The common objectives of our projects

Both projects were dealing with a health issue and a double diagnosis-therapeutic approach. Precision medicine was also an important aspect of our ThERIAC and DAISY projects (Figure 1). In addition, we also exchanged on the team member’s strengths and weaknesses. It was a great idea: on the one hand we realized that members from Thessaloniki had a great entrepreneurship experience while we were in need of advice for this aspect of our project. On the other hand their team needed contacts for their IHP that we could provide.

Figure 1: Logos of both teams

A collaboration on education and social media

For the Education branch of our iGEM projects, both teams decided to reach highschoolers to present synthetic biology. We decided to have the same intervention pattern, with a presentation, a Kahoot quiz and a laboratory experiment. We co-created a Kahoot quiz, translated in Greek and in French for the students. The aim of the quiz was to test them about microbiology and synthetic biology. We also had them conduct an experiment which was a simulation of a transformation (without any GMOs and no use of plasmids). It was an opportunity to exchange and improve the protocol for it to be adapted to highschool students.

We also collaborated on social media by creating common posts (on Instagram as well as Facebook and LinkedIn). The themes of these posts were the shared aspects of our projects, such as personalized medicine or artificial intelligence in diagnosis. These posts were created in common and shared on both our social media accounts. More information on our education and our partner's implication in our Education and Communication section, as well as their Education page.

Figure 2: Example of a common post about precision medicine

What more did team Toulouse bring to team Thessaloniki?

The main area where iGEM Thessaloniki needed help was IHP. The Greek team wanted to meet more experts and thought French experts could help them in the elaboration of their project (Figure 3). They particularly needed a nano-carrier expert as well as psycho-oncologists. A professor in nano-technologies from INSA Toulouse put us in contact with a recognized French researcher. This researcher agreed to a meeting but had to cancel at the last minute. We were quite disappointed that our help could not lead to something valuable for our partner’s IHP, but we tried our best to help them as much as we could in this area. However we still found great contacts for French psycho-oncologists that agreed to answer questions for our partners. We thank Dr. Yasmine Chemrouk and Dr. Sophie Lantheaume who were a huge help for the improvement of team Thessaloniki’s IHP! More information on our partner's IHP can be found on their Integrated Human Practices page.

Figure 3: One of the meeting where we discussed about Human Practices and Integrated Human Practices

iGEM Thessaloniki started their wet lab experiments regarding their project several weeks after us. Our experience with the wet lab mishaps led us to give them valuable advice on their wet lab practices. They also took part in the Interlab experiments, so early in the partnership we agreed to share protocols on transformation and making of competent cells. We discussed our results from Experiment 1 with each other and agreed that taking part in the Interlab was a great way to learn new techniques and become better at wet lab experiments.

We also discussed possible collaboration on dry lab and wet lab, but the techniques used and the work achieved were too different. However, we still had a meeting to present each team’s dry lab and exchange feedback, mainly on how to make the dry lab accessible to someone who did not work on that subject.

What more did team Thessaloniki bring to team Toulouse?

We needed help in the Entrepreneurship part of our project, because we had no experience at all in this domain. Thessaloniki was the team we needed help from! Members from their team had a great experience with entrepreneurship (they had an award for a work they did) and were able to share their knowledge with us and give us valuable tips. They contributed to the design of our SWOT and our Business plan (Figure 4) (seeEntrepreneurship).

Figure 4: one of the meeting where we discussed about Entrepreneurship

They also gave us very valuable feedback for our educational video show “Cracking Allergies”. We needed people with little to no knowledge on the subject of allergies to review our videos and scripts, and they were able to guide us to be sure the videos were understandable from everyone.

Like we did for them, they gave us feedback on our dry lab model and how to make it accessible to someone who did not work on that subject.

Our organization

Weekly meetings were held during August, September and the beginning of October (Table 1). Our meetings were dedicated to working together and deciding what work needed to be done by which team for the next meeting. Most of the time, each meeting had a main subject such as Entrepreneurship or Human Practices, but we also discussed any other topic that needed to be addressed. We also kept in touch everyday through a group chat, meaning that we were not waiting for the next meeting to discuss possible problems or questions.

Table 1: Weekly meetings calendar and the main subjects discussed.

Conclusion

iGEM Thessaloniki team was our referent team during the summer. Having weekly meetings with them was the best way to keep in touch and discuss not only the collaboration ideas we had, but also our victories and struggles through this iGEM adventure. Being able to support and help a team and have them support and help you on different aspects of the project is a huge opportunity. This partnership was a highlight of the adventure and we are very happy to have been able to conduct it with a great team (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Almost everyone from both teams!