<!DOCTYPE html> <!DOCTYPE html>

Integrated Human Practices

"Human Practices is the study of how your work affects the world, and how the world affects your work."
— Peter Carr, Director of Judging

Motivation

As a foundational advance project, our main goal is to provide scientific society with an innovative approach to a matter of great importance. To ensure that our DNA toolkit will be valuable for the scientific community and will fulfill the market’s demands, we came in contact with stakeholders, investors, and professionals in this field of science that could share our aspirations. The feedback gained from the interaction with experts in the field helped us improve and elevate our project from the very beginning of its development.

Design & Work Plan

Integrating our human practices into our work meant considering its ethical, social and scientific dimensions. In order to fully understand the potential applications, implications, and issues of our project, we decided to build our human practices on six pillars:

We implemented a customized PESTLE analysis in order to categorize our problems and concerns regarding their impact on the “environment” of our project. In detail, based on PESTLE analysis we planned our activities to complete the following checklist:

Receive valuable feedback from the scientific community, regarding our wet lab and dry lab methods.
Investigate the ethical limitations our proposed project raises.
Investigate the social impact of our approach and how the community will react to our research.
Consider if our work is safe for us and the environment.
Research the market's demand in order to realize if our work would be influential for the scientific community.

Due to the innovative nature of our project our team faced novel challenges. One major issue was that such a project is a far-off topic in our home university. More specifically, research in the field of synthetic biology is not fully developed in our country. Thus, we were grateful to cooperate with many scientists from institutes in Greece and abroad. This was a great benefit to our work. The feedback gained from those scientists and partners improved our skills, influenced our work and organized our experiments in the lab as well as our modeling work. The figure below displays in detail the most influential experts we contacted throughout our work.

Discussing our project with Dr. Kontoyiannis

Dr. Kontoyiannis Dimitris is a researcher in the Biomedical Sciences Research Centre “Alexander Fleming”, one of the most rapidly developing research centers in Greece, based in Athens.

Dr. Kontoyiannis advice was determinant for our project design. His feedback over the project’s part regarding ELISA, along with the notifications we received from other researchers, led us to redesign our toolkit. The redesigned toolkit was called POSEIDON.

Dr. Kontoyiannis was one of the first researchers that we presented our work to. Our approach has changed dramatically in response to his valuable feedback. More specifically, after discussing with Dr. Kontoyiannis, we completely revised the module of our system. At the end of March we had come up with the idea of a toolkit that could detect and quantify a protein,even at extremely small quantities that correspond to a few molecules. Initially, the quantity of the protein would be translated via ELISA into an equivalent quantity of a specific DNA strand. This DNA strand would serve as the input signal of a DNA circuit. The circuit would amplify the signal and finally would release a fluorophore-tagged DNA strand from a fluorophore-quencher reporter complex as output. The problem that Dr. Kontoyiannis pointed out, was the fact that the particular assay, that our team was planning to develop, did not actually present any solid scientific or commercial advantage to the standard ELISA technique. Despite that our team supported that the signal amplification feature of our approach could comprise a substantial upgrade to ELISA, Dr. Kontoyiannis insisted that the probability of false-positive results in this assay might be too high, resulting in high levels of noise, which would render experimental outputs obscure and unreliable. Moreover, being himself an expert in flow cytometry measurement techniques, he explained that the available instrumentation might have not been able to accurately and reproductively measure the output signal due to technical limitations. Given the above, Dr. Kontoyiannis advised us to turn our focus on the study of protein interactions with DNA, which is a cutting edge topic in current molecular biology, instead of the simple detection and quantification of proteins in a sample, which is rather saturated by the presence of ELISA in the same research field. With his feedback, it was clear that we had to exclude ELISA from our project and we had to look for new ways to derive the interaction of the protein with our system. After some days we came up with the protein interaction system that is still part of our project and with a new design that was more specific but had many more capabilities. The redesigned toolkit was called POSEIDON.

Collaboration with CERTH & Institute of Applied Bioscience

CERTH is one of the leading research centres in Greece. It is listed among the TOP-20 E.U. research institutions with the highest participation in competitive research grants. CERTH is at a non-profit status, supervised by the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) of the Greek Ministry of Development and Investments.

Dr. Ouzounis expressed his concern over the use of biomarkers on our toolkit and the definition of biomarkers. This notification along with others made us redesign our whole project.

During our iGEM journey, we were guided and advised by the Center of Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH) on multiple occasions to optimize our wet and dry lab practices. Our first meeting occurred in March, when we visited Dr. Konstandopoulos, Chairman & Director of Central Directorate. Dr. Konstandopoulos reviewed our idea of measuring low concentrations of multiple biomarkers at the same time, an idea which he was keen on enough, to advise us to patent before presenting it to the public. As the project was still at its early stages his feedback was of utmost importance to us.

A second communication with CERTH included our meeting with Dr. Ouzounis, Director of Research, BCPLAB-CPERI. Dr. Ouzounis expressed his concerns about the capabilities of biomarkers and about the number of conditions that a biοmarker could be related to. In other words, he expressed his belief that measuring the concentration of a biomarker is not much of a use as biomarkers are not well defined. This concern was also expressed by some mentors and academics of our university, thus we decided to change the project’s core idea. More specifically, because of the problems surrounding biomarkers and because of the problems connected with ELISA, we had redesign our project. After extensive research and multiple proposals of the design, we concluded a few weeks later. in the project that we present now.

The researchers at INEB advised us on conducting titration experiments in order to find out the concentration limits of our toolkit. These experiments will be conducted in the future, after the iGEM season due to the tight time limits.

The last and most important contact with the researchers of CERTH was at the Institute of Applied Bioscience, a department of CERTH. There, we presented the finalized idea of our toolkit and the first experimental results. Included in their feedback was their expression of interest in using POSEIDON in their work, which hinted us that the advancement of our primary ideas was proceeding in the right direction. On their part, they guided us on experimental procedures concerning experimental titrations on the transcription factor’s minimum and maximum concentrations. Unluckily we didn’t manage to perform the titrations in order to determine the thresholds and the limits our toolkit disposes of, due to the time limit of the competition. However, we intend to complete this part after the iGEM season.

Visiting Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Novartis is a global healthcare company based in Switzerland that provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide.

The meeting in Novartis made us realize that our toolkit could put into test these new drugs in a cell free environment with the benefit of minimal consumption of time and resources and by significantly simplifying the testing process, while at the same time, giving high accuracy results.

We envisioned a functional low-cost toolkit that would help the users not only characterize and quantify a Transcription Factor binding, but any other biological molecules that have the functionality to bind with specific DNA parts. POSEIDON, was designed to be a fundamental DNA toolkit that could have the ability to provide an innovative approach to a variety of diseases and pathological conditions. Through extensive brainstorming sessions we decided to use our toolkit to shed light on the metastasis of melanoma cancer.

The necessity to learn more about the “market’s view” on our proposal was fulfilled by visiting Novartis corporation in Thessaloniki. The company corresponded promptly at our proposal and invited us to visit their facilities.

During our visit we had the opportunity to meet Mrs. Kalaitzaki Christina, Disease Area Manager of Novartis corporation in Thessaloniki. Mrs. Kalaitzaki was the head leader of Novartis campaign on Melanoma Awareness Campaign in 2018 ‘Melanoma: Let’s get under the skin of it’ campaign in partnership with Melanoma UK.

Visiting Novartis was valuable in more than just one way: we did not just gain experience in holding a presentation in front of an experienced audience, but also received great feedback on our toolkit future applications and our decision to direct our research to metastatic melanoma. We elaborated on potential applications of our toolkit. We discussed various ways to target transcription factors in cancer models: by modulating their expression or degradation, by blocking protein/protein interactions, by targeting the transcription factor itself to prevent its DNA binding. Our toolkit could be capable of studying the above interactions in a cell-free system and evaluate their binding at first stages.

Participating in Volos Summer School

While discussing with the researchers of Translational Genomics Institute we came to the conclusion that we should implement SNPs tests on our bindings sites. So we followed their advice and indeed, such experiments confirmed the capabilities of our toolkit and provided us some very interesting results.

Volos Summer School of Human Genetics is a three day seminar about the computational and statistical analysis of genome-wide data. The main areas of focus were the study of genome-wide association, the meta-analysis of related studies, and the joint analysis of multiple diseases or traits to understand pleiotropy. The summer school was held by the Director of the Institute of Translational Genomics, Helmholtz Centre Munich, Eleftheria Zeggini and the Institute's investigators.

Planning to use our toolkit to examine how particular mutations affect the binding affinity, we decided to attend the Volos Summer School of Human Genetics 2019. During the 3-days' long sessions, two of our team members learned the basics of analyzing genome-wide data along with 18 MSc students and Ph.D. candidates.

More specifically, our team members gained experience in analyzing large scale data, conducting genome-wide association studies and methods for meta-analysis through tools such as PLINK and various R packages. Furthermore, we practiced our skills through a hands-on-matter project, where we designed a genetic study about human obesity. Volos summer school was a great opportunity for us not only to acquire new skills but also to discuss with world renewed scientists about our project and get more confident about our ideas surrounding the technical hurdles we encountered in our modeling approach.

During the summer school we understood the importance of SNPs in the human genome and we had decided to conduct experiments with binding sites that included SNPs. Indeed after some months, we managed to conduct experiments with mutated binding sites of the NF-κΒ transcription factor and we had the chance to observe again the impressive effects of the SNPs.

Attending the demonstration at CIRI-AUTh, meeting Dr. Laura Benzonana

Dr. Laura Benzonana is a Molecular Biologist Ph.D. and Business Development Manager at Biodynamics S.A., one of the leading laboratory equipment supplier companies in Greece.

In the presentation of a Real-Time PCR, by Dr. Laura Benzonana, we noticed the benefits of such a device over a classical spectrofluorometer. After the presentation, we conducted all measurement of the DSD experiments with a Real-Time PCR.

In terms of our team’s laboratory training, we were kindly invited to a presentation session held at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (CIRI-AUTh). Dr. Benzonana made a demonstration of Mic qPCR, a portable Magnetic Induction Cycler for Real-Time PCR. During and after the demonstration, our team had the chance to come into contact with Dr. Benzonana. She suggested that a Real-Time PCR instrument is capable of performing far more accurate and reproducible measurements than a classical spectrofluorometer, which we were initially intending to use for our measurements. Dr. Benzonana’s remarks were key to the quality of our measurements, as it was made clear to our team that utilization of a Real-Time PCR instrument would offer a more precise and robust method to quantify the fluorescence intensity of our samples. The instrument’s advanced optical system enables stable and accurate fluorescence measurements over long periods of time, while the instrument’s capability of running multiple experiments at the same time would save valuable amounts of time. The latter, combined with the Real-Time PCR device’s ability to offer a stable, fully controlled operating environment, holds promise to greatly improve reproducibility of our measurements. The demonstration was followed by a presentation about the products, where we had the opportunity to receive further information, advice and tips about the procedure providing us with more specific details, essential for the right execution of the experiments.

Troubleshooting with Dr. David Soloveichik

David Soloveichik is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. His scientific area of interest is Molecular Programming: the engineering of complex molecular systems for synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and bioengineering. Dr. Soloveichik is a pioneer in DNA Strand Displacement circuits and one of the authors of “Programmable chemical controllers made from DNA“.

Dr. Soloveichik helped us improve our Genetic Algorithm and suggested some alterations in our experimental procedures. Additionally he gave us information that helped us improve our sequences and our Genetic Algorithm.

During the summer we arranged a skype call with Dr. David Soloveichik. We asked for his consultation regarding the execution of our toolkit, as we faced some issues on the signal we were receiving from the reporter complex. He advised us to use the FAM fluorophore, instead of ROX, based on his experience with the two and the nature of our measuring device. His and his colleagues’ past work with qPCR machines added valuable impact to the team’s endeavors. Additionally, he gave us valuable feedback on our Genetic Algorithm model and the sequences it has come up with while evaluating our CRNs design. Additionally, he helped us select better sequences by informing us that it is preferable to have toeholds on the low side of the toehold energy range. This choice, minimizes the spurious and unproductive reactions. Implementing his advice on our modeling work, we were able to improve our Genetic Algorithm by introducing the energy variance.

Receiving Feedback from Mr. Damalas.

Stamatios G. Damalas is a PhD candidate in Wageningen UR. His field of research include Biofuels, Molecular Biology, Biotechnology, and Cell Culture.

Stamatios G. Damalas helped us design an efficient and accurate cloning strategy in order to facilitate our effort to insert our DNA gates into plasmid DNA.

During the time our team was brainstorming on the idea of designing a Chemical Reaction Network with DNA gates derived from circular plasmid DNA cloned into bacteria, we were seeking for an efficient cloning strategy in order to insert our DNA gates into PSB1C3 plasmids. Therefore, we contacted Mr. Damalas, an expert in the particular field of study, who kindly provided us with valuable instructions on the pipeline of steps we had to follow in terms of our cloning process. Mr. Damalas suggested that using a Golden Gate Assembly method would ascend the potential of our cloning strategy, offering enhanced modularity and accuracy of our assembly design, both on the order and orientation of the assembled DNA fragments, due to the offsite digestion of substrate DNA by Type IIS restriction endonucleases. Those features, combined with the substantial reduction of time waste thanks to the simultaneous digestion and ligation, ensemble, according to Mr. Damalas, a more reliable, fast and efficient alternative to the standard assembly process, which uses Prefix and Suffix restriction sites for sequential, time-consuming digestions and ligations. For the implementation of this strategy, Mr. Damalas kindly offered to design for our team a pair of primers, that would insert the recognition sequences of BsaI, a Type IIS restriction endonuclease, in PSB1C3 plasmid through a simple PCR step. According to Mr. Damalas’ approach, the primers would only anneal to a plasmid construct containing the expression device (Promoter, RBS and coding sequence) of AmilCP, a chromoprotein with a strong blue/purple color. Bacteria transformed with the correct construct would produce strongly colored colonies, which would be easily detected and selected as carriers of the correct plasmid construct, where the primer pair would function properly.

Consulted by Dr. Kolocouris

Dr. Kolocouris is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. His field of research is among others, the study of drugs-receptor interactions via biomolecular simulations and the study of reactions mechanisms via computational organic chemistry techniques.

The interaction with Dr. Kolocouris affected dramatically our modeling approach on the binding of Protein-DNA complex. Following his advice, we implemented Molecular Dynamics Simulation on our modeling work to calculate in silico the Free Energy of Binding of the Protein-DNA complex. Furthermore, Mr. Dimitris Stamatis provided us with constant support over all matters concerning the applied mechanisms and the evaluation of the final results of molecular dynamics.

The collaboration with Dr. Kolocouris was a key point for the design and execution of our model. At the end of July, we had our first Skype meeting with Dr. Kolocouris. We addressed him with the need to calculate in silico the binding free energy of the Protein-DNA complex. Dr Kolocouris introduced us to Molecular Dynamics simulations. Considering his advice we started working on Molecular Dynamics using the MMPBSA and MMGBSA methods. Both techniques are widely used for calculating ligand-receptor binding affinities. Moreover, he provided us with information on the prevalent software for biomolecular simulations and analysis. During our skype meetings, we concluded in implementing two software packages on our execution plan, Schrodinger-Desmond and AMBER. Additionally, Dr.Kolocouris introduced us to one of his lab members, Mr. Dimitris Stamatis, who provided us constant support over all matters concerning Molecular Dynamics.

Receiving Feedback from LCB Aertslab

The members of Aertslab, suggested us to test our toolkit with more than one binding site. We implemented their advice, by experimenting with a second transcription factor ELK1. Additionally they verified that our signal depletion was due to fluorophore photobleaching. With this information in mind we proceeded with creating the Photobleaching Correction Algorithm.

The Laboratory of Computational Biology is part of the KU Leuven Center for Human Genetics and the VIB Center for Brain and Disease Research. Its purpose lies in decoding the genomic regulatory code and understanding how genomic regulatory programs drive dynamic changes in cellular states.

We came in contact with LCB Aertslab, as their research on genomic regulatory networks is highly correlated with our project’s possible applications. As the interaction of multiple transcription factors and their binding to the DNA regulates a great part of the gene expression, our toolkit could facilitate the research on those interactions.

We skyped with two members of the lab, Florian and Jasper. During the skype meeting, we elaborated on our DNA circuit functionality, we provided them with experimental results of an RT-PCR run and we demonstrated the computational model of the reactions simulations. After presenting our work, they advised us to try our toolkit on more than one binding site. We implemented this idea in our project by testing our toolkit with a second transcription factor, ELK1. Additionally, they verified that our signal depletion was due to fluorophore photobleaching.
On the other side they expressed their concerns on a limitation of our toolkit. Our toolkit at its current form, is now able to study Transcription Factors that can't be purified from an extract. As a result, the toolkit can't be used for studying newly discovered translation factors, as a purification method hasn't been found yet. Of course, we intend to improve the toolkit in the future by making it compatible with extracts.

Meeting with Dr. Fragia Konstantina

Dr. Konstantina Fragia MD, PhD is a graduate of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School. She is a pathologist with great experience in vascular lesions and melanomas. Currently, she is the scientific Director of HistoBio Diagnosis, Private Diagnostic Laboratory, president of MELABUS, an Organization for the Prevention and Fight against Melanoma and Vice President of Hellenic Melanoma Study Society (ELEMMEL).

Providing statistical information regarding metastatic melanoma in Greece, we validated the importance of research on this particular field. Assistance on figuring out what transcription factor to use. Dr. Fragia also contributed deeply on our project design and validation process as she advised us on the selection of the second transcription factor (ELK1) that could be characterized with our toolkit.

Before approaching Dr. Fragia we investigated on her scientific background and concluded that she was the most suitable candidate to contribute to our work by providing information on metastatic melanoma as well as feedback for the design of our work plan. We prepared for the meeting and organized specific questions to address to her.

Q: As the Vice president of ELEMEL and a dermatologist we believe that you are the most qualified person to inform us about melanoma in our country.
A: In recent years, people in Greece have become increasingly concerned about their health and especially about the health of their children.We are happy to see, that through the information we provide within ELEMEL and the MELABUS team, a big difference in awareness is made, especially at the younger ages. It is our duty to inform the public to limit the incidents of melanoma in Greece.

Q: What are the main factors that lead to melanoma?
A: The exact cause of melanoma is not known. Certain endogenous and environmental factors can increase the likelihood of developing melanoma in a person, the most important being excessive exposure to sunlight and especially ultraviolet. If we want to summarize the reasons we would focus on: UV light, pale skin, individual or family history of melanoma or cancer in general, severe sunburn and the appearance of unnatural moles.

Q: What are the incidence rates of melanoma in our country?
A: Unfortunately, the rates are not particularly encouraging, especially considering the actions being taken to inform the public and disseminate the value of prevention. According to recent statistics, melanoma is the sixth most common type of cancer in men and the seventh most common in women. In Greece, the incidence of the disease is increasing and it is estimated that every year 3-4 people per 100,000 population develop melanoma.

Q: Our project at this stage of its development is a molecular toolkit, that has the ability to characterize transcription factors and also study the effects of epigenetic modifications. Following the advice of our PI professor Dr. Mosialo, we concluded that we should prove our toolkit’s abilities, by characterizing transcription factors that have been studied in detail before so that we can have comparable data. What is your opinion on this approach?
A: As you have already explained your project relies on DNA computing, a very new research field. I strongly advise you to follow the “safe path” on working on a known transcription factor to validate the functionality of the toolkit. As a next step you should work on a transcription factor associated to metastatic melanoma. One transcription factor that is known to play vital role in metastasis of melanoma is the ELK1 protein, member of the ETS oncogene family.

Visiting the Hellenic National Bioethics Commission
Interview with Dr.Vidalis

Max Born once said, “science can not stop while ethics catches up, and nobody should expect scientists to do all the thinking for the country”

Dr. Panagiotis K. Vidalis graduated from the Law Department of the University of Athens, where he also completed his PhD in Constitutional Law. He is a scientific collaborator of the National Bioethics Committee and expert on Bioethics in the EU. He teaches in the post graduate program "Bioethics" of the University of Crete.

Through this interview we gained insight on the current legislation in Greece regarding biosafety and bioethics. Dr. Vidalis evaluated our work and presented opportunities and risks for our future work plan.

At the beginning of summer, we visited the Hellenic National Bioethics Commission in Athens, where we interviewed Dr. Panagiotis Vidalis. In order to gain insight on the current legislation in Greece regarding Bioethics and Biosafety we addressed Dr. Vidalis with the following questions.

Q: What is the current applicable legislation on synthetic biology in Greece?
A: There is no legislation that deals exclusively with synthetic biology as it is a particularly advanced new industry. In specific cases where synthetic biology appertain to genetic modification, then GMO legislation can be applied. Generally existing legislation is based on the precautionary principle (Rio Convention on Biodiversity).

Q: Could we depict any differences in the current legislation in the countries of the European Union?
A: The truth is that there are no major differences. The general framework of legislation is common, more flexible in some countries and more stringent in others. These differences are not that much due to the political situation in each country, but to the cultural differences, values and perceptions that identify each nation.

Q: Regarding GMOs, what is the main difference we see in the European and American systems?
A: Interesting topic of discussion. Well, in America the control that GMOs receive is no different from the general control over food inspection. In detail, a manufacturer is not required to label its product for GMO content, but just add a simple reference to the ingredients. In Europe, the legislation is a little stricter. Before it reaches the consumer, each product goes through a different control specific to its category. Besides, GMOs are intensily categorized so that the consumer can identify GMO-containing products.

Q: We are interested in talking about biosafety. What is the applicable legislation?
A: As we said before, the legislation is based on precautionary principles. When it comes to biosecurity issues, we need to consider not only the safety of the consumer but also the researcher himself. It is worth noticing that a product may not be harmful directly to the consumer, yet it can harm the environment to such an extent that it will ultimately harm us overall.

Q: We are living in a time when the evolution of science and technology is rapid. Let's look at ten years from now. What is believed to change in the current legislation on synthetic biology?
A: Legislation is always adapted and will continue to be adapted to the needs of science and evolution. Ideally, in a few years, there will be customized legislation for synthetic biology and every branch of science.

Q: After a detailed presentation of our project, what are the main aspects that should concert us in our project development?
A: Your project falls under the category of Foundational advance, and even though E.coli cells are used to complete the experiments, I do not think there is any immediate moral hazard for which additional action should be taken. Of course, every action you take should follow the detailed guidelines set by the iGEM Foundation. As for future use of your DNA toolkit, you will have to keep in mind the precise regulation of the European Pattern Office in Munich, legislation that applies to startup companies in Europe.

Q: Finally as we have already discussed in our future plans we are considering to continue with our research program. We would like to ask you about the legislation that is applied in start-up companies in Europe.
A: Any idea that is propelling to create a business must receive a patent. Every researcher who wants to see his idea to come to fruition must meet the criteria set out in a European context by the Munich-based European Patent Office. I will advise you to talk with this committee for a spherical view of the matter.

Skype meeting with ELPEN

ELPEN is a greek pharmaceutical company which was found in 1965. Main goals of the company are the production of reliable products for the therapy of patients and the research and development of innovative drugs.

As Mrs Papaioannou mentioned in our meeting we should consider that not everyone in the corporate world is familiar with scientific terminology or is capable to understand the full aspect of a project or idea. The goal is to be able to explain your innovative idea in a way that different social groups could comprehend. Receiving feedback from ELPEN personnel helped us improve our presentation and communication skills.

We wanted to focus on our marketing approach to the corporate world. So we contacted ELPEN pharmaceuticals marketing team in the hope of receiving valuable feedback on the ways we communicate our research to the industry. We had the chance to have a Skype conversation and to present our project in front of Anna Maria Chronopoulou, Head of Corporate Communication & Corporate Social Responsibility and Georgia Papaioannou, Communication and Market Access Associate.

The great insight we gained from this conversation was based on the fact that we talked with experts on the marketing and communication & corporate department. That was one of a kind experience for our team as we had the chance to present our work on a “different group”. The fact that we had a chance to talk with specialists in the field was extremely helpful in how we should implement our work in corporate society.

In detail, we were advised to start our presentation based on the impact our idea would have on society as a whole and not just in the scientific community. The main goal as a foundational advance project was to find the silver line between science and society, we believe that this conversation was a boost for us to improve our corporate image.

DESMOS Protocol

The highlight of our Human Practices efforts this year was the design of DESMOS, a multifunctional framework designed to serve as a bridge from science to society. In a short guide, we implemented a PESTLE analysis moduled to fit an iGEM team’s needs. Recognizing the difficulties iGEM teams face while reaching to specialist beyond the university professors, we implemented in our protocol a presentation guideline for future iGEM teams to follow to give more precise and efficient presentations. For a detailed analysis of DESMOS read more.

Team:Thessaloniki/IntegratedHumanPractices