"
Team:Consort Alberta/safety
From 2013hs.igem.org
E. coli
The Public Health Agency of Canada has classified E coli into Risk Group 2[1] group which includes pathogens that are able, in principle, to cause serious illness in humans; however the seriousness of this hazard is mitigated for group 2 pathogens by the fact that the illness caused can be treated effectively and host to host spread is reasonably easy to restrict. This classification, however, only includes the hemorrhagic strains of E. coli, and does not include laboratory strains, such as the dh5α in use by us, which are classified as Risk Group 1.
Pseudomonas putida (part source)
The Public Health Agency of Canada classifies Pseudomonas putida into Risk Group 1[2]. Organisms in risk group 1 have been classified as such because there is little evidence in support of their ability to cause disease in humans or animals. This is the lowest risk category, and means that exposure is of minimal concern. It is still prudent to minimize human exposure by practicing GMT (good microbial technique) but more drastic safety measures, such as fume-hoods and other containment protocols are not
required.
As a result of the organisms we selected, the risk presented to team members in the lab is minimal. The equipment within in lab poses a moderate risk to students in the lab space. A normal level of caution must be maintained around the electrical components in the laboratory. If the project works according to plan there is no danger to public, or to the environment. Of the chemicals used, Ethidium Bromide (EtBr) for gel visualization is the only one that poses a notable risk. For this reason the use of EtBr is limited to those with appropriate training. Other laboratory chemicals are toxic, but only when ingested in significant volumes. All team members have received rudimentary safety demonstrations related to the techniques generously showcased to us during the workshops put on for us by various universities. That said, we recognise that our knowledge of safety and containment protocols is limited and for this reason we have chosen to work only with organisms having a low Risk Group Level. In addition to our choice to use low-Risk Group Level organisms, we have also elected to include a kill switch mechanism in our organisms, which makes them unable to survive outside laboratory conditions for more than 2 hours.
If the project does not go according to plan (accidental release and/or a kill switch failure) there are several safeguards in place. The first, as mentioned, is the incorporated kill-switch, which severely limits the potential for survival of our engineered organism “in the wild”. In the unlikely event that our kill-switch proves ineffective, we will have an uncontrolled Risk Group 1 growth on our hands. This growth will mostly likely be outcompeted by bacterial strains endemic to the region, since they are better adapted to the conditions. If it is not outcompeted by local strains, the E. coli strain we have worked with poses a very limited risk to both humans and animals.
The various components of our project, if used maliciously, pose a very minimal danger. All the biological components in use belong to Risk Group 1 and, as such, present minimal danger, even if used maliciously. Several of the chemicals in the laboratory space are toxic if ingested and the more dangerous of these are monitored more closely. The risk represented here is no greater than the typical collection of cleaning supplies, and we feel that by keeping a careful watch on the more dangerous chemicals we have sufficiently mitigated the danger from malicious use.
2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise safety issues? If yes,
As a high-school team with limited time, resources, and expertise, we elected not to make any new BioBrick parts. The devices/BioBrick systems we proposed do not pose any risk in and of themselves.
3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
No, we are a high-school, so there has never before been any need for this type of committee. When unsure, we have deferred to the experienced scientists at one of our supporting universities (U of A, U of C, U of L). We have also familiarized ourselves with the Laboratory and Bio-safety and Bio-security guidelines provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada[3]. We have no organisms or parts above BSL1.
4. Do you have any other ideas how to deal with safety issues that could be useful for future iGEM competitions? How could parts, devices and systems be made even safer through biosafety engineering?
Guidance:
This is an open-ended space for you to consider and suggest ways of improving safety or safety awareness at iGEM and beyond. Some iGEM teams have offered ideas (and sometimes full projects) to limit gene flow, to create software for screening pathogens, and to reduce reliance on antibiotic resistant markers. Other iGEM projects have discussed concerns that might arise if the project succeeded and became widely used, as commercial product or other means of distribution. Some iGEM projects have discussed risks that might materialize if the knowledge generated or methods developed were to become more widely available.
[1]http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/escherichia-coli-tox-eng.php
[2]http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bch.gc.ca%2FE1C5BCE8-FD3A-4A02-8F91-F47781EFDD32%2FNSN10642en.rtf&ei=4ADCUbn6DcaKjAK7voHwCw&usg=AFQjCNG3vWSBerg0D32rUAT-XSaaQFhiGg&bvm=bv.48175248,d.cGE
[3] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/index-eng.php
