Difference between revisions of "Team:Warwick/HP/Silver"

Line 1: Line 1:
 
<html>
 
<html>
 
   <head>
 
   <head>
     <title>iGEM Warwick 2016 - Modelling</title>
+
     <title>iGEM Warwick 2016 - Human Practices</title>
 
     <meta charset="utf-8" />
 
     <meta charset="utf-8" />
 
     <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
 
     <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
Line 7: Line 7:
 
   </head>
 
   </head>
 
   <body>
 
   <body>
  <!-- Header -->
+
    <!-- Header -->
          <header id="header">
+
            <header id="header">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
         <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Warwick" class="logo" >
 
         <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Warwick" class="logo" >
Line 55: Line 55:
 
         </div>
 
         </div>
 
     </header>
 
     </header>
       
+
     
 
+
 
        
 
        
  
 
     <!-- Banner -->
 
     <!-- Banner -->
 
       <section id="banner">
 
       <section id="banner">
         <h1>Human Practices Silver</h1>
+
         <h1>Human Practices Gold</h1>
 +
      </section>
 +
     
 +
     
 +
     
 +
    <!-- Content -->
 +
    <section id="three" class="wrapper style1 special">
 +
        <div class="inner">
 +
          <header class="align-center">
 +
          </header>
 +
          <div class="flex flex-2">
 +
            <article class="nopicture">
 +
              <p>The primary reason the Warwick team selected to develop a new detection system was the opportunity to contribute to improving the quality of human life. We fully understand the importance of understanding different perspectives and considering different opinion, hence why we have devoted a large amount of effort to corresponding with members of the public and incorporating feedback.</p>
 +
            </article>
 +
          </div>
 +
        </div>
 
       </section>
 
       </section>
 
        
 
        
 +
    <!-- Nuffield -->
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper special">
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper special">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
           <header class="align-center">
 
           <header class="align-center">
 +
            <h2>Nuffield Collaboration</h2>
 
           </header>
 
           </header>
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
               <p>Our sensor is primarily designed to detect bacterial infections caused by members of the spirochete family, including the genera Borrelia and Leptospira that cause Lyme disease and leptospirosis respectively. Our team chose to target these disease due to their widespread nature and high human impact; 330,000 people are estimated to contract Lyme’s disease each year in the US alone[1], with between approximately 7 and 10 million people infected with Leptospirosis annually[2]. As well as these diseases, the versatility of our system allows us to also target detection of heavy metals in water. The metals we chose to focus on were lead and mercury; these metals were selected due to the severity of poisoning symptoms, along with their widespread presence in both developed and developing countries. Our decision to include developing countries in our target market imposed specific restrictions on our product design, as detailed below.</p>
+
               <p>Over the course of the project, we were assisted by Gurpreet, a Nuffield Bursary Student from Whitley Academy in Coventry currently entering her 2nd year of sixth form. Through joining us she hoped to further her knowledge of biology and chemistry enabling her to make a more well-informed decision for University applications. In addition to teaching her practical skills in the lab, we also educated her on synthetic biology topics not covered in her current academic syllabus.<br /><br />Gurpreet was very helpful in providing an alternative perspective as someone from outside the academic sphere with which to share ideas. By identifying the more complex concepts that were that were most difficult to explain, she helped us prepare for attending public events such as open days. Gurpreet expressed a keen interest in the different methods that could be applied when constructing our sensor in order to make it most suitable for use by a wide demographic. By encouraging us to consider the different environments in which our device could be applied, and further involving herself by researching potential solutions, she influenced the development of the physical composition of our device and method of delivery.  
 +
</p>
 
             </article>
 
             </article>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>
Line 77: Line 94:
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 +
     
 +
    <!-- Meetup -->
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper style1 special">
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper style1 special">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
           <header class="align-center">
 
           <header class="align-center">
             <h2>Ethics</h2>
+
             <h2>Westminster UK iGEM Meet Up</h2>
 
           </header>
 
           </header>
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
               <p>At Westminster University’s UK iGEM meet up, Dr Robert Smith from King’s College London gave an enlightening talk concerning the social and ethical dimensions of synthetic biology, and the types of issues the teams should consider as their projects advance. This stimulated a review of our project through an ethical lens, and whether any controversial aspects were justified.<br /><br />Synthetic biology may provide the solutions to global issues such as lack of clean energy and inefficient drug delivery. However, this innovative technology is accompanied by concerns over the potential for human or environmental harm resulting from genetically engineered organisms. The possible biological threat that could be posed to national security sometimes makes it difficult to determine to what extent research should be censored in order to protect the quality of human or environmental life.<br /><br />Another common ethical issue associated with synthetic biology is the concept of playing god – is it morally correct that humans should be capable of altering naturally occurring organisms? How appropriate is it for humans to have ownership in the forms of patenting other organisms within a live system? When is it deemed acceptable for living creatures to no longer have rights? When approached from this perspective, it is easy to understand why biological modification of organisms is such a controversial topic, although similar ethical issues also apply to topics such as genetic, stem cell, nanotechnology and neuroscience research.<br /><br />When discussing the manner in which our detection system should be marketed, we considered whether it was socially correct for people to receive a diagnosis from a piece of paper, rather than another individual. Using the common pregnancy test as an example, we feel there would be little public dispute if our product were to be sold as a self-test. However, following further market research, we decided that it should in fact be stocked in clinics and administered by trained professionals. This would also prevent the issue of bias supply due to pricing.<br /><br />Having researched the ethical concerns surrounding synthetic biology, we have gained an in depth understanding of the possible disadvantages associated with utilizing this technology. However, in our opinion, by incorporating precautionary steps, for example ‘kill switches’ and other biologically engineered safeguards, the potential for technological innovation and scientific advancement far outweighs the potential risk.</p>
+
               <p>On Wednesday the 17th of August, Warwick iGEM travelled up to Westminster University to attend a two-day event, along with 16 other teams from around the UK.<br /><br />After being welcomed to the University of Westminster by Dean Professor Jane Lewis, the event began with a question and answer session with Dr Markiv – a spokesperson for iGEM. She provided ideas that helped develop the ‘Human Practices’ aspect of the Warwick project, as well as troubleshooting the few issues that had become apparent with the Wiki page. After she voiced her concerns, we investigated how we could obtain and incorporate the views of the public and relevant professionals. Following this, we arranged to facilitate discussions with patients, researchers, and students in secondary education.<br /><br />The opportunity to interact with and get to know other teams and their projects, along with the fantastic talks given by a variety of speakers, made the meet-up a very enjoyable and beneficial experience.</p>
 
             </article>
 
             </article>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>
Line 91: Line 110:
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 +
     
 +
    <!-- FredSense -->
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper special">
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper special">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
           <header class="align-center">
 
           <header class="align-center">
             <h2>Safety</h2>
+
             <h2>FredSense</h2>
 
           </header>
 
           </header>
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
               <p>As our device is a diagnosis tool, it was important that we considered any safety precautions that would be required in order to reach a stage where our device can be tested under real life conditions.<br /><br />The first safety consideration we made concerned the type of bacteria for which our device would be constructed within. We elected to use E. coli, as it is a risk group 1 organism. Leptospira, the primary bacteria we aim to detect, is a risk group 3 organism banned from use in iGEM. This, in addition to leptospirosis being a contagious disease, led us to compromise our testing procedures to prevent requiring the spirochete itself to be present in the blood sample.<br /><br />We decided that instead of designing our device to test directly for Leptospira RNA, we would initially design it to test for an analogue RNA that does not code for a specific protein. This avoids having to grow up Leptospira bacteria in our lab, or having to transform another bacteria with a plasmid encoding for Leptospira specific RNA. In this way we eliminate the risk associated with handling infectious bacterial proteins, and prevent the release of a bacteria able to produce Leptospira proteins. Another solution would have been to transform another bacteria with Leptospira specific RNA, but without including an RBS that would enable RNA translation. We decided that if we needed to modify the RNA in this way, it would be simpler and less risky to use an entirely synthetic RNA sequence as the trigger for the device instead.<br /><br />Another concern we had was that testing the concentration of Leptospira in the blood would require direct contact with either Leptospira bacteria, or human blood. Human blood is a high-risk substance that must be handled with caution. It may contain numerous possible contaminants that may be transmissible to users – especially likely when individuals untrained in the specific safety requirements, as. In training labs in university, students are taught to screen their own blood samples. However, we were hesitant to do this, as in addition to the ethical implications of testing a diagnostic tool on human blood, individual variations in our blood could potentially alter the mechanics of the device. We decided that we would order in pre-screened human blood serum that we personally inoculate with modified bacteria carrying the trigger RNA gene. This avoids having to use both our own unscreened blood, or blood from another source, while also sidestepping the issue of using Leptospira.<br /><br />The abiotic design of our sensor ensures that there is no risk of releasing modified bacteria into a natural environment. However, release of signalling molecules, such as fluorescent proteins and malachite green, is still possible. Malachite green in particular is known to cause respiratory distress in fish [RN], as well as being moderately cytotoxic[3]. Fluorescent proteins, the alternative to malachite green, are capable of producing reactive oxygen species (ROS) in water upon exposure to ultraviolet light [RN]. In order to keep generation of ROS’s to a minimum, green fluorescent protein (GFP) was selected as a potential signalling molecule, as its confined barrel shape leads to increased quenching of ROS’s compared to other fluorescent proteins [4].  Whilst the use of GFP as our signalling molecule would seem to be more environmentally friendly, it is important to note that a detector based on GFP would require additional incubation at 37 °C for 24 hours whereas malachite green does not. The electricity necessary for this incubation not only reduces the environmental friendliness of the design, but also its suitability for use in a third world setting. It is these additional complications that led our team to incorporate both malachite green and GFP into separate products, based on their expected usage.<br /><br />Bacterial antibiotic resistance is an ever-persistent concern within the biomedical industry. Although our primary focus is leptospirosis, we realized that the initial design of our system would be far less appropriate for testing for Lyme disease the original concept for which our product was developed. Lyme disease is treated with a course of tetracycline, but in order for our detection system to be successful it must be resistant to this antibiotic. For this reason, we would have to only allow the product to be utilized by trained professional, or exchange the bacteria for one with a different antibiotic resistance.
+
               <p>We were very fortunate to speak to David Lloyd, CEO of FredSense Technologies - a leading biosensor company based in Canada. He was able to advise our team with regards to the business side of our project. On his advice, we decided that our sensor should not cost more than 0.50 USD per sensor, in order to successfully target the developing world. When estimating manufacturing costs, David recommended considering pre-treatment requirements, such as purification of the RNA and the freeze-drying process, as well as any hardware needed. His general guide figure of the overall cost of production was less than 30% of the resale price. He also proposed additional applications for our sensors, including testing mine runoff and domestic wells in developed countries.<br /><br />David identified numerous issues that FredSense determined may affect the success of biosensors. Illiteracy and poor governmental structure may prevent success in developing countries, while lack of available treatment may render identifying health hazards potentially pointless. To tackle these problems, the team proposed a colorimetric sensing system that could be supplied to charities and governmental aid associations. However, he did warn that colour is subjective, and so for application within more developed areas, such as supplying environmental consultancies, we determined that a more quantitative measurement would be more helpful. We also considered further developing our product by combining the sensor with a water purification treatment.<br /><br />After more detailed discussion, the team gained a greater insight into the potential interference resulting from other metal ions present in the sensing solution potassium for example, interferes with the detection of lead. FredSense found they had to take preventative measures to reduce the effects of arsenic on antimony detection in particular, an interaction which we had not previously considered. Following this, we decided to combat any potential interference issues we may have by treating sample water with 18-crown-6 ether. This reagent specifically binds and masks potassium and sodium ions in solution, preventing their interaction with our sensor and reducing the chance of false positives.</p>
</p>
+
 
             </article>
 
             </article>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>
Line 106: Line 126:
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
      <section id="three" class="wrapper style1 special">
+
     
 +
     
 +
    <!-- Forest Survey -->
 +
    <section id="three" class="wrapper style1 special">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
           <header class="align-center">
 
           <header class="align-center">
             <h2>Sustainabilty</h2>
+
             <h2>New Forest Survey</h2>
 
           </header>
 
           </header>
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
               <p>The overall cost of production and sale of our sensor was an important factor that our team were keen to minimize. We set a final target of 0.50 USD per sensor based on our discussion with David Lloyd, CEO of FREDsense. To achieve this, we decided to use a freeze dried bacterial lysate system, as opposed to a more conventional in solvo test.<br /><br />Once the team decided to freeze dry our sensor, it became necessary to evaluate the properties of various substrates available for mounting our product, to determine which was most appropriate. The main candidates were paper, nitrocellulose and silica-paper. Each of these substrates had a range of advantages and disadvantages, as detailed in Table 1 below.<br /><br />Our sensor is primarily designed to detect bacterial infections caused by members of the spirochete family, including the genera Borrelia and Leptospira that cause Lyme disease and leptospirosis respectively. Our team chose to target these disease due to their widespread nature and high human impact; 330,000 people are estimated to contract Lyme’s disease each year in the US alone[1], with between approximately 7 and 10 million people infected with Leptospirosis annually[2]. As well as these diseases, the versatility of our system allows us to also target detection of heavy metals in water. The metals we chose to focus on were lead and mercury; these metals were selected due to the severity of poisoning symptoms, along with their widespread presence in both developed and developing countries.</p>
+
               <p>We were very fortunate to speak to David Lloyd, CEO of FredSense Technologies - a leading biosensor company based in Canada. He was able to advise our team with regards to the business side of our project. On his advice, we decided that our sensor should not cost more than 0.50 USD per sensor, in order to successfully target the developing world. When estimating manufacturing costs, David recommended considering pre-treatment requirements, such as purification of the RNA and the freeze-drying process, as well as any hardware needed. His general guide figure of the overall cost of production was less than 30% of the resale price. He also proposed additional applications for our sensors, including testing mine runoff and domestic wells in developed countries.<br /><br />David identified numerous issues that FredSense determined may affect the success of biosensors. Illiteracy and poor governmental structure may prevent success in developing countries, while lack of available treatment may render identifying health hazards potentially pointless. To tackle these problems, the team proposed a colorimetric sensing system that could be supplied to charities and governmental aid associations. However, he did warn that colour is subjective, and so for application within more developed areas, such as supplying environmental consultancies, we determined that a more quantitative measurement would be more helpful. We also considered further developing our product by combining the sensor with a water purification treatment.<br /><br />After more detailed discussion, the team gained a greater insight into the potential interference resulting from other metal ions present in the sensing solution – potassium for example, interferes with the detection of lead. FredSense found they had to take preventative measures to reduce the effects of arsenic on antimony detection in particular, an interaction which we had not previously considered. Following this, we decided to combat any potential interference issues we may have by treating sample water with 18-crown-6 ether. This reagent specifically binds and masks potassium and sodium ions in solution, preventing their interaction with our sensor and reducing the chance of false positives.</p>
              <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/3a/T--Warwick--SilverTable.png">
+
              <p>Table 1: The advantages and disadvantages of utilizing different materials in the hardware of our sensor.<br /><br />Due to its unstable nature, our team decided that nitrocellulose was unsuitable as a substrate for any real world application. However, both paper and silica-paper showed promise in a wide variety of applications. It was decided that the more expensive, but durable, silica-paper would be used for in tougher field environments and water testing; whilst the cheaper but less robust, ordinary paper would be used for blood tests and domestic uses.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the design of our sensor does not allow repeat use. It was therefore responsible to review the recyclability and disposal of our product. The non-toxic nature of the cell lysate means that the paper based sensor can be recycled in a conventional manner. However, at present there is no way to recycle the silica-paper based substrate, leading our team to decided that paper would be used in all our products, except when a very robust substrate was required.<br /><br />The miniaturization of our design not only reduces the amount of raw material needed, but also facilitates the transport of a large number of units at one time. As well as lowering the material and environmental cost, the smaller design allows for easier transport and storage - especially with regards to usage and distribution of field test kits in developing countries.</p>
+
 
             </article>
 
             </article>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>
Line 121: Line 142:
 
       </section>
 
       </section>
 
        
 
        
        
+
       <!-- Conference -->
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper special">
 
     <section id="three" class="wrapper special">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
         <div class="inner">
 
           <header class="align-center">
 
           <header class="align-center">
             <h2>Intellectual Property Rights</h2>
+
             <h2>Lyme Disease Conference</h2>
 
           </header>
 
           </header>
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
           <div class="flex flex-2">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
 
             <article class="nopicture">
               <p>Research advancements within synthetic biology, and the patenting of new systems, could affect the existing trade and global justice systems due to the formation of monopolies. Because of this, rapid development of this technology may only benefit scientists, investors and large businesses, with the advantages to those in developing areas being highly limited due to lack of accessibility. Currently, the UK government dissuades non-competitive business practices, so this problem has less of an impact on our project. As we are using a natural Cas9 sequence and a dCas9 protein, our system does not conflict with any existing patents, such as the initial CRISPR/Cas patent by Feng Zhang in April 2014.<br /><br />References:<br />[1] http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/<br />[2] http://www.who.int/zoonoses/diseases/lerg/en/index2.html<br />[3]http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=34&SID=N163dLMizXq1ZVG7fMr&page=1&doc=1<br />[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21359336
+
               <p>This year, two members of the Warwick iGEM team attended the annual Lyme Disease Association conference was held at Murray Edwards College, Cambridge University. The theme of the conference was ‘Moving Forward’, and focused on the progress that Lyme disease research has made.
</p>
+
The first speaker was Dr Norma O’Flynn from the National Guideline Centre, elaborating upon the procedure applied by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, when determining management processes to improve health and social care. She discussed the different factors considered before a policy can be issued, and how this procedure is currently being applied to Lyme disease.<br /><br />Dr Sandra Pearson, Lyme Disease Action, tackled the issue of Borrelia persistence, followed by Dr Monica Embers, from the Tulane National Primate Research Centre, who had modelled the changes in immune response over the course of infection and post treatment using rhesus macaques. Dr Embers also discussed her research into the challenges of diagnosing and curing Lyme disease. She reviewed the current testing methods for diagnosis – with early serology tests including IFA, ELISA, western blots and PCR, and later stage diagnostics testing for antigens/antibodies in CSF, urine and the blood. Dr Embers identified several issues with the current system - these tests are not specific or sensitive enough to diagnose patients at all phases of the disease, antigenic variability may prevent antibody recognition and western blots have a degree of inaccuracy when detecting the antibodies present. She proposed a more sensitive analysis technique that her team had been developing – a 5-antigen Bioplex assay.<br /><br />During the afternoon session, Dr Jinyu Shan presented the University of Leicester's alternative diagnosis method – engineering bacteriophages to effectively kill Borrelia by overexpression of holins and endolysins (phage-encoded enzymes). According to Dr Shan, the pilot study indicated the novel diagnostic test had a 75% senstivity and 100% specificity on serum samples as small as 400 µl, as well as being able to distinguish between Lyme and relapsing fever Borrelia strains.<br /><br />Being able to interact with research specialists, GP’s and actual Lyme disease sufferers was a fantastic opportunity to gauge first-hand the opinions of different demographics in response to our project. We spoke to several researchers investigating epidemiology, novel targets for diagnosis, and new treatments, as well as several patients who had recently finished their course of antibiotics following diagnosis. We were very fortunate to speak to Dr Tim Brooks – the current director of Public Health England’s Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL). The RIPL act as the governmental body for acute diagnostic facilities for a wide range of diseases in the UK, including zoonotic vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease. After discussing the advantages and limitations of the current serology and PCR diagnostic tests, we proposed our paper-based sensor and explained the testing procedure. He acknowledged the usefulness of a more robust, faster detection system, but shared some reservations concerning our intended method for sample testing – Borrelia bacteria are very rarely present in the blood at a high enough concentration for detection through traditional techniques. As we discussed this issue and how we could overcome this, we mentioned our plans for alternative applications. Dr Brooks emphasised how useful our sensor would be for detection of leptospirosis – a bacteria commonly detected in the blood samples RIPL test, with the paper-based aspect making it very well-suited to the developing countries where this disease prevails. We arranged a future consultation with Dr Brooks to discuss our technology further, and after conferring with the rest of the team, made the executive decision to alter the primary target of our sensor.<br /><br />Collaborating with members of Public Health England combined with the analysis of collected data led us to conclude that when detecting for Lyme disease, an in vivo form of our sensor would be most appropriate. The advantages of using paper-based sensing over in vivo are the ease of use, stability and cost, however, if our system is used in clinics in developed areas, these benefits become secondary to concerns over sensitivity. An in vivo detection kit would be more easily tuneable for sensitivity than an in vitro paper-based kit, on the basis that it is more easily analysed under imaging and assay techniques, with the loss of ease of use and affordability. In developed areas, and when used by appropriately trained professionals, the benefits regarding sensitivity when using in vivo detection outweigh any negative aspects.
 +
</p>
 
             </article>
 
             </article>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>
 
         </div>
 
         </div>
 
       </section>
 
       </section>
     
 
 
        
 
        
 
   <!-- Footer -->
 
   <!-- Footer -->

Revision as of 03:05, 20 October 2016

iGEM Warwick 2016 - Human Practices

The primary reason the Warwick team selected to develop a new detection system was the opportunity to contribute to improving the quality of human life. We fully understand the importance of understanding different perspectives and considering different opinion, hence why we have devoted a large amount of effort to corresponding with members of the public and incorporating feedback.

Nuffield Collaboration

Over the course of the project, we were assisted by Gurpreet, a Nuffield Bursary Student from Whitley Academy in Coventry currently entering her 2nd year of sixth form. Through joining us she hoped to further her knowledge of biology and chemistry enabling her to make a more well-informed decision for University applications. In addition to teaching her practical skills in the lab, we also educated her on synthetic biology topics not covered in her current academic syllabus.

Gurpreet was very helpful in providing an alternative perspective as someone from outside the academic sphere with which to share ideas. By identifying the more complex concepts that were that were most difficult to explain, she helped us prepare for attending public events such as open days. Gurpreet expressed a keen interest in the different methods that could be applied when constructing our sensor in order to make it most suitable for use by a wide demographic. By encouraging us to consider the different environments in which our device could be applied, and further involving herself by researching potential solutions, she influenced the development of the physical composition of our device and method of delivery.

Westminster UK iGEM Meet Up

On Wednesday the 17th of August, Warwick iGEM travelled up to Westminster University to attend a two-day event, along with 16 other teams from around the UK.

After being welcomed to the University of Westminster by Dean Professor Jane Lewis, the event began with a question and answer session with Dr Markiv – a spokesperson for iGEM. She provided ideas that helped develop the ‘Human Practices’ aspect of the Warwick project, as well as troubleshooting the few issues that had become apparent with the Wiki page. After she voiced her concerns, we investigated how we could obtain and incorporate the views of the public and relevant professionals. Following this, we arranged to facilitate discussions with patients, researchers, and students in secondary education.

The opportunity to interact with and get to know other teams and their projects, along with the fantastic talks given by a variety of speakers, made the meet-up a very enjoyable and beneficial experience.

FredSense

We were very fortunate to speak to David Lloyd, CEO of FredSense Technologies - a leading biosensor company based in Canada. He was able to advise our team with regards to the business side of our project. On his advice, we decided that our sensor should not cost more than 0.50 USD per sensor, in order to successfully target the developing world. When estimating manufacturing costs, David recommended considering pre-treatment requirements, such as purification of the RNA and the freeze-drying process, as well as any hardware needed. His general guide figure of the overall cost of production was less than 30% of the resale price. He also proposed additional applications for our sensors, including testing mine runoff and domestic wells in developed countries.

David identified numerous issues that FredSense determined may affect the success of biosensors. Illiteracy and poor governmental structure may prevent success in developing countries, while lack of available treatment may render identifying health hazards potentially pointless. To tackle these problems, the team proposed a colorimetric sensing system that could be supplied to charities and governmental aid associations. However, he did warn that colour is subjective, and so for application within more developed areas, such as supplying environmental consultancies, we determined that a more quantitative measurement would be more helpful. We also considered further developing our product by combining the sensor with a water purification treatment.

After more detailed discussion, the team gained a greater insight into the potential interference resulting from other metal ions present in the sensing solution – potassium for example, interferes with the detection of lead. FredSense found they had to take preventative measures to reduce the effects of arsenic on antimony detection in particular, an interaction which we had not previously considered. Following this, we decided to combat any potential interference issues we may have by treating sample water with 18-crown-6 ether. This reagent specifically binds and masks potassium and sodium ions in solution, preventing their interaction with our sensor and reducing the chance of false positives.

New Forest Survey

We were very fortunate to speak to David Lloyd, CEO of FredSense Technologies - a leading biosensor company based in Canada. He was able to advise our team with regards to the business side of our project. On his advice, we decided that our sensor should not cost more than 0.50 USD per sensor, in order to successfully target the developing world. When estimating manufacturing costs, David recommended considering pre-treatment requirements, such as purification of the RNA and the freeze-drying process, as well as any hardware needed. His general guide figure of the overall cost of production was less than 30% of the resale price. He also proposed additional applications for our sensors, including testing mine runoff and domestic wells in developed countries.

David identified numerous issues that FredSense determined may affect the success of biosensors. Illiteracy and poor governmental structure may prevent success in developing countries, while lack of available treatment may render identifying health hazards potentially pointless. To tackle these problems, the team proposed a colorimetric sensing system that could be supplied to charities and governmental aid associations. However, he did warn that colour is subjective, and so for application within more developed areas, such as supplying environmental consultancies, we determined that a more quantitative measurement would be more helpful. We also considered further developing our product by combining the sensor with a water purification treatment.

After more detailed discussion, the team gained a greater insight into the potential interference resulting from other metal ions present in the sensing solution – potassium for example, interferes with the detection of lead. FredSense found they had to take preventative measures to reduce the effects of arsenic on antimony detection in particular, an interaction which we had not previously considered. Following this, we decided to combat any potential interference issues we may have by treating sample water with 18-crown-6 ether. This reagent specifically binds and masks potassium and sodium ions in solution, preventing their interaction with our sensor and reducing the chance of false positives.

Lyme Disease Conference

This year, two members of the Warwick iGEM team attended the annual Lyme Disease Association conference was held at Murray Edwards College, Cambridge University. The theme of the conference was ‘Moving Forward’, and focused on the progress that Lyme disease research has made. The first speaker was Dr Norma O’Flynn from the National Guideline Centre, elaborating upon the procedure applied by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, when determining management processes to improve health and social care. She discussed the different factors considered before a policy can be issued, and how this procedure is currently being applied to Lyme disease.

Dr Sandra Pearson, Lyme Disease Action, tackled the issue of Borrelia persistence, followed by Dr Monica Embers, from the Tulane National Primate Research Centre, who had modelled the changes in immune response over the course of infection and post treatment using rhesus macaques. Dr Embers also discussed her research into the challenges of diagnosing and curing Lyme disease. She reviewed the current testing methods for diagnosis – with early serology tests including IFA, ELISA, western blots and PCR, and later stage diagnostics testing for antigens/antibodies in CSF, urine and the blood. Dr Embers identified several issues with the current system - these tests are not specific or sensitive enough to diagnose patients at all phases of the disease, antigenic variability may prevent antibody recognition and western blots have a degree of inaccuracy when detecting the antibodies present. She proposed a more sensitive analysis technique that her team had been developing – a 5-antigen Bioplex assay.

During the afternoon session, Dr Jinyu Shan presented the University of Leicester's alternative diagnosis method – engineering bacteriophages to effectively kill Borrelia by overexpression of holins and endolysins (phage-encoded enzymes). According to Dr Shan, the pilot study indicated the novel diagnostic test had a 75% senstivity and 100% specificity on serum samples as small as 400 µl, as well as being able to distinguish between Lyme and relapsing fever Borrelia strains.

Being able to interact with research specialists, GP’s and actual Lyme disease sufferers was a fantastic opportunity to gauge first-hand the opinions of different demographics in response to our project. We spoke to several researchers investigating epidemiology, novel targets for diagnosis, and new treatments, as well as several patients who had recently finished their course of antibiotics following diagnosis. We were very fortunate to speak to Dr Tim Brooks – the current director of Public Health England’s Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL). The RIPL act as the governmental body for acute diagnostic facilities for a wide range of diseases in the UK, including zoonotic vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease. After discussing the advantages and limitations of the current serology and PCR diagnostic tests, we proposed our paper-based sensor and explained the testing procedure. He acknowledged the usefulness of a more robust, faster detection system, but shared some reservations concerning our intended method for sample testing – Borrelia bacteria are very rarely present in the blood at a high enough concentration for detection through traditional techniques. As we discussed this issue and how we could overcome this, we mentioned our plans for alternative applications. Dr Brooks emphasised how useful our sensor would be for detection of leptospirosis – a bacteria commonly detected in the blood samples RIPL test, with the paper-based aspect making it very well-suited to the developing countries where this disease prevails. We arranged a future consultation with Dr Brooks to discuss our technology further, and after conferring with the rest of the team, made the executive decision to alter the primary target of our sensor.

Collaborating with members of Public Health England combined with the analysis of collected data led us to conclude that when detecting for Lyme disease, an in vivo form of our sensor would be most appropriate. The advantages of using paper-based sensing over in vivo are the ease of use, stability and cost, however, if our system is used in clinics in developed areas, these benefits become secondary to concerns over sensitivity. An in vivo detection kit would be more easily tuneable for sensitivity than an in vitro paper-based kit, on the basis that it is more easily analysed under imaging and assay techniques, with the loss of ease of use and affordability. In developed areas, and when used by appropriately trained professionals, the benefits regarding sensitivity when using in vivo detection outweigh any negative aspects.