Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
-moz-column-count: 2; /* Firefox */ | -moz-column-count: 2; /* Firefox */ | ||
column-count: 2;"> | column-count: 2;"> | ||
− | <p> | + | <p>The Edinburgh OG iGEM 2016 team has directly worked with non-model organisms and ultimately the goal of our project is to encourage future iGEM teams to use these microorganisms as well as domesticate additional, novel microorganisms. We therefore have an obligation to review and inform the current situation regarding the use of non-model organisms, the current regulatory framework and its biosafety and biosecurity status. As synthetic biology develops at a faster pace than the regulatory framework in which it exists the onus is placed upon practitioners to deliver the tools and safeguards required for adequate risk assessment and safe delivery of the technology (Purnick and Weiss, 2009). |
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
As previously mentioned, the intended expansion of strains to be used within the context of synthetic biology (SynBio) through the domestication of uncommon microorganisms comes with biosafety and biosecurity issues that need to be addressed properly. For example, when analysing our microorganisms, we found out that filamentous fungi are able to produce a wide array of important secondary metabolites (e.g. naphto-γ-pyrones and ß-lactam antibiotics, such as penicillin) with diverse biological activities relevant for the food, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries: antimicrobial, antioxidant, anti-cancer, anti-tubercular, anti-HIV and anti-hyperuricuric (Choque et al. 2014). Nonetheless, they may also produce mycotoxins that can cause unwanted health and environmental problems, such as human disease (myxotoxicoses) (Peraica et al. 1999) and food and silage spoilage (Filtenborg et al. 1996). | As previously mentioned, the intended expansion of strains to be used within the context of synthetic biology (SynBio) through the domestication of uncommon microorganisms comes with biosafety and biosecurity issues that need to be addressed properly. For example, when analysing our microorganisms, we found out that filamentous fungi are able to produce a wide array of important secondary metabolites (e.g. naphto-γ-pyrones and ß-lactam antibiotics, such as penicillin) with diverse biological activities relevant for the food, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries: antimicrobial, antioxidant, anti-cancer, anti-tubercular, anti-HIV and anti-hyperuricuric (Choque et al. 2014). Nonetheless, they may also produce mycotoxins that can cause unwanted health and environmental problems, such as human disease (myxotoxicoses) (Peraica et al. 1999) and food and silage spoilage (Filtenborg et al. 1996). | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<h3>ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS</h3><br> | <h3>ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS</h3><br> | ||
− | <p>The commercial applications of SynBio might entail the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. For instance, the NTU-Taida 2012 iGEM project involved the direct interaction of genetically modified bacteria with humans as they engineered Escherichia coli as a vector to deliver peptide drugs to the human gut (NTU-Taida iGEM 2012). Other examples of iGEM projects that are associated with the release of GMOs to the environment are the Imperial College London 2011 team, which used genetically modified E. coli to secrete the auxin indoleacetic acid (IAA) to prevent erosion (Imperial College London iGEM 2011), and the Lethbridge 2011 team, which developed a toolkit based on genetically modified E. coli to be used for the | + | <p>The commercial applications of SynBio might entail the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. For instance, the NTU-Taida 2012 iGEM project involved the direct interaction of genetically modified bacteria with humans as they engineered Escherichia coli as a vector to deliver peptide drugs to the human gut and thus sewage and water systems (NTU-Taida iGEM 2012). Other examples of iGEM projects that are associated with the release of GMOs to the environment are the Imperial College London 2011 team, which used genetically modified E. coli to secrete the auxin indoleacetic acid (IAA) to prevent erosion (Imperial College London iGEM 2011), and the Lethbridge 2011 team, which developed a toolkit based on genetically modified E. coli to be used for the cleanup of polluted lakes (University of Lethbridge iGEM 2011). |
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
− | One | + | One has to consider that, once released, GMOs cannot be retrieved and this poses a major risk to the environment. For instance, the differences in the physiology of synthetic and natural microorganisms might alter the manner those interact with their surroundings. Furthermore, the GMOs may survive, evolve and adapt quickly, hence competing successfully with wild-type strains. Another important risk is their gene transfer ability, based on which GMOs could take up genetic material from the environment or exchange it with other microorganisms (Dana et al. 2012). |
</p> | </p> | ||
Revision as of 01:07, 20 October 2016
-->