"
Team:LMU-Munich/Laboratory Safety
From 2012.igem.org
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
<b>Question 1</b> | <b>Question 1</b> | ||
| - | The subproject <b><i>Bacillus</i>B</b>io<b>B</b>rick<b>B</b>ox is about the construction and evaluation of harmless BioBricks (see Answer 2) and therefore does not raise any safety issues. The Sporobeads are potentially living GMOs and could potentially harm the public or the environment. Although we have great plans for the use of our Sporobeads, they never leave our laboratory, so they cannot harm the public or environment. For possible future applications, we try to block the germination of our Sporobeads so that they can not proliferate in two different ways (see [[Team:LMU-Munich/Germination_Stop '''Germination'''Stop]]). This is our approach towards the safety of our Sporobeads. | + | The subproject <b><i>Bacillus</i>B</b>io<b>B</b>rick<b>B</b>ox is about the construction and evaluation of harmless BioBricks (see Answer 2) and therefore does not raise any safety issues. The Sporobeads are potentially living GMOs and could potentially harm the public or the environment. Although we have great plans for the use of our Sporobeads, they never leave our laboratory, so they cannot harm the public or environment. For possible future applications, we try to block the germination of our Sporobeads so that they can not proliferate in two different ways (see [[Team:LMU-Munich/Germination_Stop|'''Germination'''Stop]]). This is our approach towards the safety of our Sporobeads. |
We did not work on that, but there also is the possibility to remove antibiotic resitance genes from the Bacillus subtilis genome [for example with [https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/6/6d/LMU-Munich_2012_Clean_deletions_in_Bacillus_subtilis.pdf pMAD], a vector that we used to delete genes in ''B. subtilis'']. All our construct are used while being integrated into the genome. Therefore all resistances could be removed (without removing the functional constructs) before the use of the Sporobeads. Thereby any pathogens would not have the possibility to grab resistance genes from our strains. | We did not work on that, but there also is the possibility to remove antibiotic resitance genes from the Bacillus subtilis genome [for example with [https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/6/6d/LMU-Munich_2012_Clean_deletions_in_Bacillus_subtilis.pdf pMAD], a vector that we used to delete genes in ''B. subtilis'']. All our construct are used while being integrated into the genome. Therefore all resistances could be removed (without removing the functional constructs) before the use of the Sporobeads. Thereby any pathogens would not have the possibility to grab resistance genes from our strains. | ||
Revision as of 09:46, 5 September 2012
The LMU-Munich team is exuberantly happy about the great success at the World Championship Jamboree in Boston. Our project Beadzillus finished 4th and won the prize for the "Best Wiki" (with Slovenia) and "Best New Application Project".
[ more news ]
Laboratory Safety
For iGEM 2012, teams are asked to detail how they approached any issues of biological safety associated with their projects. Specifically, teams should consider the following questions:
1) Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
- a) researcher safety,
- b) public safety, or
- c) environmental safety?
2) Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? If yes,
- a) did you document these issues in the Registry?
- b) how did you manage to handle the safety issue?
- c) How could other teams learn from your experience?
3) Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
- a) If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project?
- b) If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?
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?
Answers:
In general:
To assure safe working practice throughout the competition, every team member participated in a general safety meeting regarding good laboratory practice and working with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including storage and disposal. We work only with non-hazardous, non-pathogenic organisms like Escherichia coli (lab strain XL1 blue) and Bacillus subtilis (W168). In the lab, we wear a lab coat and single-use gloves. When working with hazardous chemicals (e.g. liquid N2) we wear goggles as well. Furthermore, dangerous substances are stored and handled in designated rooms in order to assure the safety of the researchers.
For the protection of the public and the environment against hazardous substances, all GMO-contaminated waste is inactivated by autoclavation. Before leaving the laboratory, every researcher cleans and disinfects his/her hands. Moreover, we leave the windows closed and do not discard any dangerous substances in the sink.
Question 1
The subproject BacillusBioBrickBox is about the construction and evaluation of harmless BioBricks (see Answer 2) and therefore does not raise any safety issues. The Sporobeads are potentially living GMOs and could potentially harm the public or the environment. Although we have great plans for the use of our Sporobeads, they never leave our laboratory, so they cannot harm the public or environment. For possible future applications, we try to block the germination of our Sporobeads so that they can not proliferate in two different ways (see GerminationStop). This is our approach towards the safety of our Sporobeads.
We did not work on that, but there also is the possibility to remove antibiotic resitance genes from the Bacillus subtilis genome [for example with pMAD, a vector that we used to delete genes in B. subtilis]. All our construct are used while being integrated into the genome. Therefore all resistances could be removed (without removing the functional constructs) before the use of the Sporobeads. Thereby any pathogens would not have the possibility to grab resistance genes from our strains.
Question 2
Our biobricks contain promotors, regulators, a bacterial toxine and reporter genes. None of them are able to cause illnesses or threaten humans in any other way. All inserts are also derived from non-pathogenic, non-hazardous organisms. The amplified and cloned fragments again belong to the GMO safety class S1.
Question 3
We did an interview with the safety Commissioner Dr. Schufar who is responsible for our university. He confirmed that we are working with a safe strain (B. subtilis W168 which has a tryptophan auxotrophy) and are only using safe plasmids, genes and promoters. He is not in a position to allow the release of our spores, but according to the present law, it should be allowed. At the moment, there are ongoing discussions for a SynBio law which is not established, yet. For details, please have a look at our interview.
Germany has signed and ratified the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. This protocol ensures safe handling, use and transfer of genetically modified organisms. Furthermore, we have our own laws and guidelines for biosafety here. For example, all laboratories which are handling GMOs have a designated biosafety level, which is stated in a genetic engineering decree (Gentechnik Sicherheitsverordnung) and monitored by university officials.
The general safety rules are listed here (This file is derived from Göttingen University, but the rules are identical.)
Question 4
One part is the removal of resistance cassettes (not possible in organsims that have plasmids). We also like the toxin-antitoxin system described by Cambridge last year.
Part of the GerminationSTOP is the Suicideswitch (see Team:LMU-Munich/Germination_Stop germination stop) which yields a toxin during Sporulation and therefore kills the cell upon Germination. This is a device dedicated to make our Sporobeads safe. But if linked to another Promotor it could be turned on in other cases and could therefore also make other systems safe.
