Safety
The University of Lethbridge 2011 iGEM team is actively working towards developing a kit that will use safe methods to clean up the tailings ponds that are a result of the accumulation of toxic byproducts from the extraction processes used to harvest important natural resources such as oil. To this end, our team is taking into consideration not only the safety of ourselves as researchers but also that of the environment and general public as a whole.
Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
Researcher Safety
The University of Lethbridge iGEM team primarily uses the BL21 (DE3) strain of Escherichia coli bacteria as a chassis for our project. This bacterial strain is the most widely used among biologists, biochemists, and biotechnologists due to the fact that it is non-pathogenic and possesses several unique qualities that make it ideal for recombinant DNA experiments. It is also important to maintain the normal precautions that are undertaken in a laboratory setting which include maintaining aseptic technique, ensuring experimenters wear the appropriate protective equipment and disposing of harmful wastes in the correct manner at all times. All of these measures will ensure that there are no risks associated with the implementation of our project in the laboratory.
Public/Environmental Safety
Not only will safety measures have to be employed in our laboratory, the concerns of the general public must also be considered. The introduction of an engineered E. coli organism that will be designed to be capable of degrading harmful chemicals in tailings ponds naturally raises concerns with regard to the safety of the public and the environment. As previously discussed, the specific strain of E. coli used in our project is not harmful to humans or other organisms in the environment and as a part of the Escherichia genus, also are ubiquitous in nature. The University of Lethbridge iGEM team also plans to incorporate some controllable aspect into the bacterial genome, which would allow for degradation of the bacteria’s genome once it has been released, resulting in bacterial cell death. This mechanism of regulation will inhibit continued genetic propagation by hindering the spread of the organism within the environment. Furthermore, the team also intends to localize the enzymes responsible for the degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), into protein microcompartments, which could then be distributed in the form of a biodegradable powder. This would eliminate the use of bacteria altogether and should greatly alleviate any concerns related to their release and the potential threat to public and environmental safety.
Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues?
The BioBrick components that the University of Lethbridge 2011 team has proposed to make do not raise any immediate safety issues. However, as a team, we have examined the future consequences that could arise from the improper use of any portion of the parts that will be submitted to the Registry. At a high enough concentration, the Mms6 gene could be used to generate toxic magnetic nanoparticles that could potentially pose a risk, especially if improperly handled. The gene, xylE, is not particularly harmful on its own but the chemical compound, catechol, that the xylE protein, catechol-2,3-dioxygenase, is responsible for breaking down, can be poisonous upon ingestion and therefore should be treated utilizing appropriate safety measures. The microcompartments made from the lumazine synthase gene, could house inappropriate agents with their potential to serve as storage vesicles. Several previous iGEM teams have used the remaining parts that will be incorporated into our project this year, such as Antigen 43 and BamHI for sedimentation and degradation purposes respectively, without having raised any significant safety issues. Even though no concerns directly related to the safety of our BioBrick parts exists at this time, it is important to consider what potential problems could be discovered in the future.
Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? And if yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project?
At the University of Lethbridge, the Risk and Safety Services department has appointed a committee devoted to biosafety. This university committee ensures that biological materials are used safely on campus, and they foresee no problems with the University of Lethbridge 2011 iGEM team’s project, as long as the proper safety practices in the laboratory are employed.
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?
One of the most useful ways in dealing with safety issues in future iGEM competitions is to continue to have teams complete this mandatory review of the safety of their overall project and to closely examine each of their parts to be submitted to the Registry of Standard Parts. This safety review ensures that teams are critically thinking not only as they work in the laboratory but also as they are promoting their project on a larger scale, especially to the general public. Additionally, having one member of the team be in charge of ensuring that the entire team is aware of any safety issues that could potentially be associated with their project is of utmost importance. This designated safety person would be required to gather the necessary reactions and thoughts from both their fellow team members and the public to determine how synthetic biology and their project in particular could pose a danger.
The University of Lethbridge 2011 iGEM team with its proposal to incorporate the BamHI gene into its constructs, wants to possess the capability of degrading the bacterial genomic material, upon release into the tailings ponds environment. To apply this concept more generally in order to make biological engineering safer, having control over the growth of the system could be accomplished through the careful planning and design of the parts and devices that comprise them. This could be established by having bacteria incorporate a plasmid that can be triggered to translate a toxin. By choosing endonucleases such as BamHI as the toxin, scientists can destroy the genetic material within their bacteria and ultimately prevent future replication and downstream unpredictable and negative ramifications.
"
