aimofcontact:[<p>We contacted Svenja Vinke, a former iGEMer from Bielefeld, to get her insight and her opinion regarding the use of phage assisted continuous evolution
(PACE, see engineering cycle 1[Link]) for our prime editing optimizations. Svenja works at the iGEM Safety and Security Committee. Additionally, she was part of the Biosafety and Security Award Team of Bielefeld University in 2016.</p>],
insights:[<p>Svenja explained, that a PACE approach is not feasible to use for optimization of our nickase candidates because of several reasons:</p>,
<ul>
<li>Implementing a PACE system takes way too much time to use for our project.</li>
<li>Endonucleases might be too big to optimize using PACE.</li>
<li>Unspecific cutting or nicking in the bacterial genome kills the cells, which makes optimization of endonucleases very challenging.</li>
<li>Prime editing in E. coli cells is less effective compared to human cells, which might impair the evolution process.</li>
</ul>
],
implementation:[<p>On the basis of Svenja’s and other opinions on the topic, we decided not to try implementing a PACE system. </p>],
