• Home
• The Team
  • Students
  • Advisors / Instructors
  • Attribution
  • Gallery
• GEMOTE Project
  • Abstract
  • Project description
  • Characterisation
  • Applications / Perspectives
  • Materials / Techniques
  • Notebook
    • Week 1
    • Week 2
    • Week 3
    • Week 4
    • Week 5
    • Week 6
    • Week 7
    • Week 8
    • Week 9
    • Week 10
    • Week 11
    • Week 12
    • Week 13
• Communication
  • Exposition
  • Scientific Meetings
  • Media
  • Future Projects
• Our Partners
  • Hosting Institution
  • Sponsors
• Safety
• Contact Us

(1) World Health Organization. 2004. Laboratory biosafety manual. Third edition. Geneva

1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:

- researcher safety,
- public safety, or
- environmental safety?

Researcher safety.

Of course we are aware that laboratory work usually comes with some risks and we took those risks into account during our  practical work. Thus, all our experiments were carried out using E. coli DH5alpha as the host organism, a strain that is non-pathogenic (class 1 micro-organisms). The vectors and biobricks we used did not confer any pathogenic nature/characteristic to the host strain. For more information about researcher safety, see also answer to question 3.

Public safety.

During the course of an experiment, we made sure members of the general public didn't have access to the lab by keeping the door locked. In any case, the system as constructed now has no public safety issues, as the host, vectors and biobricks are all non-pathogenic.

Environmental safety.

We kept in mind that any bacterial modification creates the risk of genetic transduction to other bacteria. Therefore, it can have consequences we are unable to anticipate. We thought about the impact our experiments could have on the environment. The biobrick we have constructed does not raise any environmental issues. Furthermore, one of the potential applications we thought of for our system is a “suicidal bacterium” that would bring along its own death outside of a specified temperature range centered around the temperature at which the bacterium is grown in the laboratory, preventing its spread in the environment.

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?

Our BioBrick is a composite of others BioBricks, none of which raise any safety issues. Indeed, our BioBrick is made of a regulatory part upstream of the operon coding the synthesis chain of Lycopene, an iniquitous compound found in tomatoes and already used in E.coli by many others teams without any problems.
Furthermore, our system could be used by others teams in order to reduce the chances of organisms spreading in case of accidental dissemination. (see below).

3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project?
If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?

There is, in every department of the Université Paris-Sud, a comity in charge of hygiene and security. Consequently, the Institute of Genetics and Microbiology, location at which we performed our experiments, has a bureau in charge of hygiene and security whose GMO section is directed by one of our instructors: Jean-Luc Pernodet.
His presence in the team helped us think of the dangers linked to disseminating GMOs into the environment, as well as ways to resolve these problems.
We also learned about the rules specific to the room we were conducting our experiments in with the person in charge of the laboratory (gas usage, handling of BET (ethidium bromide), processing of chemical and biological waste...).

We also payed attention to the security memorandum and signed the hygiene and security charter of the Institute of Genetics and Microbiology:
Security memorandum.
Hygiene and security charter.

All experiments were carried out according to French Safety Regulations.

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?

Our project has applications that could potentially contribute to improving safety in the field of synthetic biology. Indeed, we could replace the lycopene operon by a gene encoding a toxin, which would would provoke the bacterium's death if grown outside a predefined temperature range. This would avoid contaminating the environment with GMOs. Thus our project could help us keep the laboratory clean. At a larger scale, our project could allow us to preserve the environment and therefore may also help mitigate people's negative views of synthetic biology.