Difference between revisions of "Team:Freiburg/Human Practices"
| Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
<div class="pcnt"> | <div class="pcnt"> | ||
<!-- CONTENT HIER --> | <!-- CONTENT HIER --> | ||
| + | <h1>Summary</h1> | ||
| + | <p>Basel Life is Europe's leading congress in the life sciences, showcasing cutting edge science and technology. This year the topic peptide therapeutics was a focus of Basel Life, amongst other emerging scientific fields. | ||
| + | Since this is an essential part of our project it was inevitable for us to attend Basellife where novel innovations meet inspiring ideas to tackle modern-day problems. We had the chance to learn of the newest developments in the field and to exchange ideas with renowned scientists who have dedicated their research to the identification, optimization and production of peptide therapeutics. Amongst other scientists Prof. Dr. Dieter Willbold, Walter Mier and Prof. Anna Maria Papini gave inspiring insights into their work advancing the potential of peptide therapeutics. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Our visit showed us how broad the field of peptide therapeutics really is and how many possibilities peptides offer for clinical use. Target-binding peptides can be applied as inhibitors for enzymes, but also as radioactively labeled probes that bind specifically to tumor tissue expressing a certain marker. Those so called “theranostics” can be applied as therapeutics as well as for diagnostic use (Melpomeni Fani, University Hospital Basel). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Furthermore we learnt about the latest progress in SPPS peptide synthesis, how to increase solubility of ones products using backbone protection groups (John Offer, The Francis Crick Institute, London) and about a new, eco friendly solvent which additionally reduces side-reactions (Jon Collins, CEM, Matthews). | ||
| + | |||
| + | After an inspiring day with lots of fascinating lectures we returned to Freiburg with many ideas on how to improve on our project. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 01:47, 22 October 2019
Summary
After getting to know each other, we quickly got to work and started brainstorming possible project ideas. Many topics were discussed, for example building a light-inducible cell printer, but with each idea we discussed we realized that our project has to be a foundational asset to not only the iGEM but the SynBio community. Thus - with the valuable input of our supervisors - we dug deeper into literature and kept looking for a fascinating project.
Lessons
- During the brainstorming phase we identified various aspects of an successful project. We started thinking of ways on how to incorporate society into the progress of finding our project.
Actions
- We dug deeper into the literature, read countless papers and had countless brainstorming sessions.
- We decided that besides the valuable input from our supervisors we wanted to engage with the public to find a project that is a pressing issue in society and science.
Summary
After reflecting on the discussion with the high school students, we realized that many questions were influenced by the headlines in recent years (for example the “CRISPR babies” in China 2). We asked ourselves how polarizing headlines affects the way people evaluate synthetic biology. To answer this question, we went on the streets of Freiburg to demonstrate how over-dramatisation through media can lead to misconceptions of scientific topics. With the interviewed people we discussed in one on one conversations, possibilities and future potential, that synthetic biology may enable. Some shared new possible ideas with us, which gave us more input for our project search. Afterwards, we handed them a flyer, which gave a brief easy-to-understand summary of current topics in synthetic biology and explained the concept of iGEM. The personal stories and opinions of the interviewed project encouraged us to create a project, which has the potential to address a problem that affects everyone in our society and that can be solved by science and society together - hand in hand.
Lessons
- Choose a topic that has a direct social impact.
- The public opinion must have an impact on the future of SynBio.
- Provide an easy way for anyone to engage in science and our project.
Actions
- Encouraged us further to work on a problem that affects society.
During our brainstorming phase, we had the chance to discuss the possibilities of synthetic biology with a class of high school students. We aimed to arouse their interest in synthetic biology and to reflect on any misconceptions they might have due to the ambiguous public perception of synthetic biology. We discussed ethical aspects of synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Additionally we highlighted the possibilities that high school classes can also join iGEM, which really resonated with them. Click /here/ to find out more
Lessons
- The importance of society in scientific debates, regardless of age, should not be underestimated.
- Inspired us to further research misconceptions of Synthetic Biology due to polarizing effects of tabloid media.
Actions
- Agreed to seek further inspiration by working with the public.
- Started to lay a foundation for our public engagement (VERLINKUNG).
- Offered our supervision/help, if they would want to start an high school iGEM team.
Summary
On one hand we gathered a lot of information due to literature and reports about multi-resistant bacteria, on the other hand we wanted to hear from experts with direct experience regarding this topic. To gain additional insights and perspectives, we met with Prof. Dr. Häcker, president of the German Society for Hygiene. While the rise of multidrug-resistant bacteria is an upcoming global crisis, he stressed that the situation differs from country to country. Countries with a working health care system are fortunate enough to be able to prevent the spread to a large degree at this particular moment. However, statistics does not matter, when it comes to the individual person. Prof. Häcker shared his clinical experience with us: “I have seen cases where we literally did not have a single antibiotic left and then we just hope that the patient's immune system is efficient enough to fight the infection.” We further discussed the critical conditions regarding multi-resistant germs in the developing world and the retreat of many pharmaceutical companies in this area. As we asked him, if peptide therapeutics are an alternative to antibiotics, he mentioned as their disadvantages due to the required high dosages.
Lessons
- Multi-resistant bacteria are already a problem for countries with a weak health care system.
- TPeople are dying because of this situation at this very moment, we live in a privileged situation.
Actions
- Final decision not to shift our project: We will help provide a solution against multi-resistant bacteria.
Summary
Peptide therapeutics development underwent rapid acceleration within the last years (REF). Economically a market increase of 9.1% from 2016 - 2024 is expected4. After gathering information about the advantages and disadvantages of peptide therapeutics, we met separately with Prof. Dr. Frank Münch and Dr. Rosenau, founders of the Ulm center for peptide therapeutics. Prof. Münch underlined the advantages of peptide therapeutics: “If we can make peptide therapeutics orally available, then Peptide therapeutics will be the medicine of the future - I am convinced of that.” Münch briefly mentioned how D-amino acids could be an option to bypass many of the disadvantages of L-peptides. We further discussed economical aspects and options, how to turn your research into economical value. Dr. Rosenau, who works with phage display and mirror-image phage display, discussed the advantages of those methods with us. Regarding our project he reinforced us to work with peptide therapeutics: “I do believe one of the main focus points will be targeting of antimicrobial resistance. Peptide therapeutics promise to be a relatively simple approach to generate new reserve antibiotics. At this moment the fight against multi-resistant bacteria has come to a crisis and the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a warning list, including Pseudomonas and MRSA”. Prof. Dr. Münch, as well as Dr. Rosenau, recommended us to visit Prof. Dr. Willbold, founder of Priavoid, a company, which aims to bring an all D-peptide therapeutics on the market.
Lessons
- Consider economical aspects in our project.
- Peptide therapeutics have immense potential, but also restrictions.
- Possible ways to overcome those restrictions may be D-peptides.
- Reinforced our aim to tackle antibiotic resistances.
Actions
- Start establishing phage display.
- Start setting up In-Silico models to simulate dockings and bindings.
- Contact Prof. Willbold.
Summary
Prof. Willbold is cofounder of Priavoid. Priavoid developed an all-D-peptide therapeutic against Alzheimer disease, which entered clinical trials already5. He emphasized the advantages of D-peptides: ”D-peptides combine the advantages of small molecule compounds with the advantages of therapeutic antibodies”. He explained that their drug candidate has a way higher half-life and thereby overcomes one of the biggest disadvantages of peptide therapeutics: “After 24 hours we observed that 90% of the D-peptides were completely unmodified [...]. The L-versions of those peptides were degraded in seconds in analogous experiments.” Also his drug candidate can be administered orally! Prof. Willbold confirmed that it’s possible for us to do a mirror-image phage display and work with D-amino acids. Furthermore, we discussed the economical aspects, which steps one has to consider, if you want to start a company while working in academic research
Lessons
- Multi-resistant bacteria are already a problem for countries with a weak health care system.
- TPeople are dying because of this situation at this very moment, we live in a privileged situation.
Actions
- Final decision not to shift our project: We will help provide a solution against multi-resistant bacteria.
