Human Practices

Why did we reach out?

At the early stages of our project, we consulted Dr. Spyridon Mourtas, Professor of Organic Chemistry, to ensure the reliability and safety of our delivery system for the genetic circuit. His expertise in nanoparticles made him an ideal mentor for evaluating lipid-based delivery strategies.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Mourtas provided guidance on lipid-based nanoparticles (LNPs), including optimal particle sizes (120–250 nm), suitable lipid formulations (PEGylated lipids, phosphatidylcholine) and peptide-coating strategies for tissue-specific targeting via Cu-free click chemistry. He emphasized the importance of assessing immune responses, biodistribution and repeat dosing and suggested characterization techniques like TEM and DLS to confirm particle morphology.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

Although our project eventually moved away from LNPs, his advice shaped our understanding of delivery strategies, risk evaluation and early-stage experimental planning. His mentorship established a foundation for selecting safe and efficient delivery systems in subsequent design iterations.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By evaluating immune evasion, tissue specificity and biocompatibility, we ensured our delivery strategies minimize patient risk, making the project safer and more ethically responsible while maintaining scientific rigor.

Why did we reach out?

After deciding to pursue silencing HDAC6 mRNA, we consulted Dr. Zoi Piperigkou, Professor of Biochemistry, to gain expert guidance on effective gene silencing strategies and to support our wet lab design.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Piperigkou emphasized stable shRNA-mediated silencing over transient siRNA, recommended including fluorescent markers for validation and suggested RT-qPCR for quantification of knockdown, complemented by immunofluorescence. She guided our choice of HEK293T cells as an initial model while highlighting the need to assess HDAC6 and LepR expression, with potential plasmid-based transfection if required.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We incorporated her recommendations for shRNA stability, fluorescence validation and qRT-PCR-based analysis, refining our workflow and ensuring rigorous experimental design under iGEM constraints.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

Her input helped us implement a safe, reproducible and scientifically sound gene silencing strategy, increasing confidence that our therapy could eventually be translated responsibly to clinical or societal settings.

Why did we reach out?

We reached out to Professor Karamanos to explore the biological feasibility of different disease targets and to gain his perspective on which pathways and model systems could provide both scientific depth and experimental tractability for our project.

What information did we receive?

He strongly supported obesity as a viable and biologically rich target. He proposed focusing on adipose tissue remodeling, extracellular matrix signaling and ligand–receptor interactions. Furthermore, he suggested the use of decellularized adipose scaffolds to model tissue environments and recommended proteomic profiling combined with bioinformatic analyses, such as pathway enrichment and target prioritization. He also referred us to experts in adipocyte biology for deeper insights.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

From this consultation, we embraced obesity as the central and most feasible direction of our project. His advice led us to consider adipose tissue not only as a storage site but also as a dynamic microenvironment shaped by extracellular matrix interactions. We integrated the idea of combining experimental modeling with proteomic and bioinformatic analyses, ensuring that our project’s design captured both mechanistic detail and translational potential.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

Professor Karamanos’ suggestion to view adipose tissue as a dynamic microenvironment, through extracellular matrix interactions and proteomic profiling, reshaped how we approached obesity. By moving beyond a simplistic “fat storage” model, we addressed obesity as a complex and systemic condition, aligning our design more closely with clinical reality. This shift not only improved scientific rigor but also ensured that our therapeutic strategy respects the heterogeneity of patients, avoiding one-size-fits-all assumptions that can fuel stigma and ineffective treatments.

Why did we reach out?

We contacted Dr. Nika to critically evaluate the feasibility and molecular depth of the proposed disease targets we were considering at the time. She strongly supported obesity as a feasible and experimentally tractable focus. She recommended concentrating on metabolic gene targets that can be studied in accessible model systems. Finally, she referred us to Dr. Chartoumpekis for further clinical insight and validation of obesity-related molecular pathways.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

Her feedback consolidated our decision to prioritize obesity over other complex conditions. Following her advice, we focused on metabolic targets with clearer experimental accessibility and sought additional clinical validation, which ensured our project would remain both scientifically rigorous and experimentally achievable.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

Dr. Nika’s guidance to avoid hard-to-target psychiatric pathways and focus instead on metabolic mechanisms in obesity had direct social implications. By selecting tractable pathways, we improved the feasibility and safety of our project, reducing the risk of overpromising or misdirecting resources. This careful narrowing of scope ensures that our work is not only scientifically sound but also ethically responsible, protecting public trust by avoiding unrealistic claims and anchoring our efforts in targets with real translational potential.

Why did we reach out?

We reached out to Dr. Chartoumpekis to obtain a clinical and biopsychosocial perspective on obesity, aiming to understand both its biological underpinnings and the lived experience of affected individuals.

What information did we receive?

He described obesity as a chronic, multifactorial disease that requires attention not only to biological aspects but also to emotional and societal contributors. He highlighted the medical complications, emotional burdens and social stigma faced by people living with obesity. Importantly, he facilitated access to a patient interview, giving us confidential and first-hand insight into lived experience. He also offered critical scientific feedback regarding the complexity of glucose metabolism in obesity. He explained that not all individuals with obesity exhibit hyperglycemia, with around 10% maintaining normal blood glucose and others showing postprandial hyperglycemia without chronic elevation. He questioned the reliability of extracellular glucose as a biomarker for circuit activation, pointing out that CREB, one of our initial targets, responds to multiple stimuli and could lead to off-target activation. He further emphasized the metabolic heterogeneity within obesity, noting that over 50% of individuals are prediabetic, around 5% have metabolically healthy obesity and others show lipodystrophic or adaptive adipose profiles. To address these complexities, he recommended quantifying intracellular glucose in adipocytes using metabolomics, applying radioisotope assays to assess glucose uptake and insulin resistance and verifying correlations between blood and intracellular glucose before circuit calibration. He also advised focusing on mature adipocytes rather than pre-adipocytes and warned about potential interference in patients receiving pharmacological treatments for diabetes.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

This consultation profoundly shaped both the ethical and scientific direction of our project. On a human level, it reinforced the importance of empathy, de-stigmatization and a respectful, patient-centered approach. On a technical level, it shifted our focus away from simplistic biomarkers such as extracellular glucose and guided us toward more nuanced methods for metabolic analysis. His input helped us ground our project in both clinical reality and scientific accuracy.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

From Dr. Chartoumpekis we learned the risks of relying on extracellular glucose as a biomarker, given the metabolic heterogeneity of people with obesity. Shifting to intracellular glucose and metabolomics as more reliable measures helped us design circuits that are scientifically accurate and clinically meaningful. This prevents misclassification of patients and avoids interventions that might overlook or harm subgroups, reinforcing an empathetic and individualized approach. In this way, technical precision directly supported equity and respect for patients’ diverse experiences.

Why did we reach out?

We reached out to Dr. Konstantinos Mikelis to evaluate the risks of off-target effects in white adipose tissue and to explore the safety of potential delivery routes for our therapeutic approach. His expertise in physiology and receptor biology made him an ideal advisor at this stage of our project redesign.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Mikelis emphasized that mature adipocytes rarely proliferate, which lowers some risks but also limits therapeutic flexibility. He explained that inhibiting α-tubulin would not necessarily damage our target cells, yet warned that off-target activation in non-target cells could critically disrupt the cytoskeleton and cause severe side effects. He therefore urged us to maximize tissue specificity, suggesting the use of antibodies to minimize off-target activity and directing us toward specific transmembrane markers to investigate. He also introduced bioinformatics tools that could support both design and refinement of our targeting strategy. In terms of delivery, he cautioned against subcutaneous administration due to risks of lymphatic absorption, while reassuring us that integration into the liver would not endanger the organ and might even prove beneficial in cases of fatty liver disease.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

From this discussion, we decided to prioritize strategies that enhance tissue specificity, systematically identifying suitable markers for precise targeting. We also abandoned the idea of subcutaneous administration, acknowledging the risks highlighted by Dr. Mikelis and began considering broader project redesigns that would ensure safer implementation of our therapeutic system.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By abandoning subcutaneous administration and adopting stricter tissue-specific targeting strategies, we reduced the risk of severe side effects such as cytoskeletal disruption in non-target cells. These refinements not only improved biosafety but also made our therapeutic concept more ethically defensible, ensuring that patient safety remains central to the innovation process.

Why did we reach out?

At the stage when our initial project design was still evolving, we consulted Dr. Perakakis, an expert in pharmaceutical solutions and obesity treatments, to guide the refinement of our therapeutic strategy and ensure alignment with current clinical knowledge.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Pierrakakis explained that liraglutide, which we had initially considered, is no longer widely used and is not considered effective for obesity treatment. He informed us about drugs in Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials and advised against targeting GLP-1, GLP, or glycogen receptor agonists. He also highlighted species differences between mouse models and humans, emphasized the rebound phenomenon (weight regain often with muscle loss) and strongly recommended focusing on leptin resistance in the hypothalamus.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We shifted our project’s focus from peripheral pharmacological targets to central regulation of energy balance via leptin resistance in the hypothalamus. His guidance led us to redesign our gene therapy approach to address the underlying mechanisms of obesity more directly and effectively.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By refocusing on hypothalamic leptin resistance, our project targets the root cause of obesity rather than symptomatic treatment. This strategy increases the potential for durable, meaningful interventions, offering a therapy that could reduce the societal burden of obesity and improve long-term patient health outcomes.

Why did we reach out?

We reached out to Dr. Leonidas to investigate the biological root of obesity, specifically to understand the molecular basis of leptin resistance and why leptin absorption fails under pathological obesity. His expertise in receptor biology offered us valuable insights into this unresolved question.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Leonidas explained that leptin resistance is unlikely to stem from defects in downstream intracellular signaling. Instead, he identified the receptor itself as the critical problem, pointing out that the overexpression of HDAC6 could impair leptin receptor function and block proper signaling. This perspective shifted our attention from downstream signaling toward receptor regulation, introducing a new therapeutic angle.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

Following his guidance and our subsequent literature review, we refocused our project on reducing HDAC6 expression as a means of restoring leptin receptor activity. This redirection reframed obesity treatment from calorie restriction to a molecular intervention aimed at correcting leptin resistance at its root.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By reframing obesity as a receptor-regulation disorder rather than a lifestyle issue, we moved away from stigmatizing narratives about food intake. This technical shift strengthens the social message that obesity is a complex biological disease, reinforcing empathy and reducing blame toward patients.

Why did we reach out?

To improve the precision of our shRNA design and ensure that our construct could effectively and specifically target HDAC6, we consulted Dr. Nikolaos Balatsos, Professor of Biochemistry. His expertise in RNA stability and degradation made him an ideal mentor for this stage of our project.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Balatsos explained how shRNA achieves gene knockdown and stressed the importance of accounting for the periodic expression of leptin when designing our construct. He advised us to minimize off-target activation, enhance RNA stability and consider interactions with other RNA species. Critically, he recommended that our shRNA either target all splice variants of HDAC6 or, alternatively, focus on the most prevalent variants in the population to maximize therapeutic relevance.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We refined our shRNA design by ensuring coverage of multiple HDAC6 splice variants and optimizing stability to increase specificity and durability of knockdown. These changes directly shaped the sequence selection process for our therapeutic construct and strengthened the biological soundness of our targeting strategy.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By designing an shRNA that accounts for HDAC6 splice variants and minimizes off-target risks, we increased the likelihood that our therapy could be effective across diverse patient populations. This approach enhances both the inclusivity and safety of our project, demonstrating how rigorous technical design can directly translate into broader social and clinical relevance.

Why did we reach out?

To explore genome-based therapeutic strategies and evaluate the appropriateness of lentiviral vectors, we sought advice from Dr. Vasileios Roukos, Professor of Biology, whose expertise in genomic engineering and safe gene delivery was invaluable.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Roukos highlighted risks of lentiviral integration, recommending integration-deficient lentiviruses (IDLVs) or CRISPR-dCas9-KRAB for safer gene repression. He also advised on validation using inducible reporters (TagBFP2, mCherry, GFP), qRT-PCR and Western blot and introduced AI-based prediction tools and risk analysis for liposomal delivery.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We adopted risk-aware strategies for viral delivery, using safer vector designs, incorporating robust validation methods and leveraging computational tools to evaluate safety and efficiency.

Why did we reach out?

We approached Dr. Varvara Trachana in order to obtain expert guidance that would help us substantiate our working hypothesis. Given her background in cellular and molecular biology, as well as her experience with cytoskeletal and signaling processes, we considered her input essential for refining both the conceptual and practical aspects of our study. Our aim was not only to verify the scientific validity of our approach but also to ensure that our experiments were designed with methodological rigor, minimizing risks of misinterpretation or technical artifacts.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Trachana offered targeted advice on how to structure a coherent experimental plan that could provide conclusive evidence. She stressed the necessity of designing proper validation steps, particularly in complementing gene-level measurements with protein-level confirmation and highlighted the use of strict positive and negative controls. Furthermore, she pointed out the importance of creating well-defined conditions under which the experiments would be reproducible and informative. This included considerations about cellular states, the choice of readouts and the need to monitor possible side effects that might complicate data interpretation.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We integrated her recommendations directly into our workflow. This meant strengthening the validation strategy, ensuring that our controls were not only present but systematically chosen and adapting the experimental environment to conditions that maximized reliability. In practice, her feedback guided us to pay closer attention to how cellular context influences outcomes and to adjust our methodology so that results could be interpreted with greater confidence. By following these suggestions, we achieved a design that is more robust and resistant to experimental bias.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

Through this process, we established a framework that allows our research to produce outcomes that are not only scientifically sound but also socially meaningful. By ensuring that our hypothesis testing rests on a carefully constructed and transparent design, we strengthen the potential for translating our findings into responsible applications with broader relevance.

Why did we reach out?

We consulted Dr. Tsakiri to better understand strategies for delivering our genetic circuit via nanolipid-based structures and to explore potential administration routes for our therapy.

What information did we receive?

She highlighted key parameters for lipid nanoparticle design, such as particle size, stability over time, and energy requirements for producing smaller particles. Dr. Tsakiri suggested intranasal administration as a promising route, enabling targeting of the hypothalamus by crossing the blood–brain barrier and allowing the use of larger nanoparticles for improved localization. She also emphasized practical considerations for maintaining particle stability, maximizing cellular uptake and avoiding stereochemical interference that could affect viral components. Importantly, she noted that direct administration through the olfactory nerve would likely prevent the formation of anti-viral antibodies, allowing for effective one-time delivery.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

Her guidance led us to conclude that, for our therapeutic goals, avoiding lipid-based nanoparticles and pursuing intranasal delivery via the olfactory nerve is the most viable strategy. This insight informed our experimental planning, focusing on stable, efficient delivery to the target brain region while minimizing immune responses and technical complications.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By integrating expert knowledge on delivery strategies and administration routes, we strengthened the translational potential and safety profile of our therapy. This approach ensures that our work not only advances scientific innovation but also upholds ethical responsibility by prioritizing patient safety and practical feasibility in real-world applications.

Why did we reach out?

We reached out to Dr. Andreas Solomos to obtain expert advice on delivery systems, immune risks and regulatory considerations connected to our gene therapy approach for obesity. His expertise in virology and therapeutic platforms provided us with the opportunity to critically evaluate the safety and feasibility of our design.

What information did we receive?

In our conversations, Dr. Solomos highlighted the systemic nature of conditions such as depression, where neural and immune networks interact in complex ways and drew parallels to obesity as a systemic disorder. He warned about the danger of chronic gene expression leading to immune activation, particularly through type I and II interferon pathways and recommended the use of siRNAs and microRNAs for more targeted modulation, though with caution to avoid overstimulation in neural environments. He provided a detailed comparison of available delivery systems, noting that AAV2 is effective for neurons due to its low immunogenicity but limited by its small cargo capacity, lentiviruses are suitable for larger constructs but pose integration risks and lipid nanoparticles are less immunogenic but better suited for RNA payloads than DNA. He advised us to avoid herpes-based vectors because of their tendency toward recombination and replication issues. In follow-up discussions, he validated our experimental framework and encouraged us to use platforms such as VectorBuilder for lentiviral construct design, to integrate regulatory switches into RNAi circuits as a way to manage expression and reduce immune risks and to deepen our literature review on HDAC6-targeting therapies.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

From this consultation, we kept three core insights that shaped our project. We confirmed lentiviruses as the most practical option for delivering large constructs, while explicitly considering their safety limitations. We incorporated the idea of using regulatory switches to improve control over RNAi circuits and reduce immune activation risks. Finally, we expanded our literature research on HDAC6-based therapies to strengthen the translational grounding of our approach. These contributions ensured that our design evolved with a balance of scientific innovation, clinical awareness and biosafety considerations. In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact? Incorporating regulatory switches into our RNAi circuits, as advised by Dr. Solomos, allows precise control over gene expression and minimizes unintended immune activation. This ensures that patients are exposed to lower risks of adverse effects, making the therapy safer and more ethically justifiable from the outset.

Why did we reach out?

We consulted Dr. Denaxa to better understand the clinical and biosafety implications of using lentiviral vectors for our gene therapy strategy, focusing on long-term applicability and regulatory feasibility.

What information did we receive?

She highlighted that lentiviruses are widely used in clinical trials due to their ability to integrate stably into host genomes, while also raising concerns about insertional mutagenesis, oncogenesis and immune responses. She pointed us to clinical-grade vector approval processes and recommended resources like ASGCT for tracking trials. Additionally, she shared technical insights about fluorescent markers (e.g., GFP vs. RFP) and practical issues such as electroporation and contamination risks.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We integrated her advice by strengthening our biosafety considerations, adopting GFP-based reporters for higher stability and recognizing the regulatory steps necessary for future translational work. Risk analysis became a cornerstone of our experimental framework.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By embedding safety and regulatory awareness into our project, we moved closer to developing a therapeutic platform that could withstand real-world scrutiny. This commitment not only safeguards future patients but also highlights the ethical responsibility of ensuring synthetic biology innovations meet clinical standards.

Why did we reach out?

As part of our wet lab planning, we sought feedback from Ms. Irini Dereki, a molecular biologist recommended by Dr. Sgourou, to refine our experimental design for HDAC6 knockdown using shRNA. Her expertise in gene expression analysis and flow cytometry made her an ideal consultant for optimizing methodology and cell line selection.

What information did we receive?

Ms. Dereki suggested that, beyond the lines we had selected (MDA-MB-231, HEK293T, MOLT-4), we should also consider K562 cells due to their high HDAC6 expression, even offering to provide a culture. She explained practical differences between episomal plasmid transfection and lentiviral delivery, highlighted gating strategies and viability assays in flow cytometry and discussed the limitations of Trypan Blue compared to more advanced assays like Annexin V / 7-AAD. Importantly, she confirmed that assays like Alamar Blue or CCK-8 were feasible alternatives within iGEM constraints.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We incorporated K562 cells into our wet lab design, validated our choice of viability assays and balanced complexity with feasibility by selecting methods that aligned with iGEM timelines and resources. Her advice directly shaped our decision to combine simplicity (e.g. Trypan Blue) with sensitivity (e.g. CCK-8) in evaluating therapeutic effects.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

By refining viability testing and selecting biologically relevant cell lines, we ensured that our results would not only be reproducible but also clinically meaningful. This reinforced the translational potential of our project, emphasizing rigorous yet accessible methodologies that could one day make advanced therapies more reliable and affordable.

Why did we reach out?

To confirm the biological relevance of our experimental models for HDAC6 knockdown, we consulted Professor Pantelis Hatzis, an expert in cancer genomics and molecular oncology.

What information did we receive?

He recommended well-characterized cancer cell lines such as MCF7, HCT-116 and A549, all of which show high HDAC6 expression and compatibility with lentiviral delivery. He also validated our choice of K562 cells, confirming their suitability for both expression levels and infection efficiency.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We reaffirmed our reliance on K562 cells while also noting alternative cell lines for future validation. His input reinforced the translational robustness of our model system. In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact? By grounding our platform in biologically and clinically relevant models, we ensured that our experimental results could contribute more directly to therapeutic development, bridging the gap between bench and bedside.

Why did we reach out?

As part of our effort to explore the psychological aspects of obesity and the complex relationship individuals have with food, we reached out to Vicky Skarvatsopoulos, Dietitian-Nutritionist and Master Practitioner in Eating Disorders and Obesity. Our goal was to gain professional insight into how language, attitudes and daily habits influence people’s experiences with food and weight.

What information did we receive?

Ms. Skarvatsopoulos emphasized the importance of using sensitive, non-stigmatizing language when communicating with people living with obesity, as judgmental vocabulary can reinforce guilt and shame. She highlighted the value of avoiding labels such as “good” or “bad” foods, advocating instead for a balanced perspective where all foods can fit within a healthy diet in moderation. She also underlined the psychological dimension of obesity, noting that many struggles are rooted in emotional relationships with food. Beyond psychological aspects, she pointed out practical barriers like lack of time or motivation to cook and described how the simple act of opening a packaged snack can activate the brain’s reward center and create a strong emotional link to food.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

From this conversation, we retained a human-centered and empathetic perspective on obesity. We integrated this by adapting our communication strategy to be more compassionate, avoiding stigmatizing language and promoting acceptance. We also embraced the idea that behavior change requires long-term support and guidance, not restriction or judgment. This shift is now reflected in our project’s approach, which acknowledges the psychological and emotional roots of eating behaviors and aims to encourage healthier relationships with food through empathy, understanding and realistic guidance.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

The insights from Ms. Skarvatsopoulos shaped not only our communication strategy but also the way we designed our experimental framework. By recognizing the psychological and emotional dimensions of obesity, we understood the importance of prioritizing safety and long-term sustainability in our therapeutic choices. This perspective encouraged us to avoid overly restrictive or invasive approaches and instead consider delivery methods and regulatory mechanisms that would minimize risks of harm or dependency. In this way, the human-centered understanding of obesity directly informed our technical design, ensuring that our project balances biological innovation with the lived realities of those it aims to help.

Why did we reach out?

To understand the psychological aspects of obesity and the emotional relationship patients have with food, we consulted Ms. Symaiopoulou, a nutritionist specializing in emotional eating.

What information did we receive?

Ms. Symaiopoulou explained how stress, sadness and boredom influence food choices and eating behaviors. Together, we co-designed the “Food and Emotions” questionnaire, identifying patterns of emotional eating, deficiencies in school nutrition education and poor-quality food in school canteens. She emphasized the importance of early nutritional education and systemic reform.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We integrated her insights into our public outreach, incorporating mental health awareness, educational programs and interventions that address both emotional and physiological dimensions of obesity.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

Understanding the emotional triggers of food behavior allowed us to design interventions that promote healthier relationships with food, addressing obesity comprehensively and improving societal health outcomes.

Why did we reach out?

We consulted Mr. Alexandros Petropoulos, a fitness trainer and owner of ICON Fitness, to gain insights into barriers to physical activity for people living with obesity.

What information did we receive?

Mr. Petropoulos highlighted stigma in gym environments, the harmful influence of unrealistic social media standards and alternative ways people integrate physical activity, such as adopting a pet. He emphasized creating inclusive, supportive environments to encourage sustainable engagement.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

This input strongly shaped the way we design and implement our Human Practices initiatives. Our outreach initiatives were designed to be judgment-free and inclusive, addressing both social stigma and motivational barriers to participation. Only then can people take confident and sustainable steps toward reversing obesity.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

These insights reinforced the need to select delivery and intervention methods in our experimental design that are safe, non-invasive and adaptable to varied lifestyles, minimizing barriers for eventual real-world adoption.

Why did we reach out?

We consulted Anna Mastorakou, Deputy Regional Governor for Public Health, to understand regional measures and statistics regarding obesity prevention.

What information did we receive?

Ms. Mastorakou emphasized the foundational role of childhood in shaping lifelong health behaviors, the need for structured health education, supportive school and home environments and coordinated public health strategies at the regional level.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We incorporated her guidance into broader awareness campaigns, aligning our project with regional initiatives and leveraging institutional support for education and prevention efforts.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

The consultation reinforced designing safe, non-invasive and socially considerate experimental strategies that account for environmental and systemic factors, ensuring our therapeutic interventions can eventually complement public health initiatives.

Why did we reach out?

To explore childhood-focused obesity prevention, we consulted Dr. Athanasios Karalis, co-founder of the Child Rights Center at the University of Patras.

What information did we receive?

Dr. Karalis highlighted the importance of early access to scientific knowledge and healthy living practices, connecting obesity prevention to social justice. He facilitated collaboration with UNICEF Greece and reinforced the value of experiential education for children.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

Our Human Practices initiatives began focusing primarily on children, designing interactive educational activities that convey nutrition and physical activity in a meaningful way.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

This perspective encouraged us to design interventions and delivery methods that are low-risk, scalable, and adaptable to early-life contexts, ensuring our experimental approach can eventually integrate into public health frameworks.

Why did we reach out?

We reached out to Maria Zafeiropoulou, founder of Co2gether and expert in health law and gerontology, to understand the broader social and nutritional challenges related to obesity, particularly in underserved populations.

What information did we receive?

Ms. Zafeiropoulou explained Co2gether’s initiative of “life visits,” delivering personalized baskets of healthy food to vulnerable individuals. She emphasized that typical aid programs often lack essential nutrients, contributing to unhealthy weight and malnutrition. These visits also provide psychological support, home organization assistance and basic repairs, addressing physical, emotional and environmental well-being.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We developed a practical recipe guide tailored to these food baskets, including food-combination tips to improve nutrient absorption. This approach ensured that our interventions are both practical and respectful of individual needs, integrating nutrition education with social support.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

The insights from Ms. Zafeiropoulou highlighted the importance of accessibility and individualized intervention. In our experimental planning, this reinforced prioritizing non-invasive, safe delivery methods and therapeutic strategies that consider variability in patient environments, ensuring that our technical design aligns with real-world contexts.

Why did we reach out?

To understand the psychological foundations of eating behavior and its impact on obesity, we consulted Pavlos Aktypis, a clinical psychologist.

What information did we receive?

He explained that emotional associations with food can begin in infancy, where feeding is often used to soothe distress regardless of hunger. This establishes strong emotional bonds between food and comfort, contributing to disordered eating patterns later in life.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We incorporated these insights into our Human Practices design, emphasizing interventions that address emotional and behavioral aspects of food consumption, not just biological targets.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

Recognizing the emotional dimension of eating behavior influenced our experimental framework by guiding the choice of less invasive, safer interventions that can accommodate the psychological needs of patients while testing HDAC6-targeted strategies.

Why did we reach out?

We reached out to Ms. Siganou to better understand the intersection between eating disorders, emotional overeating and obesity and to explore how psychological and societal factors influence nutritional health.

What information did we receive?

She explained that emotional overeating and eating disorders are not opposing but overlapping conditions, often fueled by societal pressures and unrealistic ideals of thinness. She emphasized how emotional overeating functions as both a symptom and a coping mechanism, which can lead to obesity. She advocated for integrated treatment models that address not only nutrition but also mental health and emotional well-being. She stressed that shame, stigma and mental health challenges are critical components that must be addressed in any obesity-related intervention.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

From this conversation, we adopted a more holistic and compassionate framework in our project. We integrated the understanding that obesity is tied not only to biological and metabolic factors but also to psychological and social dimensions. This reinforced our commitment to ensuring that our approach remains sensitive, inclusive and centered on the mental health aspects of obesity alongside the biological interventions.

Why did we reach out?

We consulted Dr. Vantarakis, Professor of Hygiene and public health expert, to understand effective obesity prevention strategies from a population-level perspective.

What information did we receive?

He emphasized early education for children, structured prevention integrated into daily life, the critical role of schools and parents and the need for continuous, holistic awareness campaigns.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We incorporated these recommendations into the design of educational and public outreach campaigns, ensuring continuous engagement and age-appropriate messaging.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

By prioritizing early, structured prevention, we were reminded to design our experimental strategy with sustainability and safety in mind, avoiding overly aggressive interventions and focusing on long-term therapeutic efficacy.

Why did we reach out?

As part of our effort to make our Human Practices and public outreach more inclusive and respectful, we reached out to Parvi Palmou, Gestalt Psychotherapist and member of the Greek Transgender Support Association. Our goal was to gain professional insight into how language, attitudes and communication strategies can influence how diverse individuals perceive and experience gender-related topics and how to ensure accessibility and respect for everyone regardless of gender identity.

What information did we receive?

She emphasized the importance of using inclusive, non-gendered language when addressing a broad audience, as it is impossible to know how each individual identifies. She highlighted that language shapes perception and can either empower or alienate participants. She also pointed out that events dealing with sensitive topics, such as gender and mental health, must be designed with empathy, awareness and respect for diversity, ensuring that all attendees feel safe and acknowledged.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

From this conversation, we retained the principle of inclusive, non-binary language in all our communication. We integrated this by adapting our messaging for public events, materials and talks, making sure that pronouns, examples and explanations were gender-neutral and welcoming. This approach was particularly reflected in our large-scale event on gender and mental health, where all content and interactions followed these inclusive guidelines.

How did patient-centered insights influence our experimental strategy?

These insights shaped our approach beyond communication, influencing the design of activities that reach diverse audiences. By prioritizing inclusivity and respect for all gender identities, we ensured that our outreach and engagement strategies are safe, ethical and considerate. This human-centered perspective also reinforced our focus on accessibility and awareness in every aspect of our project, bridging ethical practice with scientific engagement.

Why did we reach out?

We needed guidance in using iBioSim and in understanding how the logic of our AND gate differs between computational design and its biological implementation. To clarify these concepts and strengthen our modeling, we reached out to Dr. Makris.

What information did we receive?

From our discussion with Dr. Makris, we learned how to translate logical circuit behavior into biological terms. He helped us understand how the components of our genetic circuit interact to reproduce the logic of the AND gate and also advised us on the use of iBioSim.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We applied Dr. Makris’ insights when refining our genetic circuit model. His explanations helped us adjust our design to better represent the biological logic of the AND gate, which was reflected in the improved accuracy of our iBioSim simulations and our circuit functionality.

In what ways did our technical insights shape social impact?

These insights into the differences between computational and biological logic allowed us to design our circuit more responsibly. By modeling the AND gate logic following Dr. Makris’ guidance, we were able to carry out our work effectively, highlighting the safe and careful use of synthetic biology.

Why did we reach out?

To gain a deeper understanding of the computational tools and analyses relevant to our project, we consulted Eleftherios Bochalis. We sought advice on interpreting biological data and applying bioinformatics techniques effectively in our project.

What information did we receive?

Eleftherios Bochalis provided insights into key bioinformatics concepts, including sequence analysis and data visualization. He offered a deeper perspective on how bioinformatics-driven modeling can capture the dynamic behavior of biological systems, emphasizing the importance of parameter tuning and data integration in achieving meaningful simulations.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We applied the advice we received to improve our modeling and analysis workflow. His guidance was reflected in our clearer data presentation and more robust computational models.

Why did we reach out?

To get guidance on structuring and organizing our wiki, we consulted Ms. Katerina Karadima. She advised us on how to balance scientific accuracy with readability, ensuring our wiki remained both informative and engaging.

What information did we receive?

She gave us practical tips on content layout, writing style and ways to present information clearly. She also suggested strategies to emphasize the main points of our project and make complex technical details more accessible.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

By applying these suggestions, the wiki became clearer, better organized and more engaging for readers, allowing complex ideas to be communicated effectively.

Why did we reach out?

To clarify some specific questions about using iBioSim and modeling our genetic circuit, we got in touch with Dr. Chris Myers.

What information did we receive?

His feedback helped us understand how to approach our simulations more effectively and identify areas where our model could be improved.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

With his advice we realized that some adjustments were needed and prompted us to rethink certain aspects of our model.

Why did we reach out?

We wanted to gain our first exposure to the entrepreneurial ecosystem, understand how to approach solution-oriented teamwork and receive guidance on transforming Morphe from an idea into a viable innovation.

What information did we receive?

Mr. Koskinas introduced us to the fundamentals of entrepreneurship, encouraged us to explore new opportunities and connected us with investors, mentors and programs such as the Piraeus Accelerator that could support our growth.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We used his guidance to take our first structured steps in entrepreneurship, expanded our network, and integrated opportunities like accelerator participation into our strategy, setting a solid foundation for Morphe’s development beyond iGEM.

Why did we reach out?

We wanted expert guidance on how to transform our scientific idea into a compelling business proposition and to prepare effectively for communicating with investors and stakeholders.

What information did we receive?

Mr. Varveris provided extensive mentorship throughout the creation of our business plan and pitch, offering structured feedback that shaped both our strategy and communication approach. Drawing on his background in human resources, technology and entrepreneurship, as well as his extensive experience mentoring teams in the global startup ecosystem, he helped us refine our plan and prepare our team to confidently engage with investors and partners.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

His mentorship helped us identify and structure the most appropriate business plan for our project, ensuring that it reflected Morphe’s unique value proposition, development roadmap and commercialization potential.

Why did we reach out?

We wanted to learn from someone with hands-on experience in building startups, especially in biotechnology and understand the unique challenges of launching a biotech company compared to other industries.

What information did we receive?

Mr. Ioannou shared valuable insights from his own entrepreneurial journey, including his experience with KOS BIO, a startup developing a novel therapy for Friedreich’s ataxia. He guided us on how to structure our business model, anticipate biotech-specific hurdles and set a realistic development plan.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

We applied his advice to build a robust and feasible business model for Morphe, aligned our development timeline with realistic milestones and shaped our strategy to reflect the long and complex path of bringing a biotech therapy to market.

Why did we reach out?

We sought expert advice on the business and regulatory challenges unique to biotechnology and healthcare innovation, aiming to better understand how to translate research outcomes into sustainable, market-ready solutions.

What information did we receive?

Mr. Konstantakis shared his expertise on key challenges in life sciences, including securing funding and allocating resources efficiently, navigating complex regulatory frameworks, and identifying the right commercial pathways to bring new technologies to market. He also introduced us to the practical considerations of spin-off formation, the legal structures, procedural steps, and strategic decisions involved in transitioning from academic project to independent venture.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

His insights shaped our development roadmap, helping us align investment requirements, regulatory milestones, and commercialization strategies with biotech industry realities. Critically, his guidance on spin-off formation and the procedural steps involved prompted us to begin formal discussions with our university's Technology Transfer Office and Motitus about establishing Morphe as an independent venture, a cornerstone of our near-term strategy.

Why did we reach out?

We wanted to explore the human side of entrepreneurship and understand how mindset and personal development influence the ability to build sustainable ventures and overcome challenges.

What information did we receive?

Ms. Despoinoudi emphasized that entrepreneurship is not just about technical skills but about cultivating a growth mindset, resilience and a holistic way of thinking. Her perspective highlighted the importance of self-awareness, clarity and adaptability in successfully navigating the entrepreneurial journey.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

Her insights encouraged us to invest not only in our business model but also in team development and mindset-building. We incorporated her advice by fostering open communication, reflective practices, and a culture of resilience within the team, strengthening our ability to face obstacles constructively.

Why did we reach out?

We wanted to explore opportunities for collaboration and create a space where students could openly discuss entrepreneurship, share challenges, such as being taken seriously as young founders and gain practical exposure to startup thinking.

What information did we receive?

Through a constructive dialogue with Entrepreneurship Talks, we exchanged perspectives on the student entrepreneurship ecosystem and co-developed the concept for an educational event that would inspire and equip young scientists with entrepreneurial skills.

What did we keep and how was it reflected?

Wanting to give back to the community while deepening our own understanding, we co-organized the two-day webinar “First Steps into Entrepreneurship.” expert speakers, it combined lectures, pitching exercises and discussions, empowering students to take their first steps toward creating their own ventures.