Human Practices

Why did we seek this contact?

We reached out to Hamilton not only because of his strong academic and professional background in agronomy and citrus farming but also because he is a consultant at GCONCI (Group of Citrus Consultants). GCONCI is a nonprofit technical association founded in 1996, headquartered in Cordeirópolis (São Paulo), and composed of 18 consultants specializing in citrus production. The group provides consulting services to over 40 million citrus plants, which represent nearly 20% of Brazilian citrus farming. Their mission is to promote competitiveness and sustainability in the citrus sector through technical consulting, research partnerships, publications, and events. Given GCONCI’s influence and Hamilton’s expertise, we sought this contact to gain practical and strategic insights into the citrus industry.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Our main objective was to address the challenges of disease management in citrus farming, with a focus on pests and pathogens that are particularly difficult to control, such as citrus canker and HLB (greening). We wanted to better understand the current scenario of disease management methods that are actually implemented in the day-to-day life of farmers, what limitations remain in existing strategies, and how biological solutions like antimicrobial peptides could be integrated into those diseases management. We were also interested in reflecting on the feasibility and criteria for adopting new technologies by citrus growers, in discussing the parameters usually evaluated in field tests to validate new products, and in identifying other stakeholders who could contribute with further insights. At the same time, we wanted to explore how university students like us can play a role in bridging the gap between producers and the industry, while also assessing the limitations and possible constraints of our project.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this meeting we understood that directly targeting the bacteria is likely the most effective way to address greening, however, producers focus on combating the psyllid, the vector of the disease, because it is visible and with existing solutions. The conversation also highlighted the economic and social importance of citrus in Brazil, helping us reflect on the scale of the industry. At the same time, the emphasis on the regulatory framework showed us that the acceptance of a peptide-based solution depends not only on its scientific basis but also on compliance with existing laws and market structures.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

The meeting highlighted the importance of regulatory aspects for our project, prompting us to contact professionals in legislation to better understand compliance requirements. We also gained valuable insights about the citrus market, which are helping us ensure our project aligns with both growers’ needs and industry expectations.

Why did we seek this contact?

In Expocitros, we sought contact with Alexandre and Caneias, agronomy technicians from the City Hall of Mogi Mirim, because of their direct connection with local citrus producers and their institutional ties with the Casa da Agricultura de Mogi Mirim (CATI) that means Agricultural Office of Mogi Mirim. Our intention was to understand the producers’ current difficulties and evaluate how partnerships at the municipal and regional level could support the adoption of biotechnological solutions in citriculture.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed the main challenges producers face, and he explained that the greatest difficulties are financial insecurity due to high production costs and the lack of adequate return, which often pushes some farmers to shift toward other crops. We also discussed how the introduction of new bioinputs could fit into this context, considering the resistance to abandoning conventional practices. Finally, we talked about how partnerships with City Hall and CATI could strengthen both trust and innovation within the citrus sector.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that many agronomists and producers feel uncertain about the future of citrus. Some have already migrated to crops like sugarcane or avocado, that are less threatened than citrus crops. Yet, most producers expressed a deep attachment to citriculture, saying they “grew up with it” and do not want to leave it behind, it’s a familiar tradition. This showed us that if a truly effective biological solution were introduced, it would be embraced with hope. We also reflected on how institutional support, through City Hall and CATI, could be decisive in creating trust and encouraging farmers to take risks with new technologies.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

From this conversation, we recognized the need to design our peptide-based solution as a bioinput that is both effective and accessible, so that those working in citriculture can maintain hope in continuing this activity. They also became an institutional contact, which may help us in the future to better understand the sector and to design strategies for presenting and offering a new solution to the citrus community.

Why did we seek this contact?

In Expocitros, we sought contact with Claudinei, who works with citrus companies in different regions, because of his experience managing large-scale orchards and his strategic perspective on risk mapping for Greening. His practical knowledge of both conventional and innovative management practices made him an important source for understanding the barriers and opportunities for implementing biotechnological solutions.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We aimed to learn about how producers of large orchards monitor and control HLB (Greening), the role of chemical and biological practices in their management, and their perspectives on adopting bioinputs.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this meeting, we learned that HLB is monitored and controlled through a risk mapping strategy, which considers the distances between orchards and relies on communication among neighbors to coordinate actions and reduce the spread of the disease. Regarding the adoption of bioinputs, we reflected on the fact that the orchard manager views them with caution, emphasizing that such solutions must be thoroughly researched before he is willing to take the risk of using them, since uncertain results could mean a lack of return.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

From this conversation, we reinforced the need to present our peptide-based solution as a scientifically validated bioinput while also demonstrating its effectiveness in real field conditions, since credibility depends on both aspects working together. His emphasis on risk mapping inspired us to consider how our project could contribute to more effective and early detection of greening, even before symptoms appear, through tools such as the e-nose. This perspective also encouraged us to think about ways to promote collaboration among farmers, fostering the exchange of information that can strengthen monitoring and disease management strategies.

Why did we seek this contact?

In Expocitros, we sought contact with Osvaldir and Clóvis, citrus producers from Rolândia and Paranavaí in Paraná, to understand the historical and current challenges of citriculture in the region. Their long-term perspective, from the arrival of Greening (HLB) in the late 1990s to the present decline of citrus production, provided valuable insights into the resilience of producers and the urgent need for innovative solutions.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed how citrus producers in Paraná cope with HLB (Greening), the management practices they use, the economic pressures they face, the sharp decline in producers in Rolândia, and concerns about the long-term viability of orchards. We also discussed the potential adoption of biotechnological innovations, specifically bioinputs.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that Osvaldir, who has cultivated citrus since 1995, witnessed both the collapse of the local citrus industry in 2010 and the progressive spread of Greening since 1997. Producers initially responded with aggressive control strategies, including up to 50 pesticide applications per year against the psyllid vector. Despite these efforts, citriculture in the region has drastically declined. Yet, they emphasized that citrus remains up to 2.5 times more profitable than other crops, like soybeans, explaining why producers continue to maintain their orchards, despite all the threats. Osvaldir highlighted the urgent need for a solution to unblock the phloem, as excessive callose deposition causes leaf and fruit loss. Both stressed that an effective solution could not only revitalize the industry but also secure the future of citrus production in Paraná.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

From this conversation, we reinforced the importance of developing a solution that can provide bacterial control and potentially also phloem unclogging. To understand callose deposition, we invested in our mathematical model. Their emphasis on the economic and cultural value of citriculture, even under immense pressure, strengthened our commitment to creating a solution suitable for all producers. The discussion also reminded us that the disease affects not only the Brazilian citrus belt but also other regions, highlighting the need to consider this in the scalability of our project.

Why did we seek this contact?

In Expocitros, we sought this contact with Erinel, Sérgio and Lucinel because they have direct experience with orange cultivation on a medium-sized farm and are deeply involved in dealing with the daily challenges of HLB (greening). Their perspective is particularly valuable since they not only apply chemical solutions but also participate in research trials carried out in their own fields, giving them a practical and realistic view of both current practices and the adoption of future technologies.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meeting, we discussed their feelings of frustration and powerlessness in dealing with greening, and how they rely mainly on chemical solutions to manage the disease. We also talked about their views on the possible acceptance of a bioinput for combating greening. They emphasized that the main barrier for adopting a new product is its effectiveness, since cheap solutions are not trusted, while more expensive ones are accepted if they deliver results. Finally, we discussed the importance of institutional credibility, as they mentioned that innovations coming from institutions such as Unicamp or IAC would be more likely to gain their trust.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this meeting, we learned that for producers the decisive factor in adopting a new solution is its proven efficiency, demonstrated through reliable data. We also reflected on how trust in credible institutions plays a key role in making them open to innovations.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This meeting showed us the importance of presenting our peptide-based solution as a scientifically validated bioinput while also proving its efficiency in field conditions. We also recognized that even medium-sized farms struggle with greening, and the fact that producers are willing to participate in trials indicates that, despite uncertainties, they are open to supporting new approaches in the fight against the disease.

Why did we seek this contact?

In Expocitros, we sought this contact with Giannini, Guto, and Paulo because they are about to start a new orange plantation. Since they are just beginning this field, they provided us with a fresh perspective on what growers expect when entering citrus production.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed their current views on disease management, specially greening, and the strategies they are considering for this new plantation. They mentioned looking into traditional physical and chemical treatments as possible approaches and also expressed openness to adopting bioinputs, like AMPs, if such solutions become available and efficient.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this meeting we saw that new citrus growers are open to adopting biological solutions. Their background as former University students adds to their perspective as producers, making them value both practical field results and research-driven innovations. This highlighted the importance of presenting our project as scientifically credible while also applicable in practice, aligning with what growers expect when starting new plantations.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This meeting helped us understand the importance of presenting our work as a credible and research-driven solution, aligned with what new citrus producers are looking for when starting a plantation. It also showed us that emphasizing the biological nature of our proposalcould increase its attractiveness in a market that is becoming more open to bioinputs.

Why did we seek this contact?

In Expocitros, we sought this contact because he is a medium-scale orange producer and also represents a profile directly affected by HLB (greening).

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

In the meeting, we discussed his concerns about Greening and the solutions he currently relies on, such as agrochemicals and insecticides, to control the psyllids, always following the recommendations of his agronomist. He admitted not knowing the composition of these products, which highlights how decisions are based more on professional guidance than on product details. He also pointed out that the main barriers to adopting a new solution are its efficacy and price.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this conversation we realized that for him the composition of the product matters less than the results it provides . What truly counts is whether the solution works effectively against greening and remains economically viable. This reflection made clear that the acceptance of innovations relies above all on proven outcomes rather than novelty alone.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This meeting showed us the importance of raising awareness about the products being applied, since their composition can directly affect both the crop and the environment. We also saw that while the farmer prioritizes efficiency, he places strong trust in his agronomist, whose technical background reinforces the need for scientific validation. For this reason, our communication must not only demonstrate efficacy but also highlight the scientific basis of our solution.

Why did we seek this contact?

In Expocitros, we sought this contact because they are orange producers from Engenheiro Coelho, specialized in managing seedlings in greenhouses and the challenges of this stage.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

In the meeting, they explained their preference for biological products, which they consider healthier for workers applying them in greenhouses. They stressed the need for strict care with seedlings, since they are very sensitive and, if infected with Greening, must be eradicated. They also mentioned that the use of chemicals is limited by high temperatures, as it can damage the plants, and this is a frequent condition inside greenhouses.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this conversation we learned that in greenhouse conditions biological solutions are strongly preferred, as they are seen as safer for those applying them and more compatible with the sensitive nature of seedlings.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This meeting highlighted the importance of presenting our solution as a safe and effective alternative to chemicals, particularly in greenhouse contexts. It also pushed us to consider the practical conditions of seedling production, ensuring that our project takes into account the sensitivity of young plants.

Why did we seek this contact?

We sought this contact to better understand the dynamics of organic fruit marketing, especially oranges, and to learn about sustainable practices adopted by small producers and local markets. The Feira Candombá, its strong social focus and connection to family farming, offered valuable insights for identifying waste points in the system and exploring possible partnerships relevant to the Pepcitrus project.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed how the logistics and preservation chain of organic fruits works at the fair, including shelf life management and waste reduction strategies. We also talked about the possibility of reusing surplus fruit, the potential for partnerships with initiatives focused on reducing food waste, and the opportunity to connect with small citrus producers who supply the fair. Finally, we explored how the fair views the role of bioinputs and sustainable practices in family farming.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this meeting, we learned that waste is mainly controlled by adjusting orders according to previous demand and by using cold storage and air conditioning, with no additional preservation strategies in place. Surplus fruits can be redirected to initiatives like Food to Save, and the fair has strong ties with small producers, including citrus growers from Rio Grande do Sul. We also reflected on how fairs and markets can serve as entry points to map opportunities to reuse of unsold fruits and to connect academia, industry, and society in discussions on climate change and sustainable agricultural inputs.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This meeting reinforced the need to map waste points along the citrus chain and to consider partnerships with initiatives such as Food to Save. It also led us to pursue contacts with the citrus producers linked to the fair to better understand their challenges. Additionally, we began shaping the idea of organizing an integrative event that brings together family farmers, researchers, and industry to discuss sustainable solutions for citriculture.

Why did we seek this contact?

We seek to establish contact with FUNDECITRUS, represented by Beatriz and Eduardo, due to the strategic relevance of their expertise to the advancement of our project. Beatriz is a renowned expert in fermentation and biotechnology, crucial areas for the production of AMPs in alternative biological systems, such as Pichia pastoris and plants, which could enable large-scale production. Eduardo, as a plant pathologist, brings valuable knowledge of citrus diseases, like Citrus Canker and Greening, which have significant economic implications on the citrus industry. This partnership has the potential to not only validate the technical effectiveness of AMPs in controlling these diseases, but to also pave the way for practical implementation in commercial orchards, with the support of a renowned center like FUNDECITRUS. Furthermore, their experience with citrus growers provides a unique perspective that could enrich our project and enhance its acceptance in the field.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Our objective was to explore the feasibility of applying AMPs to combat major citrus diseases, including Citrus Canker and Greening. Additionally, it was important to evaluate the best alternatives for a large-scale production, considering systems like E. coli, Pichia, or plant-based systems. Another relevant point would be to understand whether FUNDECITRUS would be interested in providing technical support for field tests and scientific validation, as well as analyzing the possibility of an institutional sponsorship or a financial support.. We also discussed the main technical and economic risks associated with the use of AMPs in citrus farming and sought strategies to mitigate them. Understanding how citrus growers perceive new technologies and identifying actions that could increase their acceptance is equally essential. Lastly, we wanted to assess whether our project could complement or even sustainably replace traditional methods, such as the use of copper in citrus in a sustainable and efficient manner.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

The application of AMPs is considered a promising approach. However, the agricultural sector is traditional and may resist disruptive innovations. FUNDECITRUS already has preliminary positive results regarding the use of peptides in citrus, which reinforces the potential of our project. Nevertheless,we recognized the need to further detail and clarify our biofactory approach, including viable biological production platforms, such as yeast, bacteria and plants. Additionally, the team's presentation needs to be more robust, highlighting the involvement of undergraduate, graduate students and professors, aiming to reinforce the project’s credibility. Finally, it is essential to develop a clear timeline with well-defined technical deliverables to demonstrate planning and commitment.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We revised the presentation materials to highlight the technical profiles and backgrounds of the team members, including their skills and collaborations. A detailed project timeline was developed, featuring key milestones and technical deliverables. Additionally, we adjusted our communication to meet the expectations of the agricultural sector, based on continuous feedback from FUNDECITRUS.

Why did we seek this contact?

The Agricultural Defense Coordination Office of the State of São Paulo, a branch of the Department of Agriculture and Supply, serves as the official plant health authority in the state. Its mission is to safeguard São Paulo’s agriculture from pests, diseases, and other risks that threaten production, trade, and public health. Within its structure, the Plant Health and Inspection Department oversees the State Citrus Health Program (PESC). After engaging with directors Alexandre Paloschi and Adão Marin, along with biologist Natália Domingos da Silva, we established contact with public institutions such as the Agricultural Defense Coordination Office. This institution plays a pivotal role in responding to the ongoing phytosanitary crisis.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

In this conversation, we aim to address the role of the state of São Paulo in the citrus crisis through the Citrus Health Program and how university projects can contribute to this scenario.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

Through this conversation, we understand that the State Citrus Health Program's role is to thoroughly investigate citrus diseases so that appropriate management plans and rules can be developed and passed on to farmers. However, these strategies must be tailored to the location's specific characteristics, the disease, and its incidence. For example, in areas severely affected by Greening, cutting down trees would not be an effective strategy; however, in areas where the disease has not yet spread, this strategy could prevent possible outbreaks. Creating this set of measures mitigates the impact and spread of diseases while new technologies are developed to improve the fight against such pathogens. Therefore, university projects are important in providing the basic and applied research necessary for the development of these new technologies.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

From this conversation, we understood that it is possible to adapt our strategy to directly target the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus through antimicrobial peptides, focusing on areas with a high incidence of Greening where no effective remediation methods are currently available. Based on this insight, we implemented in our project the evaluation of AMPs as a viable alternative to conventional practices, such as eradicating infected trees or relying solely on vector control, both of which have shown limited success.

Why did we seek this contact?

Bayer, a global leader in agricultural crop protection, has extensive experience in innovative solutions for citriculture. We sought this collaboration to align our iGEM project with market needs through dialogue with field professionals, such as sales representatives and technical specialists. These conversations allowed us to better understand producers’ demands, the challenges of managing diseases like Xanthomonas citri, and the commercial strategies that could enhance the impact of our antimicrobial peptide. This partnership supported not only the scientific validation but also the assessment of the project’s commercial feasibility, paving the way for future implementation in the agricultural sector.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meeting, we were interested in discussing the main challenges faced by citrus growers, especially those related to the management of Greening (Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus), the potential biological and biotechnological solutions to complement chemical control, and the market strategies that could enable the adoption of our product. We also aimed to explore current industry trends and establish contacts that could support the development and implementation of our project.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

Brazilian citriculture is a major challenge, Greening being the most critical due to the difficulty of controlling its vector (Diaphorina citri) and the lack of a specific molecular diagnostic for the bacterium. Gabriel highlighted that preventive management relies on the eradication of diseased plants, the use of healthy seedlings, and rotational chemical control with different chemical groups such as diamides, pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, and butenolides. Despite this, many growers choose not to eradicate infected plants due to the high costs. Biotechnology and biocontrol strategies have been explored, with initiativessuch as the release of parasitoid wasps (Tamarixia radiata) and the use of attractive plants, such as curry, integrated with insecticides. Gabriel stressed that curative solutions, in addition to preventive ones, are highly desired in the market, but they need to demonstrate concrete and reliable results to justify their costs to growers. He also emphasized the importance of considering environmental impact and sustainability in the development of new technologies. The price of an orange box has risen significantly over the past year, reflecting the urgency of effective solutions for the challenges of citriculture. Furthermore, Bayer has focused on developing products for the control of eggs and nymphs, and Gabriel highlighted the relevance of measuring plant productivity and economic benefits when comparing different management methodologies.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We directed our efforts toward the development of products with curative potential for Greening, aiming to complement the preventive practices already adopted in the sector. Our plan included conducting economic feasibility and productivity impact analyses, ensuring that the proposed solutions were not only effective but also scalable.

Why did we seek this contact?

We sought contact with Henrique and Agrivalle due to the company’s potential as a partner or sponsor for our project. Agrivalle is a reference in the bioinput and innovation sector, especially after establishing international partnerships and investing in RNAi projects, an area closely aligned with our synthetic biology project. Additionally, the recommendation came from our PI, Elizabeth Bilsland, further strengthening our approach strategy.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We intended to present our project to Professor Henrique so that he could connect us with Agrivalle and suggest improvements to our sponsorship approach. We also aimed to receive recommendations for additional contacts in the agricultural sector and guidance on how to better position our proposal to companies. Another goal was to better understand the current sponsorship landscape and the best strategies to secure funding.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that our approach to companies must be strategic: instead of focusing solely on the project, we must highlight what the company would gain by supporting us, emphasizing the strength of our team and the visibility provided by the competition. We also realized that the agribusiness market is saturated with “miraculous” ideas, and that we must present our proposal realistically and pragmatically. Moreover, we saw the importance of detailing the project’s estimated costs and showing the support already secured to build greater credibility.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We restructured our presentation to companies, prioritizing tangible benefits and the quality of our team. We included information about the resources already secured, confirmed sponsors, and a detailed cost estimate for the project. We also followed up with the contacts provided by Henrique and await his feedback regarding a potential meeting with Agrivalle. Our goal is to develop a more mature communication strategy focused on attracting partners by highlighting our team’s strength and the institutional projection of the project.

Why did we seek this contact?

Tatiana Araújo is a sustainability and ESG specialist who holds a Master's degree in Ecology from UFRJ. She has almost 20 years' experience working in consulting, lecturing and training. She is a consultant for the UN Global Compact in Brazil, the Executive Director of Sustentati Consultoria and a professor of circular economy in the ESG MBA programme at Ibmec. We contacted her to gain a better understanding of how we could shape our project based on the SDGs , as well as to learn more about the circular economy and how to apply it to our project.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

The aim of this conversation was to discuss how we could improve the sustainability and circular economy aspects of the project, and to explore the possibility of holding a lecture or workshop on synthetic biology and sustainability

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

From this conversation, we were able to confirm some strategies that we had already adopted, primarily for preparing texts and validating practical actions that we had structured up to that point. We also received feedback on how we could improve the integration of data from the entrepreneurship team to demonstrate the project's tangible impact. Additionally, Tatiana provided us with various academic and industry materials to support the writing of the circular economy manual.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Based on the feedback collected, we combined the entrepreneurship data with our project and began writing the manual using the provided sources. Additionally, Tatiana offered to review our materials to ensure they were as reliable as possible.

Why did we seek this contact?

Peptidus Biotech is a company focused on developing bioinspired solutions using generative artificial intelligence and structural biology to accelerate the discovery and optimization of bioactive peptides. The company employs a cutting-edge technological platform to design and test innovative molecules, aiming to contribute to various fields, such as animal health, tissue regeneration, cosmetics, and the replacement of chemical preservatives. These solutions stand out for being sustainable, efficient, and free of residues harmful to the environment or human health. We trusted this contact is highly relevant, as the startup focuses on producing bioactive peptides, which aligns with our main goal. Therefore, Peptidus was a key partner for us to better understand the in silico prospecting process and the current methods of peptide production.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Through this contact, we aimed to gain insight into the peptide production process, from in silico analysis to production. We wanted to address topics such as the synthesis of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) through biotechnology and understand the company's experience with AMP expression, especially in agriculture. Additionally, we were interested in exploring AMP production and strategies to achieve greater peptide specificity for the desired application, in line with market demands.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that the antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) production faces technical and scaling challenges. Expression in Escherichia coli creates inclusion bodies, while in yeasts like Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia methanolica, suffers with AOX-promoted toxicity. The strategy of using carrier proteins showed some success, but efficiency varies depending on the peptide. Producing smaller peptides (9-10 amino acids) is more difficult, and constructing them in tandem yielded better results. Cleavage was highlighted as the biggest challenge, with recommendations to explore metallic cleavage (with nickel or copper). The cell-free system emerged as a promising alternative, but the cost is still high. Regarding the agricultural market, to our product be considered affordable it should cost around 50 cents per dose, non-toxic, and easy to apply. It was recommended to start tests with 64 µmol and reduce the concentration according to efficacy.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

In order to implement what we have learned, we address the yield challenge in production using a coupling strategy to ensure greater efficiency of AMP expression before scaling up. We also conduct tests at the harvest and post-harvest stages, taking into account the pathogens specific to each stage.

Why did we seek this contact?

We reached out to Kamila, a researcher at Peptidus, to better understand strategies for peptide expression in different biological systems, especially E. coli and Pichia pastoris. Her knowledge of cloning, expression, and purification of peptides, along with her practical experience with various methodologies, is valuable to guide our project. This meeting also aimed to strengthen the partnership with Peptidus.

What did we want to discuss?

We wanted to understand which expression systems are most efficient for small peptides like ours and how to optimize their yield and purification. We were interested in the challenges of removing purification tags and how this impacts peptide activity. We also wanted to know if Kamila could support us in testing the expression of our peptide in Pichia pastoris. Additionally, we sought to learn about specific methodologies used in her lab and get suggestions for potential collaborators who could help us deepen our knowledge in this field.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that Pichia pastoris is a good choice for peptides that require post-translational modifications. The selection and positioning of the purification tag greatly influence the peptide’s function and recovery. For example, the His-tag facilitates purification and western blotting, but it interferes with MALDI analysis. The tag can also serve to protect the host from the peptide’s toxicity. Kamila emphasized that changes to the vector and promoter are more crucial to peptide expression success than modifications to the culture medium. Electroporation was highlighted as the best transformation method for Pichia pastoris. The in tandem expression strategy may increase peptide yield, although it brings additional costs. Finally, we discussed that larger tags can mask bioactive regions and that testing different cleavage strategies is essential to minimize peptide loss.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We prioritized changes in the vector and promoter rather than focusing solely on the culture medium. The key strategy to inhibit peptide toxicity during expression was its coupling to the sfGFP reporter, which acted as the main mitigating factor. In addition, we implemented the use of a His-tag to facilitate purification and included a TEV cleavage site in the construct to enable the separation of sfGFP from the CTX gene.

Why did we seek this contact?

Alfacitrus is a company with an infrastructure spread over 1,600 hectares in the interior of São Paulo. It has its own packing house, and it stands out as one of the five largest producers and packers of oranges and tangerines in Brazil. Therefore, Alfacitrus represented a potential strategic partner for our project, as they could offer valuable insights into the global citrus industry, as well as new perspectives that enriched our development, both scientifically and economically.

What topics did we discuss during this discuss?

The impact of Greening disease on orange production raises several key questions regarding its consequences and possible solutions. We wanted to comprehend how this disease impacts yield and fruit quality, as well as the existing strategies for controlling the psyllid, its insect vector. In addition, attention was given to the agricultural management practices being adopted to mitigate its effects in the field. Ongoing research and development efforts also play a central role, particularly those exploring the use of antibiotics and peptides as potential treatments. Finally, technological alternatives for delivering therapeutic agents directly into the plant were investigated, searching for new perspectives for combating this challenge.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

The conversation highlighted the challenges and advancements related to psyllid control and disease spread in orchards. We learned that, although the use of injectable antibiotics has shown effectiveness in some areas, there is still no universal solution. Research on the use of peptides to combat bacteria is promising but faces challenges regarding efficient delivery within plants. Additionally, they told us that China has developed transgenic plants resistant to Greening, an alternative that may help in the future. Another important point discussed was the challenge of creating new planting areas, which require intensive management in the early years to control the psyllid. The insect, common in various regions, is a persistent problem, especially in areas like São Paulo, where 100% of the psyllids are contaminated, and the forecast is that the disease will spread to other regions in the next 10 years. Besides Greening, flower rot and citrus canker (caused by Colletotrichum acutatum and Xanthomonas citri, respectively) are also diseases that affect citrus during pre-harvest. Furthermore, Emílio César Fávero also brought attention to post-harvest disease caused by fungi such as sour rot and Green mold (caused by Geotrichum candidum and Penicillium digitatum, respectively).

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

First, we integrated sour rot (G. candidum) into our tests, as it was a disease affecting these farmers that we had not previously considered.reached out to experts to help us design a device for injecting AMPs into the trunks of infected trees, inspired by the device mentioned during the discussion.

Why did we seek this contact?

Orya Science has developed a post-harvest wax based on carnaúba with only 1% concentration compared to the conventional 12%, aiming to reduce residues and environmental impacts. We sought this contact to understand how these solutions align with the demand for sustainability and innovation in the citrus sector.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Our intention was to learn about Orya’s innovations in post-harvest technologies, especially their sustainable alternatives to traditional carnaúba waxes, and to understand the regulatory and technological challenges in this field.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that Orya is not only reducing carnaúba usage but also exploring new sources and technologies such as nanoemulsions, using Embrapa’s work as reference. We also reflected on the long regulatory timelines: up to 5 years for ANVISA approval and up to 10 years when including safety, toxicology, and handling protocols. This reinforced the importance of long-term planning in post-harvest innovation.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This conversation showed us that sustainable post-harvest technologies could complement our citrus solutions. We apply this knowledge by exploring the potential of antimicrobial peptides for preserving food after harvest, including the possibility of incorporating these molecules into the wax used in citrus processing.

Why did we seek this contact?

Our intention was to understand how UPL is positioning itself in the biologicals market, especially with third and fourth generation products, and to explore whether their industrial approach could complement our project’s vision of quality and innovation.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

UPL is a leading company in the industry, investing in third- and fourth-generation biologicals in partnership with Elemental Enzymes. We approached them to understand how these new formulations, which offer comparable specificity and efficacy to chemical pesticides, could influence the future of the market and create synergies with our proposal.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that UPL focuses on commercial products that meet industrial standards, emphasising reliability and the reproducibility of results as core values. We reflected on the criticism of on-farm production, which, while inexpensive, compromises quality control. We also recognise that the shift towards fourth-generation biologics indicates a more demanding and sophisticated market, where innovation and adherence to industrial standards will be key differentiators.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This conversation highlighted the importance of combining innovation with industrial reliability. We apply this learning by reinforcing the need for standardisation and quality in our solutions and by considering partnerships that value scalability and cutting-edge technology. We incorporated the idea that competing in the biologicals market is not just about offering sustainable alternatives; it is also about delivering efficacy and safety comparable to chemicals, alongside the robustness of industrial processes.

Why did we seek this contact?

Valett Grow is a company specialized in fertilizers with a focus on physiological plant management. We sought this contact to understand how nutritional and physiological strategies could contribute to addressing Greening, since current citriculture required new approaches given the difficulty of eradicating the disease.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Our intention was to understand how Valett Grow’s approach to plant nutrition and physiological management could help citriculture face the challenges of Greening, and to explore potential synergies with our project.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that Valett Grow is following a shift in mindset within citriculture, where the goal has moved away from eradicating Greening and toward extending the productivity of already infected plants. We reflected on how physiological management can keep the plant active and productive, even in the presence of the disease, minimizing economic impacts.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This conversation made us realize the relevance of physiological management combined with our biotechnological solutions. Therefore, we evaluated possible partnerships that would integrate bioinputs and physiological fertilizers, reinforcing a sustainable and resilient approach.

Why did we seek this contact?

Ballagro is a pioneering company in microorganism selection and develops bioinputs focused on chelated complexes and biopolymers, with the differentiating feature of being compatible with mixtures containing chemical products. Among its main products are lyophilized fungi aimed at biological insect control, provided in formulations ready for dilution and application. It was emphasized that the use of these products requires specific pumps due to the sensitivity of the formulations to the composition of the spray solution.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We sought to understand field applications, learn a bit about how the company views our work, and also to demonstrate interest and receive guidance on peptide-based products.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

They suggested that, for peptide-based products, stability in mixtures should be considered from the very beginning of development. Ballagro follows the standard regulatory procedures (IBAMA, MAPA, ANVISA, IBD) and mentioned that there is a gap between technical knowledge about metabolites and producers’ understanding, highlighting an opportunity for education and closer interaction between science and the field.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

From our meeting with Ballagro we recognized the importance of considering formulation compatibility early in development, especially regarding peptide stability when mixed with other agricultural products.

Why did we seek this contact?

INVAIO is a global company that uses precision biotechnology to promote climate-positive agriculture. The company uses pressurised antibiotic applications in plant phloem to combat Greening disease. We contacted the company to learn about ways to deliver molecules into citrus phloem that could be incorporated into our workflow, particularly those targeting phloem-restricted bacteria such as Candidatus liberibacter asiaticus.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting

The aim of this conversation was to find out about the technologies the company uses to combat Greening and its molecule delivery system, and to discuss its views on using antimicrobial peptides in agriculture.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

Through this conversation, we learned that the company has been achieving good results with its Trecise™ product. This involves applying 150 mg of oxytetracycline in an 80 ml solution per plant per year via a pressurised device in the phloem of citrus fruits. The solution is fully absorbed within 14 days. We also discovered that the development of peptides for agricultural applications is an emerging area of interest for the company, as they are starting to use artificial intelligence to develop peptides. Based on the company's experience, we understand that, for a peptide to be considered viable for use with citrus fruits, it must remain effective at concentrations of up to 20 µM in greenhouse experiments. This is an important parameter for developing new bioactive molecules. During the conversation, we were also offered the opportunity to test our peptide solution in their application system. With a quantity of 30 ml per applicator per plant, we could carry out these tests together if our own experiments yield promising results.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Using the information provided by Invaio, we were able to create the first concrete reference for a product targeting greening by specifically attacking the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus. This enabled us to incorporate relevant technical parameters, such as efficacy data, optimal concentrations and application volumes, into the project. These parameters then formed the basis for evaluating the use of our peptide in comparison with an existing product.

Why did we seek this contact?

We sought Biorare to better understand how biological solutions are being developed and applied in the agricultural sector, especially for disease management in citrus crops. Since our project aims to design innovative and sustainable approaches, learning from companies that already operate in this field is highly valuable.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Our goal was to discuss how Biorare combines natural compounds such as acetic acid and copper for disease control, particularly against citrus canker and black spot. We also wanted to explore their perspective on current market demands, challenges with pathogen resistance, and opportunities for integrating sustainable practices into large-scale agriculture.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that producers are increasingly receptive to natural compound “cocktails,” as they are less costly and less prone to resistance development compared to traditional chemical treatments. This highlighted an important market trend: the growing openness to innovative and environmentally sustainable solutions. We also reflected on how reducing toxic residues in fruits not only benefits consumers but also strengthens the commercial value of the crops.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We integrate this knowledge by emphasizing the importance of designing biological solutions that are both cost-effective and resistance-mitigating. Furthermore, the insights from Biorare encouraged us to think about how to communicate our solution to producers in a way that underlined practical benefits, such as lower costs, residue reduction, and long-term crop sustainability.

Why did we seek this contact?

Biotrop is a Brazilian biotechnology company operating in the agricultural sector, focused on developing innovative and sustainable biological solutions to improve crop productivity while preserving environmental balance. Its product line includes biocontrols, biostimulants, biofertilizers, and inoculants, all aimed at strengthening plant and soil health.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We wanted to discuss the potential applications of microbial metabolites, including their role in nutrient solubilization, root promotion, biological nitrogen fixation, and pest and disease control. We also aimed to explore regulatory challenges and opportunities for innovation in the biological sector.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that Biotrop is actively working with microbial metabolites, which, although biologically derived, can exhibit chemical characteristics when isolated. This highlighted a key reflection on how innovation can outpace regulation in the sector, and how companies like Biotrop are at the forefront of integrating these advanced solutions. We also observed the openness and interest of Biotrop’s representatives, suggesting potential future collaboration.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We started to explore how our project could align with pioneering companies like Biotrop, potentially setting the stage for future collaborations or consultations.

Why did we seek this contact?

Dinagro is one of companies that are using phytochemicals in the development of biological solutions for pest and disease control, and to learn more about the regulatory process for such products in Brazil

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We wanted to discuss the challenges and requirements for registering biological products, including efficacy testing, regulatory approval, and certification standards, as well as to explore how phytochemical-based products can complement or inspire our project

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that in Brazil, biological products must undergo efficacy tests in at least three distinct regions before dossiers are submitted to IBAMA, ANVISA, and MAPA. The approval process can take around two years, and residue certification is usually carried out by organizations such as IBD. This highlighted the importance of standardization and traceability throughout product development.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We start to consider regulatory pathways as part of our project design, recognizing the timelines and requirements involved. This knowledge encouraged us to reflect on how we could ensure standardization and traceability in our own approach, as well as how phytochemical-based strategies might inspire new directions for biological solutions.

Why did we seek this contact?

We sought ImunoAGRO to learn about their experience with phytochemical-based products aimed at increasing plant vigor and productivity in citrus crops, and to explore potential collaborations involving our antimicrobial peptide

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed the composition and application of their product Bio Extra Verde, which is designed to promote vegetative development and orchard productivity through the supply of essential nutrients. The product is based on phytochemicals (natural oils) that help mitigate Greening symptoms by increasing plant vigor and productivity, even without directly eliminating the bacterium. We also explored how the product’s oil base allows it to be mixed with fungicides, bactericides, and insecticides.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that Bio Extra Verde represents a biological solution that supports plant health management through natural compounds, aligning with sustainable agricultural practices. Its integration with other treatments demonstrates the potential of combining different biotechnological approaches to address complex diseases such as Greening.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Following the discussion, we identified an opportunity to test our antimicrobial peptide in combination with ImunoAGRO’s oil-based formulation. Marcelo, the company’s chemist, expressed interest in this collaboration and showed openness to future conversations about sponsorship and joint experimental trials.

Why did we seek this contact?

We reached out to Louis Dreyfus Company (LDC) as it is one of the world’s largest traders and processors of agricultural products, with a strong presence in the citrus sector. The company operates across the entire agricultural value chain in Brazil and has several operations in citrus fruits, from cultivation to processing and export. We considered LDC a potential strategic partner, both for its track record in the sector and its ability to contribute with residues and by-products that could be leveraged in the Pepcitrus project. In addition, we sought to understand how the company works with the utilization of different parts of the fruits and what collaboration opportunities could emerge from this

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meeting, we sought to understand how LDC uses and processes citrus fruit residues, especially oranges, and whether there would be by-products that could be made available for our tests. We also wanted to explore partnership possibilities for residue reutilization, as well as to gain a better understanding of the industrial processes and the chemical profile of the discarded materials. Our focus was to identify points of intersection between LDC’s production and the needs of our project, aiming at sustainability and innovation in the citrus production chain.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that LDC made use of various parts of citrus fruits, such as peels, juice, bagasse, essential oils, and aromas. However, during the process of extracting pectin from dried orange peel, a very fine pectin residue called ‘fines’ was generated, which at that time had no application and was discarded. The exact composition of these fines was not yet known, but it was believed that they contained valuable components such as pectin, lignin, hemicellulose, cellulose, and long-chain sugars. These residues represented a concrete opportunity for testing and for the development of new applications within our project.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Based on this conversation, we adopted solid-state fermentation using orange bagasse produced during fruit processing as a means of aligning our workflow with the vision of the circular economy.

Why did we seek this contact?

Ebert Hanna is a graduate of pharmacy and biochemistry, as well as a postgraduate of clinical analysis and bacterial molecular biology. He is the co-founder of Invent Biotecnologia Ltda. and the scientific-commercial director at FastBio. He exerts significant influence at the interface of national innovation as an entrepreneur in the distribution of products and services from global CROs. We believe that he can assist us in synthesising our peptides and provide valuable information about how we can do so in the most optimal manner.

What did we want to discuss?

In this meeting, we wanted to discuss the methods for peptide synthesis, explore opportunities for collaboration, assess potential risks, and define approaches for peptide testing to validate their effectiveness.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

Ebert's feedback on our project was very constructive. He confirmed that it would be a more environmentally-friendly alternative to pesticides and agrochemicals for combating citrus greening, since it is based on natural processes.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We establish a partnership with FastBio, who provide gene synthesis services optimised for each of the organisms selected for expression. Their feedback on the testing phase help us to make better use of resources.

Why did we seek this contact?

Amanda is a researcher in Genetic Resources and Regulations and responsible for the Coffee with Bioeconomy podcast in Biodiversity at SENAI Inovation Institute in Biosynthetics and Fibres. Scheduling a podcast recording with the SENAI Institute for Innovation in Biosynthetics and Fibres, Café com BioEconomia, is a strategic opportunity for our iGEM team to increase awareness of our project involving antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) to combat agricultural pests such as greening and citrus canker. By partnering with an established channel in the bioeconomy sector, we can share the advancements of our project with a diverse audience, including researchers, farmers and policymakers. This will allow us to engage society in discussions about sustainable alternatives to toxic chemicals such as copper. Additionally, interacting with stakeholders during the recording provides valuable insights into how our project is perceived, helping us align practical applications with the needs of the agricultural sector. Finally, this initiative strengthens the promotion of synthetic biology as an innovative and accessible tool, showcasing how it can transform global challenges into practical and sustainable solutions.

What did we want to discuss?

We would like to understand the entire operation of the podcast, from the scripts to the process of selecting guests, as well as explore the possibility of using the podcast as a platform to establish contact between academia and the agricultural sector.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that SENAI can be a strategic partner in various areas. We can leverage the podcast as a platform for promotion and increase participation by inviting guests from biotechnology and the agricultural sector. The concept of EVTE (Technical and Economic Feasibility Study) was highlighted as an important tool for presenting the project's potential to companies, whether in events like Easycom or in pitches directed at sponsors. We also recognized the importance of considering the Biodiversity Law regarding the use of peptides from natural sources, ensuring regulatory compliance. Finally, we understand that as the project becomes more established, our presentations and proposals to companies will have greater strategic alignment and impact.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Following this initial discussion, our team, represented by Ramon Diógenes and Lucas Céspedes, participated in a podcast titled “Coffee with Bioeconomy”, alongside Dr. Caroline Lourenço (Syngenta) and Carlos Gonçalves (SENAI). The conversation centred on the role of synthetic biology in agribusiness and highlighted the potential of antimicrobial peptides. It also addressed the challenges of transferring innovations from the laboratory to the field and emphasised the importance of partnerships between start-ups, academia and industry in enabling sustainable agricultural solutions. In addition, we sought out regulatory experts such as Dr. Adriana Cheavegatti Gianotto and Natassia Misae Ueno to understand the legal perspective on the use of antimicrobial peptides.

Why did we seek this contact?

Professor Dr. Cristina Martinez, from the Institute of Biology (IB) at UNICAMP, has extensive expertise in bacterial microbiology, with a particular focus on Xanthomonas species. She has conducted pioneering studies on bacterial secretion systems, which are fundamental for understanding the infection mechanisms of Xanthomonas citri and its interactions with host plants, culminating in Citrus Canker. Professor Martinez was our first contact with a specialist on citrus diseases, and this conversation was invaluable for gaining a comprehensive understanding of the cellular and molecular strategies employed by the bacterium. Furthermore, it facilitated the establishment of connections with other leading researchers and professionals in the field, providing a strategic network for advancing our project and aligning it with current scientific standards.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We aimed to approach four main topics with Prof. Dr. Martinez. The first was to discuss the main diseases caused by this bacterium, which specifically affect citrus and impact all varieties cultivated in Brazil. Next, we discussed the possibility of using antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) as an alternative to these compounds. Considering the professor's experience with processes such as protein production, purification, and determination of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of peptides, the third topic was related to tips and guidance for experimental analysis. Finally, we prospected new collaborations in potential, such as Prof. Eduardo Vicente (UNESP) and Prof. Dr. Maria Tereza Mansur (UFSCar)

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

Prof. Martinez explained that the X. citri’s infection process begins with the formation of biofilms on the leaf surface, followed by entry through lesions or stomata. Historically, the most common control method was the Prof. Martinez explained that the X. citri’s infection process begins with the formation of biofilms on the leaf surface, followed by entry through lesions or stomata. Historically, the most common control method was the elimination of infected plants, but the predominant approach today is the use of copper-based agrochemicals, which, although effective, have a high environmental impact.

In this context, Prof. Martinez highlighted that AMPs represent a promising alternative, as they could reduce reliance on copper. She also noted potential challenges, such as the potential toxicity of AMPs to human cells. Although this issue is less relevant in the agricultural context, we later confirmed with Prof. Eduardo Vicente that the safety of AMPs had already been addressed in previous work .

Regarding the guidance for experimental analysis, Prof. Martinez emphasized the importance of determining the peptide’s minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and conducting toxicity tests to ensure its safe and effective application in agricultural settings. Finally, she pointed out that while canker remains and issue in citriculture, the most pressing problem today is greening, highlighting the need for further investigation in this area.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Understanding the problems associated with copper management in plantations affected by X. citri was essential to appreciate the potential benefits of our project as a sustainable alternative through the use of peptides. Following on Prof. Martinez's suggestion, we reached out to Prof. Dr. Maria Teresa Marques Novo Mansu to deepen our research on citrus greening (HLB). This allowed us to assess which disease - canker or greening - was currently more prevalent and impactful in the daily lives of citrus farmers. Ultimately, our investigations extended beyond these two diseases, and we conducted tests on pathogens responsible for Greening, Green Mold, and Sour Rot, ensuring that our project addressed the most pressing challenges in Brazilian citriculture.

About the Meeting

Professor Eduardo Festozo Vicente (UNESP, Tupã – SP, Brazil), is a specialist in antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) with extensive experience in peptide synthesis and biochemistry. He is an Associate Professor in the Department of Biosystems Engineering at UNESP, leading the PeSEAp group, which focuses on peptide synthesis, optimization, and applications. Prof. Vicente recommended the AMP chosen for our project against citrus pathogens, which has shown promising results in agriculture and food preservation. His guidance has been invaluable in helping usexplore AMPs as sustainable alternatives for agricultural challenges, inspired by his work on peptide dynamics and structure, including the study “Dynamics and Conformational Studies of TOAC Spin Labeled Analogues of Ctx(Ile21)-Ha Peptide from Hypsiboas albopunctatus.”

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

In this conversation, we focused on understanding the mechanisms of action of Professor Vicente’s antimicrobial peptide (AMP). We also discussed the the production landscape of AMPs production in Brazil and explored the possibility of obtaining an aliquot of his AMP, the CTX, for preliminary studies and characterization in our project.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

During the conversation, Prof. Vicente explained that the antimicrobial peptide (AMP) acts mainly by forming pores in the bacterial membrane in a dose-dependent manner, leading to leakage of cellular contents and subsequent cell lysis. This mechanism provides high efficacy against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, while its activity is limited against yeasts, due to their cell wall and distinct membrane composition.

Regarding safety of the peptide to humans, he clarified that hemolytic activity occurs only if the peptide enters the bloodstream. When ingested, AMP is rapidly degraded in the digestive tract, making it safe for applications in food preservation and nutrition. Concerning Xanthomonas citri, he mentioned that preliminary tests had already shown very promising results, and he offered to provide the peptide Ctx(Ile21)-Ha for further experiments, including potential collaborations such as detached leaf assays.

He highlighted a major challenge: the high cost of peptide synthesis in Brazil, mainly due to reliance on imported amino acids and the limitations of solid-phase synthesis. As a more feasible and sustainable alternative, he suggested exploring heterologous expression systems such as Pichia pastoris, which could enable larger-scale production at reduced costs.

Finally, he reinforced the importance of an interdisciplinary approach, involving AMP specialists, plant pathologists, biotechnologists, and sustainable agriculture researchers, to integrate different perspectives and strengthen strategies for combating citrus canker and greening.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

The AMP was considered a sustainable alternative for agricultural pesticides, with emphasis on its use in crops like oranges. Professor Vicente also expressed interest in collaborating by sending the peptide Ctx(Ile21)-Ha for testing in different microorganisms.

Why did we seek this contact?

We consulted Professor Dr. Maria Teresa Mansur because her expertise bridges pathogen biology and peptide applications, complementing insights previously gained from Professor Cristina Martinez, and Professor Eduardo Vicente. Her knowledge of Xanthomonas citri’s molecular mechanisms related to citrus canker, along with her contributions to the Xanthomonas Genome Project, make her an invaluable collaborator for assessing whether our peptide-based strategy is both biologically coherent and practically feasible.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

The discussion emphasized the challenges in controlling phytopathogens and the need for sustainable alternatives to copper and agrochemicals. We discussed the common methods used to manage pathogens in Brazil and the United States, and identified gaps in pathogenicity studies and practical applications.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

In our conversation, Professor Mansur explained that citrus defense responses vary depending on the pathogen. For Greening (HLB), the the bacterium affects the phloem and establishes a complex pathosystem, which makes in vitro cultivation difficult. Consequently, studies rely on in vivo proteomic analyses and the identification of natural compounds released by the plant. In the United States, management involves injecting antibiotics, while in Brazil, infected plants are eliminated within a defined radius. For citrus canker, the bacterium directly penetrates tissues and spreads from plant to plant via rain and wind, allowing both in vivo and in vitro experiments.

Regarding our project, Professor Mansur noted that very few groups are working with antimicrobial peptides, making the approach promising, but emphasized that formulation is critical for effectiveness. She also discussed the potential substituting copper in combating citrus pathogens. To evaluate the peptide’s efficacy, she recommended using different existing agrochemicals as controls.

Finally, she suggested contacts with partner institutions, offering to connect us with Fundecitrus, with whom she collaborates, and recommending Agrivale as another potential partner.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Alongside our discussions with Professor Martinez and Vicente, our interaction with Professor Mansur confirmed that greening should be a major focus for testing the AMP. Our literature review revealed a significant knowledge a gap regarding the behavior of Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) - pathogen causing Greening - in plant phloem, motivating us to model the pathogen's propagation within this tissue.

To complement this research, we followed up with Fundecitrus to gain further insights into Greening management and better understand the practical challenges faced by citrus farmers.

Why did we seek this contact?

Rafael Vasconcelos Ribeiro is an agronomist with a PhD in Agricultural Environmental Physics and a postdoctoral background at Wageningen University & Research and Aarhus University. He is a tenured associate professor at UNICAMP, advising in the Postgraduate Programs in Plant Biology, Bioenergy, and also collaborates with the Agronomic Institute of Campinas (IAC). An affiliated member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, he is active in multiple scientific societies related to plant physiology and bioenergy. His research focuses on plant-environment interactions, particularly photosynthesis and water relations in crops such as citrus and sugarcane. With extensive extensive expertise in citrus physiology and strong connections with research centers and stakeholders, he represents a strategic partner for ensuring the success of the Pepcitrus project.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

In a discussion on the citrus production chain, the main stages affected by phytopathogens were identified as pre- and post-harvest. Greening and green mold were highlighted as recurrent and significant challenges. Greening, in particular, is recognized as a global concern, and in Brazil, funding agencies such as FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation) are bringing together multidisciplinary groups to address it, underscoring the importance and impact of this disease.

The potential use of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) was considered promising, with interest from research centers and companies. The professor emphasized the importance of application methods, recommending testing both spraying and injection, depending on the AMP’s viability in the phloem.

Finally, he also suggested potential collaborators, including researcher Alessandra Alvez de Souza from IAC (Agronomic Institute), the IAC institutes in Bebedouro and Cordeirópolis, and private companies for possible partnerships.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

The conversation with Professor Rafael Vasconcelos Ribeiro was instrumental in refining the project's focus toward addressing citrus greening, an issue previously discussed with Professor Martinez. We understand that, in fact, this is the biggest current problem in citrus farming and that it would be much more relevant to focus on combating Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus than Xanthomonas citri, which causes citrus canker. He also gave us insights into testing AMP directly in the phloem. This contribution is important in the context of greening, since its pathogen (Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus) colonizes the phloem, impairing transport and causing severe damage to the plant. By emphasizing the relevance of this approach and sharing his expertise, Professor Rafael provided fundamental support for developing effective strategies to test our solution against this disease.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Based on this meeting, we decided to pivot our project's focus to combating citrus Greening rather than citrus canker, recognizing greening as the more pressing and impactful issue in citrus farming. Professor Ribeiro's insight into testing antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) directly in the phloem was particularly valuable, as the CLas pathogen colonizes only this area. This guidance was fundamental in developing effective application methods for our solution, involving an injection device. We also explored potential collaborations with researchers and institutes he recommended, such as Alessandra Alvez de Souza from Agronomic Institute (IAC).

Why did we seek this contact?

We sought this contact with Dr. Alessandra Alves de Souza and Dr. Helvécio Della Colleta Filho because of their research at the Sylvio Moreira Citrus Research Center (IAC) and their individual expertise in citrus biotechnology and plant pathology.

Our main objective was to deepen our understanding of peptide application strategies against greening, including comparisons with pep6, a peptide developed by Alessandra’s group that has shown promising results. We also wanted to explore possibilities for validating our peptide under both laboratory and field conditions, assess the feasibility of our delivery system, and strengthen collaborations that could lead to sponsorship opportunities.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed different strategies for peptide application, including pep6 as a reference point since it had already been formulated and tested by Alessandra’s team. The conversation covered validation methods against greening, the feasibility of needle-based delivery devices, testing our system in greening-positive plants, and detection through an e-nose. The hosts also showed us their laboratory and greenhouses with infected plants, offering support for collaborative testing. Key points included: MIC tests for our peptide (CTX) and evaluation of CTX on roots and via plant immersion.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

During the discussion, it became clear that developing efficient delivery systems - particularly through microneedles for phloem application - is a more promising strategy than spraying, which can result in environmental losses and negatively affect the plant microbiome. The possibility of combining antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) was also highlighted as a potentially effective approach; for instance, using CTX in conjunction with pep6 could help destabilize biofilms and enhance treatment efficacy.

Furthermore, the team recognized the importance of testing multiple application routes, such as root absorption, immersion, and branch injection, to identify the most viable method. The conversation also underscored the need for partnerships and sponsorships to enable further project development. In addition, the rapid detection of citrus greening disease was emphasized as a critical aspect, and the idea of developing a dedicated electronic nose (e-nose) hardware for early diagnosis received strong support.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

From this meeting, we established a partnership to conduct experiments and test our peptides’ efficiency in plants with and without greening. For delivery, we focused on the stem application due to phloem sap translocation. The importance of rapid disease detection prompted us to focus on e-nose hardware, and we prepared samples for training the e-nose in detecting compounds from infected plants

Why did we seek this contact?

Professor Dr. Taicia Pacheco Fill is a specialist in citrus pathogens, with research spanning infection mechanisms and disease management strategies, including postharvest diseases like green and blue mold. Her recent studies also address biochemical aspects and virulence factors of key citrus pathogens, such as those causing Greening. This expertise positions her as a strategic collaborator in developing our AMP against Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) (Greening pathogen). Her guidance enriched our experimental design and strengthened the connection of our project to practical needs in Brazilian citrus farming.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed the possibility of testing our AMP or conducting pathogenicity assays in the professor’s laboratory. In addition, we addressed the following points: the identification of additional contacts who could contribute to CLas testing; the potential impact of biologically synthesized AMP compared to its chemical production; the evaluation of AMP toxicity in oranges, suggestions to improve the efficiency of experimental assays; the availability of technical capacity and pathogens for testing in CLas, and post-harvest fungi (Penicillium digitatum – green mold, and Penicillium italicum – blue mold); and the feasibility of chemical analyses to verify the presence of AMP residues in oranges (both peel and juice). We also discussed the possibility of testing our AMP or conducting pathogenicity assays in the professor's laboratory.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

Professor Fill informed us about how diseases caused by post-harvest fungi in citrus can result in up to 50% losses in orange production, and how this is an underexplored problem in the market due to the lack of efficient fungicides available. Dr. Fill also suggested testing in 96-well plates to minimize the use of AMP, which would allow testing on post-harvest fungi and calculating the MIC (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration). Finally, the professor emphasized the importance of biological synthesis as a distinguishing factor, given that current AMPs are chemically synthesized.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Aware of the impacts of post-harvest fungi on citrus farming, we added green mold as a secondary target of our project, alongside Greening. In this talk, we also established a partnership with Dr. Fill’s laboratory, performing biochemical analyses to detect peptide MIC against citrus pathogens. Collaborations with Fundecitrus, including consultations with Beatriz and Franklin, supported assay validation.

Why did we seek this contact?

The meetings with Juan Martinez-Portilla, Conner Quinlan, and Jacob Gottieb were part of our effort to learn from the FSU-2019 iGEM team, which developed the FLOEMA platform, a system combining antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), an injector-catheter device, and a therapeutic management system to combat citrus Greening caused by Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus. Martinez-Portilla was a member of the Design Team, responsible for coordinating between the modeling and creation teams, and contributed key insights into hardware development and testing legislation. Conner Quinlan and Jacob Gottieb, on the other hand, were directly involved in designing the AMPs generators and developing the FLOEMA platform. We sought contact with them to understand both the technical aspects of AMPs production and delivery, and the practical realities of implementing such systems in the field, especially in Florida, one of the most affected regions by Greening.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Throughout both meetings, we focused on the processes followed for hardware testing, AMPs introduction into plants, and evaluation of the available hardware and expression systems. We discussed methods to ensure efficient peptide delivery into the phloem, alternative strategies for sustainable AMPs application, and the selection of expression vectors that guarantee higher yield and stability. The FSU team shared their experience using a cell-free system (PURExpress, NEB) for peptide synthesis, explaining its benefits for rapid and efficient production. They also detailed the operation of the injector-catheter device, its logistical challenges, such as mounting on vehicles, positioning next to trees, and dealing with complex injection routes, and the technical hurdles faced when testing the peptides against the Greening bacterium (Candidatus liberibacter asiaticus). We also discussed peptide selection criteria (mechanisms of action, molecular size, complexity, and stability), and how these influence both effectiveness and sustainability. Additionally, with Martinez-Portilla, we explored different AMPs expression systems and formats, ways to test their effectiveness within orange trees, and the potential use of fungal systems like Aspergillus oryzae as innovative chassis for AMPs production.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

The discussions provided valuable insights into both the technical and practical dimensions of developing AMP-based solutions for citrus Greening. We learned about the complexities of delivering AMPs into plant tissues, the scale of resources required for large-scale trials (including peptide quantities, positive markers, and relevant agronomic parameters), and the importance of optimizing injection and delivery systems. Juan Martinez-Portilla’s perspective helped confirm hypotheses on peptide injection and phloem targeting, offering additional guidance on hardware use and testing design. Conner and Jacob emphasized peptide stability and size, reinforcing how smaller, more stable molecules can increase efficiency and sustainability. Both meetings also strengthened our understanding that scientific and social dimensions must progress together, since the FSU team also worked closely with farmers to adapt their project to real-world agricultural contexts.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

The insights obtained from all three iGEMers directly influenced our project in several ways. We began analyzing our peptide (CTX) according to the FSU team’s selection criteria, focusing on size, stability, and mechanism of action to improve its efficacy and alignment with practical application needs. In addition, we explored direct injection systems for AMP delivery into the phloem, aiming to reduce soil contamination and maximize peptide performance. Following our discussion, we’re confident that our chosen host organisms for protein expression, specially A. oryzae, was a strong candidate. Finally, both meetings reinforced the importance of connecting laboratory work with stakeholder engagement, encouraging closer interaction with farmers and industry partners to ensure that our biotechnological solution is not only technically viable but also aligned with the realities of citrus farming. Overall, the combined discussions with Juan Martinez-Portilla, Conner Quinlan, and Jacob Gottieb offered a comprehensive view of the challenges and opportunities in AMP-based disease control, helping us refine our strategies for design, expression, delivery, and social integration within the Pepcitrus project.

Why did we seek this contact?

The team sought contact with Professor Dr. Vivian Irish due to her outstanding work in researching genetic mechanisms related to resistance to citrus Greening disease, particularly through gene editing in citrus plants. Irish is a professor at Yale University, United States of America with extensive experience in plant molecular biology and functional genetics. Her work includes in-depth studies on susceptibility genes and plant transformation strategies, providing a technically advanced perspective directly relevant to the challenges faced by the team. Additionally, the team considered it essential to gain insights from an experienced researcher outside of Brazil, broadening their understanding of how the disease is approached in other countries and how their proposal could fit into an international context, especially because the USA is one of the largest producers of oranges and is currently the most affected by Greening.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

The team sought to discuss several important topics with Professor Vivian Irish. We aimed to understand how the academic community in the United States of America, particularly at institutions like Yale, perceives the impacts and challenges of citrus Greening disease. We wanted to learn from Professor Irish about the most promising genetic strategies to increase resistance to Greening and, most importantly, to gather her feedback on our proposal involving the use of antimicrobial peptides. We also sought to understand the professor’s perspective on the critical aspects for validating and scaling innovative solutions like ours, ensuring that our approaches are scientifically aligned with international research trends in plant resistance. Professor Irish also shared a project aimed at “combating citrus Greening disease with CRISPR,” which involves mutating susceptibility genes identified through transcriptomic and proteomic data. Her team aims to use multiplex vectors to knock out multiple genes simultaneously, improve efficiency through heat stress, and conduct field trials after transformation and genotyping.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that the search for a cure for Greening is also intensely sought in the United States of America, due to its high production of oranges. In addition, we learned that applying antimicrobial peptides in citrus is a promising approach, but one that involves significant challenges: some peptides only work in specific citrus varieties or against certain pathogens, and they can even harm the plant. Furthermore, testing the effectiveness of these compounds is technically demanding. We also reflected on the potential of gene editing as a parallel strategy for combating Greening.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This conversation led us to deeply reflect on the level of sophistication required to validate biotechnological solutions in agriculture. We realized how important it is to consider the genetic diversity of host plants, even citrus varieties, the specificity of compound action, and the potential for unintended side effects. We also acknowledged the value of being open to integrated approaches, such as combining gene editing with the use of bioactive compounds, aiming to build truly sustainable solutions. Finally, we recognized the importance of international dialogue to expand our perspective and evaluate our project according to global scientific standards.

Why did we seek this contact?

We sought the collaboration of Dr. Sandra Furlan Nogueira, an agronomist and graduate in Agricultural Sciences from the University of São Paulo, with a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, and currently a researcher at Embrapa Environment. Her work focuses on soil science, geoprocessing, and remote sensing - areas essential for understanding the impact of changes in land use and land cover on the dynamics of carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrients. In parallel, we aim to deepen the connection of this research with sustainability and agriculture, aligning it with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meeting, we sought to clarify the impact of intensified use of fertilizers and hormones on the soil in the context of Greening management, to understand how sustainability could be integrated into agriculture and how this relationship was perceived in Brazil and worldwide. We also raised questions about the effects of agrochemicals on the soil and where to find reliable data on this topic, the impacts of fungicides on both soil and water in citrus crops, and whether there was specific monitoring of these effects. Finally, we inquired about the effects of systemic applications of those agrochemicals on the soil.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We reflected that the environmental impact of agriculture needs to be analyzed broadly, considering soil, water, and pollinators. Dr. Nogueira highlighted that climate change involves extreme events that favor agricultural diseases and that it is important to take into account the relief and geography of citrus-growing areas. We understood that sustainability must be integrated both in reducing damages (such as using fewer fungicides) and in adapting crops to new climatic conditions. We also recognized the need to seek technical support in areas such as agrometeorology and to better map the geographical distribution of citrus cultivation in Brazil.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We implemented what we learned from this conversation by incorporating into our project more in-depth analyses of the environmental impacts of agrochemicals and fertilizers.. We also investigated how extreme weather events influenced disease incidence, consulted climate change specialists to strengthen this analysis.

Why did we seek this contact?

Camille Perella is a nutritionist and journalist who holds a PhD in Food Science from the University of São Paulo (USP). She works as a researcher, focusing on public health and food science studies. We contacted her to investigate the role of citrus fruits in human nutrition and health, particularly exploring the use of citrus waste, such as orange pulp and peel, as sources of bioactive and antimicrobial compounds

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We discussed the nutritional potential of oranges and their by-products, such as pulp and peel, with a focus on bioactive compounds and possible synergies with the peptide studied. Benefits associated with carotenoids, phenolics and flavanones, such as hesperidin and narirutin, were highlighted, including anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects and blood pressure reduction. There was considerable individual variability in the results, related to the diversity of the gut microbiota, especially the presence of the bacterium Blautia. Data indicating the better performance of pasteurized juices, the importance of critically analyzing studies according to the profile of the evaluated groups, and the relevance of consistent indicators such as blood pressure, microbial diversity, and metabolic indices were also mentioned.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

We understand that bagasse and peels contain significant functional compounds. The benefits, including reduced blood pressure, increased microbiota diversity, and detectable effects in urine, are real but vary according to individual factors, such as microbiota, age, and dietary profile. We have observed that pasteurized juices tend to produce more consistent results than fresh fruit. There is still no consensus on which specific compounds generate the positive effects, which are likely the result of a combination of compounds. We also recognize the importance of critically reading scientific articles and considering the characteristics of the studied groups while avoiding generalizations.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This conversation provided us with a more robust theoretical basis for understanding the importance of citrus consumption in health and nutrition. However, we have not yet explored consumption data in Brazil and worldwide. Recognising the importance of this fruit, we seek to understand orange consumption in Brazil and around the world.

Why did we seek this contact?

Prof. Dr. Gabriela Alves Macedo is a tenured professor at the School of Food Engineering at UNICAMP, with experience in both academia and industry, including multinational companies such as Degussa (SKW) and Rhodia-Food. Our goal was to understand the potential of implementing a circular economy approach into our project, further studying the production of proteins and compounds through solid-state fermentation, using orange peel as biomass for filamentous fungi.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the conversation, several fundamental questions arose that we sought to explore. First, we aimed to understand the possibilities of using orange peel as biomass for Aspergillus oryzae, investigating which characteristics and methods would be most suitable. We also analyzed how the tools and methodologies available in Professor André Damasio’s laboratory (LEBIMO - Laboratory of Enzymology and Molecular Biology of Microorganisms) could be applied to this research. Additionally, we evaluated how the fractional precipitation of proteins and the presence of proteases could impact the hydration stage. Finally, we examined the main advantages and disadvantages of solid-state fermentation in this context, taking into account its scalability, the need for standardization of the waste, and its alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

From this conversation, we learned and reflected on several critical aspects of solid-state fermentation as a strategy for protein production, aiming to achieve a sustainable circular economy cycle in the long term. We identified that this process stands out due to its low cost, simplicity of application, and scalability, particularly when using second-generation orange peel as biomass and taking advantage of the robustness of Aspergillus oryzae. We understood the importance of specific characteristics of orange peel, including origin, granulation, and preparation, as well as the need to standardize the residue to ensure process consistency. We evaluated how fractional protein precipitation and the presence of proteases can impact the hydration stage and protein yield, and how proper control of these variables contributes to process optimization. We also reflected on the advantages of solid-state fermentation, such as industrial scalability, sustainability in the use of agro-industrial residues, extracellular product formation, and reduced requirements for temperature, pH, and water control, as well as its limitations, including its batch nature and the need to standardize residues from different sources. Finally, we considered the potential to explore other types of agro-industrial residues, such as rice, soy, and coffee by-products, and recognized the value of the professor’s support, who provided orange peel and detailed methodology, offering a solid foundation to deepen our understanding and plan future industrial applications.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

To implement this knowledge in the project, we studied in detail the stages and conditions of the solid-state fermentation process, conducting growth tests of Aspergillus oryzae using orange peel as biomass. We evaluated the industrial feasibility of the system, identifying possible adjustments and modifications needed to optimize protein yield and process efficiency. Additionally, we standardized the orange peel used, considering its granulation, origin, and preparation. This approach allowed us to adapt solid-state fermentation to the needs of the project, exploring its potential for scalability and sustainability in the use of agro-industrial residues.

Why did we seek this contact?

Dr. Adriana Cheavegatti Gianotto has extensive experience in plant genetics, tissue culture, plant genetic transformation, and GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) regulation. As the Regulatory Affairs Leader at the Sugarcane Technology Centre (CTC), she works directly at the intersection of research and legislation. Her expertise allowed us to better understand the regulatory challenges associated with biotechnology applications in citrus farming and the necessary steps to ensure our project complies with CTNBio regulations and the Biosafety Law, which are national and international biosafety protocols.

Her background in developing genetic transformation protocols for citrus and providing regulatory support for GMO research makes her perspective crucial for our Pepcitrus project. Our goal was to align our biotechnological strategies with legal requirements and assess the best ways to regulate our antimicrobial peptide in citrus farming, considering its classification and regulatory implications.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We intended to understand the regulatory classification of our antimicrobial peptide within the current legislation. Would it be categorized as a pesticide, bioinput, or biological product? Additionally, we sought to clarify whether there were specific guidelines for regulating antimicrobial peptides in agriculture or if this remains an undefined area in Brazil.

Another key point is understanding the main regulatory challenges for enabling the use of our AMP in citrus farming, including which regulatory bodies would be involved in the approval process. We also wanted to learn how regulations apply to the use of a genetically modified biological system for peptide production and what risk assessments would be required.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

This conversation brought relevant insights into the regulatory classification of our peptide. Dr. Adriana pointed out that, as a purified protein, the product is classified as a GMO derivative. In that way, it is only required approval from the Ministry of Agriculture and undergoing pesticide regulations from ANVISA, IBAMA, and MAPA. She also emphasized that there is new legislation on bioinputs that could offer an alternative viable path, but detailed regulations are still pending.
Another critical discussion point was public perception. The acceptance of a biotechnological product in agriculture is heavily influenced by its origin and the discourse used. Communication strategies must be well-structured to avoid resistance from the public and agricultural producers.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Based on our discussion, one of our first actions was to explore the new bioinput legislation and assess whether our peptide fits into this category. Additionally, we needed to establish strategies to ensure our product meets the safety and efficacy requirements mandated by MAPA, ANVISA, and IBAMA. To achieve this, we sought technical support for peptide characterization and validation. Another critical step is developing an effective communication strategy that clearly conveys the origin and benefits of our peptide without generating public resistance. How we present our solution could be decisive for its acceptance in the agricultural market.

Why did we seek this contact?

To ensure our project adheres to the highest standards of biosafety and responsible innovation, we sought guidance from Dr. Welbe Oliveira Bragança, the Biosafety Manager for the Institute of Biology at UNICAMP. His extensive experience with Brazilian regulations and the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) was essential for our Human Practices and Safety efforts. Our goal was to understand the correct regulatory pathway for developing an agricultural product derived from a genetically modified organism.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

Our discussion focused on the practical steps needed to take a laboratory to a commercial product in Brazil. We explored the necessary approval levels and clarified the crucial regulatory distinction between a product that is a GMO versus one that is simply produced by a GMO. Dr. Bragança provided a clear overview of the criteria used by regulatory bodies to evaluate the safety and containment protocols for facilities working with genetically modified organisms.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

The most critical insight was that our purified peptide product would not be regulated as a GMO, as it is free from the producing organism. Dr. Bragança clarified that the regulatory focus would instead be on the process. This means our primary responsibility is to certify that our laboratory and future production facilities can guarantee the complete containment of the GMO chassis, preventing any environmental release. This was a pivotal clarification that directly shaped our project's strategy.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Based on this guidance, we understand the importance of developing a rigorous, well-documented containment protocol for our GMOs to meet certification standards in the future. Concurrently, we refined our peptide purification process with an added objective: to prove through robust testing that our final product contains absolutely no residual GMOs or their genetic material. This ensures our project is developed with a clear and responsible path toward real-world application from its earliest stages.

Why did we seek this contact?

Natássia Ueno is counsel for the Life Sciences & Healthcare practice at Lefosse Advogados. With over 15 years of experience in Administrative and Regulatory Law, she works on regulatory matters and administrative litigation under the jurisdiction of ANVISA, MAPA, and other regulatory bodies in the health and agribusiness sectors. She also participates in public tenders and contracts at all levels of government, standing out in cases involving innovative public contracts. Additionally, she has contributed articles to Practical Law Life Sciences Brazil and the International Bar Association (IBA). With her expertise at the intersection of regulation, health, and agribusiness, Natássia serves as an important reference to guide us on the legal and regulatory framework applicable to our biotechnological solution in the Pepcitrus project.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meeting, we aimed to understand how our antimicrobial peptide might be classified under current legislation - whether as a bioinput or under pesticide regulation. Additionally, we sought clarification on the legal and regulatory aspects to be considered when working with biotechnological products intended for agriculture , especially with the implementation of the new legal framework for agricultural pesticides and bioinputs. We were also interested in how Brazilian legislation aligns with international norms, considering that our project may have implications for foreign markets. Finally, we asked for recommendations on specialists or regulatory agencies we could contact to deepen our understanding of the regulatory aspects applicable to the project.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

Natassia explained that she works in three main areas: regulation of products subject to ANVISA (such as medicines and cosmetics), medical services, and agribusiness regulation, with a focus on bioinputs, animal feed, pet products, and pesticides. She emphasized that the agricultural sector is highly specialized and heavily regulated, and that Brazil stands out internationally as a leader in the regulation of bioinputs. An important point raised was the symbolic and political weight of the terms “pesticide” and “bioinput.” The use of bioinputs has been associated with more sustainable and environmentally friendly practices, and the new legislation seeks to legally separate biologically based products from chemically based ones - a distinction that previously did not exist. Despite progress, there are still many gaps in regulation, and MAPA is in the process of defining complementary rules.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We had thoroughly studied the new legal framework for bioinputs and agricultural pesticides to identify where our product fit. We had paid close attention to the technical and legal requirements related to classifying the peptide as a biological product or not, and had prepared clear technical and legal arguments for communication with regulatory agencies. Additionally, we had considered public perception, aiming for communication strategies that associated our solution with sustainability and innovation. Being aligned with international expectations had also been essential, as Brazil held a prominent position in the export of food and agricultural inputs.

Why did we seek this contact?

After our first conversation, in which we discussed the overall landscape of bioinput regulation and the potential classification of our antimicrobial peptide (AMP), we identified the need to further explore the operational and strategic paths for registering the product - especially considering the transitional nature and the lack of detailed regulations in the current scenario. In this second meeting, we aimed to refine our understanding of possible legal classifications, explore which documents and procedures would be required, and anticipate how our product might be evaluated and approved in both national and international contexts. This conversation is crucial for defining the next steps in aligning the project with regulatory requirements, identifying legal risks, and adjusting our innovation and communication strategies.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

At the meeting, the main focus was to discuss regulatory strategies to classify the AMP as a bioinput, even in the absence of fully defined regulations. Additional points addressed included the possibility of a provisional classification and the legal basis to support it, whether the compound could still be considered a bioinput despite being synthetically produced by mimicking a natural molecule, the opportunity to engage in dialogue with MAPA or other agencies to obtain preliminary opinions, ways to frame the narrative regarding the peptide’s origin to favor its acceptance by regulators and the general public, relevant international laws and treaties in case of future export, and the strategy of seeking consulting services or partnerships with companies already working on bioinput registrations.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

The conversation made it clear that the definition of bioinput depends not only on the biological origin of the product but also on its purpose and the active ingredient. Even a synthetic product, if mimicking a natural compound, can be classified as a bioinput, just like our peptide project CTX, which highlights the importance of clearly defining the active ingredient of the peptide. Furthermore, we learned that while Brazilian legislation for bioinputs is evolving, it aims to streamline the registration process for biological products, with a technical focus on environmental impact and human health. However, bioinput registration is still not fully regulated and will likely be less stringent than for agrochemicals.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We had structured a clear narrative about the origin and function of our peptide to facilitate its acceptance by both regulators and the public. We had engaged in dialogue with regulatory bodies to better understand the requirements and begin the product evaluation process. We had also assessed the possibility of seeking specialized consulting and investigated the international landscape regarding future product export. Collecting information about bioinput regulations, both in Brazil and in other advanced countries, had been essential to ensure our product aligned with the ever-changing regulations.

Why did we seek this contact?

We eagerly anticipated the opportunity to engage with Biolinker, recognizing their significant position and influence within the peptides industry and we were aiming to confirm some hypothesis that we had and understand other challenges we would face during the project.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

At the discussion, we addressed potential improvements to the experimental design, the identification of the most effective vector construction strategy, and the feasibility of implementing cell-free protein expression systems within the project. Additional points included the exploration of alternative methods for peptide purification and the mapping of new stakeholders who could provide valuable support or collaboration opportunities.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

They suggested some options for the possible cell free construction, adding GFP to the vector. This would allow us to have a better visualization of the process and how it was going, they offered us the possibility of visiting their facilities and running some experiments there, and they talked about the validation of protein expression.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We have added GFP to our plasmid CTX vector, to have a better visualization of the process . We had also accepted their help on designing the experiment, and this meeting had opened our eyes to other options in different aspects of our project that we could explore in the future.

Why did we seek this contact?

Emerge Brasil is a consulting firm specialized in science-based innovation, known as deep tech, which has been operating since 2017 with the purpose of transforming scientific research into market-ready solutions in Brazil. The company offers a range of services targeted at companies, universities, and scientists, aiming to integrate advanced technologies and promote innovation in the country. Therefore, it is highly relevant to us as we seek to better understand the process of turning our research into a product for the agricultural sector.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We intended to use this opportunity to discuss how academic research can be transformed into industrial solutions, to understand the main pains and challenges faced by companies adopting deep techs in Brazil, and to learn whether Emerge has already mapped sectors with high demand for innovative solutions in the bioinputs field. We also aimed to address the regulatory obstacles that hinder the scaling of biotechnological solutions in the country, in addition to learning how to evaluate the feasibility of the technology we are developing. Another key point was to explore business models analysis that could be relevant for our project, taking into account the long-term impact of implementing our solution and strategies to mitigate those risks. Finally, we wanted to discuss how innovation in deep tech can relate to sustainability and how we can align our efforts with this aspect.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

The conversation with Douglas from EMERGE provided us with a clear view of the necessary path to turn scientific research into a market solution, especially in the field of bioinputs. A key highlight was the emphasis that "having good technology is not enough; you need to know how to narrate its value to the market," reinforcing the importance of early consideration of business models, technical feasibility, and regulatory impact.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

As a practical outcome, we had enrolled in the course offered by EMERGE to gain essential knowledge in scientific innovation and entrepreneurship, and subsequently requested mentorship to help us build our business case. However, before that, we had to contact INOVA to align this partnership and ensure institutional support. We had also registered on the Converge platform and monitored opportunities such as past and upcoming webinars and open calls, while exploring potential support from laboratory supply.

Why did we seek this contact?

To ensure the success of our greening detection hardware, we sought expert supervision for the design and manufacturing of the circuit board. We contacted Luiz, whose extensive background made him the ideal mentor for this challenge. Holding a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Unicamp with a specialization in Microelectronics, his research interests directly align with our project's needs, including sensor electronic circuits, microcontroller systems, and smart devices. With this high level of technical expertise and experience in the field, he was willing to help us navigate the complexities of our hardware development, providing crucial guidance throughout the decision-making process.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meetings, we covered several technical topics, including guidance on SMD soldering, access to essential materials, and detailed circuit design considerations. Key points included the implementation of an RC circuit, selecting appropriate resistor values, placing the sensing element in parallel rather than in series with the ADC, and using RMS values instead of raw amplitude to improve machine learning performance. We also discussed best practices for PCB layout, such as avoiding 90° angles in traces, minimizing critical path lengths to reduce noise, creating a proper ground plane, and choosing a more reliable voltage regulator. Additionally, we reviewed strategies for troubleshooting, debugging, and systematically verifying the entire circuit before manufacturing.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

We learned the importance of precise circuit design choices and how small layout details can significantly impact noise reduction and overall system stability. The meeting also highlighted how using RMS measurements rather than peak amplitude can provide more reliable input for data analysis and machine learning models. Moreover, we gained a better understanding of systematic troubleshooting techniques and the value of reviewing every design decision to ensure long-term reliability before sending a board for fabrication.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

The insights were applied by integrating the suggested RC circuit design, adjusting the resistor values accordingly, and configuring the sensing element in parallel with the ADC as recommended. Data acquisition relied on RMS values to ensure cleaner and more consistent inputs for machine learning. In the PCB design phase, best practices were followed - avoiding sharp trace angles, keeping sensitive paths short, implementing a robust ground plane, and using the improved voltage regulator provided. Finally, systematic debugging and thorough board reviews were incorporated to detect and correct issues before production, resulting in a more reliable and optimized circuit for the project.

Why did we seek this contact?

The impetus for this contact derived from the desire to engage directly with a stakeholder who is dedicated to innovation, with the objective of ascertaining the applicability of our concepts and acquiring validation for the measures we were implementing. The presence of an innovation agency situated within UNICAMP offered the prospect of acquiring valuable insights into the prevailing local context.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

The subjects addressed during the meeting encompassed the alignment of our project with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goals 8 and 9, in addition to matters pertaining to the intellectual property rights of the hardware developed within the project and the utilisation of economic analyses for evaluating the tangible impact. Furthermore, we were provided with several recommendations concerning the presentation.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

In the course of this meeting, the significance of providing robust evidence and data to underpin our initiatives was emphasised, particularly with regard to the economic impact. This enables the demonstration of the relevance and benefits that the project brings to the environment and society.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

The analyses conducted by the entrepreneurship team facilitated the measurement of economic impact through the utilisation of concrete data. Concurrently, the partnership with EMERGE, an innovation agency, was maintained. EMERGE had requested that we liaise with Inova to circumvent any potential conflicts of interest, given their status as partner companies.

Why did we seek this contact?

We contacted SENAI because they are a leading technology development hub in Brazil, in addition to having a range of professionals with high expertise in topics of interest to us, such as greening detection devices and a line of research that is very much in line with our project.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meeting, they gave a presentation on the research they are conducting, which is also focused on detecting greening. They really liked our project and encouraged the possibility of collaboration and future contact with them. In addition, we presented our idea to them in search of things we could improve in the hardware design.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

This meeting gave us more confidence to continue with our idea for detection hardware, given that an institution as large as SENAI is investing millions of reais to develop technology similar to what we are working on.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Through what was discussed, we were able to understand the true relevance of what we are building, and this motivates us to continue executing the project even more.

Why did we seek this contact?

We sought support from GFNMN (Nanosystems and Nanostructured Materials Physics Group) because we needed technical support, materials, and a physical space to conduct the construction and testing of the hardware, especially the detection hardware, and they had all the necessary resources to assist us.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

GFNMN played a crucial role in overseeing the complete hardware manufacturing procedure. This involved actively contributing guidance and expertise to optimize the hardware manufacturing process. GFNMN was also responsible for the supply of specific materials vital for the construction of the electronic nose component. Further, they furnished the necessary soldering materials essential for assembling the circuit board. GFNMN extended their support by offering technical guidance pertaining to the proper handling of nanomaterials. They also provided technical assistance concerning the execution of high-precision measurements, ensuring accuracy and reliability throughout the manufacturing endeavor.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

Through the group, we gained exposure to nanofabrication methods for our custom sensor, as well as technical guidance on the design of both the circuit and the needles. We were provided with inputs for the 3D manufacturing of the needles, as well as access to articles and experts in a wide range of areas involved in hardware.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

With the knowledge we gained, we optimised the project, cutting down on planning time through more direct methods. We were able to make better assessments, for example, in evaluating what type of microneedle we would use and also regarding the methodologies we would use in relation to the use of the e-nose.

Why did we seek this contact?

Seeking to improve the manufacturing of our e-nose, we contacted Embarcações, an extension group from Unicamp's Institute of Computing (IC) dedicated to the study and development of embedded systems. As the group is primarily composed of students with extensive knowledge in electronics, we sought their collaboration to gain insights on how we could optimize our manufacturing processes, making them more efficient and lower-cost, and also on how we could improve the circuit in general.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

In the course of the dialogues, a brainstorming session was conducted with a view to establishing a comprehensive methodology for the fabrication of the circuit board. In addition, a series of tests were conducted on the purchased components with the objective of formulating strategies for the reduction of noise in commercial sensors. Furthermore, signal tests were carried out with the e-tongue and the circuit function generator.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

Through this contact, we were able to improve our skills in areas that proved to be very necessary throughout the project, such as using an oscilloscope, improving the use of tracks in the circuit, and dealing with ESP32 and embedded systems in general.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

With Embarcações Unicamp we were able to take our theoretical knowledge and apply it in practice to the construction of the circuit, optimising the use of materials and saving money in the creative process.

Why did we seek this contact?

When correspondence was initiated with Takasago, the objective was to obtain confirmation of the parameters that had been selected for the project's microfluidics. This included considerations such as pressure and airflow. Additionally, the potential for unconsidered variables was explored, which might have emerged during the phase of hardware planning. Furthermore, we were interested in exploring the possibility of a partnership, encompassing the exchange of materials and the application of technical expertise.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

During the meeting, we raised questions regarding the rationale behind the selected parameters and emphasized the need to justify the inclusion of a micropump, both in the e-nose system and in the delivery hardware. Additionally, toward the end of the discussion, the possibility of establishing a partnership was explored as a potential avenue for advancing the project.

What have we learned/reflected on from this conversation?

Following our discussions and careful review of the project parameters, we arrived at a consensus regarding the critical aspects of air flow and pressure. Our analysis indicated that the air flow levels were appropriately calibrated and performing as expected. Furthermore, we confirmed that the pressure readings and operational pressure parameters were also within the specified and acceptable range for the electronic nose system. Consequently, based on these validated parameters and their impact on the system's performance, we subsequently decided to re-evaluate the necessity of incorporating the micropump technology specifically for the microneedle component of the project. We concluded that it would be prudent to thoroughly examine alternative approaches and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing the micropump, as it might not be essential for achieving the desired functionality of the microneedles.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

Based on the conclusions drawn from the meeting, we will continue with the planning and construction of the e-nose microfluidic system and also seek further opinions, feedback, and academic literature regarding the use of a micropump for the delivery hardware.

Why did we seek this contact?

We reached out to the Unicamp Marketing League, a student organization linked to the Faculty of Applied Sciences (FCA) in Limeira, São Paulo, which promotes creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit among students, to support us in defining the visual identity of our project. We also sought guidance on creating a sponsorship plan to present to potential partner companies, communication strategies to attract supporters, and the development of promotional materials, such as team t-shirts. This partnership allowed us to learn best practices in marketing and academic project dissemination, strengthening our online presence and making our project more appealing and professional to both the public and potential sponsors.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

The topics discussed during the meeting included the importance of choosing colors that reflected the message we wanted to communicate with the project. In this regard, orange was chosen as the base color for conveying energy, enthusiasm, and innovation, as well as referencing the fruit itself, while green was incorporated to represent sustainability, nature, and agriculture, reinforcing the theme of sustainable agricultural solutions in the project. We also discussed the need to maintain a regular posting schedule on Instagram to increase project visibility and better reach the target audience, with the suggestion of posting twice a week using our wiki’s visual identity on the platform. Regarding the team t-shirts, it was suggested to use the team colors in some details while prioritizing neutral colors for the majority of the piece. Concerning sponsors, it was important to collaboratively structure several topics and strategies for the sponsorship plan, including possible support values and modalities, as well as receiving suggestions for potential companies to contact.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We reflected that effective project communication relies heavily on the careful choice of both verbal and nonverbal language for each facet and target audience. We learned that verbal language must be precise and adapted to the knowledge and interests of the audience, in order to convey scientific concepts in a clear and understandable way, highlighting the project’s benefits, impacts, and relevance. On the other hand,nonverbal language — including colors, typography, post design, images, and symbols — is essential to reinforce the message, generate audience identification, and create a cohesive visual identity. We realized that the consistent integration of verbal and nonverbal elements enhances communication efficiency, increases engagement, facilitates the understanding of complex topics, and strengthens the perception of professionalism, credibility, and the project’s impact among different audiences, such as sponsors, partners, and social media followers.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We implemented the suggestions from this meeting across the entire project, from the wiki to Instagram and the support materials used in events. We created a striking visual identity, applying colors, typography, and design elements consistently to reinforce our message. The guidelines also influenced how we communicate verbally with different audiences. As a result, all materials now reflect a unified and professional approach, increasing the project’s impact both on digital platforms and during in-person activities.

Why did we seek this contact?

We contacted Professor Alessandro Farias to foster a culture of synthetic biology at UNICAMP and expand the presence of academic organizations within the Institute of Biology, such as leagues, clubs, and competitions. Prof. Farias is an Associate Director of the Institute of Biology at UNICAMP and a professor in the DGEMI (Department of Genetics, Evolution, Microbiology, and Immunology), and was aiming to help us with the creation and consolidation of the Synthetic Biology League, aligned with the objectives of creating a culture for new generations of iGEM teams. Besides this purpose, the league gave support to the IGEM team as a platform of education, attracting people interested in synthetic biology, developing projects, and promoting the iGEM initiative within the university.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

In the meeting, we discussed the creation and operation of the synthetic biology league, which will primarily focus on iGEM but will also provide benefits to the Institute of Biology (IB). The goal is to foster an iGEM culture at UNICAMP and strengthen the presence of academic organizations within the IB. A member of iGEM should hold the presidency, while other participants may develop synthetic biology projects without direct affiliation to the team. Suggested responsibilities from the IB include producing newsletters about the league’s activities, supporting sponsorship acquisition, and creating a base statute that can serve as a model for future leagues, as well as promoting the league to attract participants. League activities may account for elective credits, and projects with community impact can be classified as extension activities, facilitating access to funding and logistical support. Both of those supports can be requested through the Pró-Reitoria de Extensão e Cultura (ProEEC), with the assistance of a faculty member to submit them. The statute should also allow the participation of graduate students and students from other courses, without this being an obstacle to member integration.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that it is important to present the league as an independent project from iGEM, while maintaining complementary objectives, to engage a broader audience. We observed that participation in leagues represents a valuable addition to students’ resumes, especially abroad, making it worthwhile to invest in this culture. We identified that PROEC is a key channel for obtaining financial and logistical support, but it requires prior planning. We also recognized that the IB values transparency and continuity in initiatives, reinforcing the need to produce reports and outreach materials. We found that the involvement of students from different courses and academic levels, including undergraduate and graduate students, is feasible as long as it is formalized in the statute. Finally, the IB’s support in the initial promotion of the league was recognized as an important factor for ensuring participation and engagement in the project.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

In 2025, our iGEM team created the Synthetic Biology League, the first league in the Institute of Biology. We aimed to democratize access to synthetic biology and develop skills in science communication and outreach. Recognized by the Institute of Biology, the league organizes workshops, discussion circles, and content production, while supporting the training of future iGEM members. It maintains strategic partnerships, such as with the Brazilian Association of Synthetic Biology (SynBio Brasil), and promotes hands-on experiences, leadership development, and interpersonal skills. Annually, it holds a selection process for students from different courses and academic levels, establishing itself as a hub for scientific innovation and social engagement.

Why did we seek this contact?

Descascando a Ciência is an initiative affiliated with Unicamp that simplifies and disseminates scientific knowledge in an accessible manner, focusing on areas such as agriculture and biotechnology. Their activities include producing articles, videos, and podcasts, such as a special episode celebrating the 137th anniversary of the Agronomic Institute (IAC), where they discussed technological innovations and sustainability in Brazilian agriculture. Their podcast often addresses relevant topics, such as the impact of science on everyday life and technological advances applied to agriculture. A partnership with this initiative was considered to be strategic for our iGEM project, particularly in the Human Practices component. They could assist in communicating the impact of our project: antimicrobial peptides developed against citrus pathogens, translating its scientific relevance and practical application for a broader audience. Furthermore, participating in a podcast or blog post would increase the project's visibility, fostering discussions on innovation and sustainable pest management.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

The Pepcitrus project seeks to highlight the impact of using antimicrobial peptides as an innovative and sustainable alternative for controlling HLB, green mold and sour rot - critical challenges in Brazilian agriculture. Synthetic biology, proposed as a replacement for traditional methods such as the use of copper and agrochemicals, presents itself as an efficient and environmentally responsible solution. This approach reflects the potential of scientific advancements to improve food security, protect the environment, and increase agricultural productivity, aligning biotechnology and sustainability to reduce agriculture's environmental impact. The project also exemplifies the interdisciplinarity of science, connecting fields such as exact, biological, and human sciences to address global challenges. Finally, by promoting the values and objectives of the iGEM competition, its relevance as an innovation platform for Brazilian science and its contribution to developing solutions that integrate technology and social impact are reinforced.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned the importance of aligning the scientific impact of the project with effective and accessible communication, targeting different audiences such as farmers and consumers. We reflected on how science outreach initiatives can serve as a bridge between research and society, demystifying science and highlighting its potential impact. We also identified the need to create communication materials tailored to the target audience, such as brochures and educational campaigns, using tools like the Communication Canvas to plan efficient strategies. Finally, we recognized the value of integrating technical and scientific knowledge with marketing strategies, enabling a more comprehensive and effective approach to information dissemination.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

We implemented what we learned by creating communication materials tailored to our target audiences, especially on our social media, which clearly explained the benefits of the antimicrobial peptide and its impact on citrus farming. We used tools like the Communication Canvas to plan effective strategies that brought the project closer to the reality of farmers, consumers, and others involved in the citrus production chain. Additionally, we strengthened our partnership with Descascando a Ciência, leading to the realization of the scientific outreach Workshop and leveraging their expertise in science communication and marketing to expand the project’s visibility and reach. This collaboration also provided us with access to technical knowledge about citrus farming and allowed us to participate in training that improved our science communication skills, ensuring that the impact of the project was understood and valued by society.

Why did we seek this contact?

We reached out to the iGEM Montpellier 2018 team because their work with antimicrobial peptides caught our attention. They took a completely unconventional and innovative approach, proposing the use of genetically modified microorganisms as a contraceptive method. The idea was fascinating: developing strains capable of producing molecules with spermicidal activity while also providing antimicrobial protection to prevent infections. Although their focus was in a different field than ours, we were genuinely curious to understand the challenges they faced, the lessons they learned, and how they navigated the intersection between health and antimicrobial peptide action. Beyond that, we were deeply impressed by how they addressed a taboo topic in a creative and authentic way. Their ability to connect society to this issue through art and science communication was inspiring and reinforced the impact that science can have when communicated with sensitivity and innovation.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We gained a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind the team’s choices and the challenges they faced, especially regarding the safety of antimicrobial peptides. We were particularly interested in learning about the difficulties of engineering microorganisms to produce these compounds and how they overcame these barriers. Additionally, we were curious about the team’s science outreach and education initiatives. Their topic carried social stigmas, and the way they used art and genuine communication to engage the public impressed us. Some key questions we explored included: what it was like working with the selected antimicrobial peptides; what strategies were adopted to deal with the toxicity of AMPs to the host microorganism itself; what the main challenges were and how they were solved; and what the experience of presenting the project to society was like, including the type of feedback they received.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

The conversation with the two former iGEM participants was extremely enriching, especially regarding the challenges they faced while developing their project. According to them, microorganism engineering and health-related safety testing were particularly difficult stages, as they required years of research and extensive testing to ensure the feasibility of the proposal. On the other hand, one of the greatest strengths of their project was its innovative approach to public engagement. The team successfully raised awareness about contraception and vaginal health in an accessible and impactful way, hosting artistic events and even creating a comic book to share information in an engaging manner. Their project was highly challenging and socially relevant, not only because of its scientific potential but also due to the social impact it generated. Through their awareness initiatives, they brought essential discussions to the forefront, leaving a meaningful and creative mark on society.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

This experience reinforced the importance of establishing a genuine connection with society and showed us that there were various ways to create meaningful dialogues between the public and our project. We realized that, when carrying out Human Practices activities, we needed to adopt a creative approach, ensuring active participation not only from our team but also from the public. More than just sharing information, we sought to challenge people to think outside the box and question pre-established concepts, fostering a more open mindset and creating space for genuine reflection. In the context of our project, the way people perceived topics such as agriculture, agribusiness, citrus farming, sustainability, and climate change was crucial, and we approached these subjects in an accessible and thought-provoking manner, encouraging the public to rethink their perspectives and actively engage in these discussions.

Why did we seek this contact?

Cadê a feira? is a project that originated from an extension activity from UNICAMP’s Social Sciences course, valuing family farming and direct contact between producers and consumers. As an iGEM team proposing the use of antimicrobial peptides to combat diseases affecting citrus crops, we aimed to discuss the relevance of >responsible agricultural practices that ensure healthier and safer foods, while raising awareness about the origin and quality of the products consumed.

What topics did we discuss during this meeting?

We reached Cadê a Feira? out to better understand how this initiative started, learn about their strategies for engaging with vendors and farmers, and receive suggestions to improve this communication, as well as to present our project, focused on Brazilian citrus farming and the use of antimicrobial peptides to combat citrus diseases, discuss possible forms of collaboration, and explore the possibility of organizing a knowledge-sharing workshop with farmers and the community to promote experience exchange and community strengthening.

What did we learn/reflect on from this meeting?

We learned that this student’s initiative emerged from personal interests, academic work, and exposure to the topic of family farming. Initially focused on promoting organic markets, they expanded to include all types of markets due to the scarcity of organic options in the region. The project is rooted in the idea of university extension, fostering dialogue and reciprocal knowledge sharing between the university and society. This conversation highlighted the importance of having a thoughtful and structured methodology when approaching farmers and vendors - creating an intimate and engaging dialogue that encourages meaningful communication. As Cadê a Feira? has a background in the Social Sciences, its team has a different set of soft skills when compared to those of us from the Natural Sciences. This contrast was invaluable to design and execute events involving the community.

How did we implement what we learned from this meeting in our project?

With the support of the Cadê a Feira? team, we were able to plan and organize community-oriented events in a more structured way. This collaboration opened our minds to the importance of bringing our project closer to the public, seeking direct feedback from society, and engaging participants interactively, for example, through the use of our mascot, team colors, and playful materials that made the presentation more accessible and appealing. We were able to discuss the relevance of synthetic biology as a resource for sustainable development in Brazil, highlighting reflections on local production and family farming. Additionally, we had the opportunity to listen to orange consumers and small-scale farmers, understanding their perceptions and concerns, which allowed us to refine our project in a way that is more realistic and connected to the realities of both the field and society. This experience reinforced the importance of considering the social and economic impacts of applied science and inspired us to create meaningful knowledge exchanges that strengthen both our project and the appreciation of family farming and local production.