Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
<div class="col-sm-1" ></div> | <div class="col-sm-1" ></div> | ||
<div class="col-sm-10" style="background-color:white"> | <div class="col-sm-10" style="background-color:white"> | ||
− | <div class="col-sm-5"> | + | <div class="col-sm-5"> |
+ | <h2>TOXICITY CRITERIA</h2> | ||
+ | <br> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/34/T--Edinburgh_OG--Matin_CARE_criteria.png" width="100%"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/34/T--Edinburgh_OG--Matin_CARE_criteria.png" width="100%"> | ||
<br><br><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/29/T--Edinburgh_OG--Anette_CARE_CODE.zip" class="page-scroll btn btn-default btn-xl sr-button">Download List</a> | <br><br><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/29/T--Edinburgh_OG--Anette_CARE_CODE.zip" class="page-scroll btn btn-default btn-xl sr-button">Download List</a> | ||
− | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="col-sm-7" | <div class="col-sm-7" | ||
Line 63: | Line 64: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | <div class="row" > | ||
+ | <div class="col-sm-1" ></div> | ||
+ | <div class="col-sm-10" style="background-color:white"> | ||
+ | <h2>Outreach</h2> | ||
+ | <p>In order to test the tool’s functionality, we contacted via social media this year’s iGEM teams and the following 25 teams engaged on our conversation: Vilnius, Dundee, Cardiff, Exeter, Imperial, Valencia UPV, UPO Sevilla, BIOSINT México, TEC Costa Rica, Tec Chihuahua, Emory, MQ, BGU, IIT Kharagpur, Technion, Barcelona, Leiden, TU Darmstadt, Queens, Evry Genopole, MSU, EPFL, Georgia State, DTU Denmark and LMU & TU Munich. | ||
+ | <br><br> | ||
+ | Special thanks go to the Tec Chihuahua, Tec Costa Rica and EPFL teams for being “CARE ambassadors” and helping us spread the word of our tool. | ||
+ | <br><br> | ||
+ | From a total of 29 organisms, the majority of the engaged teams used model organisms (81%) while 5% used non-model strains (Yarrowia lipolytica, Dechloromonas aromatica, Synechococcus elongatus PCC 7942 and Myxococcus xanthus). Some of those organisms were included in our program’s database depending on whether they had an annotated genome (accession number). It is also worth mentioning that the non-model chassis from this year was different from the list presented by the Yale iGEM team from the two previous years. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | <h2>LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS</h2> | ||
+ | <p>It is important, however, to establish the limitations of our program so that they can be addressed properly in the future. One limitation of the CARE tool is that it requires any microorganism to have an annotated genome for it to be screened, as the accession number is needed to build the database from antiSMASH. | ||
+ | <br><br> | ||
+ | Moreover, when performing the data mining for each secondary metabolite, we found that a significant number of the assessed secondary metabolites did not have clear data on their toxic effect on the surrounding environment, humans and animals (i.e. classified as “?” – unknown – to be managed according to the precautionary principle). These kind of results could spur further investigation into these compounds and corresponding biological functions and effects by the scientific community. | ||
+ | <br><br> | ||
+ | Moreover, the program could be further refined by completing the missing front-ends and including a risk matrix for every secondary metabolite in which the risks are directly related to the probability of them happening. Furthermore, since the extent of the assessments on non-model organisms is not limited to their secondary metabolites, tools to screen for recombinases, virulent factors and CRISPR-Cas9 systems could be developed for them to be incorporated in the CARE program. | ||
+ | </p> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | <div class="col-sm-1"></div> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 23:50, 19 October 2016
-->