1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of researcher safety, public safety, or environmental safety?
No. All components of our project are very safe for use by researchers and pose no threat to the public or to the environment. The E. coli used for construction of our plasmid is a nonpathogenic lab strain, meaning that it does not cause any harm to humans. The S. cerevisiae used in our project is also as safe as brewers or bakers yeast. Although we consistently practice safe sterile technique, in keeping with the BSL2 requirements of our lab, an accident with our work would not pose any foreseeable threat to human or environmental health. In addition, all parts not from the Parts Registry were derived from the aforementioned E. coli and S. cerevisiae strains or from commercial sources that assured us of their safety.
2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? If yes, did you document these issues in the Registry? how did you manage to handle the safety issue? How could other teams learn from your experience?
None of the BioBrick parts that we made raise any safety issues. Although two commercial IRESs we used in our work originated from encephalomyocarditis (EMCV), our commercial provider has guaranteed that the samples are free of any viruses.
3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Biosafety office worked with us to answer questions about our project safety. Although they were unaware of the existence of iGEM prior to our correspondence, we were able to pave the way for safety protocols for future teams at our institution. In keeping with the policies of the Environmental Health and Safety office and of the Biosafety office, our lab is maintained in a safe and responsible way, including mandatory postings under the State of Tennessee’s “Right to Know” law, safety training, and lab inspection. Training typically covers the type of hazard (specific examples, hazard recognition/communication, engineering controls (e.g. chemical exhaust hoods, biosafety cabinets), hazardous waste segregation/disposal, containment, and personal protective equipment and use/limitations.
Typically, genetically modified organisms, transgenic animals/plants, and any recombinant DNA molecules (i.e. nucleic acid pieces spliced together that would not normally be found in a natural system and capable replicating within a host system) are subject to Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) review and approval. However, our project is exempt from review under Appendix C of the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. The safety of our parts falls under these rules and so they are considered safe.
4. Do you have any other ideas how to deal with safety issues that could be useful for future iGEM competitions? How could parts, devices and systems be made even safer through biosafety engineering?
It has been suggested that many viruses are successful because of their use of powerful IRESs that divert the cell machinery from cellular mRNA towards viral needs. As such, many candidates for efficient IRESs can be found in dangerous viruses such as EMCV, HCV and even HIV. Within the context of iGEM, we suggest that undergraduates exercise extreme caution with any such IRESs, probably allowing a qualified advisor to complete any portion of the work involving contact with dangerous or potentially dangerous viruses. As seen in our project, many viral IRESs can be ordered commercially. We recommend this route for any undergraduates wishing to utilize viral IRESs.
"
