2021 International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition(iGEM)
2021 International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition
2021 国际遗传工程机器大赛
项目介绍
International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition （iGEM）国际遗传工程机器大赛于2003年由MIT麻省理工创办。2005年后发展壮大成为一个国际性学术学术活动，iGEM涉及生物学、计算机科学、数学、艺术设计等多学科，是以合成生物学为核心多学科交叉国际级科技学术活动，其理念在于鼓励大学生和中学生积极创新，用创新去改变世界。iGEM涉及的合成生物更是是近年来新兴研究领域，受到了学术界和工业界的广泛关注，其参赛队伍所做的相关研究成果常年发表于《Nature》、《Science》、《Scientific American》、《Economists》 等顶尖学术期刊，同时受到BBC等媒体的关注和专题报道 。
iGEM创始之初仅是针对在校本科生的校内学术活动，后逐渐扩大到研究生以及高中生。涵盖多学科的iGEM团队需要利用标准生物模块（Biobricks）来构建基因回路、建立有效的数学模型，实现对精致复杂人工生物系统（artificial biosystem）的预测、操纵和测量以完成比赛。参赛选手必须把自己研究的项目所有重要内容都放进一个海报并准备一个20分钟的演讲。iGEM为学生们提供了靠自己通过解决世界面临的日常问题来突破合成生物学的边界机会，施展自己的才能。每年都有近6000人把他们的暑假献给iGEM，然后在秋天汇聚一堂，展示各自的成果，项目交流学习。来到这里，展示他们的工作，参加一年一度的聚会。
iGEM奖项设置
iGEM奖项和奖牌设置非常广泛，等级分Grand Prizes，Standard Track Awards，Special Track Awards及Special Prizes四个类别，难度由难至简以此类推，每年的类别可能有所不同，每个类别的具体奖项如下：
- Grand Prizes：小部分被组委会评审为最终决赛者团队奖角逐此等奖项，为该学术活动的最高奖项，按不同年龄组颁奖
- Undergraduate组：
- Grand Prize Undergraduate：另称为aluminum BioBrick Trophy，为该年龄组的最高奖项;
- First Runner-Up Undergraduate：该年龄组的第二名
- Second Runner-Up Undergraduate：该年龄组的第三名
- Overgraduate组
- Grand Prize Overgraduate：另成为aluminum BioBrick Trophy，为该年龄组最高奖项
- First Runner-Up Overgraduate：该年龄组的第二名
- High School组
- Grand Prize High School：另称为BioBrick Trophy，为该年龄组的最高奖项
- Undergraduate组：
- Standard Track Awards：由组委会根据团队参赛内容的造诣程度来按以下类别颁奖
- Best Diagnostics Project：很多病症如果可以在早期就被诊断出来，就可以很好的成功治愈。获奖团队需要提出一个更快、更便宜、更好的诊断技术来改善全世界的医疗服务
- Best Energy Project：自1950年以来，世界能源消耗增加了大约六倍。2013年5月，Mauna Loa Observatory夏威夷莫纳罗亚天文台的大气C02读数首次超过400ppm，这样高浓度二氧化碳完全无法维持。获奖团队需要尝试利用合成生物学创造出能产生更少二氧化碳的能源技术，利用原料和废料制造能源，或者以其他可持续的方式产生能源
- Best Environment Project：空气、水和土地的质量决定了所有生物的幸福生活。获奖的团队需要研究生物技术能否被用来帮助净化空气，提供新鲜的饮用水，恢复或提高土壤质量，或者将就近的小行转变成地球类似的环境，以及保护增强自然生物多样性
- Best Food & Nutrition Project：俗话说人是铁饭是钢，一顿不吃饿得慌。获奖团队需要研究是否有什么技术或材料既可以安全的生产食品提供营养又不会造成短缺的同时又不损害长期的环境?
- Best Foundational Advance Project：35年前，科学家们还不能像今天这样，将现有的遗传物质片段剪切和粘贴。DNA重组的发现和应用使我们能够合成新的基因。合成生物学正在寻找能够帮助创造的新技术。获奖团队需要研究在自然中是否还有其他任何我们以前从未发现的方法但是有可能可以彻底改变合成生物学的方法
- Best Information Processing Project：生物特性、行为和部件的多样性和丰富度蕴含着丰富的信息。获奖团队需要提出一个创新的系统可以使我们能够快速有效地浏览和使用这些信息
- Best Manufacturing Project：你听说过纳米技术吗? 生物学就是一种已经存在且非常有效的纳米技术。核糖体是一种可以复制的可编改的纳米载体。获奖团队需要研究我们能否利用生物学来制造有用的产品，从纳米级(原子)到数百倍大的物体(建筑物和桥梁)生物可以被用来制造什么
- Best New Application Project：获奖团队需要能想出一个在生物技术领域中一个全新的应用领域，是其他人没有想过的或者从来没有跟任何人提过了
- Best Therapeutics Project：许多健康和医疗问题都可以用新的疗法来解决。获奖团队需要提出合成生物学能怎样改进技术从而获得新的治疗方法
- 注意：每个项目需要至少由10个候选才能选出undergraduate和overgraduate两个组各一名，否则想合并两个组仅选出一名
- Special Track Awards：由组委会根据团队参赛内容的造诣程度来按以下类别颁奖
- Best Art & Design Project：获奖团队需要可以使用艺术设计来探索合成生物学当前和未来的影响，包括利益相关者，交流，教育学等
- Best Hardware Project：当许多在这个领域工作的团队研究了很多年后，许多硬件已经成为iGEM很重要的一部分。获奖团队需要研究开发提出一个合成生物学相关的硬件，包括低成本实验室设备、微流体技术、测量专用设备和许多其他领域的项目。组委会鼓励团队将wetware components 应用在开发的项目中，但不强制要求提交该部件
- Best Measurement Project：在实验室里已经有了那么多仪器的时候，精确测量依旧是合成生物学的一个巨大问题。获奖团队需要提出要怎么解决这个问题
- Best Software Project：计算机已经出现了很多年并发展的很好了，但是我们已经没有什么更好的工具来帮助大家可以用标准生物部件来合成生物系统。获奖团队需要提出一个可能
- Special Prizes：由组委会颁给最具创新性以及独特贡献的参赛团队的荣誉奖
- Best Advancement in Plant Synthetic Biology：植物生物学领域最好的项目
- Best Applied Design：颁发给一个开发出一个synbio product（益生菌方案）并可以轻松解决一个现实问题的团队。该获奖团队需要考虑产品如何解决问题和其他潜在的解决方案，产品如何整合或破坏其他产品及其生产过程，以及它的生命周期如何以积极和消极的方式更广泛地影响我们的生活和环境
- Best Education & Public Engagement：颁给在合成生物学领域中可以提出一个更有效传播教育科学并让大家都参与进来的方案
- Best Hardware：颁给为合身生物学领域开发出一个有效硬件的团队。这个iGEM的硬件可以使合成生物学分成更方便快速应用的标准部件，或者一个可以帮助研究团队更好的表述合成生物学特性等
- Best Innovation in Measurement：合成生物学中还有很多部分没有办法被准确的描述出来，或许可以设计一个更高效的测量表述方法描述各个部分
- Best Integrated Human Practices：颁给可以影响社会并从中可以获得有效信息的方案
- Best Model：合成生物学是一门工程类学科，工程的一部分是模拟和建模来确认制作可行的系统。此奖颁给可以开发出一个数学模型或计算机模拟的方式来描述BioBrick零件和运行的团队。
- Best New Basic Part：大多数基因编码还没能转换为标准的BioBrick部件，因此，获奖团队需要寻找更多的基因编码性能，并将这些DNA编码转换成BioBrick标准生物部件。需要注意的是，本部分必须遵循注册样本提交指南，并已发送到标准生物部件注册中心。你研究出来的最好的基础部分可以在你的维基数据页上呈现，请参考http://igem.org/Sample_Data_Page
- Best New Composite Part：新的BioBrick设备可以通过结合现有的BioBrick部件来制造。例如，逆变器、放大器、嗅觉发生器、蛋白质气球发生器、发送器、接收器、执行器等等。为获得该奖项，本部分必须遵循注册样本提交指南，并已发送到标准生物部件注册中心且你研究出来的最好的基础部分可以在你的维基数据页上呈现
- Best Part Collection：团队需要创造一个类似CRISPR系列或MoClo系列的系列，这个系列可能含有超过10个零件。这些部分必须遵守注册表样本提交指南，并已发送到标准生物部件的注册表。
- Best Poster：最具有吸引力且可以很好的展示团队工作的海报
- Best Presentation：引人入胜且可以清晰的将你研究的项目传播出去的演讲
- Best Software Tool：可以对一个项目的成功产生决定性影响的软件设计，比如一个工具或者运算方法等，可以不用太复杂。筛选符合条件的团队所设计的软件必须在OSI认可的开放源码许可下被记录和提供。
- Best Supporting Entrepreneurship：为表彰为将iGEM项目商业化而做出贡献的商业项目，向所有团队开放的，以表明创业精神是所有团队都可以追求的。这个奖项可以颁给一个新的项目，或者一个团队想要商业化的项目
- Best Wiki：团队维基页面是团队iGEM项目封面，团队的维基页面将是未来参与iGEM学术活动的团队以及世界各地人员的主要信息来源方式，所以将颁给维基页面做的最好的团队
- 注意：每个项目需要至少由10个候选才能选出undergraduate和overgraduate两个组各一名，否则想合并两个组仅选出一名，同时也会颁给high school组
iGEM评审规则
评判由以下三个部分组成：
- Medals Section：由评审根据团队的情况决定，暂无具体信息
- Project Section：共分成以下两个分类进行评审，10个评审标准奖决定是否可以进入决赛
- main project category：8个评审方面
- the track-specific category：2个评审方向
- Special Awards Section：按照奖项设置，每个奖项均由4-5个评审标准，想要参与竞争的团队需要按要求填写Judging Form
大致的评审要求如下所示，摘自官网：
| Number | Category | Aspects |
| 1 | Project | How impressive is this project? |
| 2 | Project | How creative is the team's project? |
| 3 | Project | Did the project work? |
| 4 | Project | How much did the team accomplish? |
| 5 | Project | Is the project likely to have an impact? |
| 6 | Project | How well are engineering principles used? |
| 7 | Project | How thoughtful and thorough was the team's consideration of human practices? |
| 8 | Project | How much of the work did the team do themselves and how much was done by others? |
| 9 | Track Specific - Standard Tracks | Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology and standard parts? |
| 10 | Track Specific - Standard Tracks | Are the parts functions and behaviors well-documented in the Registry? |
| 9 | Track Specific - Special Tracks | Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology? |
| 10 | Track Specific - Special Tracks | Are the project components (hardware, software, art & design, etc) thoroughly documented on their wiki? |
| Special Prizes | ||
| 1 | Wiki | Do I understand what the team accomplished? |
| 2 | Wiki | Is the wiki attractive and easy to navigate? |
| 3 | Wiki | Does the team provide convincing evidence to support their conclusions? |
| 4 | Wiki | How well does the team describe what they did and what was done by others? |
| 5 | Wiki | Will the wiki be a compelling record of the team's project for future teams? |
| 1 | Presentation | Did the presentation flow well? |
| 2 | Presentation | How professional is the graphic design in terms of layout and composition? |
| 3 | Presentation | Did you find the presentation engaging? |
| 4 | Presentation | How competent were the team members at answering questions? |
| 1 | Poster | Did the poster flow well? |
| 2 | Poster | How professional is the graphic design in terms of layout and composition? |
| 3 | Poster | Did you find the poster appealing? |
| 4 | Poster | How competent were the team members at answering questions? |
| 1 | Integrated Human Practices | Was their work integrated into their project? |
| 2 | Integrated Human Practices | Does it serve as an inspiring example to others? |
| 3 | Integrated Human Practices | Is it documented in a way that others can build upon? |
| 4 | Integrated Human Practices | Was it thoughtfully implemented? (did they explain the context, rationale, prior work) |
| 1 | Education & Public Engagement | Did their work establish a dialogue? |
| 2 | Education & Public Engagement | Does it serve as an inspiring example to others? |
| 3 | Education & Public Engagement | Is it documented in a way that others can build upon? |
| 4 | Education & Public Engagement | Was it thoughtfully implemented? (did they explain the context, rationale, prior work) |
| 1 | Model | How impressive is the mathematical modeling? |
| 2 | Model | Did the model help the team understand their part or device? |
| 3 | Model | Did the team use measurements of the device to develop the model? |
| 4 | Model | Does the modeling approach provide a good example for others? |
| 1 | Measurement | Is the measurement potentially repeatable? |
| 2 | Measurement | Is the protocol well described? |
| 3 | Measurement | Are there web-based support materials? |
| 4 | Measurement | Is it useful to other projects? |
| 5 | Measurement | Was a standard reference sample included? |
| 1 | Entrepreneurship | Customer Discovery - Has the team interviewed a representative number of potential customers for the technology and clearly communicated what they learned? |
| 2 | Entrepreneurship | Based on their interviews, does the team have a clear hypothesis describing their customers' needs? |
| 3 | Entrepreneurship | Does the team present a convincing case that their product meets the customers' needs? |
| 4 | Entrepreneurship | Has the team demonstrated a minimum viable (MVP) product? And does the team have customers to commit (LOI, etc.) to purchasing it / using it? |
| 5 | Entrepreneurship | Does the team have a viable and understood business model/value proposition to take their company to market? |
| 1 | Applied Design | How well did the project address potential applications and implications of synthetic biology? |
| 2 | Applied Design | How creative, original, and compelling was the project? |
| 3 | Applied Design | How impressive was the project installation in the art & design exhibition space? |
| 4 | Applied Design | How well did the team engage in collaboration with people outside of their primary fields? |
| 1 | Software Tool | How well is the software using and supporting existing synthetic biology standards and platforms? |
| 2 | Software Tool | Was this software validated by experimental work? |
| 3 | Software Tool | Did the team use non-trivial algorithms or designs? |
| 4 | Software Tool | How easily can others embed this software in new workflows? |
| 5 | Software Tool | How user-friendly is the software? |
| 1 | Hardware | Does the hardware address a need or problem in synthetic biology? |
| 2 | Hardware | Did the team conduct user testing and learn from user feedback? |
| 3 | Hardware | Did the team demonstrate utility and functionality in their hardware proof of concept? |
| 4 | Hardware | Is the documentation of the hardware system sufficient to enable reproduction by other teams? |
| 1 | Plant Synthetic Biology | How impressive was the use of a plant chassis? |
| 2 | Plant Synthetic Biology | How impressive was the collection of parts made for the plant chassis? |
| 3 | Plant Synthetic Biology | How well did the team use the special attributes of the plant chassis? |
| 4 | Plant Synthetic Biology | Are the parts/tools/protocols for plants made during this project useful to other teams? |
| 1 | New Basic Part | How does the documentation compare to BBa_K863006 and BBa_K863001? |
| 2 | New Basic Part | How new/innovative is it? |
| 3 | New Basic Part | Did the team show the part works as expected? |
| 4 | New Basic Part | Is it useful to the community? |
| 1 | New Composite Part | How does the documentation compare to BBa_K404122 and BBa_K863005? |
| 2 | New Composite Part | How new/innovative is it? |
| 3 | New Composite Part | Did the team show the part works as expected? |
| 4 | New Composite Part | Is it useful to the community? |
| 1 | Part Collection | Is this collection a coherent group of parts meant to be used as a collection, or just a list of all the parts the team made? |
| 2 | Part Collection | How does the documentation compare to BBa_K747000 and BBa_K525710? |
| 3 | Part Collection | Did the team submit an internally complete collection allowing it to be used without any further manipulation or parts from outside Registry? |
| 4 | Part Collection | Did the team finish building a functional system using this collection? |
| 5 | Part Collection | Did the team create excellent documentation to allow future use of this collection? |
项目时间
学术活动时间：2021年10月6日 - 10月11日
申请要求
- 需要求由一个指导老师带领组队参赛，没有人数上限，分三个组别，推荐8-10个人一组，并完成网上的Team Roster确认参赛成员
- Overgraduate：至少其中一个队员年龄在2020年3月31日前大于23周岁
- Undergraduate：所有团队成员年龄在2020年3月31日前小于23周岁
- High School：所有成员在2020年3月31日前均为高中生，包括2020年春季的学生
- 团队成员的组成分以下几个不同角色和要求：
- Students：参赛队员需要完成自始至终全程参与项目，各自注册iGEM账号，填写信息并加入小组的Team Roster
- Primary and Secondary PI：团队的经理角色，需要由有权利的人担任，因为他要协调团队的实验室的使用，缴费等，同时拥有iGEM账号并加入team roster，不同年龄组要求的不同，如下：
- Collegiate teams：只要有一位PI是教授，第二位PI至少 为博士后
- High School teams：至少有一位是学校的老师或者校长，必须有学校签字决定权
- Community Labs：至少其中以为是实验室的主管
- Instructor：要可以每天提供技术指导，同样拥有iGEM账号并加入team roster
- Student team leader：团队领队，是 团队与PI以及iGEM总部沟通的桥梁
- Advisor：提供团队的辅助指导，可以是研究生，博士后，技术人员等 ，同样拥有iGEM账号并加入team roster
- 网上注册比赛，收费为
- Early registration: $4500 USD
- Regular registration: $5000 USD
- Late registration: $5500 USD
- Multiple team discount: a discount of $1000 USD
- 注册比赛后需要填写一个Judging Form，来帮助评审团可以快速了解团队研究的核心和特色
- 内容为150字然后根据要求添加修改团队项目维基页面上的信息
- 完成这个表时不需要同时完成你项目的维基页面，详情参考http://2018.igem.org/Judging/Pages_for_Awards
- 你必须要创立一个Registry Part页面，为你要申请竞争的所有奖项做准备
国际竞赛真题资料-点击免费领取！
美高学分项目重磅来袭！立即了解
AMC8备考管家服务全新上线！
