Integrated Human Practices

Professor of Molecular Physiology, Director of the Laboratory of Molecular Physiology, Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace

Context

Professor Aglaia Pappa, as the Primary Principal Investigator (PI) of our project and Director of the Laboratory of Molecular Physiology at DUTH, has been a central scientific mentor. Our team was also hosted in her laboratory facilities, where a significant part of our experimental work took place. We consulted her primarily for Wet Lab design and Biosafety, in order to ensure that our project would be both scientifically rigorous and socially responsible.

Key Insights

• She advised us to begin our initial expression and screening experiments in E. coli, and later transfer our system into Bacillus subtilis, thanks to its GRAS status and industrial relevance.
• Regarding biosafety, she stressed the importance of designing a system that would not involve releasing genetically modified bacteria into the soil (i.e., not developing a biofertilizer with live microbes), but instead focusing on a safer approach that protects both human health and the environment.

Integration Based on her advice

• We structured our laboratory pipeline to start with E. coli screening and later move towards Bacillus subtilis for final application.
• We laid the foundation for a project focusing on the production of a bioactive product, rather than the release of live GMOs into the environment. This principle was later enriched through discussions with industrial stakeholders, further strengthening our orientation towards a safe and applicable solution.

Professor of Molecular Biology with a focus on Signal Transduction, Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace

Context

Professor Alexis Galanis, as the Secondary Principal Investigator (PI) of our project, acted as a scientific mentor alongside Professor Pappa. Our team was also hosted in his laboratory, where we carried out several experimental steps. We consulted him mainly on Wet Lab design, cloning strategies, and biosafety considerations.

Key Insights

• Similar to Professor Pappa, he encouraged us to begin our initial expression and screening work in E. coli before moving to Bacillus subtilis, ensuring that our project remained both feasible and scalable.
• He helped us address an early challenge in our design: our initial plan to insert multiple chitinase genes into a single plasmid. He pointed out that such a construct would be too large and difficult to clone efficiently, which led us to reconsider our strategy.
• He also highlighted the importance of integrating biosafety principles into our workflow, reinforcing the need for a safe and responsible design.

Integration As a result of his guidance

• We adopted a two-step Wet Lab approach, starting with E. coli screening before advancing towards Bacillus subtilis.
• We abandoned the oversized plasmid design and opted for a more realistic cloning approach, making our workflow technically feasible.
• His insights complemented those of Professor Pappa, particularly in strengthening the biosafety foundations of our project.

Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace

Context

Professor Ioannis Sandaltzopoulos provided us with valuable insights into the biological and practical aspects of chitin and chitinases. His expertise helped us place our project in a broader scientific and real-world context.

Key Insights

• He explained the structural properties of chitin, its natural abundance, and the main categories of chitinases.
• Importantly, he highlighted the real-life applications of endochitinases and exochitinases, such as their use in detergents, waste management, and biotechnological processes.
• By showing us how these enzymes are already applied in different industries, he encouraged us to think beyond laboratory proof-of-concept and towards practical fields where our BioActivator could have impact.
• He also noted that choosing Bacillus subtilis as a chassis could support eventual scaleup and align with these broader industrial applications.

Integration With his input

• We strengthened our Wet Lab plan by combining complementary chitinases in a fusion construct, knowing that their synergy is relevant not only in theory but also in existing industrial processes.
• We refined our Implementation perspective, seeing our work not just as a laboratory experiment but as part of a wider landscape of applications ranging from agriculture to biotechnology.
• His examples encouraged us to frame our project in a way that connects directly to everyday uses of chitinases, making our design more relatable and impactful.

Laboratory of Molecular Physiology, Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace

Context

Andreas Ermogenous, a PhD candidate in the Laboratory of Molecular Physiology at DUTH, supported our team in the Wet Lab by providing practical guidance and mentorship. His role was mostly technical, but some of his feedback also influenced the way we structured our experiments.

Key Insights

• He introduced us to practical considerations in protein expression experiments, such as testing different induction conditions instead of relying on a single setup.
• He reminded us that expression should be paired with activity testing, encouraging us to plan functional assays in parallel with structural analysis.
• He helped us troubleshoot when initial cloning strategies appeared too complex for the timeframe, suggesting a step-by-step approach.

Integration With his input

• Adjusted our experimental plan to include small-scale induction tests before moving to larger-scale expression.
• Scheduled functional plate assays alongside expression checks, making our evaluation process more balanced.
• Streamlined parts of our workflow so that it would be achievable within iGEM deadlines.

Context

Our meeting with Professor Kourkoutas marked a turning point in how we envisioned the future of our BioActivator. With his expertise in microbiology and biotechnology, and through the unique infrastructure he has developed at our department, we were able to see first-hand what scaling up biotechnology really means. Visiting and discussing around his bioreactor facility gave us a realistic glimpse into the challenges and opportunities of moving from lab-scale experiments to industrial-scale applications.

Key Insights

• He explained in detail how a bioreactor system functions, from culture conditions to monitoring parameters, and what it takes to maintain controlled environments at scale.
• We discussed the economic dimension of biotechnology, analyzing the costs of scaling up and the practical considerations that must be addressed before bringing a laboratory concept into production.
• He highlighted that the transition to industrial levels requires robust chassis, optimized constructs, and reproducible processes that can withstand the complexity of large-scale fermentation.
• By situating our project within this broader biotechnological framework, he showed us that scaling up is not only a technical challenge but also a strategic decision that shapes feasibility, sustainability, and impact.

Integration With his input

• We strengthened our Implementation vision by understanding that our BioActivator must be designed with scalability in mind from the very beginning, not as an afterthought.
• His insights on the costs and logistics of large-scale biotechnology guided us in shaping a more realistic roadmap, bridging lab success with industrial potential.
• Experiencing the bioreactor facility allowed us to connect theory with practice, transforming our project from a laboratory prototype into a concept capable of entering industrial biotechnology pipelines.

Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace

Context

When we met Professor Tsouvaltzis, our discussion quickly moved beyond the boundaries of the lab. He helped us confront the essential questions that define the future of our BioActivator: How do we move from proof-of-concept to large-scale reality? How do we ensure that our design is not only innovative but also feasible and impactful when applied outside controlled conditions? His insights challenged us to frame our project with a vision that reaches industry and society.

Key Insights

• He emphasized that the real milestone of any biotechnology project lies in its scaling up, reminding us that success in a Petri dish is only the first step towards true innovation.
• He pointed out that the effectiveness of our BioActivator will depend not only on enzymatic synergy, but also on how it is designed to integrate seamlessly into real processes and production chains.
• On the matter of chassis, he highlighted that this decision goes far beyond laboratory performance: the right host defines scalability, biosafety, and acceptance across agricultural and industrial applications.
• He urged us to bridge the gap between scientific creativity and practical implementation, pushing us to envision the BioActivator as a solution that transforms waste into value.

Integration Based on his advice

• We reshaped our Wet Lab design by considering a chassis that ensures both efficiency and scalability, preparing our construct for future real-world applications.
• His perspective influenced our Implementation pathway, helping us to see the BioActivator not only as a research innovation but as part of a sustainable, deployable system with potential beyond academia.
• By underlining the importance of scalability and practicality, he inspired us to redefine our project’s ambition, aligning it with the challenges and opportunities of modern biotechnology.

Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace

Context

Professor Aristotelis Papageorgiou was among the very first academics to hear about our project and provide us with feedback. His perspective was especially valuable at an early stage, when we were still shaping the overall direction and potential applications of our idea.

Key Insights

• He emphasized the importance of designing our project in a way that respects the environment and does not disturb soil ecosystems.
• He advised us to be cautious with approaches that would involve releasing living microorganisms into the field, highlighting that such strategies might raise both biosafety and ecological concerns.
• His feedback encouraged us to think of our BioActivator as a product that could deliver benefits without risking long-term disruptions in nature.

Integration Based on his advice

• We prioritized non-living formulations for implementation, aiming to focus on safe enzyme-based products rather than the release of genetically modified organisms.
• We reinforced the principle of environmental respect in our project narrative, making sustainability and biosafety central to our design.
• His early comments helped us ground our project in a responsible implementation pathway, aligning with both scientific integrity and societal expectations.

Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace

Context

Assistant Professor Ioanna Katsani, with expertise in Biochemistry, provided our team with essential insights into enzyme functionality and biochemical processes relevant to our project. Her contribution combined both theoretical guidance and practical support.

Key Insights

• She discussed the biochemical nature of chitin as a polysaccharide, explaining its structure, the principles behind its degradation, and the products generated during enzymatic breakdown.
• She advised us on the optimal temperature ranges and conditions under which our enzymes would be expected to function effectively, helping us to plan realistic activity assays.
• By focusing on the enzymology of chitinases, she reinforced the importance of designing our project with biochemical feasibility in mind.

Integration

• Her guidance shaped our Wet Lab design, as we adjusted our experimental planning to include conditions suitable for testing enzyme activity.
• We incorporated her biochemical perspective into the way we evaluated our fusion enzyme design, ensuring that our approach addressed not only expression but also functionality.
• She also supported us practically by providing BL21(DE3) competent cells, which were crucial for the initiation of our protein expression experiments.

Context

As part of our stakeholder engagement, we held discussions with farmers from Cyprus in order to understand the practical requirements and expectations regarding fertilizers in real agricultural settings. Their feedback provided us with valuable insights into the realities of crop cultivation and soil management.

Key Insights

• They described the characteristics that fertilizers are expected to have, such as effectiveness, ease of application, and compatibility with existing farming practices.
• They informed us about different types of fertilizers currently in use, including chemical formulations and bio-based alternatives, and shared their views on the advantages and limitations of each.
• They emphasized that for farmers, reliability and visible results in crop growth are crucial when considering any new agricultural product.

Integration From their input

• We refined the implementation perspective of our project, ensuring that our BioActivator design considered not only scientific functionality but also practical usability for farmers.
• We were reminded that acceptance by end-users depends heavily on trust, safety, and demonstrated effectiveness, principles we integrated into both our Human Practices and future testing plans.
• Their perspective grounded our work in the real-world context of agriculture, shaping the way we framed our solution as both innovative and practical.

Context

Dimitra Parasaki, a professional agronomist and entrepreneur in Alexandroupoli, shared her expertise on fertilizers and agricultural products. Her perspective was particularly valuable as it connected our scientific approach with the practical realities of the agricultural market.

Key Insights

• She explained the range of chemical and alternative fertilizers currently in use and stressed that chemical fertilizers cannot be fully replaced , any new product would have to work alongside them rather than substitute them completely.
• She highlighted the issue of competitiveness, pointing out that for our BioActivator to succeed, it would need to offer clear advantages while also being affordable compared to chemical fertilizers.
• She emphasized that cost, accessibility, and efficiency are critical factors influencing farmer adoption, beyond just scientific novelty.
• She also raised important points about scaling up, noting that moving from lab-scale proof-of-concept to a product that can reach the market requires planning for production, distribution, and farmer usability.

Integration From her insights

• We reframed our Implementation vision to position our BioActivator not as a total replacement of chemical fertilizers, but as a complementary solution that could reduce chemical input while improving soil health.
• We began to consider economic feasibility more seriously in our design, factoring in cost and competitiveness alongside scientific performance.
• Her input helped us recognize the gap between laboratory innovation and market reality, ensuring that our project moved towards a realistic and impactful implementation pathway.

Context

Smaragda Kyrtsidou, a geoponos and the owner of the “Laboratorium” Biology Knowledge Center in Alexandroupoli, provided us with valuable insights into the natural sources and importance of chitin. With her expertise in arthropods and related organisms, she helped us contextualize our project within a biological and ecological framework.

Key Insights

• She emphasized the importance of chitin as a structural biopolymer and discussed its abundance in nature.
• Together, we explored the main natural sources of chitin, particularly arthropods and crustacean shells such as shrimp exoskeletons.
• She highlighted the potential of shrimp waste and shell by-products as an accessible raw material for chitin extraction, connecting our project to the concept of waste valorization.
• She encouraged us to think of chitin not only as a substrate for enzymatic degradation but also as a resource that could drive circular bioeconomy applications, linking biotechnology with sustainability.

Integration

• We placed greater emphasis on identifying shrimp shells and other crustacean waste as primary sources of chitin for our Wet Lab experiments.
• We aligned our Implementation strategy with the idea of circular bioeconomy, framing our BioActivator as a way to convert agricultural and seafood waste into value-added products.
• Her insights reinforced our narrative that our project is not only about enzyme design but also about addressing environmental challenges through sustainable resource management.

Context

Giannis Koukoutsis, president of the Agricultural Cooperative of Platykampos , one of the most important garlic-producing regions in Greece , shared his extensive expertise on sustainable agriculture, fertilizers, and garlic cultivation. His input was particularly valuable because, at the time of our meeting, we had already decided to design our project as a BioActivator, and his perspective allowed us to connect our concept directly with the needs of farmers.

Key Insights

• He emphasized the principle of respect for the land, highlighting practices such as crop rotation and fallowing as essential to maintaining soil fertility and health.
• He noted that chemical fertilizers cannot be fully replaced, but that bio-based products can work alongside them to improve soil quality and reduce chemical loads.
• He placed strong emphasis on garlic, describing it as a crop of national importance and explaining that Platykampos has been at the center of research efforts, with ongoing international studies (including genomic work in China).
• He detailed the diseases that threaten garlic crops, including Fusarium spp., Sclerotium cepivorum, and Botrytis allii, which currently require intensive chemical spraying for control.
• Importantly, he stressed that a biological alternative like our BioActivator could provide farmers with a competitive edge, reducing dependence on chemical sprays while protecting crops in a safer and more sustainable way.

Integration

• His feedback confirmed the relevance of our decision to develop a BioActivator, showing us that such a product could address concrete needs in garlic cultivation.
• We identified garlic as a flagship crop for our Implementation strategy, helping us frame the BioActivator as a real-world solution to pressing agricultural challenges.
• His insights reinforced our approach of positioning the BioActivator not as a replacement but as a complementary solution that combines innovation, safety, and respect for nature.

Context

In addition to meeting with the president of the Agricultural Cooperative, we also engaged directly with the farmers of Platykampos. Their voice was crucial, since they are the end-users of any agricultural innovation and their acceptance determines the real impact of a project like ours.

Key Insights

• They made it clear that they would not feel comfortable applying a product containing living microorganisms directly to their fields, stressing the need for safety and trust. This insight strongly shaped our approach to biosafety and implementation.
• They showed us their garlic fields, explaining in detail the cultivation practices and the economic challenges associated with maintaining productivity.
• They spoke openly about the financial pressures of agriculture, highlighting the high prices of fertilizers and agricultural products.
• They also shared their experiences of protests and blockades, where farmers gather with their tractors and block the roads to express their frustration with rising costs and agricultural policy. This candid feedback helped us understand the socio-economic struggles farmers face on a daily basis.

Integration

• We strengthened our biosafety strategy, committing to a BioActivator design that does not involve releasing live genetically modified organisms into the soil.
• We acknowledged that any innovation must be cost-sensitive, ensuring that our product concept would be competitive and realistic for farmers facing economic hardship.
• Their perspective reminded us that science cannot be developed in isolation: for agricultural biotechnology to succeed, it must address both biological and socioeconomic realities.

Context

Beyond our meetings with individual farmers, we also collaborated with the Agricultural Cooperative of Platykampos, a well-established organization that coordinates garlic production in the region. The Cooperative not only manages agricultural practices but also oversees administrative procedures such as crop declarations and certification, giving us a holistic view of how agricultural systems operate.

Key Insights

• Members of the Cooperative showed us how fertilizer use is planned and monitored, explaining the balance between chemical inputs and supplementary practices.
• They introduced us to the process of crop declarations, demonstrating how farmers formally register their cultivation and how this links to agricultural subsidies and policies.
• They emphasized the importance of Platykampos garlic (“Skordo Platykampou”), a product officially recognized as entopio (local), which carries a cultural and economic significance for the community.
• They also explained the market challenges faced by local products: despite their high quality, competition from imported garlic makes it essential for local farmers to innovate while preserving tradition.

Integration

• Their insights gave us a clearer picture of how our BioActivator could fit into existing agricultural and regulatory frameworks, ensuring that we align with real farming practices.
• By learning about the entopio designation of Platykampos garlic, we identified a concrete and symbolic crop that our project could support, making our Implementation strategy more relatable and locally relevant.
• Their guidance helped us understand that agricultural innovation is not only about biology but also about administrative systems, certification, and consumer perception, which must all be considered for successful application.

Context

Professor Anastasios Siomos, with expertise in horticulture, plant and animal production, and agricultural sciences, provided us with valuable insights into the agricultural relevance of bioactivators. As both an academic and a trained agronomist, his perspective helped us understand how our project fits within current agricultural terminology, practices, and market trends.

Key Insights

• He explained the current use of bioactivators in agriculture, clarifying their role and how they differ from other categories of products.
• He highlighted the distinction between bioactivators and biostimulants, noting that the latter term is no longer widely preferred, and stressed the importance of accurately framing our product according to accepted terminology.
• He emphasized the need to clearly define what our BioActivator contains (e.g., enzymes, carriers, formulation), as this will determine both its scientific credibility and its acceptance in the agricultural market.
• He encouraged us to evaluate competitiveness, asking us to think critically about how our solution would compare with existing products in terms of cost, efficiency, and farmer adoption.
• He also pointed out the significance of regulatory clarity, reminding us that products introduced as bioactivators must comply with specific standards, which would be relevant if our solution moved towards commercialization.

Integration

• We refined our Implementation strategy by framing our solution explicitly as a BioActivator, ensuring that we use accurate and up-to-date terminology rather than outdated definitions.
• We began to place stronger emphasis on the composition of our product, not only from a scientific but also from a regulatory and commercial perspective.
• His advice pushed us to consider competitiveness and positioning as part of our design process, preparing us to align with both agricultural needs and market expectations.

Context

We engaged with several fertilizer companies such as Syngenta, Helagrolip, and AgriPro, to gain an industry-oriented perspective on our project. These companies ultimately became sponsors of our effort, demonstrating their support for agricultural innovation and our approach to chitin valorization.

Key Insights

• They introduced us to the composition and characteristics of their fertilizers, explaining the balance of macronutrients (NPK), micronutrients, and additives that make products effective for different crops.
• They emphasized that farmers expect fertilizers to be both efficient and reliable, noting that products must deliver measurable results in the field to gain adoption.
• They provided insights into the market landscape, highlighting the variety of fertilizer types (chemical, bio-based, and hybrid) and the importance of positioning new products realistically against established solutions.
• Their feedback confirmed that while chemical fertilizers dominate the market, there is increasing room for biological or complementary products that improve soil quality and reduce reliance on purely chemical inputs.

Integration

• We framed our BioActivator as a complementary solution, designed to work alongside chemical fertilizers rather than replace them, aligning with industry realities.
• We gained a clearer understanding of how to describe our product in terms of composition, effectiveness, and applicability, making our narrative stronger for both scientific and industrial audiences.
• Their sponsorship not only provided financial support but also validated that established agricultural stakeholders see potential in our project, reinforcing its credibility and practical relevance.