"

From 2011.igem.org

Main iGEM page

.

The Beginning	Meet The Team	About The Project	Parts Submitted to the Registry	Modelling	Notebook	Safety	Attributions

Safety

Biosafety: what exactly is it?

Biosafety is defined as the prevention of 1) Persons being exposed to organism as well as toxic chemicals that can cause disease 2) The accidental release of the aforementioned organisms or chemicals

The major biosafety concern tackled herein is the prevention of unwanted/detrimental effects on the environment caused by the release of genetically modified organisms.

Biosafety of genetically modified plants: Why should we be concerned?

The overall reason to test genetically modified organisms before their release is because humankinds total impact on ecosystems services (i.e. ecological processes that benefit human kind) from previous introduction of new technologies is substantial (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005). It has been learned from the past 100 years of industrial –technological development that all environmentally related technological development came with a price – many of which outweigh the benefits.(Harremoës 2002) Consequently all new environmental stresses need to be carefully assessed. (Lövei et al 2007) Approximately 70% of the African population is engaged in agriculture. Consequently introduction of technologies such as genetically modified plants must be tested as their effects will directly affect the lives of the majority of the populace. To add to the importance of testing the plants is the fact that in tropical countries , agricultural producers depend on ecosystem services (ecological process that human kind benefit from) more closely than farmers in developed countries (Lövei et al 2007)

Team Nairobi biosafety approach

Would the materials used in your project and/or your final products pose:

a. Risks to the safety and health of team members or others in the lab?

The materials used in this project do not pose any risks to team members and others in the lab. The experiment proteins used from the bacteria are not harmful to any animals . To the best of our knowledge Metarhizium has little to no impact on humans or other mammals in the field (Siegel et al, 1997). However,

• Cases of sinusitis have been reported in man suspected to have been caused by M. anisopliae (Revankar et al, 1999). Thus far, this is among the few potential harmful effects Metarhizium can have on vertebrates.
• In humans, there are six reported cases of a disease caused by M. anisopliae. M. anisopliae var. anisopliae was isolated for the first time from the eye of a Colombian male as the aetiological agent of keratomycosis (Cepero de Garcia et al. 1997). A topical natamycin treatment was successful. These harmful effects were however also described as being very rare. (Howard et al, 2002).

b. Risks to the safety and health of the general public if released by design or accident?

It has no grave risks except for allergic reactions in already allergy susceptible individuals. Such individuals should be fore warned before use of the insecticide. As described above, Metarhizium has little to no impact on humans or other mammals in the field (Siegel JP. 1997). Safety data on naturally occurring M. anisopliae were summarised by Siegel and Shadduck (1990) and Zimmermann (1993). Previously, there were no reports of M. anisopliae infecting mammals or humans. However, to date some cases of human and mammalian infections have been described but none was associated with the use of M. anisopliae as a bio control agent.

Cases of allergy reports and studies include the following:

• In humans, a severe dermal hyper allergic response caused by an isolate of M. anisopliae var. acridum was reported by Goettel et al (2001). It was attributed to the widespread use of M. anisopliae for biocontrol of various sugar cane pests in Brazil. Several persons showing asthmatic symptoms due to this fungus were reported (see Barbieri et al. 2005).
• On the other hand, no allergic effects on the researchers, manufacturing staff, formulators or on field workers working with mycoinsecticides based on various strains of M. anisopliae var. anisopliae (BIO 1020, strain FI-1045, strains ICIPE 30 and 69) and M. anisopliae var. acridum (strains IMI 330189 and FI-985) were observed (Copping 2004).
• First inhalation experiments of M. anisopliae conidia were conducted in rats, guinea pigs and mice (Schaerffenberg, 1968; Shadduck et al, 1982; El-Kadi et al, 1983). No allergic reactions were observed.
• Further investigations, however, demonstrated that M. anisopliae has an allergenic potential. Ward et al (1998, 2000) carried out a series of studies injecting crude allergenic extract inoculations obtained from a M. anisopliae strain, into mice and demonstrated that this extract contains components that induce immunologically mediated inflammatory responses. The histo-pathological effects seen were characteristic of an allergic reaction.

Fractions of specific crude extract of M. Anisoplia, suspected to induce an allergic reaction were obtained by Barbieri et al (2005). M. anisopliae was found to have the ability of potentiating the hypersensitivity reaction to an allergen in mice and thus may also worsen allergy in susceptible individuals (Instanes et al, 2006).

• The first well documented case of mammalian infection by M. anisopliae var. anisopliae was described by Muir et al. (1998). An invasive mycotic rhinitis was diagnosed in a cat with a 4-month history of nasal discharge and subcutaneous swelling of the nasal bridge. The infection was treated with orally administered itraconazole.

Is there a similar product and what do they use?

Yes, though none are transgenic. There are commercial biocontrol products in the market that use Metarhizium as their reactive agent. Below is a list of commercial biopesticides that use fungi as their active agents according to Gisbert Zimmerman, 2007; Table II. Mycopesticides of Metarhizium anisopliae registered or under commercial development (Butt et al, 2001; Wraight et al, 2001; Copping, 2004; Kabaluk, 2005; Zimmermann, 2005). Product/Trade name Company/Producer Country/Origin BioBlast EcoScience USA Bio-Cane Granules Becker-Underwood Australia Bio-Catch-M Stanes India Bio-Green Granules Becker-Underwood Australia Bio-Magic Stanes India BioPath EcoScience USA Cobican Probioagro Venezuela Gran Met-P Kwizda/Agrifutur Austria/Italy Green Guard SC Becker-Underwood Australia Green Guard ULV Becker-Underwood Australia Green Muscle CABI Bioscience/NPP UK/France Metaquino _ Brazil Metarhizium Schweizer Lbu (formerly Eric Schweizer Seeds) Switzerland Metathripol ICIPE Kenya Muchwatox (proposed) ICIPE Kenya Pacer SOM Phytopharma India Taenure Granular Bioinsecticide Novozymes Biologicals (formerly Earth BioSciences) USA TAE-001 Technical Bioinsecticide Novozymes Biologicals (formerly Earth BioSciences) USA Tick-Ex EC Novozymes Biologicals (formerly Earth BioSciences) USA Tick-Ex G Novozymes Biologicals (formerly Earth BioSciences) USA

c. Risks to environmental quality if released by design or accident

The risk to environmental quality is very low. There is however a slight risk to the following: • Developing embryos of the inland silverside fish (Fred J. Genthner and Douglas P. Middaugh, 1995). • Juvenile mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis, (Genthner et al, 1998). No mortalities or adverse effects were observed in adult Gambusia affinis • Parasitic hymenoptera under laboratory condition an effect that was not confirmed under cage (Stolz I. 1999) or field conditions (Peveling R et al. 1999). • Developing embryos of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio (Genthner et al. 1997, 1998). Metarhizium anisopliae has antagonistic properties against some phytopathogenic fungi, but is also suppressed by several mycoparasites. The fungus was shown to be antagonistic to two strains of Ophistoma ulmi (=Ceratocystis ulmi), the cause of Dutch elm disease (Gemma et al. 1984)

d. Risks to security through malicious misuse by individuals, groups or states?

There are no major concerns attributable to any of the parts used. The deployment of transformed strain of M. anisopliae did not depress the culturable indigenous fungal microflora (Hu et al, 2002) had no phytopathogenic or phytotoxic effects on leaves or plant roots, as a couple of studies sought to find out. (Zimmermann, 1981, Stenzel, 1992).

• There were no harmful effects on soil organisms like the collembolans, Folsomia candida). The collembollans consumed and inactivated the insect pathogen without any harmful effects. (Reinecke et al. 1990, Broza et al, 2001).
• There were no effects when fed to the leopard frog, Rana pipiens. (Donovan-Peluso et al, 1980) nor frog embryos were exposure to it. (Genthner et al, 1998)
• Avian safety studies were conducted with the Japanese quail by Wasti et al (1980). There was no mortality or abnormal behaviour in the experimental birds.
• Ring-necked pheasants were also demonstrated to not be toxically susceptible. (Smits et al. 1999, Johnson et al. 2002).
• Destruxin B is a major metabolite produced by M. anisopliae (Buchwaldt et al, 1992) causes necrotic and chlorotic symptoms both on host and nonhost plants. However, there are no observations on phytotoxic reactions in plants after application of M. anisopliae, which demonstrate that destruxin B is produced only after successful infection of the plant by A. brassicae.

2. If your response to any of the questions above is yes:

a. explain how you addressed these issues in project design and while conducting laboratory work.

To ensure safety of team members and others in the lab, basic lab safety measures are adhered to like use of gloves, face masks and goggles while working with Metarhizium spp. Later, a disclaimer will accompany the product upon completion as to the potential danger of the transgenic fungus to select organisms like fish. In the drafting of the methodology all risks were assessed and proper machinery used. The least antigenic strains were selected and also there are no animal or fish testing phases of the project.

b. Describe and document safety, security, health and/or environmental issues as you submit your parts to the Registry.

Of importance are the potential allergic effects on humans who are immunologically susceptible to adverse hypersensitivity reactions. (Barbieri et al, 2005, Instanes et al, 2006).

3. Under what biosafety provisions will / do you operate?

The project and all its undertaking are operated under the national biosafety guidelines(Kenya)

4. Does your institution have its own biosafety rules and if so what are they?

Our institution does have its own biosafety rules which are based off the national biosafety rules. Availability to them is however, at this point and time not possible. .the institution also has its own biosafety committee. However we were unable to discuss the project with them.

5. Will / did you receive any biosafety and/or lab training before beginning your project? If so, describe this training.

We did receive biosafety and lab training before this project. This came to use as part of our course work as we are had taken units that specifically deal with lab training. The units are called laboratory techniques and laboratory methods in microbiology. The relevant training we received pertaining to biosafety included: Laboratory safety ;containment and disinfection; physical containment levels- their laboratories equipment and respective work practices in each level; isolation and culture of microorganisms and sterilisation techniques

6. Does your country have national biosafety regulations or guidelines? If so, provide a link to them online if possible.

Yes. Below are the national biosafety guidelines.

National Guidelines for Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into the Environment:

Biosafety procedures for genetic modification and release are well established in most industrialized countries, thus reflecting the level of biotechnology activities undertaken. In a developing country like Kenya, research in genetic modification is being performed on a smaller scale in government funded research institutions and universities. Nevertheless, release experiments of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is envisaged in the future. Kenya also envisages that there will be release experiments performed by multi-national companies. Taking these into consideration, there is an urgent need for developing biosafety procedures at the national level and providing advice to the Government on biosafety policies. The establishment of biosafety regulations is to ensure monitoring and regulation of international projects pertaining to genetic modification and release, commercial activities and technologies, as well as development, release and large scale use of GMOs. The proposed National Guidelines for release of GMOs into the environment have been developed from the existing principles derived from relevant regulations and guidelines at national, regional and international levels.

Full document: [http://www.biosafetykenya.co.ke/documents/ChecklistforInspectionRELEASEOFGMOsinKenya.pdf] Guidelines for Monitoring and Inspecting GMOs in Kenya. Introduction Inspection, Monitoring and Evaluation is a fairly new discipline all over the world. Monitoring is a regular, systematic and consistent assessment of the progress achieved in the implementation of an activity that is aimed at meeting set objectives, to ensure accountability, cost effectiveness, timeliness and quality and must include taking corrective measures. Inspection is the official examination of a regulated article to determine if genetically modified organisms are present and or to determine compliance with the laws and regulations. The basic assumption in monitoring and evaluation is that, effective implementation of a project will have a positive impact on the economy, welfare of people, etc. The main objective of monitoring and inspection is to ensure that the development, transport, use, transfer and release of any LMO are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biological diversity taking also into account risks to human health. Full document: [http://www.biosafetykenya.co.ke/documents/ChecklistforInspectionRELEASEOFGMOsinKenya.pdf]

Inspection Guidelines for Contained Use (Laboratory Activities) for GMOs in Kenya. [http://www.biosafetykenya.co.ke/documents/ChecklistforInspection1containeduselaboratory.pdf]

Inspection Guidelines for Contained Use (Glass-houses & Growth-rooms) for GMOs in Kenya (Biosafety Level 1-3). [http://www.biosafetykenya.co.ke/documents/ChecklistforInspections3containeduseglasshouse.pdf]

Inspection Guidelines for Field Trials of GMOs in Kenya. [http://www.biosafetykenya.co.ke/documents/ChecklistforInspections4Fieldtrials.pdf]

7. Do you have other ideas on how to deal with safety or security issues that could be useful for future iGEM competitions?

As the number of parts increase the registry needs to document any possible interactions between all available parts

iGEM could also come up with standard biosafety rues that should be sent out to participating teams when they receive their parts. These can be used in addition to the national biosafety rules… Also a special part of the competition can be dedicated to the development of safe parts!!

How could parts, devices and systems be made even safer through bio safety engineering?

Through the creation of switches, if the part leaves a predetermined environment, a self destruct (apoptotic-like) mechanism can be triggered which will ensure that the part eases to function.

---

References

Siegel JP. 1997. Testing the pathogenicity and infectivity of entomopathogens to mammals. In Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathology, ed. L Lacey, pp. 325–36. New York: Academic

Cepero de Garcia MC, Arboleda ML, Barraquer F, Grose E, de Garcia MC. 1997. Fungal keratitis caused by Metarhizium anisopliae var. anisopliae. Medical Mycology 35:361_363.

Revankar, S. G., D. A. Sutton, S. E. Sanche, J. Rao, M. Zervos, F. Dashti, and M. G. Rinaldi. 1999. Metarrhizium anisopliae as a cause of sinusitis in immunocompetent hosts. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37: 195Ð198

Howard s. ginsberg,1, 2 Roger a. lebrun,1 Klaus heyer,1 and Elyes zhioua1 Potential Nontarget Effects of Metarhizium anisopliae (Deuteromycetes) Used for Biological Control of Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). Environ. Entomol. 31(6): 1191Ð1196 (2002). Pp 1195.

Goettel MS, Hajek AE, Siegel JP, Evans HC. 2001. Safety of fungal biocontrol agents. In: Butt TM, Jackson C, Magan N, editors. Fungi as biocontrol agents: progress, problems and potential. Wallingford, UK: CABI International. pp 347_376.

Barbieri RT, Croce J, Gandra RF, Gagete E, Paula CR, Gambale W. 2005. Allergenic extracts from Metarhizium anisopliae: Obtainment and characterization. Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology 15:131_139. -Copping LG, editor. 2004. The manual of biocontrol agents. 3rd ed. Alton: British Crop Protection Council. p 702.

Schaerffenberg B. 1968. Untersuchungen u¨ber die Wirkung der insektento¨tenden Pilze Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. und Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorok. auf Warmblu¨ tler. Entomophaga 13:175_182.

Shadduck JA, Roberts DW, Lause S. 1982. Mammalian safety tests of Metarhizium anisopliae. Preliminary results. Environmental Entomology 11:189_192

El-Kadi MK, Xara´ LS, De Matos PF, Da Rocha JVN, De Oliveira DP. 1983. Effects of the entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae on guinea pigs and mice. Environmental Entomology 12:37_42.

Ward MDW, Sailstad DM, Selgrade MJK. 1998. Allergic responses to the biopesticide Metarhizium anisopliae in balb/c mice. The Journal of Toxicological Sciences 45:195_203

Barbieri RT, Croce J, Gandra RF, Gagete E, Paula CR, Gambale W. 2005. Allergenic extracts from Metarhizium anisopliae: Obtainment and characterization. Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology 15:131_139.

Instanes C, Ward MD, Hetland G. 2006. The fungal biopesticide Metarhizium anisopliae has an adjuvant effect on the allergic responses to ovalbumin in mice. Toxicology Letters 161:219_225

Siegel JP, Shadduck JA. 1990. Safety of microbial insecticides to vertebrates _ humans. In: Laird M, Lacey LA, Davidson EW, editors. Safety of microbial insecticides. Boca Raton, CA: CRC Press. pp 101_113.

Zimmermann G. 1993. The entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae and its potential as a biocontrol agent. Pesticide Science 37:375_379.

Muir D, Martin P, Kendall K, Malik R. 1998. Invasive hyphomycotic rhinitis in a cat due to Metarhizium anisopliae. Medical Mycology 36:51_54.

Butt TM, Jackson C, Magan N. 2001. Introduction _ Fungal biological bontrol agents: Progress, problems and potential. In: Butt TM, Jackson C, Magan N, editors. Fungi as biocontrol agents: progress, problems and potential. Wallingford, UK: CABI International. pp 1_8.

Wraight SP, Jackson MA, de Kock SL. 2001. Production, stabilization and formulation of fungal biocontrol agents. In: Butt TM, Jackson C, Magan N, editors. Fungi as biocontrol agents: progress, problems and potential. Wallingford, UK: CABI International. pp 253_287.

Kabaluk T, Gazdik K. 2005. Directory of microbial pesticides for agricultural crops in OECD countries. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. p 242. Available: http://www.agr.gc.ca/env/pest/pub/pdf/micro_e. pdf.

Gisbert Zimmerman.2007. Review on safety of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 2007; 17(9): Pp 883-906.

Genthner FJ, Chancy CA, Couch JA, Foss SS, Middaugh DP, George SE, Warren MA, Bantle JA. 1998. Toxicity and pathogenicity testing of the insect pest control fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35:317_324.

Stolz I. 1999. The effect of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorokin (Dflavoviride) Gams and Rozsypal var. Acridum (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes) on non-target Hymenoptera. PhD thesis, Univ. Basel, Switzerland. 149 pp.

Peveling R, Attignon S, Langewald J, Ouambama Z. 1999. An assessment of the impact of biological and chemical grasshopper control agents on grounddwelling arthropods in Niger, based on presence/absence sampling. Crop Prot. 18:323–39

Gemma JN, Hartmann GC, Salman Wasti S. 1984. Inhibitory interactions between Ceratocystis ulmi and several species of entomogenous fungi. Mycologia 76:256_260.

Genthner FJ, Foss SS, Glas PS. 1997. Virulence of Metarhizium anisopliae to embryos of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 69:157_164.

Genthner FJ, Chancy CA, Couch JA, Foss SS, Middaugh DP, George SE, Warren MA, Bantle JA. 1998. Toxicity and pathogenicity testing of the insect pest control fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35:317_324

Howard s. ginsberg,1, 2 Roger a. lebrun,1 Klaus heyer,1 and Elyes zhioua1Potential Non-target Effects of Metarhizium anisopliae (Deuteromycetes) Used for Biological Control of Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae,2002

Hu G, St. Leger RJ. 2002. Field studies using a recombinant mycoinsecticide (Metarhizium anisopliae) reveal that it is rhizosphere competent. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68:6383_6387.

Zimmermann G. 1981. Gewa¨chshausversuche zur Beka¨mpfung des Gefurchten Dickmaulru¨ ßlers, Otiorhynchus sulcatus F., mit dem Pilz Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorok. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 33:103_108.

Stenzel K. 1992. Mode of action and spectrum of activity of BIO 1020 (Metarhizium anisopliae). Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 45:143_158.

Buchwaldt L, Green H. 1992. Phytotoxicity of destruxin B and its possible role in the pathogenesis of Alternaria brassicae. Plant Pathology 41:55_63.

Broza M, Pereira RM, Stimac JL. 2001. The nonsusceptibility of soil Collembola to insect pathogens and their potential as scavengers of microbial pesticides. Pedobiologia 45:523_534.

Reinecke P, Andersch W, Stenzel K, Hartwig J. 1990. BIO 1020, a new microbial insecticide for use in horticultural crops. Brighton Crop Protection Conference _ Pest and Diseases 2_5:49_54.

Donovan-Peluso M, Wasti SS, Hartmann GC. 1980. Safety of entomogenous fungi to vertebrate hosts. Applied Entomology and Zoology 15:498_499.

Genthner FJ, Chancy CA, Couch JA, Foss SS, Middaugh DP, George SE, Warren MA, Bantle JA. 1998. Toxicity and pathogenicity testing of the insect pest control fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35:317_324.

Peveling R, Demba SA. 2003. Toxicity and pathogenicity of Metarhizium anisopliae var. Acridum (Deuteromycotina, Hyphomycetes) and fipronil to the fringe-toed lizard Acanthodactylus dumerili (Squamata: Lacertidae). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22:1437_1447

Wasti SS, Hartmann GC, Rousseau AJ. 1980. Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) mycoses by 2 species of entomogenous fungi and an assessment of their avian toxicity. Parasitology 80:419_424.

Smits JE, Johnson DL, Lomer C. 1999. Pathological and physiological responses of ring-necked pheasant chicks following dietary exposure to the fungus Metarhizium flavoviride, a biocontrol agent for locusts in Africa. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35:194_203.

Johnson DL, Smits JE, Jaronski ST, Weaver DK. 2002. Assessment of health and growth of ring-necked pheasants following consumption of infected insects or conidia of entomopathogenic fungi, Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum and Beauveria bassiana, from Madagascar and North America. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A 65:2145_2162.

--- Harremoës, P., Gee,D.,MacGarvin ,M.,Stirling ,A.,Keys ,J.,Wynne,B.&Guedes Vaz,S.(2002):Late lessons from early warnings :the precautionary principle 1896-2000-22.-coppenghagen , Denmark (European environmental ageny ) : 211 S.

Lövei Gábor L., Bøhn Thomas , Hilbeck Angelika,(2007)Biodiversity , ecosystem services and genetically modified organisms pp 169-188 in: Traavik Terje & Ching Li Lim ., Eds., Biosafety First .Tapir Academic Press.

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: our human planet. Island press