Team:Michigan Software/Project

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(→Description)
 
(104 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
<!-- *** What falls between these lines is the Alert Box!  You can remove it from your pages once you have read and understood the alert *** -->
+
{{Template:Michigan_Software/NavBar}}
-
 
+
-
{{Team:Michigan_Software/CSS}}
+
-
 
+
-
==Aims==
+
-
 
+
-
==Methods==
+
-
 
+
-
==Success==
+
-
 
+
<html>
<html>
 +
<FONT FACE="Segoe UI">
 +
<div class="project_describe">
 +
<font size = "3">
 +
</html>
 +
==Description==
 +
<html>
 +
<p>
 +
Choosing reliable protocols for new experiments is a problem laboratories routinely face. Experimental practices differ immensely across laboratories, and precise details of these practices may be lost or forgotten as skilled members leave the lab. Such fragmentation in protocol methods and their documentation often hampers scientific progress. Indeed, there are few well-defined protocols that are generally agreed upon by the scientific community, in part due to the lack of a system that measures a protocol’s success. In turn, the lack of commonly accepted protocols and inadequate documentation affects experimental reproducibility through method inconsistencies across laboratories. Review studies even estimate that only 10-25% of published scientific results are reproducible, and up to 54% of materials/antibodies/organisms are not identifiable for reproducibility studies (<a href=https://peerj.com/articles/148/>https://peerj.com/articles/148/</a>). This is an alarming figure and suggests that many of the results we base continued research and development on are inaccurate or cannot be replicated independently.
-
<!--main content -->
+
</p>
-
<table width="70%" align="center">
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
<!--welcome box -->
+
-
<tr>
+
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" colspan="3" align="center" height="150px" bgColor=#FF404B>
+
-
<h1 >WELCOME TO iGEM 2014! </h1>
+
-
<p>Your team has been approved and you are ready to start the iGEM season!
+
-
<br>On this page you can document your project, introduce your team members, document your progress <br> and share your iGEM experience with the rest of the world! </p>
+
<br>
<br>
-
<p style="color:#E7E7E7"> <a href="https://2014.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Team:Michigan_Software/Project&action=edit"style="color:#FFFFFF"> Click here  to edit this page!</a> </p>
+
<center>
-
</td>
+
<img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/28/Igem_respondents.png" width=300>  
-
</tr>
+
<img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/e/e1/Experience.png" width=300>
 +
<img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/bd/How_often_difficulty.png" width=300>
 +
</center>
 +
</br>
-
<tr> <td colspan="3"  height="5px"> </td></tr>
 
-
<!-- end welcome box -->
 
-
<tr>
 
-
<!--navigation menu -->
+
To attempt to address these problems, we set out to build a database that integrates a crowd-sourced ratings and comments system to clearly document, rate, elaborate, review, and organize variants of experimental protocols in order to increase the likelihood of reproducible scientific results. This would streamline some of the confusion associated with finding and replicating protocols by creating a database where investigators can upload protocols, comment on them, and even use a rating system to allow the best protocols to rise to the top.  Before starting, we designed a survey (<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/80/Survey.pdf">which you can check out here</a>) to poll a range of scientific researchers on their experiences trying new protocols.  We disseminated it across our networks and over social media to judge the interest and usefulness of our project.  For those still interested, the survey will be available <a href=https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vJEm84jVQEYUNZEV-Cv3PR2OOoPbhpVmu5MrFqH4fjY/viewform?usp=send_form>here</a> for people to take at least through the end of 2014.  So far, we've found that among a diverse and experienced set of respondents, every single scientist has struggled with replicating protocols from other experimenters, with >50% of respondents having difficulty more than 25% of the time.
-
<td align="center" colspan="3">
+
-
<table  width="100%">
+
<br>
-
<tr heigth="15px"></tr>
+
<center>
-
<tr heigth="75px">  
+
<img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/c/c1/Problems.png" width = 300><br>
 +
</center>
 +
Additionally, our survey identified that unclear language and missing steps of protocols as the greatest contributors to the irreproducibility of protocols. Furthermore, 100% of respondents indicated they would use a database like this to browse and download protocols, and over 85% indicated they would upload and maintain their own protocols if such a site existed (<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Survey">click here for a complete list of results</a>). With these data and interest in hand, we set out to build ProtoCat.
 +
</p>
 +
</br>
 +
</font>
 +
</div>
 +
</html>
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center" height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7>
+
==Aims==
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software"style="color:#000000">Home </a> </td>
+
<font size = "3">
 +
The aims of this project were threefold:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li> To start an iGEM software team at the University of Michigan and populate it with a diverse population of students. </li>
 +
<li> To construct useful software for laboratory scientists. We designed the protocol database project based on our own and other's frustrations in identifying reliable and effective scientific protocols. </li>
 +
<li> To use our basic project idea to survey a wide range of scientific students and professionals to determine exactly what the best iteration of this project would do and adapt our goals as such. </li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</font>
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center" height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7>
+
==Methods==
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Team"style="color:#000000"> Team </a> </td>
+
Our project is based on Django, a free, open-source web framework, written in Python. Django allows us to create a simple, database-driven website which:
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center"  height ="45px"  onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7>
+
• can be hosted on any server (or locally).
-
<a href="https://igem.org/Team.cgi?year=2014&team_name=Michigan_Software"style="color:#000000"> Official Team Profile </a></td>
+
-
<td style="border:1px solid black" align="center"  height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7> 
+
• is modular and can be molded to specific individual needs.
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Project"style="color:#000000"> Project</a></td>
+
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center"  height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7>
+
• is built on a well-documented , easy to learn framework.
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Parts"style="color:#000000"> Parts</a></td>
+
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center" height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7>
+
Our web application can be downloaded from Github and easily installed on any computer with Django/Python. Our implementation uses an embedded SQLite database, although a number of databases can be used.  
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Modeling"style="color:#000000"> Modeling</a></td>
+
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center" height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7> 
+
[[File:concept_map.png]]
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Notebook"style="color:#000000"> Notebook</a></td>
+
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center"  height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7>
+
==Success==
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Safety"style=" color:#000000"> Safety </a></td>
+
- Formed a brand new iGEM team! On top of that, we all learned new languages for this :)
-
<td style="border:1px solid black;" align="center"  height ="45px" onMouseOver="this.bgColor='#d3d3d3'" onMouseOut="this.bgColor='#e7e7e7'" bgColor=#e7e7e7>
+
- Reached out to and engaged the scientific community to create awareness for the problem and prioritize the development of a solution.
-
<a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Attributions"style="color:#000000"> Attributions </a></td>
+
 +
- Created ProtoCat, a functional registry for laboratory procedures.
-
<td align ="center"> <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Main_Page"> <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/igem.org/6/60/Igemlogo_300px.png" width="55px"></a> </td>
+
==Future Directions==
-
</tr>
+
- Variable protocols with integrated calculators: Our next step is to allow users to create calculator functions for specific tasks, and embed them with the protocol.
-
</table>
+
-
</tr>
+
- vendor information: allow direct linking to reagents, materials, etc. from vendors.
-
</tr>
+
-
</td>
+
-
<tr> <td colspan="3"  height="15px"> </td></tr>
+
- in-app purchasing: allow users to directly purchase reagents, materials, etc. that are included in the protocol, through third-party vendors.
-
<tr><td bgColor="#e7e7e7" colspan="3" height="1px"> </tr>
+
-
<tr> <td colspan="3"  height="5px"> </td></tr>
+
 +
- protocol timer
-
 
+
-As far as the team goes, we plan to reach out to more people next year; as fun as this smaller group was, we want to ensure that we have a greater variety of skillsets and thought processes to contribute to the best project possible
-
<!--Project content  -->
+
{{Template:Michigan_Software/Foot}}
-
<tr><td > <h3> Project Description </h3></td>
+
-
<td ></td >
+
-
<td > <h3> Content</h3></td>
+
-
</tr>
+
-
 
+
-
<tr>
+
-
<td width="45%"  valign="top">
+
-
<p>
+
-
Choosing apt and reliable protocols for new experiments is a problem that productive wet labs routinely face. However, it is difficult to know in detail which protocols will produce the best results. Experimental practices may differ immensely across laboratories, and precise details of these practices may be lost or forgotten as skilled faculty or students leave the lab to pursue other endeavors. These two realities give rise to a vast number of experimental protocols of which many are left with undocumented experiential knowledge. Furthermore, no tool yet exists to allow wet lab investigators to measure and compare the efficacy of protocols before executing them forthright.
+
-
</br></br>
+
-
 
+
-
Such fragmentation in protocol methods and their documentation may to some degree hamper scientific progress. From the immense number of protocols currently in use, there are few well-defined protocols that are generally agreed upon by the scientific community, in part due to the lack of a system that can supply a measure of a protocol’s acceptance compared to its variants. In turn, the lack of commonly accepted protocols and their inadequate documentation has the potential to affect experimental reproducibility through method inconsistencies across laboratories and across succession of investigators.
+
-
</br></br>
+
-
 
+
-
In order to address these problems, we set out to build a database that integrates a crowdsourced ratings and comments system to clearly document, rate, elaborate, review, and organize variants of experimental protocols. Such a tool serves as a curator for protocol variants and enables wet lab investigators to compare protocol efficacies. Furthermore, the crowdsourced ratings system quantifies a protocol’s acceptance within the scientific community and can serve as a useful criterion to assist with finding and selecting from common protocols. In addition, a protocol comments system provides an avenue through which experiential knowledge can be passed along. As an extension to the protocol database, we will also develop a dynamic calculator that can run user-defined theoretical calculations for any protocol, such as limiting reagent, yield, or even the monetary cost of the materials used. The calculator further assists investigators in comparing and performing protocols. In all, these tools will help wet lab investigators to document, organize, and compare protocols to assist with scientific experimentation.
+
-
 
+
-
</p>
+
-
<br>
+
-
<h3>References </h3>
+
-
<p>
+
-
iGEM teams are encouraged to record references you use during the course of your research. They should be posted somewhere on your wiki so that judges and other visitors can see how you though about your project and what works inspired you. </p>
+
-
</td>
+
-
 
+
-
<td></td>
+
-
<td  width="45%"  valign="top">
+
-
<p> You can use these subtopics to further explain your project</p>
+
-
 
+
-
<ol>
+
-
<li>Overall project summary</li>
+
-
<li>Project Details</li>
+
-
<li>Materials and Methods</li>
+
-
<li>The Experiments</li>
+
-
<li>Results</li>
+
-
<li>Data analysis</li>
+
-
<li>Conclusions</li>
+
-
</ol>
+
-
 
+
-
<p>
+
-
It's important for teams to describe all the creativity that goes into an iGEM project, along with all the great ideas your team will come up with over the course of your work.
+
-
</p>
+
-
 
+
-
<p>
+
-
It's also important to clearly describe your achievements so that judges will know what you tried to do and where you succeeded. Please write your project page such that what you achieved is easy to distinguish from what you attempted.
+
-
</p>
+
-
 
+
-
</td>
+
-
 
+
-
</tr>
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
</table>
+
-
</html>
+

Latest revision as of 01:20, 3 August 2015

Michigan Software

Contents

Description

Choosing reliable protocols for new experiments is a problem laboratories routinely face. Experimental practices differ immensely across laboratories, and precise details of these practices may be lost or forgotten as skilled members leave the lab. Such fragmentation in protocol methods and their documentation often hampers scientific progress. Indeed, there are few well-defined protocols that are generally agreed upon by the scientific community, in part due to the lack of a system that measures a protocol’s success. In turn, the lack of commonly accepted protocols and inadequate documentation affects experimental reproducibility through method inconsistencies across laboratories. Review studies even estimate that only 10-25% of published scientific results are reproducible, and up to 54% of materials/antibodies/organisms are not identifiable for reproducibility studies (https://peerj.com/articles/148/). This is an alarming figure and suggests that many of the results we base continued research and development on are inaccurate or cannot be replicated independently.



To attempt to address these problems, we set out to build a database that integrates a crowd-sourced ratings and comments system to clearly document, rate, elaborate, review, and organize variants of experimental protocols in order to increase the likelihood of reproducible scientific results. This would streamline some of the confusion associated with finding and replicating protocols by creating a database where investigators can upload protocols, comment on them, and even use a rating system to allow the best protocols to rise to the top. Before starting, we designed a survey (which you can check out here) to poll a range of scientific researchers on their experiences trying new protocols. We disseminated it across our networks and over social media to judge the interest and usefulness of our project. For those still interested, the survey will be available here for people to take at least through the end of 2014. So far, we've found that among a diverse and experienced set of respondents, every single scientist has struggled with replicating protocols from other experimenters, with >50% of respondents having difficulty more than 25% of the time.

Additionally, our survey identified that unclear language and missing steps of protocols as the greatest contributors to the irreproducibility of protocols. Furthermore, 100% of respondents indicated they would use a database like this to browse and download protocols, and over 85% indicated they would upload and maintain their own protocols if such a site existed (click here for a complete list of results). With these data and interest in hand, we set out to build ProtoCat.


Aims

The aims of this project were threefold:

  • To start an iGEM software team at the University of Michigan and populate it with a diverse population of students.
  • To construct useful software for laboratory scientists. We designed the protocol database project based on our own and other's frustrations in identifying reliable and effective scientific protocols.
  • To use our basic project idea to survey a wide range of scientific students and professionals to determine exactly what the best iteration of this project would do and adapt our goals as such.

Methods

Our project is based on Django, a free, open-source web framework, written in Python. Django allows us to create a simple, database-driven website which:

• can be hosted on any server (or locally).

• is modular and can be molded to specific individual needs.

• is built on a well-documented , easy to learn framework.

Our web application can be downloaded from Github and easily installed on any computer with Django/Python. Our implementation uses an embedded SQLite database, although a number of databases can be used.

Concept map.png

Success

- Formed a brand new iGEM team! On top of that, we all learned new languages for this :)

- Reached out to and engaged the scientific community to create awareness for the problem and prioritize the development of a solution.

- Created ProtoCat, a functional registry for laboratory procedures.

Future Directions

- Variable protocols with integrated calculators: Our next step is to allow users to create calculator functions for specific tasks, and embed them with the protocol.

- vendor information: allow direct linking to reagents, materials, etc. from vendors.

- in-app purchasing: allow users to directly purchase reagents, materials, etc. that are included in the protocol, through third-party vendors.

- protocol timer

-As far as the team goes, we plan to reach out to more people next year; as fun as this smaller group was, we want to ensure that we have a greater variety of skillsets and thought processes to contribute to the best project possible

contact info: igemsoftware-requests@umich.edu.

Retrieved from "http://2014.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Project"