Difference between revisions of "Team:WashU StLouis/HP/Silver"

* { font-family:"Trebuchet MS"; } .info_wrapper3 { background-color:#DEFFAB; border: 0.4vw dotted #C0FF5F; margin:1vw; } .info_wrapper2 { border:0.4vw dotted #93efea; background-color:#d6f9f7; margin:1vw; }

Background Information

UV Radiation

Ultraviolet light makes up the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths just shorter than those visible to the human eye, ranging from approximately 100 nm to 400 nm. Within this portion of the spectrum, UV light can be divided into three subcategories: UV-A (315-400 nm), UV-B (280-315 nm), and UV-C (100-280 nm) (1).

Each type of UV light has different effects on living organisms and are present in different levels at Earth’s surface. UV-A is the most abundant, comprising about 6.3% of the total light that passes through the ozone layer and reaches the surface, while UV-B makes up approximately 1.5% and UV-C cannot pass through the ozone layer at all. (4)

Because UV-A is the most prevalent, it has the fewest harmful effects on Earth’s life forms. In fact, it plays an important role in Vitamin D formation in human skin. UV-A is the type of radiation that is responsible for sunburns and cataracts. (7)

UV-C is unable to get through the ozone layer and is therefore not found naturally on Earth’s surface. It is extremely damaging to DNA and is used commercially as a tool to sterilize scientific instruments.

Our project focuses on the middle part of the ultraviolet spectrum, UV-B. While only a small portion of the spectrum is composed of UV-B light, it can still pose a significant threat to many organisms. When UV-B strikes a cell, it is absorbed by the cell’s DNA. this absorption excites the atoms in the nucleic acid thymine and promotes for formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs), causing a disruption in the double-helix structure of the genetic material. (6)

While irradiation by UV-B light leads to harmful effects in a wide variety of species, including the causation of skin cancer in humans, we will be focusing primarily on its effects in photosynthetic organisms.

The Effects of UV Radiation on Photosynthetic Organisms

UV-B radiation affects photosynthetic organisms in a variety of ways. While the bulk of our team’s research concerns the damage done to DNA by ultraviolet radiation, UV-B also has adverse effects on other cellular components, including proteins, lipids, membranes, and pigments. (4)

Plants are not entirely defenseless against the dangers of UV-B radiation. Because they are photosynthetic organisms and must live their entire lives in the sun in order to survive, plants have developed multi-faceted systems to deal with the stress of normal radiation levels. For example, many plants produce compounds called flavenoid photoprotectants that absorb UV radiation before it can harm the organism (2). Plants can also produce antioxidants, which neutralize harmful reactive oxygen species produced by UV light (9).

While these and other mechanisms of protection have historically been enough to guard plants against significant damage due to UV-B irradiation, ozone depletion due to the production of greenhouse gasses is leading to increasing levels of UV-B at the earth’s surface. While some plants are largely unaffected by this change, many, including vital crops like corn and rice, are sensitive to these rising levels of radiation (5, 7).

A study by _______ et al examining the effects of UV-B on corn found that increased levels of UV-B are correlated with decreased leaf area, decreased levels of protein, sugar, and starch, and decreased rates of photosynthesis. The study concluded that overall corn yield decreased with increases in UV-B radiation (5). A second study by Rousseaux et al examined DNA damage in plants in South America under the passage of an ozone hole. The results of these two students are consistent with those found by similar studies, demonstrating that increased levels of UV-B radiation could pose a credible threat to the world’s food supply (10).

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 <html>
-<p style="font-size:4vw; text-align:center"> Human Practices </p>
+* {
+   font-family:"Trebuchet MS";
+}
-<p style="font-size:2.5vw; text-align:center">Monsanto and Pfizer</p>
+.info_wrapper3 {
+background-color:#DEFFAB;
+border: 0.4vw dotted #C0FF5F;
+margin:1vw;
+}
-<p style="font-size:1vw">Thanks to Washington University in St. Louis's excellent relationship with Monsanto and Pfizer we were lucky enough to visit with them multiple times throughout the summer. The first visit was on July 10th when we got a tour of both facilities and then gave a presentation about our idea and the work we had done so far. They spent about 30 minutes with us asking questions and giving feedback, and then another 30 minutes offering advice on where we could go next. Specifically, they suggested that our initial plan of using GFP as a reporter could interfere with our results because GFP's absorption spectrum may lie in the range of the UV-B light we were using. Also, there was a concern that due to this absorption, the GFP could possibly break down and somehow be toxic to the cells. As a result, they suggested that
+.info_wrapper2 {
-we not use GFP as a reporter Additionally, Dr. Larry Gilbertson (a molecular biologist at Monsanto and iGEM enthusiast) offered to come to WashU to talk to discuss protocols for transforming genes into plants, which was an application we were thinking about at the time. </p>
+border:0.4vw dotted #93efea;
+background-color:#d6f9f7;
+margin:1vw;
+}
-<p style="font-size:1vw">We were invited back to Monsanto on July 20th to speak to local high school teachers and administrators about iGEM and why we chose to become STEM majors when going to college. More information on that can be found on the Public Engagement page.</p>
+</style>
-<p style="font-size:1vw">Dr. Gilbertson visited our team on July 26th to talk about how to transform genes into plants</p>
-<p style="font-size:1vw">In addition to actually visiting the Monsanto campus, we were put in touch with Austin Burns, who works in Regulatory Affairs at Monsanto. We had a phone interview with him early in the summer to ask him about what the next steps could be if we were able to successfully transform our genes into cyanobacteria. Specifically, we were wondering what channels we would have to go through to safely start testing UV-B radiation in the wild. Our main question for Mr. Burns was: who could we give our research to who would be able to eventually get our product into the environment? Mr. Burns did not have a specific answer for us, and he explained that that was because there is no precedent  for releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment on such a large scale like the ocean. One of the problems is that no one country controls the whole ocean, so in theory, every country would need to agree in some way in order to release the genetically modified organism. </p>
-<p style="font-size:1vw">Even though Mr. Burns did not think the organism could be released into the wild, even if we did get a working construct, he walked us through how we might be able to go about testing in controlled environments. First, we would have to answer questions about the organism itself. Where did it come from and how did we obtain it?
+<p style="font-size: 4vw; text-align:center">Background Information</p>
- This is important because of trade agreements and international treaties. The next step would be to go to the USDA, which is the agency that would give permission to test microbes in controlled environments. The USDA can regulate what they want in the environment and will bar certain organisms if they think there is a risk to endangered species or agriculture.
- Mr. Burns also suggested that we build failsafes into our constructs so that if something were to go wrong, there is a way for the organism to shut itself down. He also said that the USDA would be more willing to work with the organism if they knew there was a backup if something went wrong. In addition, we might need to get permission from the USEPA because of the clean air and clean water act which overlaps with the endangered species act of the USDA. </p>
-<p style="font-size:1vw">Mr. Burns continued to talk about how we would go about testing in the environment, but his main point that he repeated was that there is no specific avenue to achieve what we wanted to with our genes. He walked us through the process of hypothetically getting a meeting with the USDA or EPA, and things we would need in order to prepare; the main thing being a huge amount of data, specifically data showing the positive effects of the organism, a benefits document, and data that specifically shows that it would do little to no harm in the ecological environment it is in. Mr. Burns also gave us sample questions we would have to answer before moving forward with environmental testing and meeting with a governmental agency. Some of the questions are listed below:</p>
+<div style="height:2vw" class="clear"></div>
-<p style="font-size:1vw">If our organisms die, could the DNA get taken up by other organisms?</p>
+<div class="info_wrapper2">
-<p style="font-size:1vw">Could our DNA help other organisms that are harmful to fish or people or the ocean itself?</p>
-<p style="font-size:1vw">Are we going to try and profit or is this free?</p>
-<p style="font-size:1vw">Mr. Burns also briefly walked us though the process of possibly putting our DNA into plants (which involves the FDA and USDA) and he spent a few minutes talking about biofuels and regulations. Mostly he told us to keep asking ourselves questions about what would happen if things went wrong and how we would respond. It was a very informative conversation, and after talking to him we reached out to contacts at the USDA and EPA to talk to them about staring the testing process from their perspective, but we never got a response.</p>
+     <p style="font-size: 2.5vw; text-align:center">UV Radiation</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">Ultraviolet light makes up the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths just shorter than those visible to the human eye, ranging from approximately 100 nm to 400 nm. Within this portion of the spectrum, UV light can be divided into three subcategories: UV-A (315-400 nm), UV-B (280-315 nm), and UV-C (100-280 nm) (1).</p>
+     <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/2/27/T--WashU_StLouis--electromagspectrum.jpeg" style="width:28vw; float:left; margin:2vw"/>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw; float:left">Each type of UV light has different effects on living organisms and are present in different levels at Earth’s surface. UV-A is the most abundant, comprising about 6.3% of the total light that passes through the ozone layer and reaches the surface, while UV-B makes up approximately 1.5% and UV-C cannot pass through the ozone layer at all. (4)</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">Because UV-A is the most prevalent, it has the fewest harmful effects on Earth’s life forms. In fact, it plays an important role in Vitamin D formation in human skin. UV-A is the type of radiation that is responsible for sunburns and cataracts. (7)</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">UV-C is unable to get through the ozone layer and is therefore not found naturally on Earth’s surface. It is extremely damaging to DNA and is used commercially as a tool to sterilize scientific instruments.</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw; float:right">Our project focuses on the middle part of the ultraviolet spectrum, UV-B. While only a small portion of the spectrum is composed of UV-B light, it can still pose a significant threat to many organisms. When UV-B strikes a cell, it is absorbed by the cell’s DNA. this absorption excites the atoms in the nucleic acid thymine and promotes for formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs), causing a disruption in the double-helix structure of the genetic material. (6)</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">While irradiation by UV-B light leads to harmful effects in a wide variety of species, including the causation of skin cancer in humans, we will be focusing primarily on its effects in photosynthetic organisms.</p>
+</div>
+<div style="height:1.5vw" class="clear"></div>
+<div class="info_wrapper3">
+     <p style="font-size: 2.5vw; text-align:center; padding 0.5vw">The Effects of UV Radiation on Photosynthetic Organisms</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">UV-B radiation affects photosynthetic organisms in a variety of ways. While the bulk of our team’s research concerns the damage done to DNA by ultraviolet radiation, UV-B also has adverse effects on other cellular components, including proteins, lipids, membranes, and pigments. (4)</p>
+     <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/6/6a/T--WashU_StLouis--dnadamage.gif" style="width:28vw; margin 3vw; float:right"/>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">Plants are not entirely defenseless against the dangers of UV-B radiation. Because they are photosynthetic organisms and must live their entire lives in the sun in order to survive, plants have developed multi-faceted systems to deal with the stress of normal radiation levels. For example, many plants produce compounds called flavenoid photoprotectants that absorb UV radiation before it can harm the organism (2). Plants can also produce antioxidants, which neutralize harmful reactive oxygen species produced by UV light (9).</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">While these and other mechanisms of protection have historically been enough to guard plants against significant damage due to UV-B irradiation, ozone depletion due to the production of greenhouse gasses is leading to increasing levels of UV-B at the earth’s surface. While some plants are largely unaffected by this change, many, including vital crops like corn and rice, are sensitive to these rising levels of radiation (5, 7).</p>
+     <p style="font-size:1.5vw">A study by _______ et al examining the effects of UV-B on corn found that increased levels of UV-B are correlated with decreased leaf area, decreased levels of protein, sugar, and starch, and decreased rates of photosynthesis. The study concluded that overall corn yield decreased with increases in UV-B radiation (5). A second study by Rousseaux et al examined DNA damage in plants in South America under the passage of an ozone hole. The results of these two students are consistent with those found by similar studies, demonstrating that increased levels of UV-B radiation could pose a credible threat to the world’s food supply (10).</p>
+</div>