Just like a star is born from a swirl of cosmic matter, Caseinova was formed from a convergence of ideas, values, and natural materials. We draw from nature - casein from milk, propolis from bees, and bacteriophages from the microbial world - but just as important as what we work with is how we do it. Our Human Practices are the stardust behind our science: stakeholder voices, sustainability, ethics, and team well-being all shaping the way our project shines.
In our universe, nature is our raw material, but people are our gravity. This is why every part of Caseinova, from lab bench to outreach, is guided by reflection, responsibility, and care.
Understanding burns means understanding people. Behind every injury lies a story: a patient navigating recovery, a clinician making urgent decisions, a system balancing resources and care. In exploring the problem of burn wounds, we sought to go beyond technical solutions and ask: What do patients truly need — and what do doctors truly face — in the context of wound care?
Through interviews with burn clinicians and wound care specialists, we learned that burn wounds are inherently “dirty,” often harboring complex bacterial infections. The timing and type of treatment matters greatly — what helps during early inflammation may not help during granulation or scar formation. This guided our thinking about when and how our material could one day be applied.
We also discovered that burn care varies dramatically across regions, and access to advanced wound-healing materials is not universal. By integrating patient experiences, global differences, and clinical feedback, we ensured that our concept is not designed in isolation, but shaped with real-world conditions in mind.
Our Human Practices efforts here helped us refine one essential insight: effective wound healing is not just about closing the wound — it’s about responding to what patients, doctors, and systems actually face.
Burn wounds are particularly vulnerable to antibiotic-resistant infections. In hospitals, where exposure to resistant strains is high, these infections complicate healing and raise treatment costs. Through our Integrated Human Practices, we engaged with clinicians and microbiologists to understand how our solution could fit into this urgent medical context.
We explored alternative antimicrobials such as propolis and bacteriophages - natural tools that bacteria may find harder to outsmart. But we also confronted the challenges: How do we standardize such complex agents? How do we ensure safety and efficacy when combining multiple antimicrobials?
Rather than assume these components were inherently beneficial, we questioned them - looking at the scientific, ethical, and clinical implications of introducing non-antibiotic treatments into wound care.
In doing so, our project aligned not just with global health needs, but with a growing scientific consensus: to fight antimicrobial resistance, we must look beyond the familiar and into biologically inspired, well-reasoned alternatives.
Propolis, a resin produced by bees, offers promising antimicrobial and regenerative properties - but it also presents significant challenges. One of the core issues we explored through our Human Practices was the ethical and practical considerations of sourcing propolis. Because its composition depends heavily on geography, plant source, and seasonal factors, standardizing propolis for medical use becomes a complex task. This variability raises important questions about consistency, safety, and regulatory feasibility.
Through discussions with researchers, clinicians, beekeepers, and propolis experts, we discovered that while Latvian propolis is naturally rich in phenolic compounds, its composition can vary significantly - even across samples collected within short distances. Some types of local propolis may lack antifungal activity, while others, like Brazilian green or red propolis, have a broader antimicrobial spectrum due to different polyphenolic profiles.
We also investigated the potential allergy risks, consulting allergologists to better understand how propolis might affect patient safety and what kind of testing or communication would be needed in a clinical context. These conversations emphasized that public perception and medical caution must go hand-in-hand.
Ultimately, our Human Practices efforts didn't simply support the inclusion of propolis in our biomaterial—they refined and challenged it. By addressing sourcing ethics, chemical variability, and safety, we ensured that our approach to propolis is intentional, transparent, and grounded in real-world responsibility.
Casein, the milk protein at the core of our biomaterial, may seem like an obvious natural choice. But through Human Practices exploration, we realized it raises more questions than it answers.
Could casein provoke allergic reactions? How well does it interact with human skin and wound tissue? And what about public perception—will patients and clinicians accept a milk-derived material as medical-grade?
We engaged with allergologists, clinicians, and material scientists to understand both the clinical promise and risks of casein. We also explored its biodegradability, electrospinning compatibility, and regulatory classification.
The result was a redefinition of our material strategy: not just using casein because it’s natural, but because it’s adaptable, effective, and - when engineered correctly - safe.
Bacteriophages, viruses that attack bacteria, are increasingly seen as a viable alternative to antibiotics, especially for multi-drug resistant infections. Their specificity and natural origin make them appealing - but their application is complex.hydrogel
Through consultations with microbiologists and infectious disease experts, we explored the potential of phages in wound healing, but also the scientific and regulatory challenges. How stable are phages in a hydrogel? Can they be effectively sterilized? Will combining them with other antimicrobials (like propolis) boost or hinder their function?
We also looked at public and medical perceptions of phages—learning that while they are promising, they must be handled with precise, evidence-backed delivery methods.
Ultimately, our decision to explore phages was rooted in Human Practices: not just what’s exciting, but what’s possible, ethical, and needed.
“If we take care of nature, nature will take care of us.” (Sir David Attenborough)
Our project draws deep inspiration from nature—not only in what we create, but in how we create it. From choosing natural materials like casein and propolis to exploring sustainable production methods, we are committed to not exhausting what we seek to learn from. Sustainability, for us, is not limited to materials or waste - it is a mindset. It touches every level of our work: our end product, our laboratory practices, our interactions with stakeholders, and the health of our team.
A core focus of our Integrated Human Practices is ensuring that our material is not just scientifically sound, but also truly needed, ethically justified, and socially relevant. We actively engage with clinicians, researchers, and potential users to align our innovation with real medical needs, such as more affordable, effective burn and wound care.
But we also recognize that no innovation exists in isolation. Just like ecosystems rely on balance, so does a team. That's why our HP includes a strong emphasis on Responsible Research: fostering open, healthy communication, preventing burnout, and supporting a work culture grounded in respect, collaboration, and reflection. These efforts are not an afterthought—they are essential for ethical and sustainable science.
In this way, we see sustainability not as a single goal, but as an interconnected framework:
As no researcher, no team, and no idea exists in a vacuum, our Human Practices reflect a guiding principle: to care for the world around us—and within us.
All of our Human Practices are deeply connected, but for clarity — and in the spirit of keeping things simple, which is often the key — we have organized them into a few main sections:
Purpose: We met with professor Pilmane to present our idea of casein scaffolds as a potential material for burn wound treatment and to receive feedback from her on the applicability of the idea and key considerations. The professor is one of the leading experts in histology in Latvia, with extensive experience in various medical fields.
Key takeaways/contribution: During the consultation, the professor expressed concerns that casein might not be an optimal material for our intended application, as being a milk protein, it could be associated with a high risk of bacterial infection. Therefore, it is crucial for us to understand the extent of the infection risk in our material and explore possible options for incorporating antibacterial compounds into the scaffolds to ensure the safety of the use. As an alternative, collagen or bacterial collagen-like proteins could be considered, though we would need to decide on which type of collagen to use. The professor also suggested paying attention to natural compounds (such as propolis, flavonoids, and plants from the Hippophae genus, Callisia fragrans) as tissue regeneration promoters with antibacterial properties. In this regard, she recommended that we contact Professor Rudīte Koka from the RSU Department of Biology and Microbiology.
Implementation: We decided to add at least one natural compound with antimicrobial properties. To decide on the best one, we followed the professor's advice and contacted Prod. Rudite Koka. At this point we also were considering using Streptococcus pyogenes-produced collagen instead of casein as the basis for our hydrogel and scaffold.
Purpose: Had a brief meeting with prof. Rudīte Koka to discuss the feasibility of adding bioactive compounds from medicinal plants into our scaffold. The main goal was to understand, whether we can maintain casein as the base protein for our scaffold and use the antiseptic properties of bioactive compounds from such plants as sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) and/or St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) to counteract the bacteriophilic properties of casein. Or, if we should switch to our second plan, which is to swap the base protein to collagen like protein from Streptococcus pyogenes, in which case we would nevertheless load the scaffold with active compounds from the aforementioned species.
Contribution: As we explained our idea and the two options, prof. R. Koka was receptive to the idea of using sea buckthorn, as it has historically been used for skin ailments, seeing as it contains flavonoids, ethyl acetate and more. She suggested she would consult her colleagues to inquire further about their experience with S. pyogenes and collagen-like-protein, as well as to gain their insight on casein. Two other points that were left to be addressed were: encapsulation and durability of the bioactive compounds & end product testing for antibacterial effect.
Implementation: Our consultation with Prof. Rudīte Koka was an important step in refining the antimicrobial component of our material. Initially, we explored several medicinal plants, including Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s wort), Matricaria chamomilla (chamomile), and Plantago major (plantain), as possible candidates to counteract the bacteriophilic properties of casein. Based on her feedback, we systematically weighed the strengths and limitations of these options in terms of historical use, active compound content, and potential compatibility with our scaffold design.
This process ultimately led us to choose propolis as the primary bioactive additive. While sea buckthorn and other plants were promising, propolis stood out for its broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, its antioxidant capacity, and its documented role in stimulating granulation tissue — all qualities directly relevant to burn wound healing. This decision was also motivated by feasibility: propolis has been more extensively studied in Latvia, offering a stronger research base to draw from.
However, her input also helped us recognize the challenges that accompany this choice. We began explicitly considering allergenicity as a limiting factor in propolis applications, and documented this in our project design as both a scientific limitation and a Human Practices concern. To address it responsibly, we added allergenicity and safety testing (literature-based this season, experimental in the future) to our protocols, alongside the possibility of developing alternative formulations for patients sensitive to propolis.
In parallel, we recorded encapsulation and compound stability as areas needing more research, since maintaining the activity of bioactive compounds during processing is crucial for the effectiveness of the end material. Following her suggestion, we also kept open the alternative route of investigating collagen-like proteins from Streptococcus pyogenes in case casein proved unworkable, though we prioritized propolis + casein as our main path forward.
Finally, the meeting positioned us for ongoing collaboration: we agreed to reconnect after she consulted colleagues with expertise in both casein and S. pyogenes proteins, and we noted her upcoming presentation at the Knowledge for Use in Practice conference as a further opportunity to exchange insights. In this way, the consultation not only guided a key material decision for this year’s design but also laid the groundwork for continued scientific dialogue.
Purpose: A meeting was held with Līga Stīpniece to discuss the current development of the scaffold and hydrogel formulation for the iGEM Latvia-Riga 2025 project. Prior to the meeting, the specialist was provided with a written summary outlining the current approach and key challenges, specifically related to cross-linking strategies, material compatibility, and antimicrobial integration.
Contribution: During the discussion, several important insights and recommendations were shared. First, thermal cross-linking was ruled out as a viable method due to its incompatibility with sensitive components, such as proteins and flavonoids, which could degrade at elevated temperatures. Instead, attention was drawn to the importance of timing when adding the cross-linker to the system—specifically, determining the optimal point at which to introduce the cross-linking agent to hyaluronic acid and/or casein to ensure structural stability without premature gelation. Genipin was acknowledged as a biocompatible cross-linker that has been used successfully in other biomedical systems. However, its significant drawbacks include high cost and its tendency to darken the hydrogel—from a clear or translucent appearance to nearly black—which may be unsuitable for a wound dressing intended for clinical or aesthetic use. As an alternative, the use of EDC/NHS (1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide and N-hydroxysuccinimide) was suggested. This chemical cross-linking method is widely used in bioconjugation and offers a more affordable and potentially less visually disruptive option. However, its compatibility with the specific components in this project would need to be evaluated. A critical research need identified was the investigation of the interaction between hyaluronic acid and casein. Their chemical compatibility, structural behavior, and mutual miscibility will directly impact the functionality and stability of the final hydrogel system. Regarding antimicrobial strategies, silver ions were supported as a promising option. If the combination of silver and lactoferrin does not yield satisfactory results, it was suggested that calcium phosphate (Ca₃(PO₄)₂) could serve as an alternative additive, offering additional structural and antimicrobial benefits. Finally, the specialist recommended reaching out to Dr. Kristīne Šalma-Ancāne, a hydrogel expert at Riga Technical University. Her ongoing work with polylysine and hyaluronic acid systems, cross-linked using genipin, may provide valuable guidance for optimizing the scaffold and hydrogel composition in the context of this project.
Implementation:This consultation marked an early but important step in clarifying the cross-linking strategy for our hydrogel system. One of the main takeaways was the explicit ruling out of thermal cross-linking, which we had initially considered, as it risked degrading both proteins (casein) and bioactive compounds (such as flavonoids in propolis). Instead, we integrated her recommendation to focus on chemical cross-linking methods, documenting EDC/NHS and genipin as viable options for further testing.
Although the high cost and dark coloration of genipin were noted as drawbacks, its natural origin and lower acute toxicity aligned well with our broader aim of designing a biocompatible and sustainable material. After considering these trade-offs, we ultimately selected genipin as our primary cross-linking agent, guided by Līga Stīpniece’s input. This decision became part of our broader strategy to keep the material as natural as possible while still ensuring stability and safety. At the same time, we recorded EDC/NHS as an alternative pathway, particularly in scenarios where cost or visual appearance might become limiting factors.
Her advice also shaped how we structured our experimental planning. Following her emphasis on timing, we included tests to determine the optimal point for introducing the cross-linker into our formulations with hyaluronic acid and/or casein, aiming to avoid premature gelation while ensuring final structural stability. We also added a research checkpoint to explore the chemical compatibility and miscibility of casein with hyaluronic acid, since this interaction will strongly influence whether the hydrogel can perform reliably as a wound-healing material.
On the antimicrobial side, we expanded our protocols to include silver ions as an additive, building on her support for this option. We also recorded calcium phosphate (Ca₃(PO₄)₂) as a backup strategy that could provide both antimicrobial effects and structural reinforcement. In parallel, we followed her suggestion to reach out to Dr. Kristīne Šalma-Ancāne, whose expertise on genipin cross-linking in polylysine/HA systems became an important next step in refining our design.
Overall, this meeting provided us with a clear decision point: a shift toward genipin as our cross-linker of choice and a structured plan for systematically evaluating component compatibility, cross-linking efficiency, and antimicrobial integration. These recommendations not only redirected our material design but also reinforced the principle of aligning sustainability, biocompatibility, and practicality in the development of our hydrogel.
Purpose: On April 17, 2025, team members Anna Apine met with Anna Ramata-Stunda, Co-founder and CEO of Alternative Plants, originally with the intent of exploring potential fundraising opportunities for the Caseinova project. However, the meeting naturally evolved into a much more meaningful exchange—one that directly shaped the Human Practices side of our work.
Contribution: While financial support was not possible, Anna expressed genuine enthusiasm for the project and offered substantial practical support. This included the possibility of conducting safety tests in cell cultures and evaluating the anti-inflammatory properties of our material once a prototype is available. She also welcomed further communication, suggesting we reach out via a short follow-up email after the holidays, particularly to discuss any questions related to electrospinning processes. More importantly, Anna provided valuable feedback on the design and usability of our proposed wound-healing material. She encouraged us to think critically about the complexity of the formulation—reminding us that while anti-inflammatory components are important, adding too many elements could reduce both efficacy and practicality. Her clinical and industry experience also guided us to consider the real-world applicability of our product, especially in how it would be used by patients and medical professionals. This meeting, while initially framed around fundraising, became a clear example of how Human Practices can emerge from unexpected places. It helped us refine our scientific focus through a lens of user-centered design, feasibility, and ethical responsibility, and served as a reminder of how much value lies in open, interdisciplinary dialogue. Anna also suggested we reach out to Reinis Rutkis for further guidance on materials science or electrospinning, helping us expand our network of expertise.
Implementation: Although no direct fundraising opportunities emerged from this meeting, Anna Ramata-Stunda’s input significantly influenced the direction of our Human Practices and project design. Her emphasis on user-centered thinking led us to reassess the complexity of our material, ensuring that each component added to the hydrogel or scaffold had a clear and necessary purpose. This feedback encouraged us to resist the temptation of “overengineering” the formulation and instead to focus on a design that balances practicality, effectiveness, and real-world applicability.
From a practical standpoint, we documented the possibility of conducting safety and cytotoxicity tests in mammalian cell cultures, as well as assays for anti-inflammatory properties, once a prototype becomes available. These opportunities would allow us to validate not only the antimicrobial potential of our material but also its safety and usability—two aspects essential for any biomedical product. Inspired by this advice, we also reached out to clinicians to better understand the current medical demand for wound-healing solutions, aligning our scientific development with real-world needs.
Anna’s openness to continued dialogue left an equally strong impression. By encouraging us to maintain contact through simple follow-ups and by connecting us with other experts such as Reinis Rutkis for advice on materials science and electrospinning, she reminded us that meaningful Human Practices often emerge from unexpected, interdisciplinary conversations. In practice, her support helped us expand our network of expertise while reinforcing a collaborative mindset: that partnerships in science can be motivated not only by shared resources, but also by a shared vision of empowering student innovation.
Prompted us to reach out to clinicians to find out the current medical demand of our solution.
Purpose: The discussion focused on the formulation and potential improvements of the hydrogel-based part of the wound-healing material, particularly regarding the necessity and integration of its components, as well as practical implementation.
Contribution: The specialist questioned whether all current elements—casein, hyaluronic acid, propolis, bacteriophages, and the electrospun scaffold—are essential. It was emphasized that the end product should be clearly defined: whether it will be a ready-to-use gel-like patch or a customizable material tailored to individual patients. The idea of preparation under aseptic conditions was also suggested for practical implementation.
Hydrogel Considerations:
Casein was positively noted as a natural and potentially unique protein choice, though its presence in commercial hydrogels is unclear. Since hydrogels already act as scaffolds (absorbing bodily fluids and supporting cells), it's worth evaluating if a separate fiber scaffold is necessary.
The hydrogel's water content could be removed via lyophilization and later restored through rehydration, which might help in storage and transport.
Hyaluronic acid (HA) was recommended over gelatin due to its simplicity, regulatory approval (FDA), and better-understood properties. If gelatin is used, its Bloom number must be considered.
HA can be crosslinked via its carboxyl groups, forming strong amide bonds. If casein is modified to have more primary amine groups, it could be chemically crosslinked to HA using EDC-NHS or genipin. Genipin was suggested as a less toxic alternative, though it may require higher concentrations.
Sterilization options were discussed: EDC-NHS crosslinked materials can withstand steam sterilization, but gamma sterilization is not suitable for biopolymers. HA can be sterilized, but casein’s behavior under sterilization remains unclear.
Propolis Integration:
Research by Agnese Brangule (RSU) was mentioned, noting that plain propolis has weak antibacterial activity, which significantly improves in the presence of organic solvents due to better extraction and interaction of active compounds.
The team must assess which solvents are suitable and how casein interacts with propolis, both chemically and structurally.
There’s potential for integrating propolis directly into the hydrogel, possibly eliminating the need for a separate fiber scaffold. Literature on propolis-loaded hydrogels should be explored, especially regarding how sterilization affects propolis’s activity.
The idea of using propolis fibers embedded within a hydrogel was also raised as a possible hybrid approach.
Technical Challenges:
Further research is needed into electrospinning, crosslinking chemistry, and casein modification strategies.
It remains unclear how the final material will look and function in real-world application.
The solution properties—especially viscosity and conductivity—must be optimized for electrospinning, and formulation must avoid agglomerates.
Implementation: This meeting played a crucial role in helping us critically evaluate the complexity of our design. Based on Dr. Šalma-Ancāne’s feedback, we began reassessing whether every component in our initial formulation was truly essential. As a result, we documented two possible directions for the hydrogel: one as a standalone gel-like patch (removing the need for a separate fiber scaffold), and another as a hybrid system combining propolis-containing fibers embedded in hydrogel. Both pathways remain in our protocols as alternative approaches, allowing future experiments to determine which version balances feasibility, functionality, and scalability.
In practical terms, we integrated her recommendations into our experimental planning by specifying aseptic preparation steps for hydrogel prototypes, as well as recording lyophilization as a potential method to improve storage stability and transportability. Regarding the choice of components, we prioritized hyaluronic acid (HA) over gelatin for further exploration, since its regulatory approval and well-documented properties make it more realistic for medical application. For crosslinking, we incorporated both EDC-NHS and genipin into our test protocols, with the goal of determining which method provides sufficient stability while minimizing toxicity. In parallel, we noted the need to explore casein modification strategies (e.g., introducing more primary amine groups) so that it could be more effectively crosslinked with HA.
Her feedback also directly shaped our approach to propolis integration. Instead of assuming that raw propolis alone would provide reliable antibacterial activity, we included solvent-based extraction methods in our protocols, guided by prior research and her suggestion that bioactivity is significantly enhanced in this way. To account for this, we created a plan for testing different solvents for compatibility with both casein and HA. Moreover, we highlighted the importance of assessing how sterilization methods (steam vs. gamma irradiation) impact not only the hydrogel itself but also the bioactivity of propolis.
Finally, to reduce technical risk, we adjusted our near-term implementation strategy by first focusing on hydrogel formulation and stability tests before committing to electrospinning. Testing of viscosity and conductivity was incorporated as a prerequisite for any electrospinning trials, with simpler assays (e.g., homogeneity checks, stability under rehydration) serving as milestones. By capturing her feedback in this structured way, we ensured that our protocols not only reflect scientific ambition but also acknowledge realistic technical limits and decision points for the next iteration of the project.
Purpose: In an earlier meeting with Kristīne Šalma-Ancāne she had mentioned that Dr.sc.ing. Agnese Brangule has worked with propolis and done research on its synergistic effects with antibiotics as well as antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties of Latvian propolis, so we reached out to Agnese Brangule in order to find out more about the practical aspects of working with propolis.
Contribution: Latvian propolis contains a higher concentration of phenolic acids, which could contribute positively if we were to analyze its release profile. Although we do not currently have the time to perform detailed chemical release studies, structural and surface observations can be made using electron microscopy. To demonstrate the presence of polyphenols and flavonoids in propolis, classical colorimetric reactions with FeCl₃ and AlCl₃ can be used. These reactions are well-documented in the scientific literature and provide visual confirmation of these compounds. As for solvents, ethanol-based extracts have proven to be the most effective. While various solvents have been tested, ethanol remains the preferred choice due to its efficiency in extracting active components from propolis. In the electrospinning process, propolis is typically dissolved in an alcoholic solution. To ensure fiber stability during electrospinning, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) is often added to the solution as a stabilizing agent. There are, however, some associated risks. Propolis exhibits varying levels of antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, which could influence the final effectiveness of the material. Additionally, there is a risk of protein denaturation during processing. To preserve the bioactive components—especially flavonoids—it is advisable to maintain low processing temperatures, as both temperature and the presence of alcohol can affect the chemical stability and activity of the compounds. Inquired about where to best obtain propolis, as well as got guided to some relevant research papers
Implementation: Following Dr. Brangule’s advice, we refined our practical approach to working with propolis. Even though we did not have the resources this year to perform complete release studies, we integrated her recommendations into our future-oriented protocols. Specifically, we plan to confirm the presence of polyphenols and flavonoids in Latvian propolis through classical FeCl₃ and AlCl₃ colorimetric tests, as suggested. These low-cost, visual assays will help us validate that the propolis used retains its bioactive components before incorporating it into electrospun fibers.
In preparing propolis extracts, we adopted ethanol as the solvent of choice, following her guidance that it remains the most efficient for extracting bioactive compounds. For electrospinning, we also considered her recommendation to add polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) as a stabilizer, ensuring fiber integrity during the process. To minimize the risk of protein denaturation and preserve flavonoids, we adjusted our protocols toward low-temperature handling steps.
Her insights also shaped our risk assessment: we accounted for the variable antibacterial activity of propolis and the potential denaturation of proteins by explicitly planning antimicrobial testing of different extracts. In our forward-looking protocols, these considerations have been written into the workflow (e.g., PEG 400 as an alternative solvent for antimicrobial testing, 96-well assay designs), ensuring that future experiments systematically account for both variability and preservation of bioactivity.
Ultimately, Dr. Brangule’s contributions provided the practical foundation for transforming propolis from a theoretical component into a workable material in our scaffold design. Her input allowed us to move beyond the conceptual stage and draft concrete protocols that balance bioactivity, processing feasibility, and safety, laying the groundwork for future experiments and validation studies.
Purpose: The meeting focused on the application of propolis in the electrospun scaffold and its interactions with other biomaterials, such as casein and hyaluronic acid. The specialist provided detailed feedback on both material selection and technical considerations for processing. Found out about Zane Zelča while trying to find out who has worked with propolis in Latvia, ended up finding out that her research group has developed propolis containing nanofibers by electrospinning. One of the main concerns raised was the high variability of propolis as a natural raw material. Its chemical composition strongly depends on the geographic origin—propolis sourced from the Baltic region contains a different profile of active compounds than that from other regions. This variation can result in inconsistent biological effects. Even propolis samples from Latvia and Lithuania have shown noticeable differences in composition. Therefore, it is essential to use standardized propolis from a single source and carefully analyze technical data sheets to ensure that unwanted compounds (such as acacia resin) are absent, as they may interfere with the material’s function or safety. Propolis is a complex mixture of components that may dissolve differently depending on the solvent used. Selecting the appropriate solvent environment is crucial for efficient electrospinning and bioactivity. Although the Baltic propolis may not exhibit strong antifungal properties, it could still offer antibacterial or antiviral activity. In fact, propolis-based electrospun fibers have been shown to work against viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. However, the interaction between propolis's antiviral compounds and bacteriophages must be studied further, as there is a possibility that one could diminish the effect of the other. This raises the question of whether bacteriophages are necessary if propolis alone provides sufficient antimicrobial protection.
Contribution: The specialist suggested testing how the fibers behave in a moist environment, as propolis-based layers may naturally form a gel-like protective barrier when exposed to wound exudate. This opens the possibility of creating a transdermal drug delivery system, where gelation is activated directly on the wound surface. In that case, a textile mesh as a structural support might not be required. From a technical standpoint, casein's solubility and electroconductivity are critical for electrospinning. Since casein has limited solubility in water, the choice of solvent and additives is essential. If conductivity is too low, additional components may be needed. Furthermore, hyaluronic acid and propolis both have acidic properties, which could result in excessive pH reduction upon skin contact. This must be carefully monitored to avoid irritation or tissue damage. Additionally, the fibers are expected to be dry upon spinning and will begin releasing active substances when rehydrated on the skin, potentially lowering the local pH. Regarding electrospinning equipment, it was noted that needle-based systems are not ideal for propolis, due to clogging and resinous buildup. Free-surface electrospinning systems (e.g., bubble or wire electrospinning) are recommended. Industrial-scale equipment may be available at the institute (possibly under the supervision of Dr. Zelča). The team should inquire about access to these facilities and clarify which solvents are permitted for use. Only non-toxic solvents such as water, ethanol, or small volumes of acetone should be considered. As for propolis preparation, powdered propolis (e.g., Brazilian green or red propolis) was mentioned as a viable option—especially after separation from acacia resin. The powder must be ultrasonically dispersed, and solvent compatibility, as well as concentration, must be optimized. It can be incorporated either directly into the fibers or applied as a coating on top of an electrospun scaffold. A practical first step would be to create propolis-based films, to assess whether the material provides any desired biological effect before moving to more complex fiber production. Finally, prior to electrospinning, all solutions must be tested for viscosity and electrical conductivity to ensure stable fiber formation and prevent agglomeration.
Implementation: This meeting was pivotal in shifting our perspective on propolis as a material. Up until then, we had focused on local sourcing, but Zane Zelča’s emphasis on the variability of Baltic propolis helped us realize that it would be nearly impossible to establish reproducible protocols using Latvian raw material. As a result, we integrated her recommendation to use commercially available Brazilian propolis, which is more chemically standardized and therefore suitable for consistent testing and eventual translation to biomedical applications. This lesson also became one of our two major turning points of the season, as it redirected our focus more strongly toward hydrogels as the primary material platform rather than scaffolds.
In terms of practical work, we documented her technical advice into our experimental planning. We included preliminary tests on propolis-based films as a starting point before moving to electrospun fibers, ensuring that the biological effect of propolis could be confirmed at a simpler level. We also outlined protocols for monitoring viscosity and conductivity of electrospinning solutions, acknowledging that casein’s limited solubility and the acidic properties of both hyaluronic acid and propolis need to be carefully balanced to avoid clogging during spinning and to prevent excessive pH shifts on the skin. Additionally, we took into account her caution about needle-based systems, recording free-surface electrospinning (bubble or wire systems) as the recommended direction if we pursue scale-up in collaboration with institutional facilities.
Finally, her input shaped our safety considerations. We explicitly planned to monitor for pH changes upon hydration of fibers, to assess whether propolis forms the gel-like barrier she described, and to remain cautious about potential interactions between propolis’ antiviral compounds and bacteriophages. Although we did not have the capacity to test these aspects within this project cycle, we integrated them into our future plans as critical checkpoints before moving toward clinical application.
Purpose: The consultation with Gints Kalniņš, a senior researcher at the Latvian Biomedical Research and Study Centre, was aimed at strengthening the experimental design of our project. We sought his expertise in protein research, plasmid construct design, and practical strategies for improving protein solubility and crosslinking efficiency.
Key takeaways: Gints recommended using a human casein sequence to ensure greater compatibility and reduce potential risks compared to non-human sources. He shared his professional experience with protein sequence modifications that can enhance crosslinking, giving us a more applied perspective beyond what we had gathered from the literature. He also highlighted the role of solubility tags, recommending the MBP tag as particularly effective based on his laboratory experience. In terms of plasmid design, he advised us beyond our initial consideration of pET24a(+) and pET28a(+) backbones, suggesting that the pRSFDuet-1 vector could be a more suitable choice. His rationale was that it contains all the necessary sites for our work and is well-suited for protein expression in E. coli.
Implementation: Dr. Kalniņš’ consultation gave us a concrete roadmap for how our project could be translated from a conceptual stage into practical molecular work. Although we are currently working at a proof-of-concept level, his feedback shaped the way we documented our future experimental protocols. First, his recommendation to use human casein sequences became central to our design philosophy, both for ensuring greater compatibility in potential biomedical use and for reducing immunogenic risks compared to bovine or other animal sources. This advice reinforced our broader Human Practices emphasis on responsible research and clinical relevance.
In terms of protein expression, we incorporated his insights into our planning by noting the importance of solubility-enhancing modifications. We recorded the MBP tag as our primary candidate for improving protein solubility and expression yield, acknowledging his direct laboratory experience that this tag often outperforms others in E. coli. This not only gave us a practical strategy for addressing one of the most common bottlenecks in protein research but also helped us align expectations for experimental troubleshooting.
Finally, his input on plasmid design redirected us from initially considering only pET24a(+) and pET28a(+) backbones to recognizing the pRSFDuet-1 vector as a more versatile and efficient choice. We added this vector into our design documentation as a strong candidate for any future laboratory stage, particularly since it contains the necessary sites for our construct and has been proven effective in E. coli expression systems.
By integrating these recommendations into our protocols and future plans, Dr. Kalniņš’ advice ensured that if and when our project moves to experimental implementation, it will start from a foundation that is both scientifically robust and practically achievable. His guidance ultimately bridged the gap between theoretical design and real-world protein engineering, helping us anticipate challenges and prepare responsible strategies for addressing them.
Purpose: The consultation with Dr. biol. Ņikita Zrelovs, a leading expert in phage research at the Latvian Biomedical Research and Study Centre and Riga Stradiņš University, aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and regulatory considerations of our initial plan to work with therapeutic phages for burn wound treatment.
Key takeaways: Ņikita emphasized the practical risks and regulatory challenges of handling pathogenic bacterial strains and clinical phage cocktails, as these would require safety levels above BSL-1 and present potential hazards. This input was crucial in helping us recognize the limitations of our initial approach.
He recommended that instead of directly working with pathogenic phages, we redirect our efforts toward a proof-of-principle approach using well-studied, non-hazardous model coliphages:
T4 (Straboviridae, previously Myoviridae)
T7 (Autotranscriptaviridae, previously Podoviridae)
Lambda (Caudoviricetes, includes phages previously in Siphoviridae)
These tailed, dsDNA phages are extensively studied, widely available, and representative of clinically relevant families, making them ideal safe models for our experimental design.
Implementation: Dr. Ņikita Zrelovs’ input became one of the most decisive turning points in our project. His guidance led us to abandon the idea of working with pathogenic bacterial strains and therapeutic phage cocktails, which, while scientifically ambitious, would have required BSL-2 or higher safety measures far beyond our team’s capacity. Instead, we reframed our phage component as a proof-of-principle study, shifting to well-characterized coliphages (T4, T7, and Lambda) as safe stand-ins.
This adjustment shaped our protocols in several ways. First, it allowed us to design experiments safely within a BSL-1 framework, ensuring compliance with both iGEM’s safety standards and local regulatory expectations. Second, by using these model phages, we could still test the conceptual integration of phages into our wound-healing material without compromising safety. Their established genomic and structural data also provided a strong foundation for designing reproducible assays and for interpreting potential outcomes with translational relevance.
Importantly, this reframing helped us clarify the narrative of our project: our work is not about creating a ready-to-use therapeutic cocktail at this stage, but rather about demonstrating the potential of integrating antimicrobial agents like phages into biomaterials in a safe, controlled way. This perspective also gave us flexibility — if in the future we or another group move toward clinical phage applications, our framework will already account for regulatory hurdles and safety barriers identified in this consultation.
Ultimately, Dr. Zrelovs’ advice helped us balance ambition with responsibility. By grounding our design in safe, accessible models, we preserved scientific value while ensuring feasibility, and in doing so, we aligned our project with the principles of responsible research culture that became a defining theme of our Human Practices.
Purpose: We met with Ilvija Zvaigzne from the RTU Development Fund to learn about practical pathways for attracting sponsors, setting up crowdfunding, and managing donations in compliance with university and national regulations. Since fundraising is a crucial part of sustaining iGEM projects, this meeting aimed to clarify what opportunities exist within RTU’s ecosystem and how best to frame our initiative to potential supporters.
Key takeaways: The consultation provided both strategic and technical insights. We learned that sponsorships and crowdfunding campaigns can be channeled through the RTU Development Fund, which allows funds to be treated as targeted donations with the legal and tax advantages of a public benefit organization (including UIN relief). This structure would also allow the fund to disburse stipends or cover project-related expenses such as marketing materials, videos, or event costs. On the crowdfunding side, we were advised to prepare a universal project description, clearly defining our goals, impact, and budget. This would not only serve RTU’s own crowdfunding platform but could also be adapted for external use. Importantly, the budget would need to include a clear breakdown of activities and justifications for expenses, accompanied by a ⅔-page narrative and a one-page financial plan. Beyond financial mechanisms, Ilvija also highlighted several valuable contacts and directions. These included RTU’s public engagement departments (e.g., for merchandise and podcast opportunities), potential industry partners such as Food Union (which later provided us with direct financial support), and relevant institutions like LIAA (Investment and Development Agency of Latvia), which could be approached for additional funding streams.
Implementation: Following this meeting, we began drafting a crowdfunding description and budget that could be adapted for multiple contexts (RTU’s platform, external campaigns, or direct sponsor communication). With the Development Fund’s guidance, we ensured that all planned expenses were accompanied by a clear narrative and justification, which not only made our campaign more transparent but also strengthened our approach when reaching out to sponsors.
Importantly, our collaboration with the RTU Development Fund continued throughout the rest of the project. They assisted us in navigating the legal and accounting aspects of donations, ensuring that targeted contributions could be managed through RTU as a public benefit organization with tax relief for sponsors. This framework gave us the confidence to approach partners knowing that their support would be handled transparently and sustainably.
We also kept in close contact with their representatives when exploring opportunities such as merchandise, podcasts, student parliament engagement, and industry outreach. Several of these directions were activated during the season, helping us build visibility and connect with both the RTU community and the wider public.
Overall, the ongoing support of the Development Fund provided us not only with a pathway for financial sustainability but also with a sense of institutional backing, making our project feel firmly embedded within RTU’s innovation ecosystem.
Purpose: The consultation with Renāte Kalniņa focused on strategies for public engagement, fundraising, and potential future commercialization pathways. With her background in industry and innovation, she provided insights into how our project could connect not only with the university community but also with the broader public and future investors.
Key takeaways: Renāte encouraged us to use diverse media channels — including radio and television — in addition to university social media, to reach broader audiences and popularize our project. She also gave concrete advice on how to design crowdfunding campaigns that would appeal to a general audience, highlighting the importance of clarity, storytelling, and accessibility. On funding, she recommended exploring opportunities such as the European Innovation Council (EIC) projects and accelerators. While not directly applicable to iGEM, these resources could support us if the project evolves into a start-up. She also shared her experience with start-up workflows, including the challenges of commercialization and patenting, which gave us a realistic picture of potential future steps.
Implementation: At our current proof-of-concept stage, we are primarily focused on public engagement through social media and outreach events, but her advice shaped how we think about broader communication strategies. Should our project develop toward commercialization, we would build on her suggestions by:
• Designing accessible and engaging crowdfunding campaigns to raise support.
• Exploring EIC and accelerator programs as potential funding sources.
• Preparing for the legal and logistical challenges of start-up development and patenting.
Her insights provided both immediate tools for outreach and a longer-term perspective on how Caseinova could evolve into a venture with real-world impact.
Purpose: The collaboration with Līga Žūka from the RSU Innovation Centre was focused on strengthening our public engagement and exploring possible funding opportunities. We sought her advice on how to connect our project with wider audiences and external resources beyond the academic environment.
Key takeaways: Līga provided us with leads on potential funding options within RSU and from organizations outside academia, even though these particular opportunities did not work out in practice. More importantly, she supported the promotion of our project through the RSU Innovation Centre’s social media channels, increasing our visibility. She also connected us with the RSU Business Incubator “B-Space,” which resulted in our participation in a podcast — a valuable platform for public outreach and science communication.
Implementation: Her support helped us engage audiences beyond the university setting and experiment with new formats of science communication. Although the funding opportunities did not materialize, the social media promotion and podcast experience strengthened our public presence and communication skills, and gave us exposure to the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem at RSU. These experiences laid the groundwork for future teams to think creatively about outreach and to use institutional networks not only for funding but also for visibility and impact.
Purpose: As part of our exploration into the potential real-world impact of Caseinova, our team met with Juris Mencis from Latvian Investment and Development Agency (LIAA), where we discussed commercialization possibilities, funding pathways, and long-term sustainability. During the visit, we had the opportunity to meet with Sigvards Krongorns, an investment associate at Verge HealthTech Fund, whose insights as an investor helped us refine our perspective on the intersection of science, entrepreneurship, and market relevance.
Contribution: Our conversation focused on how Caseinova could position itself within the existing market of wound-healing materials—particularly hydrogel-based plasters, which are typically imported and often expensive. Sigvards encouraged us to clarify what sets our product apart, such as its biologically inspired formulation using casein and propolis, its potential for local production, and its alignment with current trends in natural and sustainable biomaterials. This helped us identify not just what we are creating, but why it matters in the current medical and biotech landscape. The meeting also covered funding opportunities available through LIAA and related programs. We discussed participating in “Ideju kauss”, a national innovation competition that supports early-stage ideas with mentorship and funding. In addition, we were introduced to possible avenues for EU and Norway Grants, particularly under programs that target innovation, sustainability, and health technologies. These could support the further development and scaling of our material beyond the iGEM project itself. One of the most valuable aspects of the meeting was the discussion on intellectual property strategy. We spoke about the importance of patenting our solution as a biomaterial, especially before broader publication or public disclosure. Sigvards reinforced that early protection of innovation is key to opening doors for investment, licensing, or even future startup development.
Outlook/Implementation: This meeting with LIAA and Sigvards Krongorns marked a significant step in bridging our scientific project with the entrepreneurial mindset required for real-world impact. Following the discussion, we began refining our value proposition by explicitly highlighting Caseinova’s unique features: its biologically inspired formulation, potential for local production, and sustainability focus. These points were incorporated into our project narrative and presentation materials, ensuring that our communication spoke not only to scientists but also to potential investors and partners.
In parallel, we started mapping out funding opportunities. Based on the advice received, we identified “Ideju kauss” as a competition where Caseinova could be pitched beyond the iGEM context, and we recorded relevant EU and Norway Grant schemes as future avenues for support. This exercise helped us frame our project as something that could evolve past a student competition into a candidate for structured innovation programs.
One of the most concrete outcomes was the recognition of the importance of an intellectual property (IP) strategy. Even though we are still at the proof-of-concept stage, we documented in our long-term planning that any potential prototype would require early IP protection before publication. This consideration is now written into our commercialization outlook, ensuring that future iterations of the project will avoid losing the opportunity to secure patents or licenses.
By integrating these steps into our project development, the meeting with LIAA shifted our mindset from “Can we build this?” to “How can this survive and grow in the real world?” It ensured that our project was not only scientifically relevant but also grounded in the language and structures of innovation, sustainability, and entrepreneurship.
In iGEM, we often speak of “impact” as the good our project might achieve — but every meaningful impact also carries with it boundaries, trade-offs, and risks. For us, impact and limitations were never separate boxes to tick, but interconnected forces that shaped one another at every step.
When we spoke with clinicians, entrepreneurs, scientists, and beekeepers, their insights showed us that every new possibility also reveals a challenge: if our material reduces infections, how will it cope with allergies? If propolis is sustainable to harvest, how do we account for its variability and cultural significance? If casein offers novelty, how do we address its allergenic risks?
By holding both perspectives together, we ensured that Caseinova did not become a purely technical solution detached from context. Instead, our Human Practices work grounded us in real-world limitations while opening up new ways to think about responsible, impactful innovation.
Purpose: Early in the development of our project, five members of the Caseinova team visited CleanR to explore the feasibility of using casein-based biodegradable textiles as a sustainable material. While the concept was rooted in circular economy principles, the visit highlighted several significant challenges that ultimately led us to re-evaluate our direction.
Contribution: We discovered that if we wished to pursue textiles, we would face numerous practical obstacles, including the recyclability of the material, the need for universal product markings, and concerns regarding price feasibility for consumers. Additionally, Getliņi’s strict composting criteria revealed that casein-based textiles might not be suitable for their current systems due to differing composting techniques. We also questioned the durability and susceptibility to mold of casein textiles, raising concerns about shelf life and storage. Furthermore, the main current route for textile waste in Latvia is its transformation into refuse-derived fuel (RDF)—a process that does not prioritize material recovery, which challenged the original vision of a fully sustainable lifecycle. Interestingly, our discussions opened up a new path entirely: we were advised that, if we wished to make a real impact on the textile industry, it might be more beneficial to develop enzymes that support recycling or degradation, rather than creating new textile products.
Implementation: This turning point was crucial. It helped us realize that while casein remained a fascinating and versatile material, its application in the textile industry was not the optimal match for our goals or local context. Instead, we carried forward the core value of sustainability and redirected our focus to a field where casein could offer clear biomedical and functional value: wound healing. This pivot laid the foundation for what would become Caseinova—a burn wound healing material that draws inspiration from nature, maintains sustainability at its core, and addresses a genuine medical need.
Purpose: The meeting with Dr. Smirnovs focused on evaluating the clinical need and practical application of the proposed scaffold-hydrogel material, particularly in the context of burn wound treatment.
Contribution: The clinician confirmed that new, effective wound-healing materials are always needed, especially in burn care. Currently, most of the materials used in burn wards are imported and expensive, so developing a locally produced, cost-effective alternative would be highly valuable.
However, several important practical considerations were raised. The team must clearly define when during the treatment process the material is intended to be used:
Immediately after the burn occurs?
After the wound has been cleaned and debrided?
During a specific healing phase, such as the granulation phase?
Or even during surgical interventions?
From a clinical standpoint, it was suggested that the material would be better suited for use after the wound has been cleaned, as burn wounds are inherently “dirty”, in contrast to surgical wounds. This has implications for infection control and the sterility requirements of the material.
The frequency of dressing changes was also discussed. While frequent changes (daily or every other day) are common in clinical practice to manage infection risk, this can disrupt tissue regeneration, especially if the dressing adheres to newly formed tissue. The clinician emphasized the need to balance effectiveness with infection control, and to consider how our material would perform under such changing conditions.
Regarding antimicrobial strategies, the doctor acknowledged the potential of propolis and was not opposed to the idea of bacteriophages. However, he noted that prolonged hospital stays often lead to colonization with highly resistant organisms, which usually requires systemic antibiotic treatment. This raises the question of how our material’s antimicrobial properties might interact with or be affected by such treatments.
In terms of application, while the initial focus is on burn wounds, the clinician suggested expanding the scope to include other types of chronic or hard-to-heal wounds, such as ulcers. This could broaden the material’s potential use and relevance in clinical settings.
Finally, it was recommended that for greater impact and support, the team should frame the project around reducing hospitalization time, which has direct benefits in terms of cost reduction and fewer complications. This was seen as a more compelling objective than focusing solely on scar minimization.
Implementation: This consultation provided us with much-needed clinical grounding, ensuring that our design was not developed in isolation from real-world practice. Dr. Smirnovs’ emphasis on defining the intended point of use within the treatment pathway directly influenced how we framed our hydrogel–scaffold system. Based on his recommendation, we reoriented our material toward application after wound cleaning and debridement, when sterility can be better controlled and the focus shifts to promoting tissue regeneration. This clarified scope gave our project sharper clinical relevance and informed the way we structured our experimental aims.
We also integrated his feedback on dressing change frequency into our design documentation. Recognizing that burn dressings are often changed daily or every other day, we planned to test the stability and release properties of our material under these short cycles, while simultaneously considering ways to minimize tissue disruption during dressing removal. This aspect was added as a checkpoint in our protocols, emphasizing the need for a balance between infection control and regeneration support.
His remarks on antimicrobial strategies prompted us to think more critically about the role of our additives. While we continued to explore propolis and phages as potential components, we acknowledged that systemic antibiotics remain standard for resistant colonizations in burn wards. As a result, we positioned our material not as a replacement for systemic therapy but as a supportive, local adjunct designed to reduce microbial load and accelerate healing. This reframing both set realistic expectations and strengthened the narrative of complementing — rather than competing with — current clinical practice.
Another direct outcome of this meeting was broadening the scope of application. Inspired by his suggestion, we began framing our material as relevant not only for acute burn wounds but also for chronic or hard-to-heal wounds, such as diabetic ulcers or pressure sores. This expanded scope was included in our project description and adds long-term value for future clinical translation.
Finally, we adopted his advice to emphasize reduced hospitalization time as a key measure of impact. By framing our innovation around cost reduction, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications, we strengthened both the medical and economic arguments for its development. This focus will guide how we communicate the project to clinicians, funders, and policymakers.
Outlook: Dr. Smirnovs expressed openness to further discussions and was supportive of the project’s development, offering to assist with clinical insights moving forward
Purpose: Our goal in meeting with the President of the Latvian Academy of Sciences was to gain high-level insight on the design, functionality, and future potential of our biomaterial, especially in the context of burn and wound-healing applications. Given his extensive background in biomedical material development—including work on military-grade solutions—we aimed to bridge our synthetic biology project with decades of practical, clinical, and scientific experience. We sought to critically evaluate our current choices (such as the use of propolis), gain perspective on historical successes and failures in wound care innovation, and better understand the path toward clinical relevance and eventual commercialization. His expertise provided a unique and valuable perspective—one grounded not only in academic rigor, but also in the real-world constraints of medical application, particularly in emergency and military contexts.
Contribution: In our meeting with the President of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, we were fortunate to receive not only deep scientific insight into wound healing materials but also historical and practical knowledge rooted in decades of experience, particularly in military medical applications. The discussion began with a critical reflection on our choice of propolis as a key component. He pointed out that Latvian propolis is highly variable, difficult to standardize, and often causes allergic reactions and irritation. While it is rich in quercetin, this compound oxidizes quickly, reducing its efficacy. Moreover, quercetin can be more easily and cheaply extracted from sources like buckwheat, rather than beeswax. In contrast, Brazilian propolis—especially the green and red varieties—is rich in different polyphenols and has a more stable, well-characterized antibacterial spectrum, making it a potentially stronger candidate for biomedical applications. He also raised concerns about the electrospinning of propolis, especially around cleanliness, consistency, and chemical stability. For a more standardized and reproducible material, he suggested looking into compounds such as quercetin and formononetin, both soluble in ethanol and more easily incorporated into controlled delivery systems like electrospun fibers. In terms of alternative antibacterial agents, he recommended nisin A, a well-known, natural antimicrobial peptide widely used in food preservation, particularly in dairy products. Nisin is already standardized, safe, and effective, and could potentially be a more reliable alternative to complex propolis extracts. When the conversation turned to application methods, his extensive experience in military medical material design proved invaluable. He emphasized the practical benefits of foam aerosols—a form he had developed for the Soviet military in the 1990s—which allow for quick, sterile, and field-appropriate application, especially for burn and combat wounds. He encouraged us to explore this delivery format, particularly if we hope to address emergency or military use cases. On the biomedical side, he suggested our current composition might benefit from the addition of L-carnosine, known for its wound-healing support, and also flagged the absence of any analgesic (pain-relief) component, which would be crucial in treating larger or deeper wounds where pain shock is a serious risk. Additionally, for infected or biofilm-forming wounds, he recommended combining hyaluronic acid with lantibiotics, bacteriocins, and polylysine, as hyaluronic acid alone is insufficient for complex infections. He also shared a compelling example from his past work: a modified carboxymethylcellulose-based wound dressing that formed a gel structure inside crater-like wounds, supporting tissue regeneration and muscle repair with minimal scarring. This legacy material was applied in military settings and underscored the value of mechanically stable, structured hydrogels for healing deep, irregular wounds.
Implementation:Although we did not plan to immediately implement the specific technical suggestions from Prof. Kalviņš, his advice reshaped the way we framed both the limitations and the future potential of our material. His critique of Latvian propolis reinforced the decision already forming in our team to move away from highly variable, locally sourced extracts and instead consider Brazilian propolis or even isolated bioactive compounds like quercetin or formononetin for more standardized testing. This alignment between his expertise and our other consultations gave us stronger justification for pivoting toward reproducible, internationally relevant materials.
More importantly, his feedback pushed us to recognize what was missing from our design. The absence of an analgesic component was highlighted as a critical gap, especially since pain shock can be life-threatening in large or deep burns. This insight has been documented as a major future design requirement if the project evolves toward clinical testing. Similarly, his recommendations regarding L-carnosine, lantibiotics, bacteriocins, and polylysine were recorded as additional pathways for developing next-generation versions of the material, especially for complex or infected wounds.
Prof. Kalviņš also introduced us to alternative application formats that we had not previously considered. The example of foam aerosols for field and military medicine underscored the importance of adapting biomedical innovation not only for hospitals but also for emergency and low-resource contexts. While we are not developing this format in our current project, we included it in our long-term implementation map as a delivery system that could significantly broaden the usability and impact of our work.
Finally, the meeting underscored the value of interdisciplinary and historical perspectives. His legacy work on mechanically stable, carboxymethylcellulose-based wound dressings reinforced the lesson that structural stability is as important as bioactivity. This insight strengthened our argument that our hydrogel must be designed not only for biological compatibility but also for physical resilience in real-world clinical settings.
Outlook: The meeting concluded on a very positive note. Beyond the technical advice, the President expressed a genuine interest in supporting the iGEM Latvia-Riga team in the long term. He offered to serve as a consultant for next year’s team from the very beginning of the ideation phase, emphasizing the importance of cross-generational scientific mentorship and continuity.
Purpose: The consultation with Dr. Māris Bukovskis focused on the medical and allergological considerations of our chosen biomaterials, particularly casein and propolis. The aim was to understand potential allergy risks, prevalence in different populations, and the safety implications for applying these substances in biotechnological solutions.
Key takeaways: Casein was discussed as one of the most common allergens in cow’s milk, especially in early childhood. While prevalence decreases with age, severe allergic reactions — including anaphylaxis — can occur and are more common than reactions to asthma, though rarely fatal. Around 40–50% of milk-allergic patients are specifically allergic to casein, making it the dominant allergen compared to whey proteins. Importantly, many children outgrow this allergy, but for about 20% it persists into adulthood. Contact reactions, such as urticaria, are also frequent. However, the use of human-derived casein could significantly reduce risk, as its antigenic structure closely resembles that of proteins in human breast milk, which 99% of infants tolerate even if allergic to cow’s milk. Propolis was identified as another important allergen, particularly linked to delayed type IV hypersensitivity reactions. Contact allergies such as allergic dermatitis are well-documented, with higher positivity rates in patch tests using Brazilian propolis compared to Chinese propolis. Prevalence in Central Europe was estimated at around 5.8% in tests, but only 3% of those cases manifested clinically relevant symptoms. The risk of anaphylaxis is low but increases with application over large surface areas. Other biomaterials were also evaluated. Hyaluronic acid was considered very low risk due to being an endogenous polymer, though late-onset type IV reactions have been observed, usually caused by additives rather than the polymer itself. Bacteriophages were noted to have no documented sensitization reactions, though theoretically any large protein may elicit immune responses. Genipin was highlighted as having low allergenic potential, with rare cases of allergic contact dermatitis in temporary tattoos but no recorded anaphylaxis. The overall message was clear: while these biomaterials offer promise, allergy risks — especially with casein and propolis — must be openly acknowledged and responsibly communicated.
Implementation: As our project is currently at the proof-of-concept stage, we have not yet introduced all of the allergological safeguards discussed. However, this consultation strongly informed our understanding of what would be necessary in future development. If our project were to move toward application or commercialization, we would integrate clear communication about allergy risks into all stages of design and outreach. For casein, this would mean emphasizing the distinction between cow-derived and human-derived proteins, underlining the lower risk profile of the latter. For propolis, we would ensure that information about contact allergy risks and regional variability was transparent and well-documented. Similar considerations would apply to other biomaterials, where safety data and clinical prevalence would guide how we present their potential use.
In short, these insights provided us with a roadmap for responsible future development: ensuring that transparency, risk communication, and evidence-based safeguards are built into any pathway toward commercialization. This will help us align scientific innovation with medical responsibility and public trust.
*pic HP pictures*
Purpose: The aim of our conversation with Valda, an experienced beekeeper from Bauska with around 100 hives, was to gain a firsthand perspective on propolis harvesting practices in Latvia, its cultural and medical uses, and the sustainability of its production. We also wanted to understand how local climate conditions and beekeeping traditions influence both the quality and availability of propolis.
Key Takeaways: Valda explained that propolis is a byproduct of the bees’ natural “housekeeping” process, collected mainly from birch buds and aspen in early spring and late autumn. Since bees deposit it around frames that are removed for winter anyway, harvesting does not endanger hive health, making it a sustainable practice. While some beekeepers encourage greater yields using special propolis mats, even the traditional approach allows for efficient and ethical collection. Propolis in Latvia holds strong cultural value, widely used in folk medicine for its antimicrobial properties — in ointments for joint or back pain, remedies for coughs, or even chewed raw for toothaches. Economically, it is also a high-value product, costing around €140/kg at Riga Central Market, much more than honey or beeswax. Increasingly, its medicinal relevance is being highlighted at beekeeper gatherings. Climate change, however, is reshaping beekeeping. While unusual summers with rain and cooler weather significantly reduce honey and pollen production, propolis is less affected because it is harvested in spring and autumn. The bigger concern lies in bee health: wet summers promote parasites such as Varroa mites, which cause varroosis and weaken colonies, a growing challenge for Latvian apiculture. Valda also highlighted the generational gap within Latvian beekeeping — many keepers are older, with fewer young people entering the field. Most farms in the Bauska region are small, with 20–30 hives. Still, active beekeeper associations foster knowledge-sharing and sustain the community.
Implementation: This meeting shaped our understanding of propolis as both a sustainable and culturally significant material. Based on Valda’s insights, we:
• Confirmed that harvesting propolis can be considered environmentally responsible, as it does not harm bees or disrupt hive cycles.
• Integrated the perspective of folk medicine into our communication, linking propolis not only to science but also to Latvian cultural identity.
• Gained awareness of the economic value of propolis, helping us frame its importance in potential biomedical applications.
• Considered how climate-related challenges, such as bee parasites, might indirectly affect the availability of propolis in the future — a reminder that our project exists within broader ecological and agricultural systems.
This conversation grounded our work in real local practice, ensuring that our scientific use of propolis resonates with cultural traditions and respects ecological realities.
Purpose: The aim of our conversation with Guntars, a beekeeper from Latgale, was to gain a deeper understanding of the factors influencing propolis quality and quantity, the timing of propolis harvesting, the methods used, and the potential impact of harvesting on bee health.
Key Takeaways:
Implementation:
In the middle of our project, we began to recognize that responsible research is not only about scientific safety or regulatory compliance, but also about the culture within a team. After facing several communication challenges and difficult episodes ourselves, we realized how much these human factors shape the quality and sustainability of research.
The turning point came during our participation in the Nordic iGEM Conference (NiC), where we discovered that our struggles were not unique — many other teams were experiencing the same issues. This realization inspired us to treat responsible research culture as an essential part of our Human Practices, aiming not just to design a project, but to also build healthier, more resilient ways of working together.
At the same time, we came to understand that responsible research culture also extends beyond the laboratory. It requires reflecting on the broader context in which science exists, especially when projects like ours draw deeply from nature. In many nations, nature is more than a resource — it is woven into cultural identity and collective memory. Acknowledging this wider perspective allowed us to see our work not in isolation, but as part of an ongoing dialogue between science, society, and the environments that sustain both.
While our conversation with Mg. psych. Līga Bernāte focused on the inner workings of the team — communication, trust, and preventing burnout — our meeting with Dr.phil. Ieva Garda-Rozenberga invited us to look outward, toward the broader cultural and environmental context in which science exists. Together, these perspectives reminded us that responsible research culture is shaped both by how we care for people inside the team and by how we respect the communities and traditions that surround our work.
Purpose: The meeting with Līga Bernāte focused on strategies to avoid a “silent team” dynamic and to maintain healthy, open communication within our group. The discussion emphasized the importance of emotional well-being, responsibility, and trust in collaborative work, as well as practical tools to prevent burnout.
Key takeaways: She emphasized that strong connections begin with one-to-one trust building, where openness and honesty set the tone for group development. The way communication is structured — whether face-to-face or online — matters significantly, as written formats are more prone to misinterpretation and can hinder openness. A major theme was burnout prevention. Līga highlighted the importance of regular supervision sessions, ideally facilitated by someone external, to create a safe space for discussing both personal and group-level emotional challenges. These sessions can help members practice openness, reflect on their experiences, and train their ability to communicate with empathy. Alongside this, each person is encouraged to recognize their own emotional needs and share them with others, so that mutual understanding becomes part of the team’s culture. Responsibility was framed not only as an individual duty but also as a collective one, where members should feel empowered to voice concerns if they notice imbalances in workload or trust. Criticism, when necessary, should be balanced with positive recognition, following the principle of offering several affirmations for every piece of critical feedback. Practical suggestions included setting up weekly check-ins, where team members update one another on their emotional well-being and share strategies that help them cope. Exercises such as writing down personal emotional needs and reflecting on them together can make invisible concerns more visible, while regular discussions about self-care practices help normalize the topic. In cases of trust difficulties or responsibility imbalances, one-to-one conversations were encouraged as a way to address issues directly and restore balance. Mindfulness and awareness practices were also recommended as flexible tools, adaptable to each member’s preferences.
Implementation: As a result of this meeting, we integrated several practices into our team’s routine: weekly emotional check-ins, a feedback culture that emphasizes positive reinforcement alongside constructive critique, the use of one-to-one conversations to resolve imbalances, and the introduction of mindfulness exercises during group sessions. These steps have strengthened both our collaboration and our resilience, ensuring that our iGEM experience remains not only scientifically productive but also emotionally sustainable. From her we also got the inspiration to make a guide for our own and future teams about team well-being, effective communication and taking care of one another - our own constellation of care.
Purpose: The consultation with Ieva Garda-Rozenberga focused on how our project connects to Latvian cultural identity, public perception of science, and environmental responsibility. The goal was to explore how nature and environment — deeply embedded in Latvian traditions — can shape both the reception and the ethical framing of our work.
Key takeaways: Nature and the environment are central to Latvian identity, reflected in folklore, literature, and rural traditions. Concepts like eco-social agency show that people are ready to unite and defend their environment, often through a “not in my backyard” mindset. This highlights the importance of listening to community narratives and experiences when presenting scientific projects. The idea of environmental memory was suggested as a way to humanize our work, showing how traditions adapt to climate change — such as in beekeeping, propolis production, lamprey fishing, or midsummer customs. The discussion also stressed sustainability: our project must address how resources are used, how innovation feeds back into the environment, and how to maintain balance between scale and responsibility. Using local resources like casein or propolis not only strengthens the scientific foundation but also resonates with cultural identity, making the project more relatable and positively received by society. Ethical aspects were emphasized as well — community interviews require clear documentation, informed consent, and careful respect for participant rights, excluding minors under 18.
Implementation: In communication and outreach, we explicitly addressed sustainability, resource use, and environmental responsibility, framing our innovation within broader ecological concerns. Additionally, we established an ethical framework for interviews, ensuring informed consent, transparency, and respect for participants. By doing so, we positioned our project at the intersection of biotechnology, cultural identity, and environmental care — making it meaningful and accessible to both local communities and the wider public.
From the very beginning, we explored design, impact, and limitations side by side rather than in isolation. This was intentional: we wanted to ensure that Caseinova would be not only scientifically sound, but also responsible and able to make a positive impact on everyone it touches. The timeline below shows how these explorations unfolded in parallel, with recurring themes and consistent guidance shaping our journey throughout the months.
Looking back, it’s clear that none of this could have happened alone. Our project is the result of many voices — advisors, collaborators, and mentors — each adding a piece to the whole. It truly takes a village, and this is ours:
There is a saying from the renowned Latvian playwright Rainis: “Pastāvēs, kas pārvērtīsies” — “What will endure is that which transforms.” This became one of the most important lessons of our project: that change is not a setback, but an essential part of responsible research. Some of our most defining moments came when conversations with external experts challenged our assumptions and pushed us to rethink our direction.
The first turning point came during our consultation with CleanR, where we realized that pursuing casein textiles would not be sustainable or impactful in practice. This discussion redirected us toward biomedical applications and laid the foundation for the work we carried forward.
The second came from a synthesis of insights shared by Zane Zelča and Kristīne Šalma-Ancāne. Their expertise highlighted the variability and limitations of Baltic propolis and raised critical questions about the necessity of an electrospun scaffold in our design. These conversations encouraged us to focus more clearly on hydrogels as the primary material for Caseinova, simplifying the system while keeping feasibility and clinical relevance at the forefront.
Both moments required us to make significant changes, but they taught us that adaptation is not to be feared. On the contrary, being open to new perspectives and willing to reframe our ideas strengthened our project and helped us stay aligned with both feasibility and impact. Detailed descriptions of these project-shaping meetings can be found in their respective subsections, but here we highlight them as milestones that show how flexibility and humility are central to responsible research.
Recognizing the value of change also meant recognizing the strain it can put on a team. Shifts in direction, deadlines, and unexpected challenges test not only the strength of an idea but also the resilience of the people behind it. In the middle of our own project we saw how communication gaps, stress, and even burnout can emerge when change is constant.
That is why we chose to go one step further and create a resource for future teams — a set of practices and exercises aimed at building healthier, more sustainable teamwork. In this section, we share what helped us, what we wish we had done earlier, and how others can prevent the same pitfalls. Our goal is simple: to show that caring for the people in the team is just as important as caring for the science, and that resilience in the face of change begins with responsible communication and well-being.
Advice for the coming teams:
“Constellation of care” guide:
Cards on team well-being/sustainability:
In the end, our journey taught us that Human Practices are not an accessory to research, but its framework. Whenever we began to doubt ourselves, we found it helpful to return to the simple laws of the universe — to look toward the sky and remind ourselves of the analogies that guided us:
Stakeholder input is like gravity — pulling raw ideas into a coherent structure.
Ethics and sustainability are like cosmic laws — invisible, but essential forces that define how we move.
Responsible research and team well-being are like our star's core — if it collapses, the whole system fails.
Science outreach and engagement spreads our light, reaching new galaxies (audiences) and inspiring others to form their own stars.
For us, this became more than a metaphor; it was a way of keeping perspective. For future teams, we hope it can serve as a reminder that Human Practices are not about extra work, but about balance, meaning, and resilience.