"

From 2010.igem.org

Presentation

Today we gave a presentation to a number of professors as well as faculty members on our iGEM subject and our plans so far. Click here to download the presentation.

The main remarks we got were:

• How realistic is the application of a GMO E.coli for bioremediation?
• Should we change our goal to: use E.coli as a vehicle to study the mechanisms of alkene degradation instead of promoting it as a solution for oil spills
• Oxygen consumption by E.coli would increase the anaerobic conditions in the ocean, and thereby create the need for “anaerobic fish” => Use another electron acceptor than oxygen?
• Cell damage perhaps due to the transport of hydrocarbons across the membranes?
• Perhaps there will be a time issue – prioritize
• Heijnen: Droplets of oil could easily be removed by skimming etc, so perhaps we should focus more on dissolved oil in the water phase (low concentrations), and kick out the emulsification part. But then, when working with low concentrations, we would need to focus on how the organism could find the molecules.
• Muyzer: Perhaps look at the ability to take up nitrogen etc? Now they need to fertilize the shores where oil is for bioremediation
• Pronk: Characterizations should not be underestimated time-wise, it is perhaps smart to pull some people from the cloning part and let them start on setting-up the characterization protocols/enzyme assays/ etc etc. This will help avoid the risk that we will end up with uncharacterized BioBricks
• It’s faster to enrich something from nature than to build something that can compete with evolution. But if it’s in a contained environment is might work.
• Modeling: focus on products that are separated easily (solids or inside the cell), also look at other electron acceptors