Outreach

Engaging With Scientific Experts

---

Dr. Lauren Cole-Osborn - Foray Bioscience

Our team wanted to explore what the application and integration of our flame-retardant protein project would look like. There are a variety of biotech companies in Boston that are already researching and developing innovative plant-based solutions to conservation and sustainability-related problems.

Foray Bioscience, a biotech company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is building a platform for creating plant-based materials and molecules such as lab-grown wood and seeds from single cells. This is an innovative approach to preventing the extinction of plant species, combating deforestation, and developing materials sustainably. Foray's approach centers on extracting live plant cells and generating seeds that could one day support reforestation and biodiversity efforts.

Our team reached out to Foray because we saw their approach as directly connected to our own project, since both focus on harnessing biology to design new functions for plants and plant-based products. By learning from a company already translating plant research into real-world applications, we hoped to better understand the practical challenges of scaling biotechnology, as well as the ethical and environmental considerations involved in introducing these technologies into natural ecosystems.

Our team spoke with Dr. Lauren Cole-Osborn, a research scientist at Foray with extensive experience in plant-based research. She provided us with valuable insight into how plant cell technologies can be scaled into real-world applications. Lauren explained how Foray's work extends beyond traditional plant tissue culture, emphasizing the functionalization of cells and materials to unlock entirely new possibilities ranging from building materials and textiles to conservation biology. Learning about the versatility of Foray's platform, and its ability to generate virtually any plant material or molecule, encouraged us to think more broadly about our own approach. By binding proteins to cellulose, we could design plants, textiles, and materials with a wide range of new properties. While this year our focus was on developing flame-resistant cellulose materials, Lauren encouraged us to consider future directions as well, suggesting proteins that confer moisture resistance, hydrophobicity, or anti-rot capabilities. These traits could significantly increase the durability and usefulness of cellulose-based products in construction and infrastructure contexts.

In our conversation, Lauren emphasized the importance of considering when and how our biological flame retardant would be applied. She raised key questions about its integration: Should the protein be introduced while the plant is still growing, or added later during material processing? How might it interact with wood during manufacturing, and would it retain its protective function once the material was cut, dried, or treated? These questions prompted us to think more critically about the types of tests needed to determine the optimal stage and method of application. Since cellulose is found in diverse materials such as wood, cotton, and living plants, each context will likely require a distinct procedure. We realized there is no single solution; instead, extensive testing under different environmental conditions will be necessary to evaluate how our flame retardant performs and how external factors might influence its effectiveness.

We also asked Lauren how she thought the public might respond to the application of a biological flame retardant. She pointed out that materials like wood are already treated with a range of harsh chemicals, such as preservatives containing chromium, copper, and arsenic, so the idea of developing flame-resistant wood may not be controversial in comparison (US EPA). At the same time, she emphasized that farming and GMO applications raise additional concerns. She posed important questions for us to consider: How would our proteins behave in a stomach-like environment if ingested? How might they interact with other preservatives? Could testing on garden plants provide early insights into potential impacts? These points encouraged us to think more carefully about what further testing of FloraGuard would entail. Given the wide range of possible applications, it will be essential to evaluate both the health and environmental impacts of our flame retardant. These considerations may also shape our approach to determining the most effective stage for applying it to different materials.

Our conversation also touched on the ethical and ecological implications of plant-based biotechnology. We asked Lauren how Foray approaches the challenge of integrating their plant products into the environment, and she emphasized the importance of seed biodiversity, genetic diversity, and ecological safety when introducing lab-grown or bioengineered materials. Foray, for example, has considered how to avoid producing identical clones when developing lab-grown seeds, ensuring that biodiversity is preserved. This discussion prompted us to reflect on our own project, recognizing that like Foray's work, Floragard could eventually be applied to plants and might impact surrounding ecosystems. We began to ask whether flame-retardant proteins could inadvertently affect biodiversity, interfere with organisms, or disrupt ecological processes. Her perspective reminded us that our designs must not only function in controlled settings but also integrate responsibly into broader environmental contexts, pushing us to think beyond fire safety and consider other ecological and structural impacts.

Foray's research also inspired us to consider the possibility of producing plant products and materials from seeds with built-in properties such as flame resistance. In many ways, this represents a crossover between Foray's work and our own project. Their approach of growing functional materials directly from plant cells prompted us to ask: Could flame-resistant wood be produced starting from a single cell? And what new opportunities might arise if our technology, attaching proteins to cellulose, were combined with Foray's platform for developing plant materials from individual cells? Exploring these questions highlighted for us how integrating cell-based material production with protein engineering could create entirely new classes of sustainable, multifunctional materials.

Lauren's insights left us with both inspiration and responsibility. She challenged us to think carefully about ecological safety, product stability, and long-term impact. This balance between innovation and responsibility reinforced our commitment to designing a flame-retardant protein that is effective, sustainable, and mindful of the environment it will one day enter.

Dr. TJ Brunette - Baker Lab

During the summer, our wet lab team faced challenges with the expression of proteins conjugated to cohesins and dockerins. To better understand the structural reasons behind these issues, we spoke with Dr. TJ Brunette, a protein design consultant with experience working alongside biotech and pharmaceutical companies and postdoctoral training under Nobel Laureate David Baker. TJ has been at the forefront of advances in protein design and optimization, with workr ranging from natural protein expression systems to cutting-edge AI-driven design. His expertise gave us valuable insight into both the technical and conceptual aspects of protein engineering. In addition, TJ's entrepreneurial perspective encouraged us to think about what developing FloraGuard into a startup might look like.

When we shared our project, TJ immediately connected it to the broader challenges of protein design. He explained that certain proteins, like dockerins, are notoriously difficult to work with because their unstructured loops often cause problems with expression and solubility. Inclusion body formation in E. coli, he noted, is common with unstable or loop-heavy proteins. At the time, our dockerin constructs were failing to express in E. coli, so this was critical information for understanding why. To address this, he suggested redesigning the problematic regions using rf-diffusion and MPNN to generate new structures and sequences, then validating binding with computational models before moving to experimental testing. His insight helped us recognize why our dockerins were underperforming and gave us concrete strategies for troubleshooting. Looking ahead to the next competition cycle, we hope to approach protein design with a stronger structural understanding of how and why binding will or will not work, rather than relying solely on trial-and-error experimentation. TJ emphasized that repeating experiments alone would not resolve these issues. We needed to make deliberate structural changes to our protein design to achieve more successful outcomes.

TJ also raised critical points about application and scalability. He explained that while engineered proteins can bind well in controlled lab settings, environmental factors such as rain, wind, or material processing might affect their stability. At the same time, he noted that proteins can be designed or optimized to retain binding even under challenging conditions. This prompted us to think more carefully about how to test the binding strength of our proteins to cellulose. For example, whether they could be washed off with water, denatured on a hot sunny day, blown away from wind, or otherwise disrupted by environmental factors. These considerations highlighted the importance of ensuring that FloraGuard remains stably bound to cellulose in order to give plants and materials reliable flame-resistant properties.

A previous conversation with one of our stakeholders, Dr. Lauren Cole-Osborn, had raised the question of what stage our proteins should be applied to materials. Building on this, TJ drew from his background in entrepreneurship and supply chains to point out that the easiest way to integrate FloraGuard would be at the end of processing. For example, if applied to textiles, it would be far more practical to treat them after they are manufactured and processed, rather than altering the existing cotton supply chain and growing process. TJ also suggested another application method: incorporating our proteins into detergents. In this model, a detergent containing flame-retardant proteins could be used in washing machines to give clothing flame-resistant properties. Extending the idea further, he proposed designing hydrophobic protein complexes that bind to cellulose in textiles to create stain-resistant clothing. Unlike traditional stain-resistant sprays, which are often made from PFAS, harmful chemicals with significant environmental and health risks, this approach would differentiate FloraGuard as a safer, protein-based alternative that could be integrated without changing current supply chains (NIEHS). His perspective emphasized the value of focusing on post-processing applications, which are easier to adopt in practice, and pushed us to think more critically about the practicality of deploying FloraGuard outside of the lab.

Our conversation also explored the ethics and approval processes for protein applications. TJ explained that proteins expressed in E. coli or yeast would not themselves be released into the environment, reducing ecological concerns. However, he noted that designed dockerins would face stricter regulatory hurdles if used in food or consumables, while natural proteins like soy glutenin would be much easier to gain approval for use on plants. This made us reflect on how the choice between using naturally occurring proteins versus designing novel ones could directly affect our ability to apply FloraGuard in real-world contexts. Stricter regulations on engineered proteins could limit certain applications, while natural proteins might be more readily accepted. Ultimately, this reminded us that with so many possible directions for our project, we need to carefully consider what we are trying to accomplish and how FloraGuard should be applied. The versatility of our system is a strength, but we must choose an application path that balances environmental safety, consumer trust, and ease of integration into current supply chains.

Finally, TJ highlighted the transformative role of AI in protein engineering. He described how tools like AlphaFold and AI-driven sequence design now allow researchers to move from years of development to just weeks. While these platforms greatly accelerate discovery, he cautioned that they require careful interpretation and expertise to use effectively. His perspective encouraged us to think about how computational design could complement our experimental pipeline, helping us predict binding interactions before entering the lab and guiding us toward more efficient designs. For example, engineering novel proteins that specifically target cellulose could streamline our process and potentially create complexes that bind more effectively than natural proteins. At present, our team does not have the training to design new proteins independently, but with the guidance of experts like TJ, we hope to pursue this in the future. One long-term goal could be to design our own protein complexes and compare their binding efficiency to that of natural proteins, ultimately determining which approach produces the most effective flame-resistant materials.

Overall, our discussion with TJ provided us with practical troubleshooting strategies for improving protein expression, as well as a broader perspective on how AI, application stage, and regulatory pathways influence the real-world impact of protein technologies. His advice reminded us that engineering proteins is not just about achieving results in the lab, it is about designing them to be stable, scalable, and responsible in the environments where they will ultimately be applied.

Dr. Zhilin Chen - Former iGEM Competitor

To gain perspective from someone who had once been in our shoes, our team spoke with Dr. Zhilin Chen, a former iGEM participant who is now pursuing a career in immunology and vaccine development. His background includes work on HIV vaccines, T cell biology, nanoparticle-polysacharide mapping, and next-generation vaccine platforms. Having also designed engineering engineered bacteria during his own iGEM project, he was able to relate to the challenges of designing a research project and navigating the trial-and-error process.

With his background in immunology and pharmaceutical sciences, Zhilin brought a unique perspective on how scienfically designed products, from vaccines to medications, must be evaluated for safety before coming into with people. He emphasized that the same careful consideration applies to our project: if proteins are applied to wood, cotton, or plants, we must first test for risks such as allergic reactions, toxic fumes when burned, or unintended ecological effects. One point that stuck with us was that if our proteins released harmful fumes when exposed to fire, they could become a health hazard rather than a solution. He also noted that if FloraGuard were applied to textiles or clothing, people could be directly exposed, which would pose problems if it were a potential allergen.

This conversation pushed us to think about a wide range of safety questions: Is our product safe to inhale? Safe on skin contact? What if it enters the water supply or is consumed by animals? Considering these possibilities highlighted the importance of beginning with rigorous protein-level testing and reinforced that our innovation must be paired with responsibility toward both human health and the environment.

Zhilin also raised the question of whether transgenic manipulations of genes could pose potential threats to the environment. While our protein complex binds to cellulose without altering the genes of the plants or materials it attaches to, it is still important to consider whether the complex itself could have unintended consequences, such as affecting plant growth or soil health.

I also asked Zhilin about the scaling-up process for vaccines and what lessons we could take from his experience. He emphasized how critical precision is in large-scale manufacturing, since even small variations can affect the final product or introduce contaminants. This made our team reflect on the kinds of safety and quality control measures that would be necessary if we were to produce FloraGuard on a larger scale.

Zhilin also offered practical advice for the iGEM competition, encouraging us to think not only about our science but also about accessibility and scalability: how a product like FloraGuard could be produced at mass scale and communicated effectively to both judges and the public. His encouragement to "explore the unknown" reminded us that iGEM is not only about solving a single problem, but also about pushing the boundaries of synthetic biology to imagine new possibilities for the future.