Integrated Human Practices

Dr. Florian Menzel about spider silk

Summary of Discussion
During our conversation, Dr. Menzel provided valuable biological context on spider silk diversity and the natural roles of different silk types. He confirmed that pyriform silk acts as a natural attachment cement, used by spiders to anchor their webs to surfaces, supporting our reasoning for using it as a matrix-like component in our biomineralization concept.

Dr. Menzel also discussed the variety of spider silk types, such as cribellate, ecribellate, and tubiliform silks, emphasizing that each has unique structural and mechanical properties tailored to different biological functions. He explained the cribellate silk system, whose nanofibrous structure captures insects not with glue but through the absorption of hydrocarbons from insect cuticular waxes, leading to strong adhesion even in dry environments. This nanostructural mechanism inspired further reflection on possible biomimetic applications in our material, such as enhancing bacterial attachment or mineral nucleation.

Regarding the feasibility of natural silk collection or spider farming, Dr. Menzel highlighted the challenges of spider rearing due to territoriality and cannibalism. He confirmed that large-scale natural silk extraction is impractical, reinforcing the relevance of our biotechnological production approach. He also noted that some aquatic insects, such as caddisflies, produce silk-like materials with exceptional underwater stability, suggesting further potential inspiration for bio-based materials.

Finally, Dr. Menzel expressed optimism about the future of silk-based materials, recognizing their remarkable strength and versatility. However, he underlined that replicating natural silk’s properties biotechnologically is complex because silk performance depends not only on protein composition but also on its precise biological processing and assembly.

Dr. Florian Hof about Alphafold

1. What do you think about AlphaFold and how do you use it in your daily life as a scientist? Do you use AlphaFold often?
It is definitely a very good technology that fits perfectly into our time, with AI, and therefore has been leading from the beginning. I would like to emphasise that AlphaFold is a hypothesis engine, meaning that it is not the truth, which I think is a very good sentence to start with. I used AlphaFold a lot at the beginning of my PhD because it was quite new and I wanted to see how you work with it and what you can find out with it. And that's when I used it to do a kind of docking. So it more or less showed me two monomers and gave me suggestions on how they could bind to each other, which in that case was quite easy for AlphaFold because it's a conserved motif and a conserved pocket. There are several proteins that have already been crystallised in this configuration. Then I didn't use it at first because I solved the structure on my own. It was crazy how close the prediction was to the actual crystal structure. But it was also important to me that it really was a crystal structure, because the fine differences at the edge of the pocket make up the affinity differences and AlphaFold can't predict that, because it's still based on this homology principle in many parts.
Then I used AlphaFold again to think about fragments for a protein construct, how it is structured and how I can shorten some of it and what of it absolutely has to be in there because it is a structured area. The more structured the protein is, the easier it is to produce. I then also used AlphaFold to look up disordered regions that we can exclude, which are perhaps not so important for us.
2. Where do you see the opportunities or disadvantages of AlphaFold? You've already mentioned a few, but maybe you can think of more.
Well, as I said, I think it's a great hypothesis engine to get the first ideas for a structure or to get a feel for the protein you're working with. And also to use it to develop ideas about what you could research or how you can advance research into the whole thing, for example if you are investigating a bond between two proteins, e.g. with mutation analyses.
I find it problematic that people take it as absolute truth, that's a big mistake, especially among those who are not completely rooted in structural biology or have few points of contact with it, take AlphaFold as the truth and then present it as such. I find that very dangerous. That was also the first thing my doctoral supervisor told me, make sure it always says AlphaFold underneath when you show an AlphaFold prediction.
3. We've already talked a lot about AlphaFold. How does AlphaFold actually work?
The input is an amino acid sequence. Different sequences are required for dimers/heterodimers. AlphaFold then creates a structure on the basis of homology models and multiple sequence alignments, adds the physical conditions and then models the 3D protein model. Roughly explained; there are a lot of theories behind it and the neuronal network. This then runs in cycles again and again and is improved and refined, relaxed and restrained, and then you get the result with usually five models. This is also very important to mention, because it is not just because it is the first model that it is the right one. Model 0 (phyton programming, hence 0) is practically the one with the highest confidence, and then it is ranked. That's why it's important to look at other models and not just the first one, because just because it has the highest confidence doesn't mean it's the right one.
Constantin: I think AlphaFold has a significant advantage in that it can also look at the evolution of proteins via homology and not just one protein alone. This makes it easier to investigate questions such as the development of protein structures, for example through amino acid changes.
4. How do you usually access AlphaFold?
There are several ways. At the moment, AlphaFold 3 can only be used in our working group via the Google server; we also have an installation on the university's Mogon network, but you have to ask Google whether you can get the restrains of the model and that is usually too time-consuming. AlphaFold 2.3, which I used to calculate all of your predictions, runs via Mogon 2, the university computing server of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate.
5. What options are now available with AlphaFold? You said that you can predict monomers and multimers and do docking. I know that I once looked for DNA/RNA or small molecules.
This was not yet possible with AlphaFold 2.3. With AlphaFold 3 it is actually possible to model DNA/RNA or small molecules. Of course, this gives you a wider range of interactions, e.g. for better research into inhibitors. In any case, AlphaFold 3 can combine significantly more and much faster. It's easy if you compare the performance of a multi-billion company with our university computer. One minute and you have everything you need.
6. We have a spider silk protein that might aggregate itself. Do you think it's possible, if we give AlphaFold the amino acid sequence of a monomer several times as input, that you could also look at oligomerisation?
I think that AlphaFold can represent oligomerisation. Otherwise, of course, as soon as you talk about liquid condensates, it also goes in the direction of phase separation. Then you're also at the limit for solid aggregates, i.e. where you suddenly end up with aggregates if you're not careful. It's definitely worth a try. That's the advantage of AlphaFold, you can simply push something together and see what happens and then derive the prostheses from that, or try to.
7. Unfortunately, there are not many solved structures for spider silk. AlphaFold tries to work via homology. Do you think it is a problem to look at and analyse our spider silk structures?
Well, the training dataset is more or less the PDB (Protein Data Base), i.e. all the published structures. If there are not so many spider silk protein crystal/NMR or cryo-EM structures, then the confidence is probably just lower. However, I am sure that AlphaFold will still be able to do something useful or close to reality, but the confidence will probably be a bit lower. In other words, it cannot be ruled out that such structures cannot be analysed.
8. Disordered regions were also displayed in our protein. Do you think these were drawn in on purpose or simply because AlphaFold can't do anything with them (keyword: poly-proline stretches)?
I think they were added on purpose. The protein structure is then stabilised in any case, as the coil secondary structure is present in a string. I would also like to refer you to Katja Luck, who has done a lot of research on this in the benchmarking of AlphaFold.
9. How good do you think AlphaFold is when it comes to unstructured or disordered structures?
Not so good. It's simply the biggest problem we have with it. The approaches of Katja Luck, for example, more or less describe benchmarking and they have also carried out this fragmentation, i.e. they have made different fragments and then looked for domain-domain interactions, which are great to find, as well as pockets, but the motifs that sometimes lie in the IDRs are sometimes not so easy to catch.
10. What information can be derived from an AlphaFold prediction for the project?
The 3D protein structure, several models of it, different scores, PHI score, PLDDT score and you can use this to estimate how the individual residues relate to each other, and then you also get the confidence of the entire model.
11. And the scores then range from 0 to 100 %?
Exactly, from 0 to 100 %. They are actually percentage values. You can then transfer the scoring to the molecule so that you can see which parts are confident and which are not. The aeroplot, the green square, can compare residue by residue in terms of confidence.
12. Which analysis software do you actually use?
I actually use ChimeraX or PyMol to analyse the structure, although I prefer ChimeraX. One advantage of ChimeraX is that you can upload the aeroplot directly.
13. Do you have any additional tips if someone uses AlphaFold?
It's not the absolute truth. Just because AlphaFold says the protein looks like this doesn't mean it is. On the other hand, don't be disappointed if it doesn't look the way you think it will. You should always remember that AlphaFold is based on existing structures, which means it can't pull something blue out of the sky. In addition, AIs sometimes hallucinate. And, derive the hypotheses with carefulness, so be careful with what you hypothesise. Be aware that it's just a prediction. We can only really see the absolute truth if we use imaging techniques such as NMR, cryo-EM and crystallography.
14. How would you explain AlphaFold to your grandmother?
If you have a pasta pot and you put hard spaghetti in it and then let it cook, it becomes tangled: then you take the spaghetti out again with a fork. Then they have a certain 3D structure. There are programmes in biology that could practically tell you what the pasta shape looks like after cooking. AlphaFold doesn't do this with spaghetti, but with amino acid chains, which are our spaghetti, so to speak, and gives us 3D protein structures that end up with this shape.

Prof. Dr. Lukas Stelzl about unstructured proteins and protein aggregation

We are under construction

Dr. Farley Kwok van der Giezen about repetitive DNA/gene assemblies

Summary Discussion
During our conversation, Dr. Kwok van der Giezen validated our hybrid RFC25-MoClo assembly strategy as a clever and robust approach for building repetitive sequences. He confirmed that our method effectively addresses the limitations of using MoClo alone, where the limited number of base overhangs would restrict scalability. He acknowledged that few researchers work with such repetitive sequences due to their inherent challenges, noting that "a lot of people just don't work with repeat regions because you can't synthesize them commercially."

Dr. Kwok van der Giezen provided crucial insights into the biological nature of our target protein. He explained that the proline and glutamine-rich repeats characteristic of pyriform silk represent intrinsically disordered domains that naturally tend to aggregate. This knowledge helped contextualize our expression challenges and suggested that the protein's aggregation properties, while problematic for production, are essential for its biological function in spider webs.

Regarding protein expression optimization, Dr. van der Giezen offered several practical recommendations. He suggested using low-copy plasmids rather than high-copy ones to prevent cytotoxicity, as overexpression of repetitive proteins can interfere with cellular RNA structures and ribosome function. He also endorsed our codon harmonization approach over simple codon optimization, explaining that maintaining natural translation kinetics is crucial for proper protein folding. Additionally, he recommended supplementing tRNA pools by co-expressing relevant tRNA genes and providing specific amino acid supplements like proline to support the high demands of repetitive protein synthesis.

Dr. van der Giezen also addressed the fundamental question of whether such long repetitive regions are necessary for function. He suggested that significantly shorter versions might retain the same properties, citing examples where truncated repetitive proteins maintained functionality. This insight supported our strategy of starting with fewer repeats and potentially optimizing further based on functional characterization.

Finally, he discussed the inherent challenges of working with repetitive DNA, including recombination issues and verification difficulties. He recommended using restriction digestion rather than PCR for sequence verification and emphasized the importance of careful strain selection to minimize recombination events. His perspective that repetitive sequences naturally evolve through recombination mechanisms provided valuable context for understanding the technical challenges we encountered during our assembly process.

Susanne Gebhard about our iGEM project

1. For our purposes, it's best to stick with the topic of biocementation. So that's why I will ask you why it is so important to talk about the whole research of biocementation?
I think one of the big problems we have on the planet at the moment is our carbon dioxide emissions and you may or may not know that the cement production that we use to build our buildings is the second largest contributor to CO2 emissions. So, we really need other ways of making construction materials and specifically to replace cement. And interestingly, bacteria, almost all bacteria, are capable of making something that is very similar to concrete called calcium carbonate minerals. So that's things like limestone and bacteria can help make this. And so, if we understand how bacteria make calcium carbonate minerals. Then maybe we can use these bacteria to replace cement in at least some applications.
2. This process is called MICP. What is MICP exactly?
MICP stands for microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation. And the calcium carbonate we mostly speak of as calcite and that's one of the crystal forms you can get. And this is basically a process that we don't really even understand all that well, where bacteria produce CO2 from their metabolism like we do. If there is enough calcium around, then somehow this process can lead to the formation of these calcium carbonate crystals. And we think that they grow on the surface of the bacterial cells, which act like little germ points where the crystal can start to form, but exactly how that works, we don't really know yet.
3. MICP is now used in many applications. We saw articles where researchers used organic fibres to improve the MICP process and the mechanical properties of the material. Do you know the current state of the science behind it?
I think most of the applications at the moment using MICP are things like consolidating soils. So, for example, river banks where you have a lot of water flowing past and wash the sand away. If you can get that hardened or the same with wind erosion or dust suppression and in general, where the MICP bacteria are put into the soil and then should make mineral there and then bind the sand to something a bit or the ground to something harder than it was before. And we ourselves have worked on a project where we put the bacteria in concrete. When we make the concrete, and then if the concrete cracks the bacteria can make some carbonate and seal the cracks.
One of the current really exciting fields of research is what's called Engineered Living Materials, which is the idea of using bacteria just completely as the cement. So you take sand, water, bacteria and whatever the bacteria need, and you mix it all together, and then the bacteria glue the sand together to make things like bricks. And at the moment, that kind of works. You get something of the sand sticking a bit together, but the strength of the material is really poor and it's currently nowhere near strong enough for application. There's some groups here and there who try to introduce things like polymers or fibres together with the bacteria to improve those properties.
4. MICP-based materials still have weaknesses. What are they?
I think, in the terms of material property the biggest problem is the strength. If you want to build a building out of bricks, you need to be able to stack a second brick on top of the first brick. Or if you want to pave a street or a road or something with stones, they need to last. And they don't currently last, if you make them just with the technology we've got available.
5. So we have decided to improve the MICP process by adding synthetic spiders silk proteins. Do you have any experience with spiders silk proteins or in general with spiders?
I don't like spiders. But I mean the spider silk is a fantastic material, but I've never actually worked with it by myself. My main experience is you cycle through the woods and the spiders webs gets stuck in your face and it's really hard to get rid of because it is very tough, wonderful material, but it is extremely hard to produce on an industrial scale. So I think there's a huge potential with spider silk, but there are also enormous challenges.
6. What was your first impression when we came up with the crazy idea to use spiders silk proteins?
Actually, it is a bit of a crazy idea to try to make this, because that's really difficult, as you know, but the idea is actually really good because we were looking for some fibrous material you could use in such Engineered Living Materials to help keep the sand and the mineral product together. Spider silk proteins got very strong tensile properties. So you can hang a lot of weight off a spider thread, but also it's sticky. And sticky seems like a good idea, if you want to glue things together. So I thought the idea is really, really good. But very difficult to achieve.
7. Do you think that with our idea we can overcome the weaknesses of MICP?
Yes. I think that you would have to make significant amount of the protein so that you can use it as a material. But that's not impossible. There are developments using spider silk in a bit more niche applications or smaller scale applications, such as wound dressings. Things like that, you don't need tonnes, but if you can produce a protein with bacteria, you can upscale that to industrial scale. It is doable in theory, you just have to find a good way to make the protein and in terms of properties for the cement, I mean we won't know until you've tried - But why not?
8. Speaking about production, we plan to use Bacillus subtilis as our host for the production of synthetic spider silk proteins, what do you think about it?
So I think Bacillus is often the good organism, if you want to make a protein, it's what Bacillus is good at, is what it's used for already. For example, if you think of enzymes for washing powder or other things that's it's done on an industrial scale. Bacillus is very amenable to industrial scale fermentation. There's a huge amount of experience, globally, using this organism. And if you want to get an enzyme produced and immediately exported from the bacteria, so you can harvest it from the culture supernatant, then Bacillus is really good because it's only got one membrane, so you only have one big permeability barrier.
9. Coming back to the spider silk proteins. As spider silk proteins are very large and repetitive in nature, we developed an own assembly strategy composed of Modular Cloning (MoClo) and RCF25. What advantages/strengths do you see in our assembly strategy?
I think the real challenge with your type of constructs is that you have a very repetitive protein, and I think in 2025 most people will immediately think of something like Gibson Assembly to stick big complicated bits of DNA together. And the problem is that Gibson Assembly really doesn't deal well with repetitive DNA because you end up with single stranded intermediates and misalignments, and then you will lose your repetitiveness of your DNA, which is exactly what you want to build up.
And the RFC25 is old, right? And it's often considered to be an out of date cloning standard, but it was specifically designed to stick protein coding sequences together in frame with just the minimal scar of two amino acids. And so I think using that for repetitive DNA because this is restriction enzyme based, it doesn't matter what the sequence is of the DNA. The modular design of the RFC25 means that in theory you can build up any number of repeats until your plasmid becomes unstable. I think that that's a real strength of the RFC25. I don't think that the little scar you always get between your repeats would matter because of the way the protein looks. And then you use the MoClo system to attach the elements that you always need to the outside, e.g. a promoter or a ribosomal binding site. That's really the strength of MoClo. And by combining the two assembly standards, I think you're really using them both to their best effect and you're getting rid of the problem of single stranded intermediates.
10. In the end of our project, we want to combine the synthetic spider silk proteins with MICP. Therefore we use two different bacteria, Bacillus subtilis and Solibacillus silvestris. Where do you see the biggest challenges in our project?
I think every time you try to combine two bacteria to do a job together, it becomes incredibly challenging because they are living entities and they live their own life and they don't particularly care very much what you want them to do. They are evolved in densely inhabited ecosystems, so they're very good at competing against other bacteria that want the same nutrients. And so at the moment, we don't know whether Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus silvestris would even grow at the same time, or whether one would simply outcompete the other and at the end of the day you just left with one of them. And so I think a really big obstacle is that you would have to get the two to grow together and harmonise. The other problem, if you want to go towards application is that your B. subtilis, the spider silk producer, is a GMO. You can't currently put a GMO in a product, at least not in Germany. You can in other countries, but it's always difficult. So I think a better strategy might be to use B. subtilis in the industrial fermentation where we know that it does really well to get the spider silk and then get rid of the DNA and the GMO from the spider silk. Then you have a product you're allowed to use and mix that with the Solibacillus. So I think that might be a more promising route to success.
11. At what point would you like us to be at the end of the iGEM competition?
I think, if you can actually make a synthetic spider silk protein in B. subtilis, I think you will have solved a massive issue. I think an easier task that I think is very achievable is that you can show that your assembly strategy works and that you can build up the complexity of your repeat number in your genetic construct at least. Ideally to see, if the Bacillus can make it. I think you should definitely get to the point of trying to get the facility to make it, but whether you have the time to optimise the process that we'll have to see and maybe you can try some simple experiments where you try to stick the spider silk and the biocement producer and some sand together and see if you can get the two together.
12. Will you or your working group take part in the competition after us again?
That's a difficult question to answer. I think iGEM is a fantastic opportunity for students and it's a lot of fun to work with all these enthusiastic students, who want to do this. But it's also a huge investment of time and money. So that would depend a little bit on how much buy in we can get from the university, from the faculty. But that of course also depends a little bit on how well you guys will do this year, because success breeds success. But I mean, you're the first iGEM team of this university and the university doesn't really know what to do with an iGEM team and all the bureaucracy is really complicated. And it’s very tedious to get money out of people. But, if they see what an iGEM team can do, and if you do well in the competition this year, then that might make things a lot easier. And in that case it might be very feasible to continue to support iGEM teams in Mainz.
13. Will our project be continued after us?
Well, the MICP side of the project, definitely, I think the idea of combining polymers with MICP to produce minerals is definitely an interest that fits really well to our existing research focus. Whether we do it with spider silk or not depends a little bit on how many problems you run into this here, if it looks really feasible - Then why not? It's exciting, even for other applications, it's a notoriously difficult protein. If you can make headway with that, that would certainly become an interesting project.
14. What do you personally like most about the iGEM competition generally?
I think it's the opportunities for students at quite an early stage in their training to really develop their own project and then see it through to completion and also with all the aspects around like learning how to design the project, but also learning how to ask for money, to communicate the science to other iGEM teams, but also the general public. And it's just an amazing opportunity for the students to really learn things that usually people don't even learn necessarily within a PhD.
15. And are there any aspects of item that you see more critically?
I think the cost of the competition is a huge barrier for a lot of students to participate in the iGEM competition. It really depends on whether you're at an institution that is able or happy to support the team. So I think students from less well of parts of the country or universities don't get the same chance as at universities with established teams and established funding for an iGEM. I think in in some cases, I think the idea iGEM puts a lot of emphasis on teaching entrepreneurship. But at the same time, it's very much about open science, and those two are very difficult to mix. I personally don't really see a problem with that. I think the research at this level should be open science and but it's still good to teach the students these ideas of entrepreneurship. But for some companies it might become difficult to engage with the iGEM competition and support the teams. If everything the team does is open science in the end. So that's a slightly tricky point to fix.

Prof. Dr. Tracy Palmer about secretion in B. subtilis

1. What makes Bacillus subtilis such a great host for protein secretion?
The main reason is that Bacillus subtilis is a GRAS organism (generally regarded as safe). It doesn’t produce lipopolysaccharides like E. coli, which can trigger immune responses in humans, so it’s well-suited for pharmaceutical production. Another practical reason is that industry is already heavily invested in Bacillus, fermentation systems worth millions are optimized for it. While it’s not necessarily the “best” secretion host biologically, it’s the one industry uses, so it’s the one most of us must use if we aim for translation.
2. Are there specialized B. subtilis strains for secretion?
Yes. Industrial Bacillus strains are typically modified to improve secretion. They are sporulation-negative to avoid dormancy and protease-deficient, since native proteases can degrade foreign proteins. Many industrial strains are also selected for better secretion performance, though much of this information is proprietary and unpublished.
3. What secretion pathways exist in Bacillus subtilis and other Gram-positive bacteria?
The main pathway is the Sec pathway, which most industrial processes rely on. Bacillus also has the Twin-arginine translocation (Tat) pathway and a Type VII secretion system, although the latter isn’t used industrially. We explored the Tat system in an EU network, but Bacillus doesn’t express it highly and it only secrets folded proteins, so most people stick with Sec.
4. What are the specialties of the Sec and Tat pathways?
The Sec pathway exports unfolded proteins and handles most cell-wall enzymes and membrane proteins. Proteins have an N-terminal signal peptide that is cleaved upon secretion. The Tat pathway, in contrast, exports folded proteins, often ones containing redox cofactors, e.g., iron–sulfur or nickel. In E. coli, many Tat substrates have such cofactors; Bacillus has only a few. Tat signal peptides are recognized by a characteristic twin-arginine motif. If a heterologous protein folds in the cytoplasm, it might be secreted by Tat, but Tat cannot handle proteins that must remain unfolded. Disulfide bonds are another factor: most Sec substrates have disulfide bonds inserted after export, while Tat requires folded proteins and thus usually lacks that step.
5. Which pathway would you recommend for our synthetic spider-silk protein
Since your spider-silk protein is large and eukaryotic, it probably contains disulfide bonds and might be glycosylated. For that reason, I’d recommend starting with the Sec pathway rather than Tat. Tat is less suitable for large, complex, or disulfide-bonded proteins.
6. What is required to successfully secrete a protein?
Folding kinetics are critical. Proteins that fold too rapidly can jam the Sec machinery if they aren’t bound by chaperones. The Sec pathway can operate either post-translationally or co-translationally. For large proteins like spider silk, co-translational export is preferable, otherwise, the full-length protein folds in the cytoplasm, causing stress and secretion blockage. The choice of signal peptide is key: highly hydrophobic ones promote co-translational translocation. Engineering a cleavage site after a hydrophobic transmembrane domain can make a co-translationally inserted protein release into the extracellular space.
7. How does a single-copy vs. multi-copy system affect secretion?
Overexpression can saturate the secretion pathway. If secretion is slow and you express too many copies, housekeeping proteins fail to be exported, and cells stop dividing or form defective envelopes. Single-copy integration is generally better tolerated. Multi-copy plasmids may yield more protein overall but often at the cost of cell health and growth.
8. Would you recommend secreting such a large protein at all?
Bacteria can export very large proteins, up to several thousand amino acids, but those are native proteins evolved for secretion. For foreign proteins, it’s more difficult. Secretion simplifies purification but can limit yield. If your main goal is high yield rather than simplified downstream processing, expressing it in the cytoplasm might be more productive.
9. Is it problematic if proteins have large unstructured regions?
For the Sec pathway, unstructured regions are fine. For Tat, they’re a problem because it exports folded proteins. The main risk of long unstructured segments is proteolytic degradation after secretion, these regions are more susceptible to cleavage, which can lead to fragmentation.
10. What methods exist to detect secreted proteins?
If your protein has measurable activity, enzymatic assays on the supernatant are simplest. Otherwise, Western blotting works well if you include a detectable tag, signal peptide cleavage causes a small size shift, allowing you to confirm secretion. However, for very large proteins e.g., 280 kDa this size shift is too small to detect. In such cases, split NanoLuciferase assays are excellent. You fuse a short tag to your protein; if the tag is secreted, adding the complementary luciferase fragment produces luminescence, confirming extracellular presence. Controls are vital, use a cytoplasmic protein with the same tag to distinguish secretion from cell lysis. Real-time monitoring in a plate reader can also reveal secretion kinetics over the growth curve.
11. Do you use bioinformatic tools for secretion-strategy design?
Not extensively. Usually, we already know whether a target protein has disulfides or glycosylation motifs, which informs which pathway to use. Structural prediction tools like AlphaFold can help visualize folding and domain architecture, if it’s large and multidomain, Tat likely won’t handle it. There aren’t reliable algorithms to predict the best signal peptide or secretion pathway. Signal peptides co-evolve with their native proteins and don’t always work well when swapped. So, trial and error remains the most practical approach.

Dipl.-Ing. Tim Gemünden - construction

English version below

Stellen Sie sich gerne einmal kurz vor. Was machen Sie beruflich?
Mein Name ist Tim Gemünden, ich bin geschäftsführender Gesellschafter der TT Holding, die eine Überorganisation ist, oberhalb unseres Familienunternehmens. Innerhalb des Familienunternehmens machen wir im Prinzip alles was mit Immobilien zu tun hat, ab Grundstückserwerb inklusive Planen und Bauen, mit der Besonderheit, dass wir beim Bauen mit eigenem Personal vertreten sind, d.h. wir machen sehr viel selbst. Entstanden ist das Ganze vor rund 140 Jahren als Bauunternehmen. Sobald fertig gebaut ist, übernehmen wir aber auch die Vermietung, Verwaltung etc. von den Immobilien. Unser Schwerpunkt ist wirklich Immobilienwirtschaft mit dem ganzen Portfolio.

Wir haben Ihnen ja schon im Vorfeld von unserer Projektidee auf dem Deutschland-Stipendiaten-Treffen berichtet, daher würden wir gerne wissen: Wie ist denn Ihre ehrliche Einschätzung zu unserem Projekt? Wie bewerten Sie unseren Ansatz im Vergleich zu herkömmlichen Zement?
Herkömmlicher Zement, wie er jetzt ist, wird so nicht bleiben. Es gibt mittlerweile verschiedene Arten diesen zu verbessern, zum Einen durch Energieersparnis bei der Herstellung. Oder durch klugen Einsatz des Ingenieurhandwerks, z. B. durch die Reduzierung von Bauteilen, indem man sich von herkömmlichen Normen verabschiedet. Zum Beispiel: In Neubauten wird die Tragfähigkeit der Decke pro Dicke berechnet, es wird aber viel mehr Material benutzt, damit die Decke perfekt gerade wird und keinerlei Krümmung zulässt. Genau diese Krümmung wird aber bei mittelalterlichen Gebäuden als schön bewertet. Bei der dritten Möglichkeit erhöht man bspw. den Anteil der Porzellane und sinkt somit den CO2-Abdruck.
Die Eigenschaften des Betons sind unverzichtbar, gegeben durch bspw. Tragfähigkeit und Brandschutz, die mit anderen Materialien, wie z. B. Holz nicht umzusetzen sind. (Mit Holz verdient man mehr, doppelte Marge als Beton, aber: leider eben nicht so stabil wie Beton). Ja, langfristig sehe ich definitiv einen Markt für neue Baumaterialien. Jedoch muss auf die Alkalität des Materials geachtet werden, da sonst kein Verbund zwischen Stahl und Beton möglich ist (dennoch kein totales K.O. Kriterium).
Beton ist ein Massenwerkstoff. Der Riesen-Vorteil ist, dass Beton eigentlich kostengünstig ist. Eigentlich, da CO2-Abgaben und Energiekosten steigen, abhängig in welchem Land dieser eingesetzt wird. Durch die steigende Weltbevölkerung ist und bleibt der Betonbedarf aber gigantisch. Das heißt, Sie müssen auf Wirtschaftlichkeit achten.

Haben Sie schon mal von einem ähnlichen mikrobiell-hergestellten Zement gehört?
Nein, sowas in der Art habe ich noch nie gehört. Ich weiß, dass mit Pilzen als Mauerwerksersatz gearbeitet wird. Oder dass man Beton mit Kalk-Sandstein ersetzt, da hat man eine Ersparnis von 80 kg/t. Außerdem kann die Dicke des Mauerwerks bei Kalk-Sandstein geringer sein und somit spart man zusätzlich CO2 ein.

Das heißt, Sie könnten sich unseren Biozement als alternatives Baumaterial vorstellen?
In der Sekunde, in dem es klappt, ja. Skalierung ist dann wichtig. Jedoch kann man auch dann eher erst mal daraus Rohre oder Pflaster formen. Man kann klein anfangen, um Erfahrungen zu sammeln, wie z. B. mit Pflaster, die in kleinen Mischanlagen hergestellt werden (kleine Chargen zuerst testen). Oder kleinere Architekturteile/Dekoteile, wie Blumenkübel, dann kann man Schritt für Schritt hochskalieren.

Was müssen wir für Normen/Eigenschaften beachten (mechanische Eigenschaften, Witterungsbeständigkeit, etc.)?
Da gibt es ganz klare Baunormen und Tests, die solche Materialien aufweisen und aushalten müssen. Im Prinzip muss man anfangs diese Richtlinien erstmal nach und nach abarbeiten (eventuell zusammen mit Prof. Garg, Fachbereich Technik, Fachrichtung Bau und Umwelt: Professor für Tragwerksplanung) oder mit Hilfe von Instituten. Die Zulassung ist eben dann noch die Hürde. Aber wenn man klein anfängt, z.B. mit Blumenkübeln (ähnlich wie der Anfang von Ocean Plastik). Der Anfang mit Lifestyle-Produkten bezahlt dann die Up-Skalierung.
Druckfestigkeit, Verarbeitbarkeit (Aushärtezeit), was natürlich auch temperaturabhängig ist (muss auch bei enormen Schwankungen verarbeitet werden). Alkalität ist auch noch ein riesen Punkt. Das ist auch der Grund warum viele Brücken marode sind, weil das Stahlgerüst zu nah an den Betonkanten verbaut wurde und mit der Zeit anfällig wird für Rost, es vergrößert sein Volumen und ist nicht mehr belastbar, stürzt ein.
Deshalb wieder, Thema Korrosion, wenn z.B. alle Pflaster-Steine CO2-neutral wären, wäre das auch ein riesiger Schritt.
Also von diesen K.O. Kriterien nicht abschrecken lassen.

Thema Nachhaltigkeit: Inwiefern spielt der CO2-Fußabdruck in Ihrer Branche eine Rolle?
Leider nicht viel. Die Kollegen und Kunden interessiert das leider nicht sehr. Wir probieren, in unserem Unternehmen, aber immer die CO2-Emissionen zu minimieren, sei es den Beton mit Holz-Konstrukten teilweise zu ersetzen oder gezielt auf Wasser Versickerung zu achten. So können wir zum Teil ein Drittel an CO2 einsparen. Jedoch scheitern manche dieser Anträge an der Politik.
Carbon Footprint ist ein sehr spannendes Thema meiner Meinung nach. Bauteile reduzieren, austauschen, und die umweltfreundliche Inbetriebnahme der Immobilien (Technik, Dämmung).

Welche Erwartungen haben Sie an uns? Auf was sollen wir Wert legen?
Es wäre total schön, ein solches Produkt (Biozement) herzustellen, auch wenn es am Ende vielleicht nur Blumentöpfe oder Pflaster sind. Jeder Schritt zählt. Klar ist das ein weiter Weg. Wenn das Verfahren an sich aber im Labormaßstab funktioniert, bspw. an einem kleinen Muster, der Blumenkübel, dann ist das schon viel wert. Blumenkübel erwähne ich deshalb immer, weil der Franzose Monier, ein Gärtner, neue Blumenkübel entwickelt hatte, die nicht mehr auseinander gefallen sind. Er kam auf die Idee, Stahlträger reinzulegen. Das war die Geburtsstunde des Stahlbetons. Das war die Revolution. Von dort aus konnten dann die Riesenbauwerke erschaffen werden. Zum Upscalen passt das hier auch. Auch wenn der Blumenkübel dann 50 Euro kosten mag. So schafft man Aufmerksamkeit auf das Thema. Zum Beispiel als riesen Blumenkübel an den Eingang der JGU.

Wie wichtig finden Sie es, dass wir als junge Naturwissenschaftler den direkten Austausch suchen?
Erst mit dem Austausch mit uns, mit der Praxis, und die Ideen, was man damit machen kann und was nicht, können Sie so, auf schnelle Art, erfahren. Außerdem können dann weitere Tests viel einfacher erfolgen. Die zweite Sache wäre noch, welche Nährmedien nimmt man? Wie kann man da die Kosten gering halten, Thema: Abfallstoffe, um möglichst wenig Geld auszugeben. Das macht total Sinn.



Please introduce yourself briefly. What do you do professionally?
My name is Tim Gemünden, I am the managing partner of TT Holding, which is an organisation above our family business. Within the family business, we basically do everything that has to do with property, from land acquisition including planning and construction, with the special feature that we have our own staff for construction, i.e. we do a lot ourselves. The whole thing started around 140 years ago as a construction company. As soon as construction is complete, we also take over the letting, management etc. of the properties. Our focus is really on property management with the entire portfolio.

We have already told you about our project idea at the “Deutschlandstipendiaten” meeting, so we would like to know: What is your honest assessment of our project? How do you rate our approach compared to conventional cement?
Conventional cement, as it is now, will not stay that way. There are now various ways of improving it, for example by saving energy during production. Or by making clever use of engineering skills, e.g. by reducing the number of components by abandoning conventional standards. For example: In new buildings, the load-bearing capacity of the ceiling is calculated per thickness, but much more material is used so that the ceiling is perfectly straight and does not allow any curvature. However, it is precisely this curvature that is considered beautiful in medieval buildings. The third option involves increasing the proportion of porcelain, for example, and thus reducing the CO2 footprint.
The properties of concrete are indispensable, such as load-bearing capacity and fire protection, which cannot be realised with other materials such as wood. (You earn more with wood, twice the margin of concrete, but: unfortunately not as stable as concrete). Yes, I definitely see a market for new building materials in the long term. However, attention must be paid to the alkalinity of the material, as otherwise no bond between steel and concrete is possible (nevertheless not a total knock-out criterion).
Concrete is a mass material. The huge advantage is that concrete is actually inexpensive. Actually, because CO2 taxes and energy costs increase, depending on the country in which it is used. However, due to the growing world population, the demand for concrete is and will remain gigantic. This means that you have to pay attention to economic efficiency.

Have you ever heard of a similar microbially produced cement?
No, I've never heard of anything like it. I know that fungi are used to replace masonry. Or that concrete is replaced with sand-lime brick, which saves 80 kg/t. In addition, the thickness of the masonry can be less with sand-lime brick, which also saves CO2.

In other words, you could imagine using our biocement as an alternative building material?
The second it works, yes. Scaling is then important. However, even then it is more likely to be used to form pipes or paving. You can start small to gain experience, such as with paving produced in small mixing plants (test small batches first). Or smaller architectural/decorative parts, such as flower pots, then you can scale up step by step.

What standards/properties do we need to consider (mechanical properties, weather resistance, etc.)?
There are very clear building standards and tests that such materials must fulfil and withstand. In principle, you first have to work through these guidelines bit by bit (possibly together with Prof Garg, Department of Engineering, specialising in construction and environment: Professor of Structural Design) or with the help of institutes. The authorisation is still the hurdle. But if you start small, e.g. with flower pots (similar to the start of Ocean Plastik). The start with lifestyle products then pays for the upscaling.
Compressive strength, workability (curing time), which is of course also temperature-dependent (must also be processed with enormous fluctuations). Alkalinity is also a huge point. This is also the reason why many bridges are dilapidated, because the steel framework was installed too close to the concrete edges and becomes susceptible to rust over time, it increases its volume and is no longer resilient, collapses.
So again, on the subject of corrosion, if all paving stones were CO2-neutral, for example, that would also be a huge step.
So don't be put off by these knock-out criteria.

Sustainability: To what extent does the CO2 footprint play a role in your industry?
Unfortunately not much. Unfortunately, our colleagues and customers are not very interested in this. However, we always try to minimise CO2 emissions in our company, whether it's partially replacing concrete with wooden structures or paying attention to water infiltration. This enables us to save a third of CO2 in some cases. However, some of these applications fail because of politics.
Carbon footprint is a very exciting topic in my opinion. Reducing and replacing building components and the environmentally friendly commissioning of properties (technology, insulation).

What expectations do you have of us? What should we emphasise?
It would be really nice to produce a product like this (biocement), even if it ends up being just flower pots or paving. Every step counts. Of course it's a long way to go. But if the process itself works on a laboratory scale, for example on a small sample, the flower pot, then that's already worth a lot. I always mention flower pots because the Frenchman Monier, a gardener, had developed new flower pots that no longer fell apart. He came up with the idea of putting steel beams in them. That was the birth of reinforced concrete. That was the revolution. From there, the giant buildings could be created. This also fits in with upscaling. Even if the flowerpot costs 50 euros. It's a way to draw attention to the topic. For example, as a giant flowerpot at the entrance to JGU.

How important do you think it is that we, as young scientists, seek direct dialogue?
Only by exchanging ideas with us, with practitioners, and the ideas of what you can and cannot do with them, can you find out quickly. It also makes it much easier to carry out further tests. The second thing is which culture media to use? How can you keep the costs down, in terms of waste materials, in order to spend as little money as possible? That makes total sense.

Robert Plail about market potential and regulatory framework for sustainable, self-healing building materials in public construction in Rheinland-Pfalz

To what extent does the state of Rheinland-Pfalz take CO₂ emissions into account in the planning, evaluation and awarding of public construction projects?
According to information available to us, there are no regulations on this in Rheinland-Pfalz yet.

What country-specific subsidy programmes currently exist for CO₂-reducing construction?
a) To what extent are municipal authorities and private builders supported in Rheinland-Pfalz?
b) How do subsidy volumes and criteria differ between the municipal, state and private sectors?
Social housing subsidies in Rheinland-Pfalz offer attractive conditions to enable climate-friendly housing construction. The funding consists of basic and additional loans and supplementary repayment subsidies. In this context, for example, low-interest additional loans are granted in the social rental housing subsidy programme if the subsidised housing is insulated with certified ecological building materials.

3. What are the legal bases for the award criteria for public tenders in Rheinland-Pfalz (especially regarding environmental and material requirements)? a) Are mandatory sustainability or cradle-to-cradle criteria included in the procurement guidelines?
Point 3.5 of the Rheinland-Pfalz Public Procurement Administrative Regulation provides for the application of the State Circular Economy Act, which stipulates in Section 2 the use of recycled materials where technically equivalent and economically viable. In addition, Section 8 of the Administrative Regulation on Public Procurement in Rheinland-Pfalz regulates in several points the requirement for sustainable procurement to protect natural resources. Mandatory cradle-to-cradle requirements are not included.

Are there any flagship or pilot projects in Rheinland Pfalz in which alternative or biological building materials (e.g. “bio-concrete”) have been tested on a larger scale?
a) If so, in what context (municipal buildings, infrastructure, funding programmes)?
We are not aware of any projects with a corresponding public impact and appeal in which new building materials are actually being used and tested in the narrower sense of the question. Nevertheless, there are individual model projects that deal with innovations in proven building materials, such as concrete. Here are two examples:
- The RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau, Department of Materials in Construction, conducted extensive preliminary investigations as part of a feasibility study with the aim of developing an innovative wall filler. This novel wall filler is intended to replace the concrete core commonly used in wood chip blocks. The basis for this is to be recycled aggregate, which is obtained directly on site from mineral building material (known as in-situ mining). In line with the motto ‘turn old into new’, this approach aims to give outdated buildings a new use and thus support resource-efficient construction.
- As part of the 2027 State Garden Show, an event building made of WU concrete is to be constructed. The plan is to reduce the carbon footprint resulting from the use of concrete as much as possible by replacing a large proportion of the cement (up to 50% possible) with calcined clay, which is significantly less harmful to the climate.

Does the state require a life cycle assessment (LCA) as part of its procurement processes?
a) Do materials with proven reduced follow-up costs due to self-healing properties receive a procurement or evaluation bonus?
The state does not require life cycle assessments or award matrices.

What funding programmes does the state of Rheinland-Pfalz maintain for the development and practical testing of innovative building materials (e.g. low-carbon or bioactive materials)?
a) Are there any collaborations with universities, research institutions or clusters in Rheinland Pfalz? b) Are there any pilot programmes in which experimental building materials are tested in real state construction projects?
Contribution from Department 4514: The department is not aware of any state funding programmes explicitly designed for the development and practical testing of innovative building materials. Nevertheless, the state programme ‘Experimental Housing and Urban Development (ExWoSt)’ offers funding for a wide variety of project sponsors to implement innovations in the construction industry using built examples and thus test them in practice.

How big is the investment backlog in Rheinland-Pfalz's infrastructure and building construction (e.g. bridges, school and sports facilities)?
a) What priorities is the state setting in order to catch up on this backlog – and does the use of sustainable materials play a role in this?
According to the KfW Municipal Panel 2025, the municipal investment backlog across Germany amounts to €215.7 billion. Specific municipal figures for Rheinland-Pfalz cannot be derived directly from these nationwide statistics. However, municipalities in the south-west (Hesse, Rheinland-Pfalz and Saarland) are among the regions with a significant backlog. According to the 2024 annual report of the State Court of Auditors, the state's investment ratio in 2022, including state-owned enterprises, was 6.5%. According to the calculations of the Rheinland Pfalz Court of Auditors, approximately €973 million would have to be invested annually to reach the average of comparable federal states of around 11%. For information on the state's priorities regarding construction investment and the use of sustainable materials, please refer to the answer to question no. 10. High priority is given to the state's universities. While the state's universities, including the University of Kaiserslautern, the University of Ludwigshafen and the University of Mainz, have already been largely modernised, construction development plans are underway at the university locations in Mainz, Kaiserslautern and Trier. Location-specific renovation and renewal concepts form the basis for targeted investments. Investment in sustainable renewal is seen as an ongoing task.

What specific requirements must a new building material meet in order to be included in the list of approved building materials for state and municipal projects? Do these differ from those at the federal level?
The specific requirements are initially only imposed on buildings in the Rheinland-Pfalz State Building Code (LBauO). The seven basic requirements are listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011 (Construction Products Regulation) and are referenced in Section 3 (1) LBauO. The requirements for individual construction products are then specified in the Administrative Regulation on Technical Building Regulations (VV TB RP). As a general rule, construction products may only be used if their use ensures that the buildings meet the public law requirements imposed on them (known as the general clause of construction product law). We are not aware of any list of approved building materials for state and municipal projects. If you want to use an innovative new construction product in a building, you must prove that the general clause of construction product law is fulfilled. Irrespective of the general clause of building product law, the LBauO stipulates that building products require proof of usability if the building product does not comply with a generally recognized rule of technology (aaRdT) or a technical building regulation, or deviates significantly from it. If the construction product is only of minor importance for meeting the requirements of building regulations, no proof of usability is required. Proof of usability is likely to be required on a regular basis for new construction products. The following are considered proof of usability:
- a general building authority approval (abZ) from the German Institute for Building Technology (DIBt) or
- an approval in individual cases (ZiE) from the Rheinland-Pfalz Ministry of Finance (FM).
The difference is that the abZ allows use throughout Germany, while the ZiE only allows use for a single building project in Rheinland-Pfalz. Depending on marketing interests, instead of the abZ or ZiE,
- a European Technical Assessment (ETA) can also be sought. The basis for this is a European Assessment Document (EAD), which is issued by the European Organization for Technical Assessment (EOTA) at the request of a manufacturer. A product with an ETA can then also be marketed in other member states of the European Union. In the event that not only the construction product but also its assembly or installation in the building must be regulated in order to comply with the basic requirements, a type approval must be sought if an aaRdT, a technical building regulation or a proof of applicability does not already exist for this type of construction. There are two types of type approvals:
- the general type approval (aBG) from the DIBt or
- the project-related type approval (vBG) from the FM
If the new construction product has a certificate of usability and meets the requirements for the building (the certificate of usability can be used to check whether the requirements are met), it may be used in the building.

Or do they differ from those at the federal level?
The specific requirements in the state building regulations and in the VVTB of the federal states differ only marginally between the federal states. They are all issued on the basis of the Model Building Code (MBO) and the Model Administrative Regulation for Technical Building Regulations (M-VV TB).

Does the state of Rheinland-Pfalz plan to remove bureaucratic hurdles in order to facilitate the use of innovative, self-healing building materials in the public sector?
The removal of bureaucratic hurdles for the use of innovative construction products must not be synonymous with a waiver of building regulations. With certificates of usability at national level and an ETA at European level, instruments are available which, once granted, no longer mean bureaucracy but simplify and facilitate construction. The path to approval is certainly not easy, and the entire procedure also requires considerable financial resources, but safety and public order requirements take precedence over everything else and must be guaranteed. Therefore, no changes are planned with regard to the regulations for new construction products.

Are there any state-specific targets or key figures for the proportion of sustainable building materials in new state construction projects?
Rheinland-Pfalz is aiming for a climate-neutral state administration by 2030 at the latest and for the state as a whole by 2035–2040; the use of sustainable building materials plays a central role in this. Instead of fixed targets or specified proportions of building materials, the state of Rheinland Pfalz is pursuing a strategic promotion policy in which state buildings serve as showcase projects. High sustainability standards for state buildings, an introduced CO₂ shadow price of €180/t for economic feasibility studies, and the establishment of a central Competence Center for Sustainable Construction in State Building Construction are establishing quality and efficiency standards as well as climate-friendly use of building materials. New buildings and renovations should aim for the Gold Seal in the Sustainable Building Assessment System (BNB), thereby also promoting climate-friendly building materials. In addition, Rheinland Pfalz and the federal government will invest around €12.4 million between 2022 and 2026 to promote climate-friendly building materials and construction methods in state properties and municipal projects. The aim is to significantly increase the use of renewable, preferably regional and certified raw materials such as wood or recycled concrete in new construction and renovation projects. The large-scale use of recycled concrete was systematically implemented in state construction projects for the new building of the State Investigation Office in Koblenz and the police headquarters in Ludwigshafen. Timber construction dominates as a climate-friendly building material in the municipal sector, supported by state networks and advisory programs. Both groups of building materials are representative of the state's material strategy for resource conservation and CO₂ efficiency in public building construction.

Conclusion of the questionaire

Although Rhineland-Palatinate has set itself climate protection targets, CO2 emissions have not been considered a relevant criterion in the construction industry to date. Furthermore, there are no life cycle analyses. There is no information available on any funding programs or pilot projects that pursue a biotechnological approach. The approval and safety requirements for building materials are considered complex and an obstacle to innovation. According to the legislation on the release of GMOs, the Federal Republic of Germany was not intended to be a target market. Nevertheless, the following conclusions can be drawn. For a product to be used in a potential target market, there must be material and cost advantages for users. Since the framework conditions are not yet in place, a product that is equally priced and more sustainable can achieve strong market penetration solely on the basis of its sustainability advantage.

Our mission

Ideas for a commercialization Rodamap

Our project follows a structured multi-phase roadmap aimed at the successful commercialization of our engineered bio-cement platform technology. The approach is grounded in regulatory compliance, scalable manufacturing strategies, and validation through real-world applications.

Phase I – Foundational Work and Proof-of-Concept (Year 1.5)

In the one and a half years, we focus on building the technological and legal groundwork:
· IP development and protection, with a strategic focus on the U.S. and Brazil
· Strain optimization to maximize bacterial efficiency and biosynthetic output
· Lab-scale testing across selected application scenarios to demonstrate feasibility and define performance parameters

Phase II – Industrial Testing and Regulatory Clearance

· Scale-up tests with industrial partners to validate pilot-scale production
· Regulatory approval in the United States: Submission of a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 40 CFR Part 725) to the EPA
· Initial real-world deployment in test construction environments to validate the product’s functionality and commercial value → Optimization of the system if needed

Phase III – U.S. Market Entry and Commercial Scale-up (Year 3)

Production scale-up with established partners
· Field validation, logistics, and supply chain readiness
· Market launch in the United States, starting with high-impact pilot projects

Phase IV – Global Expansion and Certification

·Leverage U.S. data to enter additional key markets, starting with Brazil
· Engage with CTNBio and IBAMA for biosafety and environmental approvals
· Register with relevant agencies, including submission to the USDA
· Goal: Secure a Biosafety Quality Certificate to de-risk market entry and strengthen stakeholder confidence

Explanation of the product

Abstract: Pyricon is a novel biotechnologically produced biocement that combines two bacterial systems to create a cost-efficient and climate-friendly alternative to conventional cement. Unlike energy- and CO₂-intensive lime burning, calcification is achieved through the synergy of a naturally isolated bacterium with high activity in microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) and a genetically engineered Bacillus subtilis strain secreting synthetic spider silk. This dual system enables efficient particle binding, enhances bacterial migration, and provides negatively charged nucleation surfaces for calcite formation, while spider silk increases tensile strength and forms a structural matrix. The result is a self-healing bioconcrete with superior stability. Beyond classic concrete applications, this platform technology addresses low-energy brick production, erosion control, road subgrade stabilization, and water-exposed construction. In addition, spider silk may improve the usability of sands with currently unfavorable properties, such as desert sand. Our cloning and strain development technology further enables adaptation to other structural biopolymers, expanding applications beyond construction.

The product is a biotechnologically produced biocement containing two types of bacteria. When combined with sand, gravel, and water, it can form stable and environmentallyfriendly concrete. The two bacteria eliminate the need for the energy- and CO₂-intensive process of lime burning currently in use. Calcification occurs through the novel combination of the two bacteria. The biocement thus represents a cost-efficient and climate-friendly alternative to conventional cement. In addition, the resulting bioconcrete has self-healing properties.

To achieve these properties, we use a previously unused synergy between a bacterium isolated in nature that exhibits very high activity for microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP). In combination with water and calcium ions, these bacteria are able to produce calcite, which enables the connection between sand particles. The second bacterium is a Bacillus subtilis strain specially developed by us for the heterologous production and secretion of synthetic spider silk. One of the most stable materials in the world. Synthetic spider silk acts in two different ways in the biocementation process: it forms a structural matrix to which bacteria can attach, in particular the MICP-operating bacterium. This enables better migration in the spaces between particles. Furthermore, due to its negative polarization, spider silk provides an optimal surface as nucleation points for calcification. Spider silk also increases the tensile strength of the final material.

The combination of sustainable microbiology and current expertise in building materials science has resulted in a novel and cost-effective product with new USPs. In addition to the use of the two bacteria in biocement for the production of classic bioconcrete, the platform technology also opens up new fields of application, including low-energy brick production, erosion control, subgrade stabilization in road construction, and jointing compound for water-exposed areas in tunnel and bridge construction.

Another goal is to make currently unusable sand usable. The world is currently heading for a sand crisis in the construction sector, as most of the world's sand is biotechnologically unsuitable. Desert sand, for example, cannot be used in the construction industry due to its smooth surface. The use of spider silk-producing bacteria enables the admixture of sand with poorer initial properties.

Based on this biologically programmable material, we also have an innovative edge in that we can quickly and specifically adapt our materials to the respective application - for example, by incorporating other types of spider silk of varying complexity. In contrast to previous biocement approaches, our product combines the mineralizing effect of microbial processes with the structural stability of synthetic spider silk – a novelty in the development of bio-building materials. Therefore, in the future, we want to use our cloning and strain development technology to tap into other areas of application for spider silk or structurally similar molecules, such as in the cosmetics or textile industries.

Our system is currently in the laboratory testing stage with promising results in terms of the flexible and rapid cloning of synthetic spider silk constructs. In addition, the first production trials have begun, followed by yield optimization. Furthermore, we have already been able to demonstrate improved biocementation through the introduction of biopolymers in initial proof-of-concept trials. The scalable bacterial production of our components opens up potential for industrial standards and applications. Large-scale production is to be implemented through contract manufacturing by suitable CMOs. This will allow the core company to concentrate on further development, marketing, and the development of new markets and products.

Market Analysis: TAM, SAM, and SOM for the US Bioconcrete Market

Abstract: The global concrete market is valued at around USD 815 billion in 2024 and represents the total addressable market (TAM) for concrete products worldwide. The US concrete market alone is valued at about USD 351 billion in 2024, reflecting its size and maturity within the global market. Due to GMO regulations and market size, our focus is on the US up to phase 4 of the commercialization roadmap. Consequently, the total concrete market in the US constitutes the serviceable available market (SAM). Bioconcrete, an emerging category of sustainable construction materials, is experiencing rapid growth of over 30% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), driven by innovations in self-healing and eco-friendly cementitious materials. The serviceable obtainable market (SOM) captures the realistic potential market share in the US bioconcrete sector. For Pyricon, the SOM in the US biocement market is up to USD 1.75 billion over the next 5 to 10 years, considering technology adoption rates and the regulatory landscape. The following extended analysis details the TAM, SAM, and SOM.

Total Addressable Market (TAM): Global Concrete Market Overview
The global concrete market (ready to mix concrete) was valued at approximately USD 815 billion in 2024 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 8.6% from 2025 to 2034, potentially reaching around USD 1.7 trillion by 2034. This market includes a broad spectrum of concrete products across industrial, commercial, infrastructure, and residential sectors globally. Growth is driven by accelerating urbanization, industrialization, and infrastructure renovation worldwide. [1]

Serviceable Available Market (SAM): US Concrete Market
The US concrete market is a major segment of the global concrete industry, valued around USD 351 billion in 2024.[2] Infrastructure investments, including initiatives under the Inflation Reduction Act, innovations in construction materials, and sustainability-driven policies like Michigan’s NextCycle recycling program, support this market’s growth. [3]
This size and growth create favorable conditions for the adoption of cutting-edge materials such as bioconcrete, propelled by increasing demand for sustainable and low-carbon building materials. The US regulatory system, featuring the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) under EPA oversight, facilitates the safe market introduction of biotechnology-derived products including bioconcrete. [4+5]

Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM): US Bioconcrete Market
The global bioconcrete market, valued near USD 27.4 billion in 2024, is projected to grow over 30% CAGR to reach about USD 245 billion by 2032. The US, as a market and innovation leader, captures a significant portion of this growth. [6]
Assuming bioconcrete represents 5% of the US concrete market, the SAM comes to approximately USD 17.55 billion. With full commercialization expected around 2028, market penetration is likely to increase substantially in the following 5 to 10 years. Capturing 5% to 10% of the biobased concrete SAM during this timeframe translates into a SOM approximating USD 880 million to USD 1.75 billion, reflecting market maturity, competitive landscape, and regulatory progress.

Global Bioconcrete Market Trends
Green concrete, including bioconcrete, aligns closely with international sustainability goals. Regional trends include:
• In Asia Pacific, space is already being created for the green concrete market, for example, by India, which has enacted favorable legislation to facilitate financing. At the same time, the government has published a five-year plan to increase spending on infrastructure. [7] • South America: Brazil and Mexico drive the regional market through Brazil’s PAC program and Mexico’s National Infrastructure Plan (NIP). Both aim to boost urbanization and infrastructure, indirectly increasing demand for green concrete. Growing awareness of climate change and sustainable construction will further strengthen regional adoption. [8+9] • Middle East: The Middle East is rapidly advancing through initiatives like Dubai’s 2015 mandate requiring green concrete in all projects. Other cities, including Abu Dhabi, have followed, making the region a key growth pillar of the global green concrete market. Government regulations and urban expansion provide strong momentum for sustainability. [10] • Europe: Europe is positioned as a core future market for green concrete. The EU’s Climate and Energy Framework (20-20-20 goals) and the “Fit for 55” plan—targeting a 55% CO₂ reduction by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050—create ideal conditions for low-carbon, durable materials. These initiatives make Europe one of the most advanced markets for sustainable concrete technologies. [11+12]

Footnotes
1. https://www.gminsights.com/de/industry-analysis/ready-mix-concrete-market
(Disclaimer: The total global market size depends strongly on the source.)
2. https://www.sphericalinsights.com/reports/united-states-concrete-market
3. https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/materials-management/recycling
4. https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/overview-biotechnology-under-tsca
5. https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/guidance-documents-filing-biotechnology-submission
6. https://www.kingsresearch.com/bioconcrete-market-2718
7. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/green-concrete-market
8. https://catcomm.org/pac/
9. https://www.mexicoinfrastructure.com/national-infrastructure-plan
10. https://www.dm.gov.ae/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Sustainable-Dubai.pdf
11. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/climate-change/
12. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/fit-for-55/

SWOT analysis

Strengths:
• Eco-friendly alternative to cement: Pyricon significantly reduces CO₂ emissions and offers a green solution for the construction industry.
• Simple application: Production requires only sand, bacteria, and the spider silk gene—no complex equipment needed.
• Unique spider silk technology: The use of a novel spider silk protein makes Pyricon biologically inspired and one-of-a-kind.
• Rapid gene customization: The gene assembly method allows fast and context-specific adaptation.
• Cost efficiency: Compared to other biotech solutions, Pyricon has the potential to be economically viable.
• Self-healing capabilities: The material exhibits regenerative properties that can extend the lifespan of structures.
• Modular lab platform: The underlying technology can serve as a foundation for applications in other sectors, such as textiles or medicine.

Weaknesses:
• Scaling bacterial production: Industrial-scale production remains time-consuming and requires further optimization.
• Low expression in B. subtilis: Spider silk production is currently limited by low gene expression and secretion efficiency.
• Vulnerable to shifts in climate policy: Changes in political priorities could impact demand for sustainable building materials.
• Strong dominance of concrete: Concrete is globally established, cost-effective, and meets all regulatory standards.

Opportunities:
• Rising demand for sustainable materials: The global push for eco-friendly architecture strengthens Pyricon's market potential.
• Carbon pricing as financial incentive: Systems like the EU Emissions Trading Scheme promote low-emission solutions.
• Cross-industry applications: The spider silk technology could be leveraged in textiles, healthcare, and beyond.

Threats:
• Strict GMO regulations: Approval processes for genetically modified organisms vary widely and may limit market access.
• Patent and IP conflicts: Competing technologies could lead to intellectual property disputes.
• Building code compliance: Pyricon must meet rigorous standards for tensile strength and load-bearing capacity.
• Concrete industry as market barrier: Competing with a well-established and inexpensive material poses a major challenge.

Competitor analysis

Abstract:
Pyricon has a unique combination of bacteria that both operate MICP and produce spider silk. The resulting platform for various applications is a clear unique selling point compared to existing companies on the market due to its excellent material characteristics. The largest companies on the market have approaches that are least compatible with the Pyricon product. Nevertheless, they have very strong international roots and a high level of production expertise in building materials and high-volume production. We have incorporated this into our commercialization roadmap and intend to cooperate closely with existing players in order to leverage expertise and synergies. We want to keep the company asset light and still achieve high market penetration with our product platform.

Why conduct a competitor analysis?
As a new startup, it is important to understand the needs of the market and also who is already addressing it with similar products. To this end, we have conducted a competitor analysis. This will help us to understand how and in which areas we need to differentiate our product and marketing. We also need to understand where it would be sensible to form partnerships.

Basilisk / TU Delft:
Basilisk and the associated research at TU Delft are global leaders in the field of bacterial, self-healing concrete. Their focus is on MICP (Microbially Induced Calcite Precipitation) for crack healing and the longevity of building materials. Applications include classic biocement and repair mortar, currently not yet active in the US and Brazilian markets.
Difference to Pyricon: They rely exclusively on MICP, so their products lack the properties offered by the combination with spider silk. As long as there is no expansion into the US or Brazil, they are not direct competitors.

BioMason:
The US company also relies on microbially induced cementation (using Sporosarcina pasteurii), primarily for slabs and tiles. This approach, in which limestone is produced by bacteria and used for slabs and tiles, is already on the market in the US. For Pyricon, they would be potential competitors in the field of brick production. They have a small production facility and report good key figures for stability and process flows. For us, this is a sign that brick production with MICP is possible on a bigger commercial scale. Our approach of also using spider silk would lead to better material key figures. This would potentially result in lower material consumption or space for insulation (hollow bricks).

Acciona:
Acciona is an international conglomerate that is also active in Latin America, among other places. In the field of bio-concrete, various approaches and processes are currently being tested and trialed. Among other things, Acciona is involved in the HEALCON project, which uses MICP for self-healing concrete/similar materials. Nevertheless, the company primarily uses traditional CO₂ reduction strategies and material recycling. Nevertheless, they would have a good starting position due to the size of the company and its activity in the target market.

Holcim/Lafarge, Schwenk, Heidelberg Materials, BASF:
Similar to Acciona, these large building materials and chemical companies operate internationally and have large-volume production facilities. There have been some small attempts to test bio-based approaches in a broader sense. However, our approach is unique and, in addition to reducing CO₂ emissions compared to traditional material recycling approaches, which these large corporations mainly rely on, it offers improved material properties. Schwenk and Holcim/Lafarge are active in at least one of the two target markets, with relevant products in the bio-concrete sector on a smaller scale.

Uni Stuttgart, Uni São Paulo:
Both universities are advancing fundamental research and testing innovative approaches such as biomineralization from urine (Stuttgart) and sustainable bioconcrete adapted to the tropical context (São Paulo). So far, no commercial application target has been planned or implemented.

Progress journal

Laura Wiens

1. Was it immediately clear to you that you wanted to become a scientist?
Not really. I always had good grades in written work, but otherwise I was always quiet and then got a secondary school recommendation after primary school. By luck and because my parents stood up for me, I ended up at a Realschule where I did very well in writing, but not quite as well in terms of speaking. After finishing secondary school, I wanted to become a nursery school teacher and had already completed work experience there. However, as I dared to be more open and talk more, I got a recommendation for grammar school. My high school biology teacher introduced me to biology, which made me engage more intensively with the subject.
2. Did you have female mentors or role models? And if so, how have they influenced you on your path (so far), what tips have they given you?
You could start with Marie Curie 😊. In my immediate environment, however, my female mentor was actually always my mum. It was always important to her that we, her children, chose a profession that would allow us to earn enough money to support ourselves and be independent of a man. She always believed in us. Later, my own ambition. And Susanne [Gebhard], she is a real role model.
3. Have you experienced any hurdles or bad experiences as a woman in the natural sciences? If so, how did you overcome them?
Not so much bad experiences. Hurdles more so, but regardless of gender. My teachers often pigeonholed me because I was very quiet, along the lines of: ‘She's no good at anything’. Sometimes also within the family. But sometimes men also labelled you as a bit of a dummy.
4. Assuming you had chosen a different subject/career direction, what would it have been?
Social/educational work, but also forensic anthropology. I once did a module in this field during my studies. It quickly became clear that I was interested in the subject, mainly to read about it, but not as a subject.
5. You have a lot of responsibility in the working group, even outside of research, what do you particularly like about your job?
There really is a lot. I really like the lab work. But I also enjoy training my students, helping others, organising, ordering things.
6. Would you like to remain active in the lab after your PhD or would you prefer a management role that reduces the work in the lab and shifts it to the office?
At the moment, although this may change, I can't imagine spending all my working hours in the office, I find lab work far too much fun for that. Even if it doesn't work out sometimes. I like the change between sitting and standing, between writing and experimenting. I think a 50:50 lab/office job would make sense for later. I can also imagine going abroad as a postdoc.
7. And last but not least, what tips/advice would you give to young female scientists?
First of all, don't let yourself be pigeonholed. Just keep going, even if everyone says no, you can't do it, just keep going, you can do it. Don't let anyone tell you that you're not worth it or that you can't do it. You can all do it. And trust your gut feeling, if it's right for you, then everything will fall into place.

Lara Schön

1. Was it always clear to you that you would become a scientist?
Yes and no. Of course, as a kid I first wanted to be a princess, and after that I was very set on becoming an archaeologist. Then I realised I hate seeing bones, so this was out really quickly. Afterwards, I knew that science was always easier for me than for my classmates, so I always thought I could go in that direction. But I was torn between psychology and biology. I even had a very lengthy talk with a professor of psychology, who told me about the programme. But ultimately, biology won, and I'm very, very happy with that choice.
2. Is there a reason why biology won out of the natural sciences?
I had a really bad physics teacher my whole life. I'm capable of physics, but it's not my strength. I also had a bad experience with a chemistry teacher, which really put me against chemistry, which is super sad. And I think this emphasises how important teachers are in helping students finding their path.
3. Have you had any female mentors or role models? And if yes, how did they impact your path?
Luckily, I´ve had quite a few female role models, which I think it's incredibly important for young girls. It started with my elementary school teacher. She was super cool, even though she was a nightmare for parents, because she emphasized skills like public speaking, not math or grammar, but how to talk and express yourself, which is just as important. She really taught me how to talk in front of people, that was amazing and very helpful to me. She also always made sure to treat everybody equally, not only regarding their gender, but also regarding social and economic background.
My other role model is my dance teacher. She’s such an uplifting and inspirational person to me. I find it amazing that she not only has kids but also managed to finish her master’s thesis while pregnant and she is a dance teacher as well. It’s so impressive to see how she balances it all.
4. What challenges have you faced as a woman in science, and how did you overcome them?
I think this is very difficult, because I'm still at the beginning of my journey as a woman in science. What I've noticed is that you have to speak up more. I feel like I need to express my thoughts more often or more loudly, to be taken seriously. Especially in the beginning, I felt like as a woman you were questioned more than man, though that´s just my imnpression, so I don't have any proof for that. What I changed is that I started to smile less and to apologise less. This has helped. It's sad, but it has helped.
5. If you would have done something different than science, what would it be?
Either psychology, but if we are talking about something other than the university pathway, then I would have become a skiing instructor or a mountaineering instructor. I love the mountains, I love hiking, I love climbing, and I love bringing people into that environment. So this would have been the other version of me.
6. From these many responsibilities you have as a PhD student, advising people, publoshing papers etc. what do you like to do the most?
This is a difficult question, because for me it´s always a matter of time. I love reading papers when I have the time for it and I also love teaching when I have the time for it. But trying to do everything at once often becomes overwhelming, and then I lose the joy of it. So I think the most joyful for me, is teaching. I love working with people and students and seeing them excel, it's really rewarding.
7. Would you like to remain active in the lab after your PhD, or would you prefer to pursue a leadership role that reduces your lab work and shifts it to the office?
Currently my plan is to finish my PhD rather quickly and then look for a job in industry. Of course, there are many different depratments to consider. For example, I know that my former PhD supervisor is now in quality assurance, which is something I know I couldn't do at all. I see myself more in development, where I can stay somewhat connected to lab work, but definitely less than before.
8. What advice would you give to young women considering a career in science?
Just do it. Don't ask for permission. That's the most important one, I would say. And if somebody says no to something, then think why they say no and maybe do it anyways.

Antea Dulaj

1. Was it always clear to you that you would become a scientist?
Not at all. I always interested in biology and chemistry, especially thanks to an inspiring teacher in elementary school and then in high, who was always pushing us more into direction of biology. At the same time sports played a huge role in my life. I played football professionally. So after high school I faced a very big decision whether I was going to become a professional football player or study science. Looking back, I can say I definitely don't regret choosing science.
2. Have you had any female mentors or role models? And if yes, how did they impact your path?
Throught my life I´ve always had teacher who inspired me. In elementary school surprisingly enough it wasn't a biology teacher, it was my English teacher. She was someone who broke boundaries or taboos so to say, because in Albania learning another language was the only way to access a higher education abroad, so seeing her commitment was very motivating. Another role model I had was my biology teacher in high school. She was one of the greatest people I have ever met who really implemented in me the love that I have for biology today. And of course, the most important role model has always been my mom. She used to be an elementary school teacher, now she's retired, but she always helped me on my way towards where I am today.
3. What challenges have you faced as a woman in science, and how did you overcome them?
I think much of my character comes from my upbringing in Albania and from playing football, which was considered a taboo for women there. Both experiences taught me to always fight for what I believe is right. In science, I’ve faced similar challenges. Women are still often not seen as equals, it´s a very strong statement to make that everybody sees but only a few openly address. As a PhD student, I noticed that in the beginning I had to raise my voice to be heard. Only once I started producing a lot of good results did people begin paying closer attention to my research. I don´t think men face the same issues, so it´s a bit sad but hopefully it will change in the future.
4. If you would have done something different than science, what would it be?
I would have chosen football. My love for sports was always very strong, but despite that I still decided to study biotechnology, which shows how much I love biology. If biology and biotechnology had not been an option, I definitely would have done something sports related, most likely football, perhaps becoming a trainer or simply dedicating my life to it in some way.
5. From these many responsibilities you have as a PhD student, advising people, publoshing papers etc. what do you like to do the most?
I really enjoy the discussions I have with my students, listening to their ideas and seeing how something I am very passionate about can become their passion too. Of course, not every student responds the same way, but a lot of the younger generation are highly motivated and bring in new ideas. Making them feel excited and heard is very important to me. At the same time, I also really enjoy writing papers and reading a lot of literature. It's amazing to see how fast science is evolving and how relevant our research is becoming to society, especially given the challenges the world faces today.
6. Would you like to remain active in the lab after your PhD, or would you prefer to pursue a leadership role that reduces your lab work and shifts it to the office?
I think one of the things that I value the most about myself, so to say without sounding arrogant, is my ability to communicate well with people and understand how to create a comfortable, good environment where many different opinions can be presented. So I think I would prefer a mix of having my own group where I get to bring people and ideas together to make something beautiful and new but also actively be part of the lab work itself. So hopefully, both would be a part of my future. They have the same importance to me, I would say.
7. What advice would you give to young women considering a career in science?
I think women in science is becoming increasingly important and more and more women are finding the courage to be part of this world. If there is a small voice in the back of your head saying, “ This would be amazing, but I´m not ready yet”, remember, no one ever feels completely ready. On a daily basis, we are learning, fighting. And it is a fight that will continue throughout our lives. You shouldn’t hold back out of fear or because you think others are better scientists. Strengths and weaknesses are things we can always work on, and improvement is a constant process. So don’t stop yourself, just go for it.

Prof. Dr. Carla Schmidt

1. Was it always clear to you that you would become a scientist?
No. I would be lying if I said yes. To be honest, I wanted to study music for a very, very long time, until about Year 13 in School, I think.
2. So why did you decide to study natural sciences after all?
Back then I was naive and thought I didn't want to jeopardise my passion for music with stress and the pressure to succeed. And it was also clear that I wasn't a child prodigy and that it wouldn't be easy. Would I have made it? I don't know.
At the time, I didn't know that I was fundamentally ambitious. And it's not much easier or less stressful in the natural sciences. So, I thought I'd do something I'm good at and interested in. I then deliberated between chemistry, biology, biochemistry and medicine. I ultimately decided on chemistry because it was somewhat in the middle and I was good at it. Interestingly, I had chemistry and physics as advanced courses and wanted to study music – that combination is probably rare.
During my studies, I realised that I actually wanted to go in the direction of biochemistry. Because we had the freedom to choose our modules, I chose all biochemistry courses, including analytics.
3. So you studied chemistry. Did you have any female mentors or role models along the way, and if so, did you get any tips that you would like to share?
At the beginning, it was more role models. We had a female professor for biochemistry who was very impressive. Later, during my doctorate, there were only few women with whom I would have liked to compare myself. However, I received a lot of support from my doctoral supervisor.
Later, during my postdoc time, I worked with Carol Robinson, who is world-famous and considered a role model. That's where I had that, but by then it was almost too late. I also had a good mentor who helped me a lot at the end of my junior professorship. He supported many women, but of course he was a man, so without men who also support women, I would have had no one else – but personally, I don't think that's such a bad thing.
Nevertheless, more female role models would have been good. When I did my doctorate at the Max Planck Institute in Göttingen, I think there was only one female director, maybe two at most.
4. Have you experienced any obstacles or bad experiences as a woman in the natural sciences? You've already mentioned the lack of role models, but was there anything else?
There was a lack of role models, and you are also disadvantaged from time to time, especially in some committees. For example, when you apply for something, or even when you are part of the committee, you notice that women are often disadvantaged. That means they are sometimes portrayed in a worse light, or given a lower place on the list. That happens quite often. But perhaps to put a more positive spin on things: I always think that you shouldn't let it get you down, because what really counts in the end (as my doctoral supervisor always said) is what you've achieved. Of course, it may deprive you of the opportunity to be successful earlier or to receive project funding earlier. But in the end, it's the quality that counts. You have to assert yourself, and that's what reassures me a little, because I think, if I'm excluded somewhere just because of my gender, then that's not a club I want to belong to.
5. You have succeeded in establishing yourself and are now a professor. What do you like most about your job?
The job is very stressful and involves a lot of responsibility, but what I absolutely love is discussing with my group. Coming up with new questions, discussing problems and celebrating results. In other words, advancing the things that really interest us. I also enjoy teaching, although it can be frustrating at times, for example when you're giving a lecture and there are only a few students and they don't seem interested. But once you get more involved in teaching and mentoring students who are genuinely interested, I really enjoy it. Many people see it as a burden, but I don't.
6. Last but not least, what tips and advice would you give to young female scientists?
I think you should always do what you really want to do. I believe that, first of all, it's fun and, secondly, you'll be most successful that way. I believe that if you let yourself be influenced by statements such as doing research in a particularly trendy field, it won't do you any good if you're not really interested in it, and I believe that you're at your best when you do what you want to do and never let yourself get discouraged. You spend a lot of time at work, and if you don't enjoy it, it becomes really tough.

Science Slam and Pop-up Stand

Conclusions:

• Public engagement is essential: Presenting at the science slam and interacting with the broader public at the pop-up stand highlighted the value of connecting with audiences beyond the scientific community.
• Accessible communication matters: Explaining synthetic biology in an entertaining and relatable way helped make complex ideas understandable and impactful.
• Societal feedback is valuable: Conversations with attendees provided new perspectives on how our project might be perceived and applied in the real world.
• Reflexivity strengthens our work: Reflecting on public responses encouraged us to consider the broader implications of our research.