DOE Joint Genome Institute

  • COVID-19
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Our Science
    • DOE Mission Areas
    • Bioenergy Research Centers
    • Science Programs
    • Science Highlights
    • Scientists
    Data yielded from RIViT-seq increased the number of sigma factor-gene pairs confirmed in Streptomyces coelicolor from 209 to 399. Here, grey arrows denote previously known regulation and red arrows are regulation identified by RIViT-seq; orange nodes mark sigma factors while gray nodes mark other genes. (Otani, H., Mouncey, N.J. Nat Commun 13, 3502 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31191-w)
    Streamlining Regulon Identification in Bacteria
    Regulons are a group of genes that can be turned on or off by the same regulatory protein. RIViT-seq technology could speed up associating transcription factors with their target genes.

    More

    (PXFuel)
    Designer DNA: JGI Helps Users Blaze New Biosynthetic Pathways
    In a special issue of the journal Synthetic Biology, JGI scientific users share how they’ve worked with the JGI DNA Synthesis Science Program and what they’ve discovered through their collaborations.

    More

    A genetic element that generates targeted mutations, called diversity-generating retroelements (DGRs), are found in viruses, as well as bacteria and archaea. Most DGRs found in viruses appear to be in their tail fibers. These tail fibers – signified in the cartoon by the blue virus’ downward pointing ‘arms’— allow the virus to attach to one cell type (red), but not the other (purple). DGRs mutate these ‘arms,’ giving the virus opportunities to switch to different prey, like the purple cell. (Courtesy of Blair Paul)
    A Natural Mechanism Can Turbocharge Viral Evolution
    A team has discovered that diversity generating retroelements (DGRs) are not only widespread, but also surprisingly active. In viruses, DGRs appear to generate diversity quickly, allowing these viruses to target new microbial prey.

    More

  • Our Projects
    • Search JGI Projects
    • DOE Metrics/Statistics
    • Approved User Proposals
    • Legacy Projects
    Photograph of a stream of diatoms beneath Arctic sea ice.
    Polar Phytoplankton Need Zinc to Cope with the Cold
    As part of a long-term collaboration with the JGI Algal Program, researchers studying function and activity of phytoplankton genes in polar waters have found that these algae rely on dissolved zinc to photosynthesize.

    More

    This data image shows the monthly average sea surface temperature for May 2015. Between 2013 and 2016, a large mass of unusually warm ocean water--nicknamed the blob--dominated the North Pacific, indicated here by red, pink, and yellow colors signifying temperatures as much as three degrees Celsius (five degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Data are from the NASA Multi-scale Ultra-high Resolution Sea Surface Temperature (MUR SST) Analysis product. (Courtesy NASA Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center)
    When “The Blob” Made It Hotter Under the Water
    Researchers tracked the impact of a large-scale heatwave event in the ocean known as “The Blob” as part of an approved proposal through the Community Science Program.

    More

    A plantation of poplar trees. (David Gilbert)
    Genome Insider podcast: THE Bioenergy Tree
    The US Department of Energy’s favorite tree is poplar. In this episode, hear from ORNL scientists who have uncovered remarkable genetic secrets that bring us closer to making poplar an economical and sustainable source of energy and materials.

    More

  • Data & Tools
    • IMG
    • Data Portal
    • MycoCosm
    • PhycoCosm
    • Phytozome
    • GOLD
    HPCwire Editor's Choice Award (logo crop) for Best Use of HPC in the Life Sciences
    JGI Part of Berkeley Lab Team Awarded Best Use of HPC in Life Sciences
    The HPCwire Editors Choice Award for Best Use of HPC in Life Sciences went to the Berkeley Lab team comprised of JGI and ExaBiome Project team, supported by the DOE Exascale Computing Project for MetaHipMer, an end-to-end genome assembler that supports “an unprecedented assembly of environmental microbiomes.”

    More

    With a common set of "baseline metadata," JGI users can more easily access public data sets. (Steve Wilson)
    A User-Centered Approach to Accessing JGI Data
    Reflecting a structural shift in data access, the JGI Data Portal offers a way for users to more easily access public data sets through a common set of metadata.

    More

    Phytozome portal collage
    A More Intuitive Phytozome Interface
    Phytozome v13 now hosts upwards of 250 plant genomes and provides users with the genome browsers, gene pages, search, BLAST and BioMart data warehouse interfaces they have come to rely on, with a more intuitive interface.

    More

  • User Programs
    • Calls for Proposals
    • Special Initiatives & Programs
    • Product Offerings
    • User Support
    • Policies
    • Submit a Proposal
    screencap from Amundson and Wilkins subsurface microbiome video
    Digging into Microbial Ecosystems Deep Underground
    JGI users and microbiome researchers at Colorado State University have many questions about the microbial communities deep underground, including the role viral infection may play in other natural ecosystems.

    Read more

    Yeast strains engineered for the biochemical conversion of glucose to value-added products are limited in chemical output due to growth and viability constraints. Cell extracts provide an alternative format for chemical synthesis in the absence of cell growth by isolating the soluble components of lysed cells. By separating the production of enzymes (during growth) and the biochemical production process (in cell-free reactions), this framework enables biosynthesis of diverse chemical products at volumetric productivities greater than the source strains. (Blake Rasor)
    Boosting Small Molecule Production in Super “Soup”
    Researchers supported through the Emerging Technologies Opportunity Program describe a two-pronged approach that starts with engineered yeast cells but then moves out of the cell structure into a cell-free system.

    More

    These bright green spots are fluorescently labelled bacteria from soil collected from the surface of plant roots. For reference, the scale bar at bottom right is 10 micrometers long. (Rhona Stuart)
    A Powerful Technique to Study Microbes, Now Easier
    In JGI's Genome Insider podcast: LLNL biologist Jennifer Pett-Ridge collaborated with JGI scientists through the Emerging Technologies Opportunity Program to semi-automate experiments that measure microbial activity in soil.

    More

  • News & Publications
    • News
    • Blog
    • Podcasts
    • Webinars
    • Publications
    • Newsletter
    • Logos and Templates
    • Photos
    A view of the mangroves from which the giant bacteria were sampled in Guadeloupe. (Hugo Bret)
    Giant Bacteria Found in Guadeloupe Mangroves Challenge Traditional Concepts
    Harnessing JGI and Berkeley Lab resources, researchers characterized a giant - 5,000 times bigger than most bacteria - filamentous bacterium discovered in the Caribbean mangroves.

    More

    In their approved proposal, Frederick Colwell of Oregon State University and colleagues are interested in the microbial communities that live on Alaska’s glacially dominated Copper River Delta. They’re looking at how the microbes in these high latitude wetlands, such as the Copper River Delta wetland pond shown here, cycle carbon. (Courtesy of Rick Colwell)
    Monitoring Inter-Organism Interactions Within Ecosystems
    Many of the proposals approved through JGI's annual Community Science Program call focus on harnessing genomics to developing sustainable resources for biofuels and bioproducts.

    More

    Coloring the water, the algae Phaeocystis blooms off the side of the sampling vessel, Polarstern, in the temperate region of the North Atlantic. (Katrin Schmidt)
    Climate Change Threatens Base of Polar Oceans’ Bountiful Food Webs
    As warm-adapted microbes edge polewards, they’d oust resident tiny algae. It's a trend that threatens to destabilize the delicate marine food web and change the oceans as we know them.

    More

Our Science
Home › Our Science › Science Programs › DNA Synthesis Science Program › Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process

Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process

This web page provides guidance for Investigators as they prepare their JGI DNA synthesis proposal submissions in anticipation of the Synthetic Biology Internal Review process.

Background

Synthetic biology has the potential to accelerate science and bolster economic growth. However, like any new technology, synthetic biology could be misapplied or result in unintended consequences. Legitimate concerns have been raised over the intentional use of synthetic biology approaches to engineer pathogenic organisms and the accidental environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. Scientists pursuing synthetic biology research must diligently consider issues such as these.

Overview of the JGI Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process

The JGI Synthetic Biology Internal Review process seeks to assess, beyond technical and scientific merit, the broader aspects (e.g., environmental, biosafety, biosecurity) of the research proposals associated with the JGI’s DNA synthesis program. The purpose of this internal review process is two-fold: 1) to assess the broader aspects of the research, request proposal modifications if issues of concern are not sufficiently addressed in the proposal, reject research proposals where issues of concern are not or can not be satisfactorily addressed, and output a paper-trail audit of the review process; and 2) to encourage and educate researchers to more extensively consider the broader aspects of their research, including beyond the immediate research itself.

All JGI DNA synthesis proposals (including those from the JGI Community Science Program and from the DOE Bioenergy Research Centers) contain a broader implications section dedicated to a brief discussion of these broader aspects. This broader implications statement should address not merely the possible rewards but also a considered statement of the risks associated with the work. These statements serve as a useful tool to protect not only the public, but the Investigators (and their institutions), as well as JGI itself. These statements are proof of consideration and deliberation – proof of the responsible application of science. As members of the research community, we must consider risks, and be able to show our consideration of those risks – even if they are demonstrably small.

After a synthetic biology research proposal has successfully passed technical feasibility and scientific merit review, the proposal enters the JGI’s Synthetic Biology Internal Review process. A JGI system administrator uploads the proposal to the Synthetic Biology Internal Review System (SBIRS) and assigns a minimum of 3 Reviewers to it. Each Reviewer reads the full proposal, makes comments on the proposal in the SBIRS, and votes in the SBIRS to either approve the proposal or to discuss it further with the other assigned Reviewers. If not unanimously approved, the assigned Reviewers discuss the proposal in person or via telephone, and decide to approve or reject the proposal, or to require that modifications be made to the proposal to address the Reviewers’ concerns. The Reviewers email the decision to a system administrator, who records the decision in the SBIRS. If the Reviewers decide to approve the proposal after discussion, a JGI Director is required to approve the proposal before work begins. A JGI Director can reject any proposal, and can require that additional modifications be made to any proposal. The entire Synthetic Biology Internal Review process should take three weeks or less (unless modifications are requested, which could delay the process by an additional three weeks or more).

Guidelines for Investigators

Investigators are strongly encouraged to use the broader implications section of the proposal to make it clear to the Reviewers that the Investigators are actively thinking about the broader implications of their research, and that they have mitigation strategies in place to address outstanding issues of concern. Note that Investigators are not expected to provide an in-depth analysis (e.g., full socio-economic analysis) of their early-stage research, but Investigators should demonstrate that they are currently considering the implications of their research, and that more in-depth analyses can and will be pursued as their research matures. Investigators should not merely write “None” or “All research will be conducted in a safe manner according to Federal regulations” in the broader implications statement, as this will lead to the Reviewers asking for proposal modifications, incurring three week or longer delays. In addition, Investigators are requested to check over their proposals for spelling and grammar mistakes, which will not favorably contribute to the review process.

Investigators must explicitly state if their proposed research would:

  1. Demonstrate how to make a vaccine ineffective
  2. Confer resistance to antibiotics or antiviral agents
  3. Enhance a pathogen’s virulence or make a non-virulent microbe virulent
  4. Increase transmissibility of a pathogen
  5. Alter the host range of a pathogen
  6. Enable a pathogen’s ability to evade diagnostic or detection modalities
  7. Enable the weaponization of a biological agent or toxin

Here are a couple of illustrative scenarios that may assist Investigators as they think about the broader aspects of their proposed research:

A)    A plant lab is seeking to better understand plant/pathogen interactions. As part of the research plan, the researchers will develop a plant pathogen strain that no longer stimulates a response in the plant. What are the concerns around an unintentional and/or intentional uncontrolled release of this engineered pathogen? What could and should the plant lab itself do to address these concerns, and who else could and should it collaborate with along these lines?

B)    A microbiology lab is seeking to develop a more robust microbe that can break down cell walls of a wider variety of feedstocks, some of which may contain components that can impair cell growth and replication. To this end, the researchers will add exogenous catabolic and solvent-tolerance genes to a non-pathogenic microbe for the purpose of more effectively deconstructing the feedstock biomass. What consequences could result from such work if this engineered organism were to be unintentionally released from the lab? What could and should the microbiology lab itself do to address these concerns, and who else could and should it collaborate with along these lines?

Note that these two illustrative examples are by no means the only issues to consider. It is up to the Investigator (and the Reviewers) to determine the broader aspects of the proposed research.

Thinking about proposed research in a broader light may feel uncomfortable to Investigators that are unaccustomed to doing so. However, investigators should recognize that there are broader aspects, positive and negative, to all research, and that in some cases, actively considering these aspects enables the placement of mitigating strategies so as to avoid unwanted outcomes.

Responding to Modifications Required by Reviewers

As mentioned above, one possible outcome of the Internal Review process is that the Reviewers may require modifications be made to a proposal before it can be approved. When modifications are required, the Internal Review decision report that the Researcher receives will contain a section entitled “Review Committee Decision Notes” as well as a section entitled “Reviewer Comments”. Researchers should be sure to address the specific modifications requested in the “Review Committee Decision Notes” section. While Researchers may respond to any of the individual comments in the “Reviewer Comments” section, this should not be considered essential. It should be noted that, as described above, Reviewers individually comment on each proposal before discussing proposals together. During group discussion, Reviewers may collectively determine if any of the individual comments must be responded to, and if so, the Reviewers will include these points of concern in their decision notes.

Summary

Investigators are encouraged to think broadly about the aspects of their research. This will make sure that JGI DNA synthesis is not delayed, and it will start to nudge the collective research community’s cultural mindset in the right direction.

  • Plant Program
  • Fungal & Algal Program
  • Metagenome Program
  • Microbial Program
  • DNA Synthesis Science Program
    • Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process
    • Synthetic Biology Publications
  • Metabolomics Program
  • Secondary Metabolites

More topics:

  • COVID-19 Status
  • News
  • Science Highlights
  • Blog
  • Webinars
  • CSP Plans
  • Featured Profiles
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • User Meeting
  • MGM Workshops
  • Internal
  • Disclaimer
  • Credits
  • Policies
  • Emergency Info
  • Accessibility / Section 508 Statement
  • Flickr
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Biosciences Area
A project of the US Department of Energy, Office of Science

JGI is a DOE Office of Science User Facility managed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

© 1997-2023 The Regents of the University of California