国际基因工程机器大赛在中国

合成生物学是一门新兴的交叉学科,为培养合成生物学后备人才,国际基因工程机器(iGEM)大赛应运而生。2007年中国首次有5支队伍参加iGEM大赛,至今已经有11年的历史。然而,目前尚无全面总结中国iGEM队伍的相关文献。文中全面梳理和总结了iGEM大赛在中国的发展历程,包括参赛队伍的数量、地理分布、竞赛成绩、中国iGEM社群CCiC的发展情况,以及iGEM大赛对中国高等教育的促进和借鉴作用,并深度思考了iGEM大赛在中国的发展前景,提出了发展建议。随着我国高等教育"双一流"战略的实施,iGEM大赛在我国的发展具有光明的前景,可为培养新一代科学家作出更大的贡献。     

国际基因工程机器大赛对本科生科研教育的启示

近年来,国际基因工程机器大赛(International genetically engineered machine,iGEM,简称iGEM大赛)在全球迅猛发展。仅2017年iGEM大赛全球注册队伍就达到了史无前例的313支,中国地区有98支iGEM团队报名参赛并取得了优异成绩。与国内已有的诸多大学生创新项目、科研培养项目不同,iGEM的组织模式是以学生为主体的研究型学习。该模式取得了丰富的教育效果,体现了新的教育理念,对于我国高校组织本科生课外科研训练有较大的借鉴意义。文中以北京大学参加iGEM大赛为线索,介绍国际基因工程机器大赛(iGEM)的背景和基本情况并以一个参赛周期为序再现北京大学iGEM团队组织和参赛的主要过程。通过与其他本科生科研训练的组织模式进行比较,探讨iGEM对本科生科研训练意义,并总结iGEM的组织经验和对本科生科研能力培养以及组织本科生科研学术竞赛的启示,希望能为国内高校的iGEM活动组织以及本科教育改革提供借鉴。     

国际基因工程机器竞赛热点赛道优势项目的评价分析

国际基因工程机器竞赛（iGEM）是合成生物学领域的国际顶级学术科技竞赛,因项目内容紧密结合科技前沿、广泛关注社会热点,且在学生创新创造能力培养方面具有独特优势,该项竞赛得到国内、外众多知名高校的关注和肯定。本文聚焦iGEM热点赛道,以获得最佳单项奖提名的优势项目为研究对象,从项目研究问题的实践价值、重要技术应用情况、验证实验完成度、模型对项目的支持作用、功能性软件和硬件的搭建6个维度对这些项目进行评价,总结优势项目的特点,并进一步分析中国区团队近5年获评最佳单项奖提名的情况,为后续参赛团队的项目设计和以该赛事为平台的创新人才培养提供数据支持和有益启发。     

关于国际遗传工程机器大赛金奖项目的分析

国际遗传工程机器大赛(iGEM)是合成生物学领域顶尖水平的国际性学术竞赛。近年来,随着国内各高校参赛队伍的逐渐增多,iGEM引发了大众越来越多的关注与重视。选取2013—2017年5年间iGEM竞赛中的部分金奖项目,分别从湿实验、人力实践和维基3个角度切入,进行数据处理与统计,分析金奖项目优势,探究获得金奖的主要影响因素,以期为后续参赛队伍提供参考与指导。研究认为,参赛队伍湿实验部分应优先选择热点话题与热点技术,人力实践部分应与项目紧密融合,维基部分应兼具逻辑性与可视性,满足以上条件时,有利于项目取得良好的成绩。     

2018 iGEM专栏序言

国际基因工程机器大赛(iGEM),作为一项以合成生物学为主题,集合了多种交叉学科的学生科研赛事,已成为了当今生物科研领域属于年轻人的最具活力和影响力的舞台。近年来,许多来自国内的大学和高中队伍不仅在比赛中取得了优异成绩,还做出了具有创新性的科研成果。为此,我们特组织出版了此iGEM专栏,集中报道近年来国内多支iGEM参赛队的研究工作,同时关注、探讨iGEM大赛在中国的发展情况和对大学生科研能力培养的启示。     

合成生物学与国际遗传工程机器大赛对培养大学生双创思维与能力的影响

合成生物学是21世纪前沿交叉学科,是现代生物学最具发展空间的领域之一.随着合成生物学的迅速发展,国际基因工程机器大赛(International Genetically Engineered Machine,iGEM)应运而生.iGEM竞赛项目基于合成生物学学科基础,应用现代生物学技术手段,立足解决社区和身边的实际生物...     

以国际遗传工程机器大赛(iGEM)为载体培养大学生的科研创新能力

创新能力是科技发展的源动力,是一个民族进步的灵魂。21世纪的中国需要高素质的创新人才,而高等学校是培养人才,生产和传播新知识、新思想的重要基地。因此,如何加强大学生创新精神和创新能力的培养是我国高等教育的一大重要课题。国际遗传工程机器大赛(International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition,i GEM Competition)是合成生物学领域的顶级国际性学术竞赛,要求大学生能够用以合成生物学为核心的综合手段去解决科研和应用中的实际问题。i GEM竞赛过程非常注重对本科生的科研能力、团队协作、英语水平、沟通和表达技能的培养,从而吸引了全球顶尖高校和国内一流大学的积极参与。本文旨在通过对i GEM竞赛及2016年获奖情况进行分析,并结合第三军医大学i GEM代表队的参赛经历,探讨i GEM竞赛在培养大学生科研创新能力中的重要作用。     

国际基因工程机器大赛中的生物资源宝库

国际基因工程机器大赛（international Genetically Engineered Machine competition, iGEM）是面向世界范围的大学生科技赛事,该比赛旨在推广合成生物学,各个参赛队伍通过使用原始元件和自己设计的新元件来构建新的生物系统,并在活细胞中表达,令其行使某种既定功能。每年的参赛队伍会设计许多新的生物元件（biological part）,其长期积累为生物系统的构建提供了便利与创新,其本质上也是生物资源不断丰富的体现。本文从生物资源的角度,重点阐述iGEM比赛生物元件库的发展、分类与特点,让更多人了解生物元件的特征,并在基因工程操作中参考使用,推动元件库的扩充与发展。     

黑龙江省中医护理队伍现状与对策研究

目的 了解黑龙江省中医药护理队伍建设现状。方法 采用便利抽样法对黑龙江省三级中医医院14家及二级中医医院69家进行问卷调查。结果 2010—2015年,黑龙江省69所二级中医医院及14所三级中医医院,中医护理人员数量、学历结构、职称结构不合理;中医医院护理人员接受中医药知识与技能培训情况不达标,尤其是中医护理骨干及护理管理人员的培养存在缺陷。结论 从创新人事及中医护理人才引入机制入手,加强绩效管理,进行系统化、科学化的中医护理培训。     

类胡萝卜素在耐辐射奇球菌辐射抗性中的作用

为研究耐辐射奇球菌(Deinococcus radiodurans)中类胡萝卜素的生化合成基因及其在该细菌抗辐射机制中的生物学作用,通过有机溶剂提取及LC-MS技术分析了D. radiodurans所产类胡萝卜素物质的主要组分,运用PCR及基因同源重组技术,对该菌中类胡萝卜素生化合成途径的八氢番茄红素合成酶(phytoene synthase,crtB)及八氢番茄红素脱氢酶(phytoene desaturase,crtI)基因进行了缺失突变,通过表型观察及HPLC定量分析突变株所产类胡萝卜素的组分变化确证突变株构建成功．野生株及crtB 与crtI基因缺失突变株对电离辐射和H₂O₂的敏感性差异比较分析显示,和野生株相比,两种突变株对不同剂量电离辐射和不同浓度H₂O₂的敏感性更强．crtB及crtI基因功能研究表明,这两个关键性合成基因的缺失,导致突变株不能催化合成类胡萝卜素生化合成途径中的重要中间体——番茄红素及一系列下游产物．通过λ原噬菌体紫外线诱导系统、电子自旋共振 (ESR)及DMPO自旋捕集技术,分别在体内和体外评价了其类胡萝卜素的抗氧化能力．结果表明,两种类胡萝卜素对超氧阴离子(O₂^·)及羟自由基(·OH)均表现出较强的清除作用．上述研究结果为探究D. radiodurans的类胡萝卜素合成基因和生物学功能,及类胡萝卜素在D. radiodurans抗辐射机制中的作用提供了新的直接实验证据．     

The 'National' and the 'Cosmos'. The emergence of synthetic biology in China

How can grass-roots movements evolve into a national research strategy? The bottom-up emergence of synthetic biology in China could give some pointers.Given its potential to aid developments in renewable energy, biosensors, sustainable chemical industries, microbial drug factories and biomedical devices, synthetic biology has enormous implications for economic development. Many countries are therefore implementing strategies to promote progress in this field. Most notably, the USA is considered to be the leader in exploring the industrial potential of synthetic biology (Rodemeyer, 2009). Synthetic biology in Europe has benefited from several cross-border studies, such as the ‘New and Emerging Science and Technology'' programme (NEST, 2005) and the ‘Towards a European Strategy for Synthetic Biology'' project (TESSY; Gaisser et al, 2008). Yet, little is known in the West about Asia''s role in this ‘new industrial revolution'' (Kitney, 2009). In particular, China is investing heavily in scientific research for future developments, and is therefore likely to have an important role in the development of synthetic biology.Initial findings seem to indicate that the emergence of synthetic biology in China has been a bottom-up construction of a new scientific framework…In 2010, as part of a study of the international governance of synthetic biology, the author visited four leading research teams in three Chinese cities (Beijing, Tianjin and Hefei). The main aims of the visits were to understand perspectives in China on synthetic biology, to identify core themes among its scientific community, and to address questions such as ‘how did synthetic biology emerge in China?'', ‘what are the current funding conditions?'', ‘how is synthetic biology generally perceived?'' and ‘how is it regulated?''. Initial findings seem to indicate that the emergence of synthetic biology in China has been a bottom-up construction of a new scientific framework; one that is more dynamic and comprises more options than existing national or international research and development (R&D) strategies. Such findings might contribute to Western knowledge of Chinese R&D, but could also expose European and US policy-makers to alternative forms and patterns of research governance that have emerged from a grass-roots level.…the process of developing a framework is at least as important to research governance as the big question it might eventually addressA dominant narrative among the scientists interviewed is the prospect of a ‘big-question'' strategy to promote synthetic-biology research in China. This framework is at a consultation stage and key questions are still being discussed. Yet, fieldwork indicates that the process of developing a framework is at least as important to research governance as the big question it might eventually address. According to several interviewees, this approach aims to organize dispersed national R&D resources into one grand project that is essential to the technical development of the field, preferably focusing on an industry-related theme that is economically appealling to the Chinese public.Chinese scientists have a pragmatic vision for research; thinking of science in terms of its ‘instrumentality'' has long been regarded as characteristic of modern China (Schneider, 2003). However, for a country in which the scientific community is sometimes described as an “uncoordinated ‘bunch of loose ends''” (Cyranoski, 2001) “with limited synergies between them” (OECD, 2007), the envisaged big-question approach implies profound structural and organizational changes. Structurally, the approach proposes that the foundational (industry-related) research questions branch out into various streams of supporting research and more specific short-term research topics. Within such a framework, a variety of Chinese universities and research institutions can be recruited and coordinated at different levels towards solving the big question.It is important to note that although this big-question strategy is at a consultation stage and supervised by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), the idea itself has emerged in a bottom-up manner. One academic who is involved in the ongoing ministerial consultation recounted that, “It [the big-question approach] was initially conversations among we scientists over the past couple of years. We saw this as an alternative way to keep up with international development and possibly lead to some scientific breakthrough. But we are happy to see that the Ministry is excited and wants to support such an idea as well.” As many technicalities remain to be addressed, there is no clear time-frame yet for when the project will be launched. Yet, this nationwide cooperation among scientists with an emerging commitment from MOST seems to be largely welcomed by researchers. Some interviewees described the excitement it generated among the Chinese scientific community as comparable with the establishment of “a new ‘moon-landing'' project”.Of greater significance than the time-frame is the development process that led to this proposition. On the one hand, the emergence of synthetic biology in China has a cosmopolitan feel: cross-border initiatives such as international student competitions, transnational funding opportunities and social debates in Western countries—for instance, about biosafety—all have an important role. On the other hand, the development of synthetic biology in China has some national particularities. Factors including geographical proximity, language, collegial familiarity and shared interests in economic development have all attracted Chinese scientists to the national strategy, to keep up with their international peers. Thus, to some extent, the development of synthetic biology in China is an advance not only in the material synthesis of the ‘cosmos''—the physical world—but also in the social synthesis of aligning national R&D resources and actors with the global scientific community.To comprehend how Chinese scientists have used national particularities and global research trends as mutually constructive influences, and to identify the implications of this for governance, this essay examines the emergence of synthetic biology in China from three perspectives: its initial activities, the evolution of funding opportunities, and the ongoing debates about research governance.China''s involvement in synthetic biology was largely promoted by the participation of students in the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition, an international contest for undergraduates initiated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the USA. Before the iGEM training workshop that was hosted by Tianjin University in the Spring of 2007, there were no research records and only two literature reviews on synthetic biology in Chinese scientific databases (Zhao & Wang, 2007). According to Chunting Zhang of Tianjin University—a leading figure in the promotion of synthetic biology in China—it was during these workshops that Chinese research institutions joined their efforts for the first time (Zhang, 2008). From the outset, the organization of the workshop had a national focus, while it engaged with international networks. Synthetic biologists, including Drew Endy from MIT and Christina Smolke from Stanford University, USA, were invited. Later that year, another training camp designed for iGEM tutors was organized in Tianjin and included delegates from Australia and Japan (Zhang, 2008).Through years of organizing iGEM-related conferences and workshops, Chinese universities have strengthened their presence at this international competition; in 2007, four teams from China participated. During the 2010 competition, 11 teams from nine universities in six provinces/municipalities took part. Meanwhile, recruiting, training and supervising iGEM teams has become an important institutional programme at an increasing number of universities.…training for iGEM has grown beyond winning the student awards and become a key component of exchanges between Chinese researchers and the international communityIt might be easy to interpret the enthusiasm for the iGEM as a passion for winning gold medals, as is conventionally the case with other international scientific competitions. This could be one motive for participating. Yet, training for iGEM has grown beyond winning the student awards and has become a key component of exchanges between Chinese researchers and the international community (Ding, 2010). Many of the Chinese scientists interviewed recounted the way in which their initial involvement in synthetic biology overlapped with their tutoring of iGEM teams. One associate professor at Tianjin University, who wrote the first undergraduate textbook on synthetic biology in China, half-jokingly said, “I mainly learnt [synthetic biology] through tutoring new iGEM teams every year.”Participation in such contests has not only helped to popularize synthetic biology in China, but has also influenced local research culture. One example of this is that the iGEM competition uses standard biological parts (BioBricks), and new BioBricks are submitted to an open registry for future sharing. A corresponding celebration of open-source can also be traced to within the Chinese synthetic-biology community. In contrast to the conventional perception that the Chinese scientific sector consists of a “very large number of ‘innovative islands''” (OECD, 2007; Zhang, 2010), communication between domestic teams is quite active. In addition to the formally organized national training camps and conferences, students themselves organize a nationwide, student-only workshop at which to informally test their ideas.More interestingly, when the author asked one team whether there are any plans to set up a ‘national bank'' for hosting designs from Chinese iGEM teams, in order to benefit domestic teams, both the tutor and team members thought this proposal a bit “strange”. The team leader responded, “But why? There is no need. With BioBricks, we can get any parts we want quite easily. Plus, it directly connects us with all the data produced by iGEM teams around the world, let alone in China. A national bank would just be a small-scale duplicate.”From the beginning, interest in the development of synthetic biology in China has been focused on collective efforts within and across national borders. In contrast to conventional critiques on the Chinese scientific community''s “inclination toward competition and secrecy, rather than openness” (Solo & Pressberg, 2007; OECD, 2007; Zhang, 2010), there seems to be a new outlook emerging from the participation of Chinese universities in the iGEM contest. Of course, that is not to say that the BioBricks model is without problems (Rai & Boyle, 2007), or to exclude inputs from other institutional channels. Yet, continuous grass-roots exchanges, such as the undergraduate-level competition, might be as instrumental as formal protocols in shaping research culture. The indifference of Chinese scientists to a ‘national bank'' seems to suggest that the distinction between the ‘national'' and ‘international'' scientific communities has become blurred, if not insignificant.However, frequent cross-institutional exchanges and the domestic organization of iGEM workshops seem to have nurtured the development of a national synthetic-biology community in China, in which grass-roots scientists are comfortable relying on institutions with a cosmopolitan character—such as the BioBricks Foundation—to facilitate local research. To some extent, one could argue that in the eyes of Chinese scientists, national and international resources are one accessible global pool. This grass-roots interest in incorporating local and global advantages is not limited to student training and education, but also exhibited in evolving funding and regulatory debates.In the development of research funding for synthetic biology, a similar bottom-up consolidation of national and global resources can also be observed. As noted earlier, synthetic-biology research in China is in its infancy. A popular view is that China has the potential to lead this field, as it has strong support from related disciplines. In terms of genome sequencing, DNA synthesis, genetic engineering, systems biology and bioinformatics, China is “almost at the same level as developed countries” (Pan, 2008), but synthetic-biology research has only been carried out “sporadically” (Pan, 2008; Huang, 2009). There are few nationally funded projects and there is no discernible industrial involvement (Yang, 2010). Most existing synthetic-biology research is led by universities or institutions that are affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS). As one CAS academic commented, “there are many Chinese scientists who are keen on conducting synthetic-biology research. But no substantial research has been launched nor has long-term investment been committed.”The initial undertaking of academic research on synthetic biology in China has therefore benefited from transnational initiatives. The first synthetic-biology project in China, launched in October 2006, was part of the ‘Programmable Bacteria Catalyzing Research'' (PROBACTYS) project, funded by the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Union (Yang, 2010). A year later, another cross-border collaborative effort led to the establishment of the first synthetic-biology centre in China: the Edinburgh University–Tianjing University Joint Research Centre for Systems Biology and Synthetic Biology (Zhang, 2008).There is also a comparable commitment to national research coordination. A year after China''s first participation in iGEM, the 2008 Xiangshan conference focused on domestic progress. From 2007 to 2009, only five projects in China received national funding, all of which came from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). This funding totalled ¥1,330,000 (approximately £133,000; www.nsfc.org), which is low in comparison to the £891,000 funding that was given in the UK for seven Networks in Synthetic Biology in 2007 alone (www.bbsrc.ac.uk).One of the primary challenges in obtaining funding identified by the interviewees is that, as an emerging science, synthetic biology is not yet appreciated by Chinese funding agencies. After the Xiangshan conference, the CAS invited scientists to a series of conferences in late 2009. According to the interviewees, one of the main outcomes was the founding of a ‘China Synthetic Biology Coordination Group''; an informal association of around 30 conference delegates from various research institutions. This group formulated a ‘regulatory suggestion'' that they submitted to MOST, which stated the necessity and implications of supporting synthetic-biology research. In addition, leading scientists such as Chunting Zhang and Huanming Yang—President of the Beijing Genomic Institute (BGI), who co-chaired the Beijing Institutes of Life Science (BILS) conferences—have been active in communicating with government institutions. The initial results of this can be seen in the MOST 2010 Application Guidelines for the National Basic Research Program, in which synthetic biology was included for the first time, among ‘key supporting areas'' (MOST, 2010). Meanwhile, in 2010, NSFC allocated ¥1,500,000 (approximately £150,000) to synthetic-biology research, which is more than the total funding the area had received in the past three years.The search for funding further demonstrates the dynamics between national and transnational resources. Chinese R&D initiatives have to deal with the fact that scientific venture-capital and non-governmental research charities are underdeveloped in China. In contrast to the EU or the USA, government institutions in China, such as the NSFC and MOST, are the main and sometimes only domestic sources of funding. Yet, transnational funding opportunities facilitate the development of synthetic biology by alleviating local structural and financial constraints, and further integrate the Chinese scientific community into international research.This is not a linear ‘going-global'' process; it is important for Chinese scientists to secure and promote national and regional support. In addition, this alignment of national funding schemes with global research progress is similar to the iGEM experience, as it is being initiated through informal bottom-up associations between scientists, rather than by top-down institutional channels.As more institutions have joined iGEM training camps and participated in related conferences, a shared interest among the Chinese scientific community in developing synthetic biology has become visible. In late 2009, at the conference that founded the informal ‘coordination group'', the proposition of integrating national expertise through a big-question approach emerged. According to one professor in Beijing—who was a key participant in the discussion at the time—this proposition of a nationwide synergy was not so much about ‘national pride'' or an aim to develop a ‘Chinese'' synthetic biology, it was about research practicality. She explained, “synthetic biology is at the convergence of many disciplines, computer modelling, nano-technology, bioengineering, genomic research etc. Individual researchers like me can only operate on part of the production chain. But I myself would like to see where my findings would fit in a bigger picture as well. It just makes sense for a country the size of China to set up some collective and coordinated framework so as to seek scientific breakthrough.”From the first participation in the iGEM contest to the later exploration of funding opportunities and collective research plans, scientists have been keen to invite and incorporate domestic and international resources, to keep up with global research. Yet, there are still regulatory challenges to be met.…with little social discontent and no imminent public threat, synthetic biology in China could be carried out in a ‘research-as-usual'' mannerThe reputation of “the ‘wild East'' of biology” (Dennis, 2002) is associated with China'' previous inattention to ethical concerns about the life sciences, especially in embryonic-stem-cell research. Similarly, synthetic biology creates few social concerns in China. Public debate is minimal and most media coverage has been positive. Synthetic biology is depicted as “a core in the fourth wave of scientific development” (Pan, 2008) or “another scientific revolution” (Huang, 2009). Whilst recognizing its possible risks, mainstream media believe that “more people would be attracted to doing good while making a profit than doing evil” (Fang & He, 2010). In addition, biosecurity and biosafety training in China are at an early stage, with few mandatory courses for students (Barr & Zhang, 2010). The four leading synthetic-biology teams I visited regarded the general biosafety regulations that apply to microbiology laboratories as sufficient for synthetic biology. In short, with little social discontent and no imminent public threat, synthetic biology in China could be carried out in a ‘research-as-usual'' manner.Yet, fieldwork suggests that, in contrast to this previous insensitivity to global ethical concerns, the synthetic-biology community in China has taken a more proactive approach to engaging with international debates. It is important to note that there are still no synthetic-biology-specific administrative guidelines or professional codes of conduct in China. However, Chinese stakeholders participate in building a ‘mutual inclusiveness'' between global and domestic discussions.One of the most recent examples of this is a national conference about the ethical and biosafety implications of synthetic biology, which was jointly hosted by the China Association for Science and Technology, the Chinese Society of Biotechnology and the Beijing Institutes of Life Science CAS, in Suzhou in June 2010. The discussion was open to the mainstream media. The debate was not simply a recapitulation of Western worries, such as playing god, potential dual-use or ecological containment. It also focused on the particular concerns of developing countries about how to avoid further widening the developmental gap with advanced countries (Liu, 2010).In addition to general discussions, there are also sustained transnational communications. For example, one of the first three projects funded by the NSFC was a three-year collaboration on biosafety and risk-assessment frameworks between the Institute of Botany at CAS and the Austrian Organization for International Dialogue and Conflict Management (IDC).Chinese scientists are also keen to increase their involvement in the formulation of international regulations. The CAS and the Chinese Academy of Engineering are engaged with their peer institutions in the UK and the USA to “design more robust frameworks for oversight, intellectual property and international cooperation” (Royal Society, 2009). It is too early to tell what influence China will achieve in this field. Yet, the changing image of the country from an unconcerned wild East to a partner in lively discussions signals a new dynamic in the global development of synthetic biology.Student contests, funding programmes, joint research centres and coordination groups are only a few of the means by which scientists can drive synthetic biology forward in ChinaFrom self-organized participation in iGEM to bottom-up funding and governance initiatives, two features are repeatedly exhibited in the emergence of synthetic biology in China: global resources and international perspectives complement national interests; and the national and cosmopolitan research strengths are mostly instigated at the grass-roots level. During the process of introducing, developing and reflecting on synthetic biology, many formal or informal, provisional or long-term alliances have been established from the bottom up. Student contests, funding programmes, joint research centres and coordination groups are only a few of the means by which scientists can drive synthetic biology forward in China.However, the inputs of different social actors has not led to disintegration of the field into an array of individualized pursuits, but has transformed it into collective synergies, or the big-question approach. Underlying the diverse efforts of Chinese scientists is a sense of ‘inclusiveness'', or the idea of bringing together previously detached research expertise. Thus, the big-question strategy cannot be interpreted as just another nationally organized agenda in response to global scientific advancements. Instead, it represents a more intricate development path corresponding to how contemporary research evolves on the ground.In comparison to the increasingly visible grass-roots efforts, the role of the Chinese government seems relatively small at this stageIn comparison to the increasingly visible grass-roots efforts, the role of the Chinese government seems relatively small at this stage. Government input—such as the potential stewardship of the MOST in directing a big-question approach or long-term funding—remain important; the scientists who were interviewed expend a great deal of effort to attract governmental participation. Yet, China'' experience highlights that the key to comprehending regional scientific capacity lies not so much in what the government can do, but rather in what is taking place in laboratories. It is important to remember that Chinese iGEM victories, collaborative synthetic-biology projects and ethical discussions all took place before the government became involved. Thus, to appreciate fully the dynamics of an emerging science, it might be necessary to focus on what is formulated from the bottom up.The experience of China in synthetic biology demonstrates the power of grass-roots, cross-border engagement to promote contemporary researchThe experience of China in synthetic biology demonstrates the power of grass-roots, cross-border engagement to promote contemporary research. More specifically, it is a result of the commitment of Chinese scientists to incorporating national and international resources, actors and social concerns. For practical reasons, the national organization of research, such as through the big-question approach, might still have an important role. However, synthetic biology might be not only a mosaic of national agendas, but also shaped by transnational activities and scientific resources. What Chinese scientists will collectively achieve remains to be seen. Yet, the emergence of synthetic biology in China might be indicative of a new paradigm for how research practices can be introduced, normalized and regulated.     

Special focus: Synthetic biology

Special focus: Synthetic biology What is synthetic biology? SynBERC – The Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center Ars Synthetica iGEM – The International Genetically Engineered Machine competition Some synthetic biology companies Paper watch: Synthetic biology Building blocks for novel functions Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology Scaffold design and manufacturing: From concept to clinic Peptidomimetics – a versatile route to biologically active compounds Metabolic engineering of E. coli E. coli needs safety valves Systems-level metabolic engineering Mammalian synthetic biology Chemical aspects of synthetic biology Synthesis of DNA fragments in yeast Synthetic biology and patentable subject matter Patenting artificial life? Metabolic effects of synthetic rewiring Engineering for biofuels Regulatory elements for synthetic biology Book highlight Systems Biology and Synthetic Biology     

A BioBrick compatible strategy for genetic modification of plants

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Plant biotechnology can be leveraged to produce food, fuel, medicine, and materials. Standardized methods advocated by the synthetic biology community can accelerate the plant design cycle, ultimately making plant engineering more widely accessible to bioengineers who can contribute diverse creative input to the design process. RESULTS: This paper presents work done largely by undergraduate students participating in the 2010 International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition. Described here is a framework for engineering the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana with standardized, BioBrick compatible vectors and parts available through the Registry of Standard Biological Parts (www.partsregistry.org). This system was used to engineer a proof-of-concept plant that exogenously expresses the taste-inverting protein miraculin. CONCLUSIONS: Our work is intended to encourage future iGEM teams and other synthetic biologists to use plants as a genetic chassis. Our workflow simplifies the use of standardized parts in plant systems, allowing the construction and expression of heterologous genes in plants within the timeframe allotted for typical iGEM projects.     

Web-Construction Behavior of Linyphiid Spiders (Araneae,Linyphiidae): Competition and Co-Existence Within a Generalist Predator Guild

The web-construction behavior of three species of linyphiid spider (Erigone autumnalis, Meioneta unimaculata and Bathyphantes pallida) was studied in the laboratory to examine competition and co-existence within predator guilds. Competitive interactions between spiders potentially reduce their role in biological control. We tested the hypothesis that at high densities, intraguild competition for web-sites would occur but spatial separation of microhabitat would reduce interguild competition, thus allowing co-existence. High mortality and reduced web-size were observed at high B. pallida densities but Linyphiinae co-existed with Erigoninae which constructed webs at different strata. Competitive exclusion by larger individuals occurred between species whose microhabitat niche overlapped. The biocontrol potential of spider or arthropod predator guilds could ultimately be enhanced by maximizing the diversity of species whose niche axes vary.     

The relative importance of predation and competition in two reef fishes

Competition and predation may both strongly influence populations of reef fishes, but the importance of these processes relative to one another is poorly understood. I quantified the effects of predation and competition on the growth and survival of two temperate reef fishes, Lythrypnus dalli and Coryphopterus nicholsii, in field experiments in which I manipulated the densities of the two species and the abundance of predators (using exclosure cages) on small replicate patch reefs. I also evaluated the influence of predators on the behavior of the two species to help interpret the mechanisms of any predatory influences on growth or survival. Predation was much more important than competition (inter- or intraspecific) in Lythrypnus. For Coryphopterus, neither competition nor predation were particularly important. Behaviorally, both species responded to predators by reducing foraging rate and hiding. This altered behavior, however, had no repercussions for growth or survival of Coryphopterus. In contrast, Lythrypnus grew more slowly and suffered greater mortality when exposed to predators. Interspecific competition did not significantly influence either species. Intraspecific competition did not affect the growth of Coryphopterus, but survival tended to be lower at high densities. Growth of Lythrypnus was depressed by intraspecific competition, but survival was not, except that, in the presence of predators, survival was density dependent. In contrast to the historical emphasis placed on the role of competition, this study indicates that predation can be more important than competition in determining patterns of abundance of some reef fishes. For example, predators not only influenced foraging of both Lythrypnus and Coryphopterus, but they also reduced growth and survival of Lythrypnus, and therefore appear to help maintain the marked habitat segregation between the two species. Received: 16 June 1997 / Accepted: 3 December 1997     

Intended and unintended receivers of the male pheromones of the burying beetles Nicrophorus humator and Nicrophorus vespilloides

Male Nicrophorus beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae) attract females through volatiles that are emitted at species‐specific times of day. Not only beetles of the opposite sex but also conspecific males are attracted. Another observation is the co‐attraction of congeners, a phenomenon that was shown in particular for Nicrophorus vespilloides Herbst, the smallest Nicrophorus species in Central Europe. In the current study, we identified the Nicrophorus humator Gleditsch male pheromone as methyl 4‐methyloctanoate through gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis. In field experiments, we tested and compared the attractiveness of synthetic analogs of the male pheromones of N. humator and N. vespilloides in baited pitfall traps. An asymmetric cross‐attraction to the synthetic male pheromones was observed, which is best explained by the skewed competitive relationship of the two species, with regard to the restricted availability of breeding resources. Nicrophorus humator is attracted by both its own male pheromone and by the pheromone of the smaller N. vespilloides, whereas N. vespilloides is almost exclusively attracted by its own male pheromone. The observed attraction of conspecific males of either species to male pheromone baits can be explained by both competition for females and competition for breeding resources.     

Dietary Profile of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Rhinopithecus bieti</Emphasis> and Its Socioecological Implications

To enhance our understanding of dietary adaptations and socioecological correlates in colobines, we conducted a 20-mo study of a wild group of Rhinopithecus bieti (Yunnan snub-nosed monkeys) in the montane Samage Forest. This forest supports a patchwork of evergreen broadleaved, evergreen coniferous, and mixed deciduous broadleaved/coniferous forest assemblages with a total of 80 tree species in 23 families. The most common plant families by basal area are the predominantly evergreen Pinaceae and Fagaceae, comprising 69% of the total tree biomass. Previous work has shown that lichens formed a consistent component in the monkeys’ diet year-round (67%), seasonally complemented with fruits and young leaves. Our study showed that although the majority of the diet was provided by 6 plant genera (Acanthopanax, Sorbus, Acer, Fargesia, Pterocarya, and Cornus), the monkeys fed on 94 plant species and on 150 specific food items. The subjects expressed high selectivity for uncommon angiosperm tree species. The average number of plant species used per month was 16. Dietary diversity varied seasonally, being lowest during the winter and rising dramatically in the spring. The monkeys consumed bamboo shoots in the summer and bamboo leaves throughout the year. The monkeys also foraged on terrestrial herbs and mushrooms, dug up tubers, and consumed the flesh of a mammal (flying squirrel). We also provide a preliminary evaluation of feeding competition in Rhinopithecus bieti and find that the high selectivity for uncommon seasonal plant food items distributed in clumped patches might create the potential for food competition. The finding is corroborated by observations that the subjects occasionally depleted leafy food patches and stayed at a greater distance from neighboring conspecifics while feeding than while resting. Key findings of this work are that Yunnan snub-nosed monkeys have a much more species-rich plant diet than was previously believed and are probably subject to moderate feeding competition.