Team:Bielefeld-CeBiTec/HP/Gold Integrated

Integrated Human Practice

Discussion with Cell Product Purification Experts

Feedback and advice from experts actually working in the fields of concern are valuable contributions to a successful iGEM project. To get hints how to improve our purification column EluX, we met with two experts: Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer, General Manager of BIBITEC GmbH, and Dr. Benjamin Müller, CEO of Biofidus AG for Analytical Services. BIBITEC GmbH was founded in 2001 and is specialized in the production of recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies. Biofidus AG is a bioanalytical company offering services in a wide variety of bioanalytical methods. They are specialized on spectroscopic, chromatographic or mass spectrometric assays focused on characterization of proteins as well as small molecules. We demonstrated and explained our prototypes and elution technique. We also prepared specific questions, like ‘what do you think about our elution technique compared to common techniques?’ and ‘Which problems and limitations could our column encounter in real world applications?’. As described in the following sections, we benefited greatly from these exchanges and made several improvements to our hardware to address the predicted challenges. Therefore, we are very thankful for their opinions and great advices.

Meeting with Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer, General Manager of BIBITEC GmbH

We met Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer at the 24th of August at the Center for Biotechnology. We presented our purification column and explained our light-induced elution technique. The presentation was followed by a fruitful discussion about possible challenges in real world applications like using this purification technique to purify recombinant proteins produced by our local fermentation technologies working group.

Figure 1: Meeting with Prof. Dr. Lütkemeyer.
Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer (BIBITEC GmbH) and team member Yannic during a meeting at the Center for Biotechnology. A detailed discussion provided us with useful advices and opinions about our elution technique and purification column.

Prof. Lütkemeyer stated that our technique of the light-induced elution is very interesting and a promising alternative to proteases-cleaving sites. However, we have to validate the system profoundly. Especially interesting are the minimal amounts of light and radiation time needed for reliable back bone cleavage. He also said that our system could be very useful for companies related to the production of biomolecules like Evonik Industries AG and GE Healthcare. Nevertheless, we should improve our purification column prototype design to reduce dead space, increase potential yield and enhance the scalability. Finally, he recommended to focus on the validation of our elution system, since this is a highly innovative and promising aspect.

To be decided

Investigation of Public Reception of Synthetic Biology

In order to assess the public opinion of synthetic biology and synthetic life, as well as thinkable applications and attitudes towards them, we designed an online and print questionnaire to be handed out to students, pupils and the general public over the course of two months. The nine-page questionnaire assessed the following constructs:

      1. Attitudes towards synthetic biology The participant’s attitude towards synthetic biology was assessed with 10 questions (e.g. “The risks synthetic biology harbors are uncontrollable”) using a 6-point Likert-scale [1] ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely” with an “I don’t know” option.

      2. Perceived dangers of synthetic biology The perceived dangers of synthetic biology in comparison to possible dangers rooting from other sources were assessed with eight scenarios on a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from “very unsafe” to “very safe” with an “I don’t know” option. Four of those scenarios involved synthetic biology (e.g. “Incorporation of non-natural components into the DNA of a bacterium”), the other four were unrelated (e.g. “A several hours-long commercial flight overseas”).

      4. Previous experiences with synthetic biology The participants’ previous experiences were directly assessed by asking whether or not they have gotten in contact with this topic. If that was the case, they were asked to state the origin of their experiences (e.g. “profession”, “volunteer work”, “politics”).

      5. Definition of life The participants’ definition of “life” was assessed by asking them to choose one out of four different possible definitions of “life”, which were coded philosophical, scientific, religious, or judicial. Afterwards, participants were asked on a five-point scale to what extent the chosen definition fits their personal definition. If the definition did not or did hardly fit, participants were asked to write down their own definition of “life”.

      6. Attitudes towards artificial life The participant’s attitude towards artificial life was assessed with six questions using a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely” with an “I don’t know” option (e.g. “life is life – it does not matter whether its origin is artificial or natural”)

      7. Evaluation whether certain forms of life are natural or synthetic Participants’ opinion on what is natural and what is synthetic life was assessed by six scenarios (e.g. “a bacterium engineered in the lab”) with the options “natural life” “artificial life”, “no life at all” and “I don’t know”.

      8. General attitudes towards our project After a two-sentence description of our iGEM-project, participants were asked in three questions whether our project was safe, meaningful, and whether or not – if the participant had the opportunity to decide – it could proceed. Options were “yes”, “no”, and “I don’t know”.

      9. Demographics Lastly, participants’ age, gender, education, and profession were assessed to further contextualize results.

Sources: [1] Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.