Difference between revisions of "Team:Tec-Chihuahua/test"
Ibrahym501 (Talk | contribs) |
Ibrahym501 (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<div class="a"><p align="justify"> The foundation of the project was evolving, improving and solidifying thanks to the interactions we experienced in our human practices. There were fundamental changes such as the production chassis of the peptides and the application method of the product, as well as recommendations for the experimental plan and insights about the risk factors we should consider.</p></div> | <div class="a"><p align="justify"> The foundation of the project was evolving, improving and solidifying thanks to the interactions we experienced in our human practices. There were fundamental changes such as the production chassis of the peptides and the application method of the product, as well as recommendations for the experimental plan and insights about the risk factors we should consider.</p></div> | ||
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/3/33/T--Tec-Chihuahua--basis2.png" width="950px" height="auto"></center> | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/3/33/T--Tec-Chihuahua--basis2.png" width="950px" height="auto"></center> | ||
| − | + | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| + | <div class="a"><p align="justify"> Excretion of antimicrobial peptides in <i>Pichia pastoris for</i> <i>Paenibacillus larvae</i> and <i>Melissococcus plutonius</i> inhibition. The initial plan was to apply genetically modified yeasts engineered to excrete AMP’s and surfactin in a solution with hexane extract of the plant A. satureioides; surfactin has a synergistic effect with the hexane extract. This solution would be applied to the bee bread we knew larvae ingested in their diet. | ||
| + | </p></div><br> | ||
| + | <div class="a"><p align="justify">Learned obstacles regarding the method:</p></div> | ||
| + | <ol class="o"> | ||
| + | <li>Presence of genetically modified yeats would complicate the exportation process of honey to the European Union increasing the risks of having the product rejected.</li> | ||
| + | <li>The hexane extract of <i>A.satureioides</i> is oxidized by exposure to air; therefore, it may lose its efficiency.</li> | ||
| + | <li>An overdose of yeasts would cause fermentation of the honey and an alteration in the microbiota of the bees which could be counterproductive since this would cause diseases such as Nosema and American foulbrood to arrive.</li> | ||
| + | </ol><br> | ||
| + | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/3/39/T--Tec-Chihuahua--basis3.png" width="950px" height="auto"></center><br> | ||
| + | <div class="a"><p align="justify">Production of antimicrobial peptides in Escherichia coli for Paenibacillus larvae and Melissococcus plutonius inhibition. The second plan consisted in applying the purified antimicrobial peptides, after their production in E. coli BL21 (DE3), in the bee bread we knew larvae ingested in their diet.</div></p> | ||
| − | + | </div> | |
</div></div> | </div></div> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Revision as of 16:03, 17 October 2018
Gold Integrated Human Practices
Our integrated human practices are the result of each and every single human practices activity that we carried out throughout the iGEM season. We truly believe our work, in every section of our project, including wet lab, has significantly changed towards the implementation of our relevant communities feedback. Since the first day we engaged with beekeepers, our project has been shaping and improving towards an effective, responsible, safe and ethical work.
After the video call we had with Maria Mercedes Roca, Ph.D, where emphasis was placed on the three pillars of the UN for sustainable development, we saw the importance of these three areas and decided to exploit them in our integrated human practices: the economic, social and environmental area of our project, as well as a section showing how the design and execution of it has been, molded thanks to our silver human practices.
Project Basis
The foundation of the project was evolving, improving and solidifying thanks to the interactions we experienced in our human practices. There were fundamental changes such as the production chassis of the peptides and the application method of the product, as well as recommendations for the experimental plan and insights about the risk factors we should consider.
Excretion of antimicrobial peptides in Pichia pastoris for Paenibacillus larvae and Melissococcus plutonius inhibition. The initial plan was to apply genetically modified yeasts engineered to excrete AMP’s and surfactin in a solution with hexane extract of the plant A. satureioides; surfactin has a synergistic effect with the hexane extract. This solution would be applied to the bee bread we knew larvae ingested in their diet.
Learned obstacles regarding the method:
- Presence of genetically modified yeats would complicate the exportation process of honey to the European Union increasing the risks of having the product rejected.
- The hexane extract of A.satureioides is oxidized by exposure to air; therefore, it may lose its efficiency.
- An overdose of yeasts would cause fermentation of the honey and an alteration in the microbiota of the bees which could be counterproductive since this would cause diseases such as Nosema and American foulbrood to arrive.
Production of antimicrobial peptides in Escherichia coli for Paenibacillus larvae and Melissococcus plutonius inhibition. The second plan consisted in applying the purified antimicrobial peptides, after their production in E. coli BL21 (DE3), in the bee bread we knew larvae ingested in their diet.
Follow us on
social media:
We thank our
sponsors:
