Introduction


Safety is one of the basic principles of science. Safety rules have been established in order to protect the general public, but also scientists themselves. There are many different aspects of biosafety. First of all, laboratory safety concerns the protective measures followed in laboratory spaces to secure, on the one hand, that workers’ health is not put in danger and, on the other hand, that hazardous factors are not released. Except for laboratory safety, project safety ensures that the final scientific product will be safe for human beings, animals and the environment. Project safety also deals with different ways to control the growth and expansion of genetically modified organisms, such as kill switches and growth-controlling factors. Lastly, there is a social and ethical face of biosafety. It is very crucial that scientific innovations will be used prudently and morally. History has taught us that it is society’s responsibility to enact laws in order to avoid exploitation of scientific discoveries.

Our team, through our journey in the iGEM competition, has taken action to deal responsibly with biosafety issues concerning our project and our work in the laboratory. Moreover, we want to underline that safety in science should be communicated to people, and so, some of our educational actions and collaborations aimed to help people learn and discuss about biosafety.




Laboratory Safety


Training


At the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens:


Before starting our experiments we were trained by our supervisor, Elena Pappa, on how to use the laboratory equipment safely, and we emphasised on the potential hazards, for example, UV light and toxic chemicals. We also were informed about the guidelines we have to follow in case of emergency, like fire, gas leak or someone being wounded.

At the Hellenic Pasteur Institute:


We attended the Safety Seminar delivered by Dr Thanos Kakkanas at the Hellenic Pasteur Institute as well. The seminar focused on the potential dangers when working in the laboratory, such as carcinogens, mutagens, highly flammable chemicals, acids and corrosive chemicals, cytotoxic reagents, neurotoxic chemicals, respiratory, skin and eye irritants, inflammatory reagents etc. Another part of the workshop concerned disinfection and sterilisation. We were finally informed about the health problems provoked by constant standing and bad posture when working on the bench.



General Laboratory Safety Rules


Our experiments were conducted at Professor A. Agathagelidis’ laboratory at the Biology Department of the National Kapodistrian University of Athens, which is a BSL 1 standard laboratory. The organisms we were using are the following E. coli strains: DH5-alpha, DH5-alpha-Z1, DH10-beta, BL21. Some of our experiments were also hosted at other laboratories of the Biology department that provided us with the special equipment we needed (for example Dr. Dedos laboratory provided us with the plate reader). All of these laboratories are BSL1 standard laboratories.

For that reason, we aimed to follow all the laws and regulations of laboratory operations according to the European Union, the Greek Government, and the host institution for our experiments (NKUA). You can read more about those laws and regulations below:



All team members followed strictly and responsibly the dress code, which includes closed shoes, full-length trousers, and mandatory use of a lab coat, mask and nitrile gloves, not only when doing experiments, but also when spectating. We made sure that no food or drinks were exposed in the laboratory spaces by keeping them in a separate freezer in another room. We were also very cautious with our waste management; we never discarded any living organisms or chemicals. Our used Petri dishes were all autoclaved before discarding, and all liquid cultures and consumables that were exposed to the microorganisms, such as tips and eppendorfs, were incubated overnight with a strong chlorine/soap solution, before disposal. When working with dangerous substances, such as ethidium bromide, we always worked on a separate special bench and used another pair of gloves.



Warning signs and safety instructions were hung on our walls. Our laboratory was provided with a fire safety corner. Moreover, there was never one person working in the laboratory alone, in case an emergency happened and they needed help.

As the organism we used was E.coli disinfection played a very important role while conducting our experiments. An aseptic technique was always used and our microbiological work was done under flame. All the workstations were sterilised with 70% ethanol both prior to and after each experiment.



Project Safety


Kill switch


Our project is foundational and it will not have direct applications, although there are several fields where “PERspectives” could apply in the distant future. However, as an outcome of our Integrated human practices work, we propose the design of a kill switch, which ensures that the two bacterial populations of our system, the Senders and the Receivers, will cogrow and that the population of the one will not exceed the population of the other.

After investigating what previous teams did concerning the control of two cell populations we found very inspiring the project “Ecolibrium'' from iGEM Imperial 2016 team. Their team accomplished the goal we desired for our kill switch. They created a quorum sensing based system, that does not allow one population to grow more than the other.

We decided to use some of the parts they contributed (BBa_K1893000 and BBa_K1893002) and integrate the genes we desire under the control of the quorum sensing promoters of the above parts. That way, we theoretically created a different version of their existing system.

More specifically, instead of the STAR and anti-STAR genes, we thought we could insert the genes of a toxin (SymE) and its antitoxin (SymR).

At both populations, LasR and RhlR, two transcriptional activators, are constitutively produced. The Senders produce C4 AHL quorum sensing molecule, which is necessary for the activation of the Rhi promoter that controls the expression of the toxin. The Receivers produce 3O-C12 AHL constitutively, which is necessary for the activation of the Las promoter that controls the production of the antitoxin. So, when the Senders are separated from the Receivers, only the toxin is produced and they do not survive. But when their population is equal to the Receivers’ population both C4 and O-C12 exist at the same level. The system works vice versa at the Receivers.

We also designed a second kill switch system, based on one of our proposed implementations this time. As you can see on the Implementations tab, we elaborated on our bacterial perceptron becoming a therapeutic tool that could be introduced into the human body. Given that the human organism comprises a tightly monitored system, it is vital that bacteria belonging to our cellular decision making network be programmed to self-destruct once they escape the control mechanisms of said system.

For the activation of our biocontainment strategy we chose heat as a stimulus, as the human body is characterized by a standard temperature of 37°C and ambient temperature is usually measured around 15 - 25°C according to the World Health Organization [1]; water bodies tend to have lower temperatures than that. Taking this information into account, we drew inspiration from an RNA thermosensor proposed by Hoynes-O’Connor et al. [2] and theoretically repurposed it to function as a kill switch for our device. The basic principle of our system is simple and depends on the sequences said thermosensor is composed of. The RNA molecule includes an RNase E cleavage site with the sequence 5’ UCUUCC 3’ (in dark blue in the figures below) and an anti-RNase E cleavage site with the complementary sequence upstream of that (in light blue in the figures below); apart from the heat-repressible mechanism that regulates the degradation of the RNA molecule, the nucleotide sequence encompasses an RBS as well (for translation of the downstream gene) and the element we have added to transform the RNA sensor into a kill switch, the CcdB toxin gene.

When temperature is at 37°C (in our example, inside the human body), the RNA molecule does not form any secondary structures; in this case, the RNase E cleavage site is recognized by the RNase E, which causes the chain to be destroyed, hindering the ccdB gene from being translated (OFF state in the figures below). On the contrary, when the temperature is below 27°C, the RNase E cleavage site and the anti-RNase E cleavage site anneal into a hairpin loop, sequestering the former; this way, the RNA is not targeted by the RNase E and the downstream toxin-producing gene is expressed, ultimately resulting in the cell’s death (ON state in the figures below).

OFF state and ON state of our heat-repressible kill switch containing an RNase E cleavage site (created with BioRender.com)


Due to lack of time, we could not realize the aforementioned kill switch schemes into biological parts; building the actual devices is one of the future goals of our project. In the meantime, we do hope that future teams can benefit from our designs to devise their own kill switch systems.




iGEM Safety Deliverables

Our team submitted the safety form required by the iGEM competition.
Some of the team members attended the safety workshop, in which we learned a lot about human practices and biosafety concerns. The couches presented some scenarios inspired by previous projects and we developed our thoughts and questions. It was a very experiential procedure.




Science Communication Actions Safety


Our team this year organised and participated in various educational and communicational events. But we never forgot that our duty towards our audience was, except from helping them explore the world of Synthetic Biology, to make sure that this procedure is safe for them. Our team followed all the rules concerning biological safety (we ensured that everyone was wearing gloves and protective masks during our workshops,we did not use dangerous substances, we gave them specific instructions and supervised in case anyone needed assistance etc), but also personal data safety.

We also communicated with the Safety Committee to make sure that some of our Human Practices actions were safe and that we followed all the iGEM safety guidelines. More specifically, we asked if we could perform a bacterial transformation at the High School we visited and we were informed that we could run that activity as it was executed in a laboratory and all safety measures were followed. Moreover, we did not include agar plates in the Researcher’s night festival as we initially planned, because the festival was conducted at a public building and not at a controlled laboratory space.


Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Personal Information Safety


As a team, we strongly believe that personal information is of foremost importance. For this reason, we have planned to obtain the necessary permits in the context of our actions:
  • We asked for permission for all of the photos and videos taken by our team for our Science communication actions and for our Integrated human practices actions.
  • We asked for permission to collect personal data, in order to make the research presented below on the topic of biosafety.

You can find a sample of the forms here.




Public Awareness


Debate on biosafety issues


Shortly before the closing date for the submission of the “Project Biosafety Form”, our team organised a debate on the topic of Biosafety open to the public.

We invited a Greek youtube debate channel called “The debate podcast” to collaborate with our team on the event. We also invited rhetoric university clubs to present their work. The event was addressed to students from different fields.

After introducing the teams, our team presented Biosafety rules and levels, explained what a genetically engineered organism is and the ways we can modify genomes. Also, we focused on the applications of those organisms and the social impact that they can have. We unravelled some ways we can prevent future destructions, such as kill switches. Then we discussed with our audience some safety measures in projects from the past. The night ended with a fascinating debate among three students on the theme: Is it safe to release genetically engineered microorganisms in nature?

Since we wanted to learn more about what people know and think about biosafety, we asked the participants to fill out a questionnaire about genetically engineered organisms and laboratory safety rules. Some of the results of that research are presented in the graphs below:

How much do you think genetically modified organisms affect our lives? (1: not at all-5: very much)




What do you think biosafety is about?

  • 8.3% : laboratory safety rules
  • 25%: the release of genetically modified organisms in nature
  • 58.3% : all the above
  • 8.1%: other

Do you think genetically modified organisms should be released in nature?
  • 33.3%: No
  • 25%: Yes
  • 41.7%: It depends from different factors, such as the organism.


We also asked them to name some of the genetically engineered organisms they know and we observed that the most popular answers were corn, soy and bacteria that produce insulin.

Biosafety video collaboration


We participated in a series of informative videos based on Biosafety Practices organised by Team IISER Mohali from India. This initiative aims to inform the general public about the measures carried out in the laboratories and reduce scepticism regarding Genetic Engineering and Synthetic Biology. Our team demonstrated some of the Biosafety measures followed in our laboratory. It was a very fun and creative procedure! You can find our video here.

Various HP actions


We would like to note that we informed people about biosafety issues at most of our other Human Practices events. For example, when we visited the Anavrita High School we briefly explained to the children some kill switch systems.