Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

iGEM 2.0—refoundations for engineering biology

Nature Biotechnology volume 32, pages 420–424 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

To the Editor

The international Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) student competition is both a workbench and a showcase for synthetic biology. The competition is based on a simple idea: synthetic biology engineering principles of standardization, abstraction and modularity can be applied to biotech to make engineering new functions in life systems less intimidating, more accessible and more predictable. This year, iGEM will have been running for a decade, and the organization will celebrate the event with a 'giant jamboree' involving as many as 300 teams. The competition has reached a peak in terms of media impact (with a considerable number of Internet searches and a clear seasonal search pattern fitting the competition calendar (http://www.google.es/trends/explore#q=igem, accessed 17 December 2013), attendance and expectations. As former participants in iGEM (C.V. was a student attendee for three years and M.P. was a team supervisor and judge for six years), we have conducted an analysis of iGEM projects presented over the past 10 years. Our analysis reveals several challenges that the competition must face if it is to remain a flagship of synthetic biology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: iGEM attendee analysis.
Figure 2: iGEM and the Registry of Standard Biological Parts.

References

  1. Endy, D. Nature 438, 449–453 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Goodman, C. Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 13 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Guan, Z. et al. Bioscience 63, 25–34 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Campos, L. Biosocieties 7, 115–139 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Materi, W. Methods Mol. Biol. 852, 251–272 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kwok, R. Nature 463, 288–290 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Porcar, M. & Peretó, J. Syst. Synth. Biol. 6, 79–83 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gaj, T., Gersbach, C.A. & Barbas, C.F. Trends Biotechnol. 31, 397–405 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carlson, R.H. Biology Is Technology (Harvard University Press, 2010).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Calvert, J. Biosocieties 7, 169–187 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sander, C. et al. BMC Syst. Biol. 1, S9 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lou, C. et al. Mol. Syst. Biol. 6, 350 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Majerle, A., Pristovsek, P., Mancek-Keber, M. & Jerala, R. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 26228–26237 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bashor, C.J., Helman, N.C., Yan, S. & Lim, W.A. Science 319, 1539–1543 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhan, J. et al. Mol. Syst. Biol. 6, 388 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mori, J. et al. Vaccine 30, 5856–5863 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Reis, Y. et al. European Patent Application EP2311961 (2009).

  18. Vilanova, C. et al. J. Biotechnol. 152, 93–95 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Conrado, R.J. et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 1879–1889 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gordon, S.R. et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 20513–20520 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to A. Delgado, V. de Lorenzo and J. Peretó for the critical reading of this manuscript. We are very grateful to anonymously interviewed editors of the top-ranked biotechnology and applied microbiology journals who kindly gave us their opinion on synthetic biology and iGEM. We are indebted to Càtedra de Divulgació de la Ciència (UCC+i) and VLC/Campus—Valencia International Campus of Excellence (Universitat de València) for their enthusiastic support. C.V. was funded with a FPU (Formación de Personal Universitario) grant from the Spanish MECD (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte). This work was partially funded by the European Project ST-FLOW (FP7-KBBE-2011-5).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology (Universitat de València), Valencia, Spain

    Cristina Vilanova & Manuel Porcar

  2. Fundació General de la Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain

    Manuel Porcar

Authors
  1. Cristina Vilanova
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuel Porcar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Porcar.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vilanova, C., Porcar, M. iGEM 2.0—refoundations for engineering biology. Nat Biotechnol 32, 420–424 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2899

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2899

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing