MIT20_020S09_prj18_onco_log

MIT20_020S09_prj18_onco_log - Project Log Team Name:...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Project Log Team Name: oncoCURES Class: Intro to Biological Engineering Design (20.020) Project: Dynamic Metastasis Imaging Anonymous students MK and NM, with mentor anonymous student RA ‐Start of Entries‐ Wednesday, February 25 • discussed the prompts for the team contract • put together a contacts list • came up with 5 ideas for our presentation • signaling, environment, genetic, chemotherapy, and virus Wednesday, March 4 • figured out 3 ideas to go forward with • eliminated chemotherapy and redefined environment • chose signaling and genetics, virus and bacteria, and competition and decoys • divided up the ideas amongst the team members • MK: Competition and Decoys • NM: Signaling and Genetics • Anonymous student AJ: Virus and Bacteria • planned meeting for the weekend Sunday, March 8 • worked on presentation slides • brainstormed the pros and cons of each • discussion on safety and security of the proposed technology • could not decide which one we are leaning towards Tuesday, March 10 • modified draft of the PowerPoint presentation • decided to redo third idea • problem: decoys have been done better, competition is difficult • problem: could trigger more evolution of cancer, make it worse • solution: markers and targeting, focus on metastasis Wednesday, March 11 • gave 3 Ideas Presentation • got reviews and questions • student feedback, voting by category Category: Signaling and Genetics Viruses and Suppression Markers and Targeting Most Important 10 2 7 Greatest Impact 7 7 6 Most Competitive 7 4 5 Greatest Certainty 5 0 11 • decided to go with Markers and Targeting • thought there was the greatest potential for research, could take in parts Thursday, March 12 • reviewed the ideas and the mentor feedback • signaling and genetics ‐ Glivec, important example to study in great depth, mimic it, small molecule inhibitors not proteins need to pick specific pathway to target what would it do • viruses and bacteria ‐ tried for a long time, genetic therapy, no viral therapy approved by FDA study, existing possibilities some dangers • markers and targeting ‐ interesting findings may not be able to achieve ambition • reassured decision to go with the markers/targeting idea Tuesday, March 17 • passed on our project idea selection to Natalie • tried to plan on system schematic • decided to start with detectiont through marker first • would consider targetting/killing later if time • drew a diagram of marker cells and killing cells Wednesday, March 18 • AJ has left the class, sadly • will be working closely with our advisor, RA • learned about system levels, mapped to our own project • system ‐ marker on metastatic cells • device ‐ light producer, signal receptors • parts ‐ lots of regulatory genes from registry of parts, promoters, terminators, we'd need eukaryotic ones • DNA ‐ from registry, don't need exact for all of devices • drew a timing diagram on the board for our project Thursday, March 19 • problem: working with false triggering, specificity • solution: need two enzymes that on most basic level function as signals • solution: use "AND" gate for receptors only present in breast cancer • problem: is this safe/secure? • solution: build so that it is harmless • solution: most likely will die on its own, due to human response • solution: don't let others know how to program these, science behind it Tuesday, March 31 • debate on cost/buildable and development • problem: is this possible? • solution: use current research ideas, experimentation • read up on luciferase • different types, from underwater animals to fireflies • reaction involves oxygen and luciferin • problem: hypoxia in tumor cells? • solution: metastasis means angiogenesis, blood vessels bring oxygen • researching enzymes involved in breast cancer metastasis • debating pros and cons of each one • some occur naturally and need to be judged cancerous with increased activity Wednesday, April 1 • have decided on COX‐2 and MMP‐1 enzymes • used the products of each reaction • • • • • • COX‐2 makes prostanoids MMP‐1 makes collagen debris need to evolve receptors pull out DNA from experiment, place in chassis picked out some general regulatory parts • decided that we should use viral promoters • strongest and necessary for marker to appear bright • used normal yeast terminators • will need to be humanized, account for evolutionary differences redrew diagram with our selected enzymes, products, and proposed sensors Thursday, April 2 • found exact sequence for MMP degradation • polypeptide strand • strand can bind to antibodies • developed through clonal explansion after introduced in animal • in T‐cells binding can lead to MAC or attack complex • problem: how to prevent full‐attack on cancer cell, without detection • solution: disable some fo the C1+ components through inhibitors, chemicals • solution: use the components for our own reaction, competition • prostanoids trigger receptor involved in G‐protein cascade • binds and phosphorylates • black box in middle • regulates production of light • could make luciferin • could trigger luciferase through ATP Sunday, April 5 • wrote up Tech Spec Review • debated the benefits/impact of our current project • used mainly for research • understanding of metastasis and how it works • current tests are very vague, not accurate • no real knowledge on how and why it spreads Tuesday, April 7 • ran through slides and made some corrections • finalized testing/debugging methods • problem: nothing happens • solution: in vitro, make sure receptors localize with freeze‐fracture • solution: add collagen debris and prostanoids to see if reacting • solution: use GFP for products, receptors, luciferase Wednesday, April 8 • gave Tech Spec Review presentation • got feedback from guest panelists • Kuldell gave written feedback • advice: how will the black box work and integrate two signals • advice: better research on low‐light imaging, CCD cameras • advice: consider other types of chassis, how will these move in vivo • Barry/Austin also spoke, asked questions, criticism • advice: look at magnetic sensing or skip straight to toxin release • advice: consider the value of understanding metastasis • advice: how will the sensors work in combination, look for better combo • overall decision to reconsider enzyme activation • look at luciferase alternatives • decision: still going forward with project Thursday, April 9 • considered what chassis to use • researched cells of the immune system • hard to understand differences in all T‐cell types, B‐cells • reading through papers on immune system Tuesday, April 14 • talked about thresholds, how to add them to our system • problem: how to biologically replicate thresholds for our system • solution: decided on light gradients to detect, most concentrated light • solution: also decided that we could have molecular competition • needs a lot of collagen/prostanoids to activate it • discussion of how to deal with false positives Wednesday, April 15 • looked at the registry of parts • talked about which promoters/terminators we should use • do we want to keep our current ones? • which part will we contribute • picking between sensors, light producer Thursday, April 16 • discussion on what will tax the cell, too much production • problem: will we have luciferin in the cell? • solution: need to store some in the cell • solution: make up for not eating it, acquiring from environment • solution: only need limited store Wednesday, April 22 • talked to Drew Endy about project design • suggested changing from cascading enzyme reactions to one simple reaction • ribozyme that needs two signals • avoid phosphorylation, amplification or branching reactions • can rely on prostanoids to diffuse since they are hydrophobic • problem: need to get collagen debris into the cell • solution: build transporter enzyme of sorts Thursday, April 23 • discussed the idea of a collagen transporter • tried to find literature on channel in nature, not much success • looked into how this would regulate luciferase activity • could cut gene to activate it • could stop inhibiting transcription of DNA Tuesday, April 28 • wrote an email to Roger Kamm who knows collagen structure models • was referred to other papers on subject • some useful, others a bit confusing • wrote email to Drew Endy and Christina Smolke on ribozymes Wednesday, April 29 • called Chris Anderson who made the tumor killing bacteria • explained how TKB worked, what issues it had • realized some of the problems/research is unrelated • heard our project summary • emailed Agi Stachowiak, chemistry expert and knowledgeable with collagen • arranged meeting for next week • received several research papers to read on collagen/MMP Thursday, April 30 • heard back from Christina Smolke • need to read her paper • most of this is still at work in lab, not proven yet • heard a presentation on how to give a good talk • took some notes for future reference • kinds of audience, how to design slides, etc. • for collagen transporter: read up on TRAPP enzyme and integrins from papers • decided that both enzymes were not what we wanted, involved mostly collagen production • no known channel, procollagen spat out using exocytosis from ER/Golgi apparatus • try to reverse this procedure? • debated a chimeric receptor • fuse together antibody specificity with endocystosis receptors • decided that ribozyme would inhibit luciferase mRNA from translation • use our signals to in turn inhibit it Monday, May 4 • met with Agi Stachowiak, talked about collagen structure • got link to website that explains collagen degradation • advice: look for upregulation of collagenases • advice: piggyback on endocytosis of collagen for breakdown • decided that endocytosis was most likely to work • works better than channel Tuesday, May 5 • found possible collagen receptor • paper mentions that it leads to endocytosis • problem: generally also fuses with lysosome and leads to degradation • solution: can be delayed by chemicals • solution: could possibly modify liposomes to break after endocytosis • decided to go with uPARAP/Endo 180 enzyme Wednesday, May 6 • first round of Final Presentations • took notes on various groups ideas • worked on rough Powerpoint presentation template Thursday, May 7 • looked at ribozyme paper again, tried to decipher figures • read up on various aptamers • most of the research is a work in progress • some peptide, hormone, lipid sensors in consideration Sunday, May 10 • • • compiled project log entries, made a google doc for final tweaking made rough draft of technical documents started to put together Powerpoint presentation for Wednesday Tuesday, May 11 • finished up slides, practiced presentation • entered Endo180 part into the registry • collected DNA sequence from paper Wednesday, May 12 • polished and completed technical documents • finalized project log ‐End of Entries‐ MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 20.020 Introduction to Biological Engineering Design Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms . ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online