Team:Paris Bettencourt/Overview
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
(→Objectives) |
(→General recommandation for a good killswitch device) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<td> | <td> | ||
====General recommandation for a good killswitch device==== | ====General recommandation for a good killswitch device==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | *bla | ||
+ | *blo | ||
+ | *blu | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
+ | |||
===Step 1=== | ===Step 1=== | ||
[[File:Paris_Bettencourt_2012_General_Circuit_s1.gif|center|550px|Step 1.]] | [[File:Paris_Bettencourt_2012_General_Circuit_s1.gif|center|550px|Step 1.]] |
Revision as of 10:46, 26 September 2012
Project Overview
Contents |
Objectives
Our project aims to:
- Raise the issue of biosafety, and advocate the discerning use of biosafety circuits in future iGEM projects as a requirement
- Evaluate the risk of HGT in different SynBio applications
- Develop a new, improved containment system to expand the range of environments where GEOs can be used safely.
To do so, we:
- Engaged the general public and scientific community through debate
- Raised the question about how we can regulate this practices
- Compiled a parts page of safety circuits in the registry
- Relied on three levels of containment :
- Physical containment with alginate capsules
- Semantic containment using an amber suppressor system
- An improved killswitch featuring delayed population-level suicide through complete genome degradation.
We strived to make our system as robust against mutations as possible.
General recommandation for a good killswitch device
|
Step 1
Step 2
Step 2.
Step 3
Step 3.