Partnership with University of Rochester iGEM Team
Our partnership with the University of Rochester iGEM Team began in May, as we reached out via Instagram to set up a potential partnership. We first met virtually on June 17th, where we discussed both of our teams’ project ideas. After brief introductions to the projects, we discussed specifics about our Wet Lab, Hardware, Modeling, and Human Practices goals to see if there was any overlap that we could pursue in a partnership. This resulted in a Wet Lab Partnership and Human Practices Partnership. Our partnership spanned from June to October.Wet Lab Partnership
Both of our teams had a goal of creating hydrogels related to our projects. During our initial meeting, we discussed the types of hydrogel being made for both of our projects. We then decided to exchange protocols for our hydrogel making procedures. We sent the Rochester team our model hydrogel procedure for a gelatin hydrogel crosslinked with glutaraldehyde. The Rochester team sent us their procedure for a dextran hydrogel crosslinked with N,N0-methylenebisacrylamide. Both teams conducted peer reviews after this protocol exchange. Both of our procedures had similar setups, though differences existed in the weight percentages of crosslinker and hydrogel across both methods due to the differences in the exact hydrogel materials we were using.The Rochester team’s PI, Dr. Anne Meyer, is also highly involved in 3D bioprinting and curli biogenesis research, so the Rochester team connected us with their PI. We were able to set up a meeting with her and gain useful insight on how to best implement the 3D bioprinting aspects of our project, as well as learn more about the curli biogenesis system. We have documented our discussion with her on our Human Practices page under the Interviews section.
Finally, since Dr. Meyer had biological parts that our team could benefit from, we organized a material hand off with the Rochester team. Their team provided us with two E. coli strains: a negative control expressing GFP constitutively, and one with an inducible csgA gene fused to GFP. This use of a fluorescent protein inspired our team to branch out in terms of colors to express using our engineering bacteria.
Human Practices Partnership
Both of our teams had a central goal of synthetic biology education within our projects. During our first virtual meeting, we discussed both of our goals to approach inclusivity in STEM, educate a variety of audiences, and create educational materials for people to learn about synthetic biology. Our teams planned to work closely with each other in order to achieve these Human Practices-centered goals.First, we organized an in-person meetup at the Cornell University campus. Both teams developed in-depth presentations about our projects in order to practice science communication skills geared toward an audience of scientists and science students. We were able to discuss and engage with each other’s topics, which helped practice our scientific inquiry. We had questions about a few of their biosensor design choices, and they gave us suggestions on our bioreactor explanations. Cornell iGEM also gave the Rochester team a tour of our lab and hardware workspaces, so they could get a better idea of what kinds of equipment our team uses.
For the outreach event, which was hosted at the Ithaca Youth Bureau by Ithaca Big Brothers Big Sisters, both of our teams developed youth-friendly activities that would be engaging while also informative. The Rochester team developed a hands-on synthetic biology station where kids could learn more about synthetic biology and DNA by creating “Bacteria Superheroes.” Cornell iGEM had done a similar outreach event individually at the Ithaca Sciencenter, and from this experience we had learned that more reinforcement of material would have helped kids understand the concept of synthetic biology a bit better. Thus, we wanted to supplement the Rochester activity by creating a complementary station where kids could physically “build” bioengineered microbes, which they did using a variety of Lego pieces. We also included art-based activities for two more activity stations that provided new perspectives on how art and science could be combined, which taught younger students in a more accessible way.
From this event, both of our teams were able to practice explaining synthetic biology concepts to those at different age and understanding levels. This outreach event was made even more interesting as the younger kids were at the stations alongside their Big Brothers/Sisters, who were usually older. It was interesting to see how the information shared at each station was informative for the kids as well as for the adults, who might not have had exposure to the field of synthetic biology before. Some of the adults even created their very own Lego microbes! We were happily surprised that the stations were able to open up dialogue among the different age groups present, when we had only expected that our activities would appeal to just the younger kids. Overall, both of our teams felt that the event was a success in terms of reinforcing concepts of synthetic biology to a younger audience.
