"
Team:UC Chile2/Biosafety
From 2012.igem.org
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<li><strong> researcher or public safety, </strong> </li> | <li><strong> researcher or public safety, </strong> </li> | ||
| - | No pathogenic microorganisms or dangerous genes | + | No pathogenic microorganisms or dangerous genes are considered in our ideas, in consequence, our intended projects, if executed, do not represent any risk to researchers nor public safety. |
<li><strong> environmental safety? </strong> </li> | <li><strong> environmental safety? </strong> </li> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
</strong> | </strong> | ||
| - | Yes, the release of biobricks made from Synechocystis genome´s sequences or at least with a region homologous to it | + | Yes, the release of biobricks made from Synechocystis genome´s sequences or at least with a region homologous to it raise the possibility of recombination by environmental cyanobacteria. To address this issue we have proposed and designed a biosafety mechanism discussed in question number 4 (see below). |
Furthermore, our laboratory practices enforce strict methods to handle any biological material. As DNA is always hermetically contained or discarded with other biological material according to standard protocols we believe that our practices will not produce any environmental hazard. | Furthermore, our laboratory practices enforce strict methods to handle any biological material. As DNA is always hermetically contained or discarded with other biological material according to standard protocols we believe that our practices will not produce any environmental hazard. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><strong> did you document these issues in the Registry? </strong></li> | <li><strong> did you document these issues in the Registry? </strong></li> | ||
| + | (not asnwering the questions) | ||
It has to be stated that any of the sequences designed and/or handled by our team are not <i>per se</i> dangerous nor they represent a fitness advantage to recombinant strains. | It has to be stated that any of the sequences designed and/or handled by our team are not <i>per se</i> dangerous nor they represent a fitness advantage to recombinant strains. | ||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
<li><strong> how did you manage to handle the safety issue? </strong> </li> | <li><strong> how did you manage to handle the safety issue? </strong> </li> | ||
| - | <b>Yo creo que acá no están hablando de como descartar las células...</b> | + | <b>Yo creo que acá no están hablando de como descartar las células... </b> |
Recombinant and non-recombinant cells are exposed to a heat shock (95°) previous to ethanol washing and discard in biosafety cabinets | Recombinant and non-recombinant cells are exposed to a heat shock (95°) previous to ethanol washing and discard in biosafety cabinets | ||
| - | Our lab | + | |
| + | Our lab follows the Manual of Biosafety, established by the Superior Counsel of Science and Technological Development, from the National Fund of Scientific and Technological Development of Chile (FONDECYT).(1) | ||
<li><strong> How could other teams learn from your experience? </strong> </li> | <li><strong> How could other teams learn from your experience? </strong> </li> | ||
| - | + | To adress the possibility of recombinant Synechocystis cells being released from the lab, we've designed a recombination plasmid that knocks out the copS gene. This gene codes for a Cu-binding protein and is essential to Cu stress response in Synechocystis. It has been demonstrated that strains lacking this gene can´t survive in much lesser Cu concentrations found in drink water or natural water bodies (2). | |
We advice every team working in this chassis to adopt similar strategies. By designing integrative plasmids which interrupt fitness related genes, recombinant strains will be auxotrophic and/or hiper-suceptible. Thus, their recombinant cyanobacterial strains will be unable to thrive in natural environments. | We advice every team working in this chassis to adopt similar strategies. By designing integrative plasmids which interrupt fitness related genes, recombinant strains will be auxotrophic and/or hiper-suceptible. Thus, their recombinant cyanobacterial strains will be unable to thrive in natural environments. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 50: | ||
<li><strong>Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? </strong> </li> | <li><strong>Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? </strong> </li> | ||
| - | Yes, | + | Yes, there is a local biosafety panel in our institution. The Comitee of Bioethics and Biosafety of the Biological Sciences Faculty of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile has reviewed our work and determined that the procedures involved in our project follow the bioethical and biosafety standards for research regulations provided by the Chilean Comission of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT). |
<html> | <html> | ||
| Line 54: | Line 56: | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
| - | + | Furthermore, our lab follows the Manual of Biosafety, established by the Superior Counsel of Science and Technological Development, from the National Fund of Scientific and Technological Development of Chile (FONDECYT). | |
<html> | <html> | ||
| Line 68: | Line 70: | ||
The requirement of this biosafety assessment for a team to win the gold medal would be a strong incentive. | The requirement of this biosafety assessment for a team to win the gold medal would be a strong incentive. | ||
| - | Regarding to the molecular methods by which biosafety could be improved | + | Regarding to the molecular methods by which biosafety could be improved, we believe that the implementation of a lethal system to all iGEM plasmid backbones would prove essential. The system would kill the recombinant cells unless its action is inhibited by a compound present in the culture media but that its concentration in the environment is insignificant. That way, recombinant cells which are leaked to the environment will have no possibility to thrive in environmental conditions. |
Concerning the last paragraph, we have already thought of such a system. We have found a perfect candidate gen to be placed under a constitutive promoter that produces cell lysis. Soon we will document more information about it in our wiki. | Concerning the last paragraph, we have already thought of such a system. We have found a perfect candidate gen to be placed under a constitutive promoter that produces cell lysis. Soon we will document more information about it in our wiki. | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
Revision as of 20:45, 7 September 2012
- Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
- researcher or public safety,
- environmental safety?
No pathogenic microorganisms or dangerous genes are considered in our ideas, in consequence, our intended projects, if executed, do not represent any risk to researchers nor public safety.
As Synechocystis is a naturally competent environmental bacteria that undergoes homologous recombination, there is a posibility that if laboratory recombinant strains are leaked to the environment there may be environmental safety issues such as lateral DNA transference and endogenous species endangerment. We discuss this issue further in question number 4 (see below).
- Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues?
Yes, the release of biobricks made from Synechocystis genome´s sequences or at least with a region homologous to it raise the possibility of recombination by environmental cyanobacteria. To address this issue we have proposed and designed a biosafety mechanism discussed in question number 4 (see below).
Furthermore, our laboratory practices enforce strict methods to handle any biological material. As DNA is always hermetically contained or discarded with other biological material according to standard protocols we believe that our practices will not produce any environmental hazard.
- 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?
(not asnwering the questions)
It has to be stated that any of the sequences designed and/or handled by our team are not per se dangerous nor they represent a fitness advantage to recombinant strains.
This is kinda strange Regarding to living cells, as they carry recombinant DNA, the same precautions as for that molecule apply.
Yo creo que acá no están hablando de como descartar las células... Recombinant and non-recombinant cells are exposed to a heat shock (95°) previous to ethanol washing and discard in biosafety cabinets
Our lab follows the Manual of Biosafety, established by the Superior Counsel of Science and Technological Development, from the National Fund of Scientific and Technological Development of Chile (FONDECYT).(1)
To adress the possibility of recombinant Synechocystis cells being released from the lab, we've designed a recombination plasmid that knocks out the copS gene. This gene codes for a Cu-binding protein and is essential to Cu stress response in Synechocystis. It has been demonstrated that strains lacking this gene can´t survive in much lesser Cu concentrations found in drink water or natural water bodies (2).
We advice every team working in this chassis to adopt similar strategies. By designing integrative plasmids which interrupt fitness related genes, recombinant strains will be auxotrophic and/or hiper-suceptible. Thus, their recombinant cyanobacterial strains will be unable to thrive in natural environments.
- Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
- 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?
Yes, there is a local biosafety panel in our institution. The Comitee of Bioethics and Biosafety of the Biological Sciences Faculty of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile has reviewed our work and determined that the procedures involved in our project follow the bioethical and biosafety standards for research regulations provided by the Chilean Comission of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT).
Click here to download our Certificate from the Comitee of Bioethics and Biosafety
Furthermore, our lab follows the Manual of Biosafety, established by the Superior Counsel of Science and Technological Development, from the National Fund of Scientific and Technological Development of Chile (FONDECYT).
Click here to download the Manual of Biosafety
To prevent future problems and to encourage the construction of biosafe standard biological parts, we, UC_Chile team, propose the creation of the section “biosafety analysis” mandatory for all parts before their shipping to the registry. This way, it is assured that each new biobrick or device includes an assessment of the risks and biosafety advantages involved in its physical implementation.
Alongside the previous, we suggest the characterization of biosafety levels of other team’s constructs, making this practice analogous to the existing standard characterization of bricks. The requirement of this biosafety assessment for a team to win the gold medal would be a strong incentive.
Regarding to the molecular methods by which biosafety could be improved, we believe that the implementation of a lethal system to all iGEM plasmid backbones would prove essential. The system would kill the recombinant cells unless its action is inhibited by a compound present in the culture media but that its concentration in the environment is insignificant. That way, recombinant cells which are leaked to the environment will have no possibility to thrive in environmental conditions.
Concerning the last paragraph, we have already thought of such a system. We have found a perfect candidate gen to be placed under a constitutive promoter that produces cell lysis. Soon we will document more information about it in our wiki.
