Team:Edinburgh/Safety

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Ideas)
(Oversight)
Line 29: Line 29:
** '''If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?'''
** '''If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?'''
-
Yes there is, and indeed their permission will have to be obtained before we can carry out phage work in our category 1 laboratory.
+
Yes there is, and indeed their permission will have to be obtained before we can carry out phage work in our category 1 laboratory. A risk assessment must be submitted to them.
==Ideas==
==Ideas==

Revision as of 17:24, 12 July 2011

Contents

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 likely route of genetic escape is via our lab strain of E. coli, JM109, getting into the wild. While JM109 is not suitable for survival in the wild, 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 confers a fitness advantage to some host. However, the cell display of enzymes such as cellulases has already been accomplished by evolution, a fact which greatly decreases the likelihood of our own constructs conferring a fitness advantage.

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?

The BioBricks we will create will raise no issues escept for the ones discussed above.

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?

Yes there is, and indeed their permission will have to be obtained before we can carry out phage work in our category 1 laboratory. A risk assessment must be submitted to them.

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?

Not yet...


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

Edinburgh 2011
Project documentation: Project - BioSandwich - Parts - Modeling - Lab Notebook - Safety - Team - Attributions
Pages for members: Wiki Watch - Useful Links - Sequences - Primers - Practices - Official Profile (has email addresses)
(edit this navigation box)