Category Archives: Project

Ethics GRANTED! …but one more approval to go…

We have approval to move forward with the key aims of the project. This is great news as it means I can start working with own cells. I am still a bit precious as there are limited vials, so I will do a couple of weeks of training on HBVPs before I move on to my own cells.

While we can get started on the fibroid cell culture, Brad realised that cell immortalisation will require further Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) approval. This is because the process will require the uses of lentiviral vectors. As such, it is considered Notifiable Low Risk Dealing (NLRD) and the committee will need to ensure that we have the appropriate facilities and training in place to move forward.  iPSC cell reprogramming is exempt, but we still need to let the IBC know what we are doing.

The application is due tomorrow, so we had a meeting this morning to go over the protocols and identify the particular kits we are going to use. There are a range of biomedical research supply companies, but the important thing is to make sure that we use an organisation that has an Australian supplier.  hTERT and SV40 T Antigen kits are the best options for our project as they are suitable for a range of  cell types including fibroblasts.  Fischer Scientific have Alstem Immortalisation Kits available, but ABM may also be a good option. They also have a good overview of Cell Immortalisation Protocols for anyone interested in the process.

For iPSC reprogramming, we are going to use the Epi5™ Episomal iPSC Reprogramming Kit by Thermo Fischer. Another group has used this product previously – so we can get tips on how to get the best results.  Lovely Jo-Maree is looking into the best purchasing options. With lead time for purchase and delivery, the products will likely arrive around the same time as final approval.

Cell Immortalisation Products

In preparation for meeting with Brad and Jo-Maree, I compiled a list of cell immortalisation products. Many of the companies listed are US, so this may impact on availability.

CELL IMMORTALIZATION KITS:

  • ALSTEMBIO: SV40 T Antigen Cell Immortalization Kit 

GENTARGET: SV40 Large T antigen  

GENECOPEIA: Cell Immortalization Reagents 

FISCHER SCIENTIFIC: Alstembio 

CAPITAL BIOSCIENCES: Lentiviruses for Cell immortalisation 

ABM: Cell Immortalisation 

BIOCAT 

CREATIVE BIOARRAY 

Exhibition Planned for June 2022: Preliminary Creative Work Ideas

I am excited to more formally announce that I have an exhibition scheduled for June/July 2022 at The Barracks Gallery in New Norfolk, run by Derwent Valley Arts. This is a great opportunity to show preliminary outcomes from the Synapse residency. A deadline also always gets me moving creatively. Due to the heritage location,  I am not anticipating showing living works, but rather fixed cells as part of sculptural works and other mixed media works and prototypes.

While final creative works will of course be refined in response to laboratory outcomes and collaborator input, these are some preliminary ideas:

  • Tumour Babies: A series of six media-media wall panels integrating my DNA and stained and fixed cells grown in glass vessels.
  • Revelations: A series of six mixed media dome works incorporating fixed cells seeded into 3D biofabricated scaffold structures.
  • More-than-human: A large-scale sonic and LED chandelier integrating 3D printed resin components based on cells, microorganisms, protein and DNA structures
  • Visible/Invisible: A series of three UV activated paintings and laser engraved light panels
  • Self-portrait #4: Imminent unfoldings: An outdoor sculpture designed to transform in response to the environment.
  • Becoming (M)other: Sculptural video installation integrating time-lapse light and fluorescence microscope images of cell growth and transformation.
  • Legal Mandalas: A series of laser engraved mandalas incorporating text from relevant legal and governance frameworks related to biomaterials use and patenting in Australia over the past decade.

 

iPSC Protocols

We are still waiting for formal ethical clearance to undertake work using my fibroid (fibroblast) cells. In the interim, Brad sent through a Nature protocol detailing options for producing iPSCs from human keratinocytes derived from plucked hair follicles or skin biopsies. I have isolated keratinocytes from hair follicles before at QUT when I was part of the Tissue Repair and Regeneration Group for  the HSE (Human Skin Equivalent/Experience Project).  It was quite a mission as keratinocytes require a feeder layer of fibroblast cells. These needed to be irradiated to ensure that they did not outgrow the keratinocytes 🙁

Since we are only doing a skin biopsy if the fibroid cells are not viable, I am parking this option and scouting for protocols that are fibroblast specific. With that in mind, the company Sigma-Aldrich has specified an iPSC reprogramming protocol – Reprogramming of Human Fibroblasts using Non-Integrating Self-Replicating RNA Vectors – designed for fibroblasts and with a 30-day creation estimate. Of course, you always have to double or triple timeframes when you are undertaking a protocol for the first time. Of course, I will need to discuss this option with Brad and seek a pricing and availability estimate.

Fisher Scientific also has a reprogramming kit – the CytoTune-iPS Sendai Reprogramming kit. However, the latest version and full kit carries a hefty price tag at over $18, 500. They also offer a potentially more affordable option via ‘Episomal Vectors’ or Epi5™ Episomal iPSC Reprogramming Kit. These could be an option but Brad is of course the best advisor.

There are also a number of journal articles detailing iPSC reprogramming including: Reprogramming fibroblasts into induced pluripotent stem cells with Bmi1 [Nature], Human Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC) Generation, Culture, and Differentiation to Lung Progenitor Cells [Methods Mol Biol.], Guidelines and Techniques for the Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells [Science Direct], Generation of human iPSCs from cells of fibroblastic and epithelial origin by means of the oriP/EBNA-1 episomal reprogramming system [Stem Cell Research & Therapy].

Looks like I’ve got some reading to do…

Nothing is ever easy…

After shadowing Jo-Maree and the students in the lab, I feel pretty confident in moving forward with some actual cell work. We are just waiting on the delivery of new cell culture media. There is a bit of a delay with some orders due to the COVID lockdowns in NSW and VIC.

I did receive my glass Petri dishes (90mm and 1500mm) to do some initial tests and had a go at laser engraving them. I usually work in Perspex, so getting the settings just right is unfortunately always a bit of trial and error.

We decided to start with the simple ‘target’ engraving which would enable us to test different engraving depths and see if the graphic should use raster for hatched areas (circles) and vector for lines.

Graphic for Laser Engraving

Graphic for laser engraving shown in Rhino 3D.

We need to leave room for the laser head to engrave so the graphic will be centred in the dish with a 25mm boundary. We also had to ensure that each element was on a separate layer with a colour indicating the particular settings for that graphic element.

We tested some basic settings:

Laser Engraving Settings

Black circle: Raster
Speed: 22
Power: 61
PPI: X
Red circle: Raster
Speed: 42
Power: 61
PP1: X
Green Lines: Vector
Speed: 4
Power: 85
PPI: X

We secured the sides with some metal rods to reduce the likelihood of movement when the air flow is turned on during the laser engraving process.

Laser Set Up
Set up in Laser  with metal bars to reduce movement. 

Laser Engraving ProcessLaser in process.

While the initial engraving seemed promising, the entire graphic was rastered including lines which were supposed to be rendered as vectors. The air flow also moved the dish. This resulted in an initial ‘glitch’ area and, following another shift, an overlaid section.

Engraving Glitch
Laser engraved dish with ‘glitch’ pattern. 

It is not too bad, but shows the importance of testing settings and set up never assuming that things will work first time around.

We used the same dish again to test different settings (with four metal bars to hold the dish in place. However,  we found that the  raster setting was the best approach after all  to ensure that the laser creates lines without punching through the glass. We still don’t quite have the settings down, but hopefully the next go will yield more promising results.

Ethics update

We’ve received our first comment from the HREC Chair regarding our ethics application. They raised an important consideration in relation to more clearly outlining some of the ethical implications and questions that the project raises.  Here is my current thinking:

Posthuman Genetic Legacies raises some ethical issues in relation to the ownership and governance of biological materials. The ethical implications of using human biomaterials for scientific and artistic research form part of the investigation and will enable the research team to identify and consider these issues from creative, legal, and scientific perspectives. This initial enquiry will also form the basis for subsequent exploration which will focus more specifically on bioethics with attention to legal and ethical frameworks for the management of use of biological materials.

Some of the key issues and questions include:

  • Ownership and use of biomaterials (cells and tissue) when removed from the body including tensions arising between individual donor, research team and university.
    • Who legally owns biomaterials (cells and tissue) when they are removed from the body?
    • What rights does the original donor (and researcher-participant) legally maintain when working in a team research environment at a university?
    • What current legal and governance frameworks are in place and which aspects may need reconsideration to better accommodate the interests of all stakeholders?
  • IP implications to produce biomaterials in a university environment
    • How is IP negotiated within a university environment when biomaterials are associated directly with an individual researcher as participant?

Once primary cells are successfully immortalised, the research team will  review current policies regarding the use of biomaterials for artistic use in  Australia. To date, most literature on biological art focuses on the conceptual, ethical and theoretical affordances of the practice and basic lab protocols with limited insight into legal and  governance frameworks, especially where commercial and research interests intersect.

While the creation of the Billy Apple® cell line was a success (Hilton 2014), claims regarding the uptake of the cell line as part of the ATCC are difficult to verify as the cell line is currently not listed in the online cell product listing. Creating another artist cell line for uptake into the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) or alternative distributor will enable researchers to gain insight into the current policies and practices that underpin biomaterials use, storage and distribution. These insights can then be used to compare policy documentation and experiences of research from art and science over the past 20 years. This will occur in the next stage of project development.

During this phase, the research team will also consider how ethical implications shift when moving from a university research setting to a more open/shared or commercial research environment such as the storage and distribution of biomaterials by companies such as the ATCC.  During this stage, questions will address implications for biomaterial distribution and interdisciplinary engagement:

Some of the key issues and questions include:

  • Ownership and use of biomaterials including tensions arising between individual donor, family, research team, universities, and external organisations such as biomaterial distribution companies.
    • Who legally owns biomaterials (cells and tissue) when they become part of a global biomaterials repository?
    • What ethical guidelines currently govern the use of biomaterials in a global setting? Can you and should you control or restrict the use of biomaterials in relation to personal or cultural values?
    • Should extended family members have input into the distribution of biomaterials (and associated personal information)?
  • IP implications to produce biomaterials across disciplinary terrains (who owns IP when research and commercial interests are involved)
    • How is IP negotiated within a university environment and commercial research setting when biomaterials are associated directly with an individual researcher as participant?
  • Privacy issues for disclosure of personal information (personal details and genetic information) in relation to biomaterials use and distribution.
    • What are the potential risks (short term and long term) involved in the disclosure of personal and genetic information in relation to biomaterials in a research setting (used ​and stored within universities) versus commercial research context (stored and distributed by an external company)?
    • What biomaterial information is useful for scientific versus artistic disciplines?
    • What processes should be put in place to protect the privacy of the donor but still provide useful information across disciplinary domains?
  • Communication including public understanding and transparency of regulatory and governance frameworks in biomaterials research across different domains?
    • What is the public perception and research value of establishing formal frameworks for the development of biobanks and biomaterials for use in artistic research?

This stage will involve further ethical clearance and require me to work with the research team to develop a cohesive research plan and identify ways of minimising risk in terms of privacy.

While I am somewhat familiar with the ethics clearance process, I am new to thinking through the implications as participant where personal medical and genetic information and biomaterial may become shared research materials. This is where collaboration with experts from the Centre for Law and Genetics is vitally important. I look forward to hearing from my collaborator Jane (and hope I was not completely off track).

Hilton, C., 2014. The immortalisation of Billy Apple®: an art-science collaboration. Leonardo47(2), pp.109-113.

Ethics in!

Brad has sent through final information for Stage 2 ethics clearance.  We included a skin biopsy protocol in case the fibroid cells are unviable. Unfortunately, when dealing with primary cells, nothing is certain and there is a possibility that the initial cells are contaminated or do not recover from the freezing process. As such, we have included ‘Plan B’ to ensure we can move forward with the project and establish a new batch of primary cells for immortalisation.

The ethics documents were formally submitted through the Ethics Review Manager. Hopefully, I have addressed all project aspects and provided sufficient information for approval.  Fingers crossed!

Rhino Files

I have started preparing files in Rhino for laser engraving. This is a good Youtube introduction to setting up files with a some pointers for trimming and adding a hatch for engraving surfaces rather than just lines.

This is the start of my file prep in Rhino with dark areas signalling ‘hatched’ sections for surface engraving.

Screenshot of design in Rhino

Once the Petri dishes arrive, I can make time with the CAM technician Murray Antill to organise engraving. Of course, I need to test the settings first to ensure that I use the correct strength for lines vs. engraving. I usually use Perspex, so I will likely need to adapt the settings to suit a different material. The lines may also need further spacing as the laser produces around a .5mm line.

Design prep

I purchased ten borosilicate glass Petri dishes last week in each size [1500mm and 900mm]. This will enable me to do the engraving and materials tests while I wait for ethics approval.

I am going to start with some simple designs that connect to motifs from my previous practice and signal notions of ongoing development and ‘rippling outwards’.  Screenshot of vector ripple design

Screenshot of vector ‘ripple’ design created in Adobe Illustrator.

This design was originally created for The Contamination of Alice #9 as part of the group show Ghost Biologies at Contemporary Art Tasmania in 2016. I feel that a similar pattern could work quite well engraved on the base of the Petri dishes. However, I will need to include some etched ‘shaded’ areas to see if scarring the surface helps with cell adhesion.

To create the new designs, I will try to work directly in Rhino – the software platform used for the laser cutter. Hopefully, this will enable me to create designs will fewer nodes to reduce clean up time and double lines.

Material supplies: Glass Petri Dishes

My primary lab contact is currently on leave so I am using the time to identify materials for experimentation. I am keen to grow and stain my cells on diverse materials (glass, porous and non-porous scaffolds etc). An easy start is to use glass Petri dishes with different coatings to encourage cell adherence. The use of coatings may also enable me to encourage cells to grow in particular patterns.

I’ve done a bit of searching via Researchgate and it seems that common surface coatings to encourage cell attachment to glass include:

  • Hyaluronic acid
  • Poly-D-Lysine – my current choice
  • Fetal Calf Serum
  • Bovine serum albumin
  • Gelatin
  • Fibronectin
  • Laminin
  • Collagen

I will ask for advice at the next lab meeting.

There were also suggestions to etch the glass surface with concentrated nitric acid and then wash and autoclave. At the UTAS School of Creative Arts and Media, we are fortunate to have access to a glass cutter and laser engraver. So instead of using acid, I will use the laser to score a design into the base of a large 150mm Petri dish.

Glass Petri Dish

Glass Petri dish by Lilly M via Wikimedia

Luckily Petri dishes are easy to purchase online. I just need to make sure the dishes are suitable for autoclave sterilisation (e.g.  borosilicate glass rather than soda lime glass).