| Literature DB >> 21371320 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variations in codon usage between species are one of the major causes affecting recombinant protein expression levels, with a significant impact on the economy of industrial enzyme production processes. The use of codon-optimized genes may overcome this problem. However, designing a gene for optimal expression requires choosing from a vast number of possible DNA sequences and different codon optimization methods have been used in the past decade. Here, a comparative study of the two most common methods is presented using calf prochymosin as a model.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21371320 PMCID: PMC3056764 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-10-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Codon distribution of V0, V1, V2 and wild type (WT) sequences.
| AA | Codon | fa | WT | V0 | V1 | V2 | AA | Codon | fa | WT | V0 | V1 | V2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ala | GCG | 0.36 | 1 | 17 | 17 | 6 | Leu | CUG | 0.50 | 23 | 29 | 29 | 16 |
| GCC | 0.27 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 5 | UUA | 0.13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| GCA | 0.21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | UUG | 0.13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||
| GCU | 0.16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | CUC | 0.10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| CUU | 0.10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||||||||
| Arg | CGC | 0.40 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 4 | CUA | 0.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| CGU | 0.38 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 3 | ||||||||
| CGG | 0.10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Lys | AAA | 0.76 | 6 | 15 | 15 | 9 | |
| CGA | 0.06 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | AAG | 0.24 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 6 | ||
| AGA | 0.04 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| AGG | 0.02 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Met | ATG | 1.00 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
| Asn | AAC | 0.55 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 8 | Phe | UUU | 0.57 | 6 | 19 | 0 | 11 |
| AAU | 0.45 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 7 | UUC | 0.43 | 13 | 0 | 19 | 8 | ||
| Asp | GAU | 0.63 | 3 | 23 | 0 | 14 | Pro | CCG | 0.53 | 3 | 16 | 16 | 9 |
| GAC | 0.37 | 20 | 0 | 23 | 9 | CCA | 0.19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||
| CCU | 0.16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||||
| Cys | UGC | 0.56 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 3 | CCC | 0.12 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| UGU | 0.44 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||||
| Ser | AGC | 0.28 | 13 | 35 | 0 | 9 | |||||||
| Gln | CAG | 0.65 | 24 | 25 | 25 | 17 | UCG | 0.15 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
| CAA | 0.35 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | AGU | 0.15 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||
| UCC | 0.15 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||||||||
| Glu | GAA | 0.69 | 2 | 14 | 14 | 10 | UCU | 0.15 | 4 | 0 | 35 | 6 | |
| GAG | 0.31 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 | UCA | 0.12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Gly | GGC | 0.41 | 15 | 31 | 0 | 11 | Thr | ACC | 0.44 | 13 | 24 | 24 | 10 |
| GGU | 0.34 | 2 | 0 | 31 | 10 | ACG | 0.27 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | ||
| GGG | 0.15 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ACU | 0.16 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| GGA | 0.11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ACA | 0.13 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||
| His | CAU | 0.57 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 3 | Trp | UGG | 1.00 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| CAC | 0.43 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||||
| Tyr | UAU | 0.57 | 5 | 22 | 0 | 13 | |||||||
| Ile | AUU | 0.51 | 2 | 22 | 0 | 13 | UAC | 0.43 | 17 | 0 | 22 | 9 | |
| AUC | 0.42 | 19 | 0 | 22 | 8 | ||||||||
| AUA | 0.07 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Val | GUG | 0.37 | 14 | 26 | 0 | 10 | |
| GUU | 0.26 | 3 | 0 | 26 | 7 | ||||||||
| GUC | 0.22 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||||||||
| GUA | 0.15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
a Relative frequency of each codon in E. coli W3110
Sequences V0 and V1 were designed using the one amino acid- one codon method; and V2 was designed with the codon randomization algorithm.
Figure 1Expression analysis of the synthetic gene variants by SDS-PAGE. Lane 1, molecular weight marker. Lane 2, lysate of E. coli W3100 culture harboring the pWT expression vector for the expression of wild type calf prochymosin gene grown in the absence of L-arabinose; lanes 3-10, lysate of E. coli W3100 culture harboring the pV0, pV1, pV2, pV3, pV4, pV5 and pV6 expression vector for the expression of V0-V6 synthetic versions of calf prochymosin grown in the with 2 g/l of L-arabinose. In all cases, cell cultures were brought to OD600 = 3 and 20 μl were used for the analysis.
Amount of prochymosin produced by E coli W3110 cells expressing gene variants created using different codon optimization methods.
| Sequence - | Codon optimization | CAIa | Prochymosin | Prochymosin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild type - pWT | - | 0.66 | 262 ±19 | 1 |
| V0 - pV0 | One amino acid- one codon | 1 | 248 ± 17 | 0.95 |
| V1 - pV1 | One amino acid- one codon | 0.82 | 246 ± 21 | 0.94 |
| V2 - pV2 | Codon randomization | 0.72 | 448 ± 31 | 1.71 |
| V3 - pV3 | Codon randomization | 0.70 | 366 ± 26 | 1.50 |
| V4 - pV4 | Codon randomization | 0.72 | 330 ± 16 | 1.36 |
| V5 - pV5 | Codon randomization | 0.73 | 311 ± 20 | 1.29 |
| V6 - pV6 | Codon randomization | 0.74 | 309 ± 29 | 1.21 |
| V2/0 - pV2/0 | Hybrid construct | 0.97 | 296 ± 12 | 1.13 |
Codon adaptation index.
Determined by scanning and densitometry analysis of stained gels. Values shown represent mean and standard error of three independent experiments.
Cells were grown at 30°C in supplemented LB medium to OD600 = 0.5 and induced by the addition of 2 g/l of L-arabinose for 5 h.
Figure 2Refolding efficiency of prochymosin prepared by expressing codon-optimized genes in . Renaturation was carried out by diluting the urea-solubilized inclusion bodies in renaturation buffer at a final protein concentration of 1 mg/ml and incubating the mixture at 4°C for 12 h. Other experimental details are provided in the methods section. Values shown are means of three independent determinations. The standard deviations were in all the cases less than 10% of the corresponding means.