ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY DECISION
Amended under s67A on 16 August 2007








14 June 2004
GMD04055
 To develop in containment genetically modified organisms
under section 40(1)(b) of the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.
 Victoria University of Wellington
Applicant
 To develop in containment genetically modified bacteria to
Purpose
study the mechanisms of environmental adaptation and survival
in mycobacteria.
20 28 May 2004
Date received
Consideration date 22 14 June 2004
Chief Executive, ERMA New Zealand
Considered by
Application code
Application type
1 Summary of decision
1.1
The application to develop a new organism in containment is approved, with
controls, having been considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of
the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996, the HSNO
(Low-Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations), and the
HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998.
1.2
The organisms approved for development are the genetically modified
microorganisms listed below in Table 1.
Table 1: Organisms as recorded on the ERMA New Zealand Register
Host Organism
1 Mycobacterium
smegmatis
laboratory strains
(Trevisan 1889)
(Lehmann &
Neumann 1899)
Category
1
As modified by
Site directed mutagenesis of genes in the
following protein families:
Two component sensor kinase
Response regulator
Serine/threonine kinase
Tyrosine kinase
Phosphoprotein phosphatase
Cyclic nucleotide binding regulator
Sigma factor
Adenylate kinase/guanylate kinase
Adenylate cyclase/guanylate cyclase
2 Mycobacterium
smegmatis
laboratory strains
(Trevisan 1889)
(Lehmann &
Neumann 1899)
1
3 Escherichia
coli K12 or B
derivatives
(Migula 1895)
(Castellani and
Chambers 1919)
1
Universal stress protein
Heat shock protein
Standard non-conjugative plasmid vectors
for transformation of Mycobacterium
smegmatis containing open reading frames
derived from Mycobacterium smegmatis
encoding sequences from the following
protein families:
Two component sensor kinase
Response regulator
Serine/threonine kinase
Tyrosine kinase
Phosphoprotein phosphatase
Cyclic nucleotide binding regulator
Sigma factor
Adenylate kinase/guanylate kinase
Adenylate cyclase/guanylate cyclase
Universal stress protein
Heat shock protein
Standard Escherichia coli cloning or
expression vectors or non-conjugative
plasmid vectors for transformation of
Mycobacterium smegmatis containing open
reading frames derived from
Mycobacterium smegmatis encoding
sequences from the following protein
families:
Two component sensor kinase
Response regulator
Serine/threonine kinase
Tyrosine kinase
Phosphoprotein phosphatase
Cyclic nucleotide binding regulator
Sigma factor
Adenylate kinase/guanylate kinase
Adenylate cyclase/guanylate cyclase
Universal stress protein
Heat shock protein
The applicant has specified the following vector systems to be used:
1. Standard Escherichia coli cloning vectors for transformation of nonpathogenic laboratory strains of E. coli.
2. Standard E. coli expression vectors for transformation of non-pathogenic
laboratory strains of E. coli.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 2 of 10
3. Standard non-conjugative plasmid vectors for transformation of
Mycobacterium smegmatis, to be hosted by non-pathogenic laboratory
stains of E. coli.
These vectors will include some or all of the classes of gene regulatory elements
listed below:
1. Promoters;
2. Enhancers;
3. Transcription termination signals;
4. Operator sequences;
5. Polyadenylation signals;
6. Untranslated regions such as introns/spacers and insulators;
7. Multiple cloning sites;
8. Protein purification tags;
9. Origins of replication;
10. Secretory, targeting and localization signals;
11. Regulatory sequences for induced expression.
12. Other commercially available regulatory elements.
These vectors may contain standard and generally available regulatory elements
sourced from invertebrates, vertebrates, bacteria, viruses or bacteriophages
including the selectable markers Hygromycin resistance, Kanamycin resistance
and Ampicillin resistance. The genetic material shall not include:
 Genes encoding vertebrate toxins that have an LD50 of less than 100µg/kg
 Genes encoding vertebrate toxins that have an LD50 of greater than or equal to
100µg/kg if these genes will be expressed at levels higher than found in the
organism from which they were derived
 Sequences that will produce particles able to infect humans, animals, or plants
 Uncharacterised sequences from pathogenic microorganisms
 Sequences from New Zealand native flora and fauna
 Sequences from CITES species without specific approval
 Sequences derived from humans
1.3
Category of low-risk genetic modification:
The genetic modification is a low-risk genetic modification as defined in clause
5 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Low-Risk Genetic
Modification) Regulations 2003. Mycobacterium smegmatis and Escherichia
coli are category 1 host organisms as defined in clause 7(1) of the HSNO (LowRisk Genetic Modification) Regulations 2003. The transformation of both
microorganisms, as described in Table 1, constitutes a category A genetic
modification as defined in clause 5 of those Regulations and therefore, will be
carried out under a minimum of PC1 containment.
2.0 Legislative Criteria for Application
The application was lodged pursuant to section 40(1)(b) of the HSNO Act 1996 and
determined according to the rapid assessment provisions of section 42A of the HSNO
Act 1996.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 3 of 10
The application has been approved by Dr Bas Walker, Chief Executive of ERMA
New Zealand, under delegation from the Authority, as provided for in section 19
HSNO Act 1996.
In reaching this decision I have considered matters relevant to the purpose of the
HSNO Act 1996, as specified in Part II, and followed the relevant provisions of the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Methodology) Order 1998.
3.0 Consideration
3.1
Sequence of the consideration
The application was formally received and verified as containing sufficient
information on 28 May 2004.
The decision is based on the information supplied by the applicant in the application
including copies of scientific literature referenced in the application.
In reaching this decision I have used information that is relevant and appropriate to
the scale and significance of the risks, costs, and benefits associated with the genetic
modification.
In accordance with section 42A of the Act (rapid assessment), the approach adopted
was to identify the circumstances of the genetic modification, to evaluate these against
the criteria specified in section 41, and to consider whether there are any residual risks
that require further consideration. This approach covered the following issues:
 Purpose of the application (section 39)
 Assessment against the criteria for low-risk genetic modifications (section
42A)
 Identification and assessment of the risks and other impacts of the organism
 Māori issues and concerns (sections 6(d) and 8)
 Precedents
 Proposed controls
In accordance with section 53(2)(b) this application was not publicly notified. The
Department of Conservation (DoC) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Biosecurity Authority (MAFBA) were notified upon receipt of this application.
DoC submitted comments on the application addressing the issues of containment and
potential risks to indigenous flora and fauna. These were summed up in the following
statement:
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 4 of 10
The Department has concluded that the likelihood of release of these GMO’s is
minimal, and the risk posed by them to indigenous flora and fauna as not significant.
The Department therefore would not appose (sic) the approval of this application.
3.2
Purpose of the application
The purpose of this project is to determine how mycobacteria are able to persist
indefinitely in a state of low replicative activity. A laboratory model based on the low
pathogenic species Mycobacterium smegmatis will be used for this purpose. The
project will examine the signal transduction mechanisms which M. smegmatis uses to
respond to changes in its surroundings. Regulatory mechanisms which control
survival during growth arrest and stress challenge will be characterised at the
molecular level in terms of the genes under their control. The function of individual
effector proteins will be determined on the basis of their biochemical function and
also their importance to the physiology of M. smegmatis.
To achieve this, the applicant will use laboratory strains of M. smegmatis and over
express or knockout genes (by site directed mutagenesis) in the following protein
families: Two component sensor kinase, Response regulator, Serine/threonine kinase,
Tyrosine kinase, Phosphoprotein phosphatase, Cyclic nucleotide binding regulator,
Sigma factor, Adenylate kinase/guanylate kinase, Adenylate cyclase/guanylate
cyclase, Universal stress protein, Heat shock protein.
Intermediate GM organisms will be created by the applicant as laboratory strains of E.
coli will be used to construct the necessary vectors to transform the M. smegmatis
strains.
I have determined that this application may be approved for the purpose of the
development of a genetically modified organism as provided for in section 39(1)(a) of
the HSNO Act 1996.
3.3
Assessment against the criteria for low-risk genetic
modifications
Category of host organisms:
Laboratory strains of Mycobacterium smegmatis and Escherichia coli are not capable
of causing disease in humans, animals, plants or fungi nor do they produce
desiccation-resistant structures, such as spores or cysts. As such, M. smegmatis and E.
coli are considered Category 1 host organisms under the Regulations.
Category of genetic modification:
The modifications as described in Table 1 are Category A modifications as described
in the Regulations.
I am satisfied that the development meets the criteria for low-risk genetic
modification specified in the Regulations, made under section 41 of the Act. The
experiments meet the requirements of Category A modification as defined in clause 5
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 5 of 10
of the Regulations in that the modification involves a category 1 host organism and is
to be carried out under a minimum of PC1 containment. The developments, described
in Table 1, will not increase the pathogenicity, virulence, or infectivity of the host
organism to laboratory personnel, the community or the environment. In addition, the
developments will not result in organisms that have a greater ability to escape from
containment than the unmodified organism.
3.4 Identification and assessment of the risks, costs, and other
impacts of the organism
I consider that the information provided by the applicant is relevant and appropriate to
the scale and significance of the risks, costs, and benefits associated with the
application (as required by clause 8 of the Methodology). In accordance with clauses
9 and 10 of the Methodology the information supplied by the applicant has been
evaluated as follows.
I consider that there is no evidence for, nor any reason to expect, any non-negligible
adverse effects of the proposed genetically modified Mycobacterium smegmatis and
Escherichia coli on humans, animals, plants, other organisms or the environment.
Escherichia coli K12 derivatives contain genetic modifications that make them
dependent upon supplemental growth factors to survive. For this reason it is very
unlikely that the organism could establish a self-sustaining population should it escape
containment.
I have also considered the potential Māori cultural effects in accordance with sections
6(d) and 8 of the HSNO Act and clauses 9(b)(i), 9(c)(iv) of the Methodology, in
consultation with the Manager, Māori. As this application does not involve the use of
genetic material from native or valued flora and fauna or humans, and as this
application is for a development in containment, there is no requirement for the
applicant to consult with Māori.
Although I recognise that Māori maintain an ongoing interest and concern in the
potential long term cultural implications of genetic modification, I consider that this
application poses negligible risk of adverse effects to the relationship of Māori culture
and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and
fauna, and other taonga.
3.5
Precedents
I must consider each application on its merits, and am therefore not bound by the
stance taken in previous decisions. However, in reflecting on previous decisions that
involved similar issues to those raised by this application, I note that low-risk genetic
developments of Mycobacterium smegmatis have been considered and approved on
several occasions by Institutional Biological Safety Committees (IBSCs) under
delegated authority. Many low-risk developments of Escherichia coli have been
considered and approved, both by IBSCs and by myself.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 6 of 10
These previous applications met the criteria for low-risk genetic modification,
specified in the HSNO (Low-Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations 1998, and were
approved with controls. The controls specified that the developments be contained
within a facility registered under MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard 154.03.02
‘Containment Facilities for Microorganisms’ at physical containment level 2 (PC2).
These controls have been adopted and applied to the current application. Under the
HSNO (Low-Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations 2003, and in contrast to the
previous Regulations, M. smegmatis is considered a Category 1 host and may
therefore, be contained at PC1.
3.6
Proposed Controls
The experiments proposed in this application, to develop a genetically modified
Mycobacterium smegmatis and Escherichia coli, meet the requirements of Category A
genetic modification as defined in clause 5 of the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms (Low-Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations 2003. Category A
experiments are required to be contained within a Physical Containment level 1
facility (PC1) registered under MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard 154.03.02
‘Containment Facilities for Microorganisms’. This containment regime contains clear
guidelines for the safe handling and disposal of bacterial cultures.
The facility in which the organisms will be maintained shall comply with the
requirements of the Australian New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2243.3:2002 Safety in
Laboratories: Part 3: Microbiological aspects of containment and facilities. The
laboratory is currently approved and registered as a containment facility under section
39 of the Biosecurity Act, in accordance with the MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard
154.03.02.
4
Decision
4.1
I am satisfied that this application is for one of the purposes specified in section
39(1) of the HSNO Act, being section 39(1)(a): the development of any
genetically modified organism.
4.2
Based on consideration and analysis of the information provided, and having
considered the characteristics of the organisms and the modification and the
criteria for low-risk genetic modification detailed in the HSNO (Low-Risk
Genetic Modification) Regulations 2003, I am of the view that the organisms
meet the criteria for rapid assessment under section 42A(2) of the HSNO Act.
4.3
I am satisfied that the proposed containment regime together with the additional
controls imposed in accordance with section 42A(3)(b) of the HSNO Act 1996
will adequately contain the organisms.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 7 of 10
4.4
In accordance with section 42(A)(3)(c) of the HSNO Act 1996 I have considered
the provision of progress reports on this development to the Authority and do
not consider that it is necessary for this approval.
4.5
Pursuant to section 42A(3)(a) of the HSNO Act 1996, and acting under
delegation from the Authority provided for in section 19, I have approved this
application subject to the controls specified herein.
4.6
In reaching this decision I have relied upon the following criteria in the HSNO
Act and the Methodology:






5
Criteria for assessing the purpose of the application (section39).
Criteria for rapid assessment of adverse effects for the development of a
genetically modified organism in containment (section 42A).
Criteria for a low-risk genetic modification specified in the HSNO (LowRisk Genetic Modification) Regulations 2003, made under section 41 of
the Act.
The information provided by the applicant was assessed against the criteria
in clauses 9, 10 and 12 of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998.
Matters to be addressed by containment controls for development of
genetically modified organisms specified in Part 1 of the Third Schedule to
the HSNO Act.
Notification under section 53(4) was given to DoC and MAF. DoC
indicated that it had no concern with this application.
Controls
In order to provide for the matters detailed in Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the
HSNO Act, Containment Controls for Importation, Development and Field
Testing of Genetically Modified Organisms, the approved organisms are subject to
the following controls:1
1
To limit the likelihood of any accidental release of any organism
or any viable genetic material.2
1.1
The approved organism shall be developed and maintained within a
containment facility which complies with these controls.
1
Bold headings in the following text refer to Matters to be Addressed by Containment Controls for
Development and Field Testing of Genetically Modified Organisms, specified in the Third Schedule of
the HSNO Act 1996.
2
Viable Genetic Material is biological material that can be resuscitated to grow into tissues or
organisms. It can be defined to mean biological material capable of growth even though resuscitation
procedures may be required, e.g. when organisms or parts thereof are sub lethally damaged by being
frozen, dried, heated, or affected by chemical.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 8 of 10
1.2
The person responsible for a particular research area and/or the person
responsible for the operation of the containment facility shall inform all
personnel involved in the handling of the organisms of the Authority’s
controls.
1.3
The construction and operation of the containment facility in which the
organisms are maintained, shall be in accordance with the:
a) MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard 154.03.023: Containment Facilities for
Micro-organisms, at laboratory Physical Containment Level 1 (PC1).
b) Australian New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2243.3:20023 Safety in
Laboratories: Part 3: Microbiological aspects of containment and facilities.
1.4
2
2.1
3
3.1
4
The facility shall be approved and registered by MAF as a containment facility
under section 39 of the Biosecurity Act, in accordance with the MAF/ERMA
New Zealand Standard 154.03.023, and controls imposed by the Authority.
To exclude unauthorised people from the facility.
Construction and operation of the containment facility shall comply with the
requirements of the standards listed in control 1.3 relating to the identification
of entrances, numbers of and access to entrances and security requirements for
the entrances and the facility.
To exclude other organisms from the facility and to control
undesirable and unwanted organisms within the facility.
Construction and operation of the containment facility shall comply with the
requirements of the standards listed in control 1.3 relating to the exclusion of
other organisms from the facility and the control of undesirable and unwanted
organisms within the facility.
To prevent unintended release of the organism by experimenters
working with the organism.
4.1
Construction and operation of the containment facility shall comply with the
requirements of the standards listed in control 1.3 relating to the prevention of
unintended release of the organism by experimenters working with the
organism.
5
To control the effects of any accidental release or escape of an
organism.
5.1
Construction and operation of the containment facility shall comply with the
requirements of the standards listed in control 1.3 relating to controlling the
effects of any accidental release or escape of an organism.
3
Any reference to this standard in these controls refers to any subsequent version approved or endorsed
by ERMA New Zealand
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
Page 9 of 10
5.2
If a breach of containment occurs, the facility operator must ensure that the
MAF Inspector responsible for supervision of the facility has received
notification of the breach within 24 hours.
5.3
In the event of any breach of containment of the organism, the contingency
plan for the attempted retrieval or destruction of any viable material of the
organisms that have escaped shall be implemented immediately. The
contingency plan shall be included in the containment manual in accordance
with the requirements of standards listed in control 1.3.
6
Inspection and monitoring requirements for containment facilities.
6.1
The operation of the containment facilities shall comply with the requirements
contained in the standards listed in control 1.3 relating to the inspection and
monitoring requirements for containment facilities.
6.2.1 The containment manual shall be updated, as necessary, to address the
implementation of the controls imposed by this approval, in accordance with
the standards listed in control 1.3.
7
Qualifications required of
implementing those controls.
the
persons
responsible
for
7.1
The training of personnel working in the facility shall be in compliance with
the standards listed in control 1.3.
_____________________
_______________
Dr Bas Walker,
Date
Chief Executive ERMA New Zealand
Approval codes: GMD003190, GMD003191, GMD003192
Amendment: November 2006
Changes to controls:
 Addition of footnotes to the containment facility references and the
Australian/New Zealand containment facility references to “future proof” the
decision
 Standardise the wording of the breach of containment control
 Removal of the control regarding inspection of facilities by the Authority, its
agent or enforcement officers
____________________________
Mr Rob Forlong
Chief Executive, ERMA New Zealand
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMD04055
16 August 2007
Date:
Page 10 of 10