WELCOME TO iGEM 2014!

Your team has been approved and you are ready to start the iGEM season!
On this page you can document your project, introduce your team members, document your progress
and share your iGEM experience with the rest of the world!

Click here to edit this page!

Project Description

Content

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.

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.

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.

References

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.

You can use these subtopics to further explain your project

1. Overall project summary
2. Project Details
3. Materials and Methods
4. The Experiments
5. Results
6. Data analysis
7. Conclusions

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.

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.