"

From 2011.igem.org

Revision as of 12:45, 11 July 2011 (view source) Allancrossman (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:02, 11 July 2011 (view source) Allancrossman (Talk | contribs) (→Safety (general)) Newer edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	** '''environmental safety?'''		** '''environmental safety?'''
-	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.	+	This year's project involves catalysing reactions by using enzymes displayed on bacteriophage and on the bacterial cell surface. A simple test system will involve amylase or GFP; a more complex system would incorporate multiple types of cellulase. None of these things are harmful to humans. The primary concern therefore should be that no harm comes to the environment due to escape of recombinant DNA into the metagenome.
		+
		+	The phage system is such that BioBrick DNA will not be packaged into the phage, so transfer of DNA to other organisms by this route should be impossible. Any escaping phage will contain only normal M13 DNA, and code for normal M13 proteins.
		+
		+	A more plausible route of genetic escape is via our lab strain of ''E. coli'', JM109, escaping into the wild. While JM109 is not suitable for survival in the wild. However, the possibility of horizontal transfer of DNA to other strains, or even species, should not be ruled out.
		+
		+	Such DNA could become established in the metagenome if it confered a fitness advantage to some host.
	==Safety (BioBricks)==		==Safety (BioBricks)==

---

Revision as of 13:02, 11 July 2011

Contents 1 Safety (general) 2 Safety (BioBricks) 3 Oversight 4 Ideas

Safety (general)

• Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
  • researcher safety,
  • public safety, or
  • environmental safety?

This year's project involves catalysing reactions by using enzymes displayed on bacteriophage and on the bacterial cell surface. A simple test system will involve amylase or GFP; a more complex system would incorporate multiple types of cellulase. None of these things are harmful to humans. The primary concern therefore should be that no harm comes to the environment due to escape of recombinant DNA into the metagenome.

The phage system is such that BioBrick DNA will not be packaged into the phage, so transfer of DNA to other organisms by this route should be impossible. Any escaping phage will contain only normal M13 DNA, and code for normal M13 proteins.

A more plausible route of genetic escape is via our lab strain of E. coli, JM109, escaping into the wild. While JM109 is not suitable for survival in the wild. However, the possibility of horizontal transfer of DNA to other strains, or even species, should not be ruled out.

Such DNA could become established in the metagenome if it confered a fitness advantage to some host.

Safety (BioBricks)

• 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?

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non recusandae. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Oversight

• 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?

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?

Ideas

• 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?

No.

This was the old Navbox for Edinburgh; now it's obsolete...