transfer functions:
      • Inputs: BioBrick(s) (with a defined status), Consumables, Equipments, Operator(s).
      • Ouputs: BioBrick(s) with new status, Data, Report.
      • The transfer function corresponds to the standard list of wetlab manipulations of a given protocol.
        • it could be interesting to use Gantt Charts to represent protocols (it gives a feel for timing and concurrent actions).
    • A Biobrick wetlab flow can then be described by the assembly of these protocol 'transfer functions'
    • Due to constrains on the status of the BioBrick as Inputs/Outputs, it will be easy for student to check consistency of their BioBrick wetlab flow.
  • Having such a defined framework will allow a systematic labeling strategy:
    • ID associated to BioBrick, Protocol, Operator(s), Date.
  • Should be easier to defined a quality control strategy.


To do list:

  • List all possible status for a BioBrick. work in progress
  • Define a wetlab workflow scenario with all the protocols involved (e.g. ligating 2 parts from Registry DNA plates) to be done
  • Define the interface of each protocol (inputs/ouputs) to be done
  • Represent the workflow. to be done
  • Define a labeling strategy according to workflow. to be done
  • Define a lab notebook strategy to track the workflow. to be done