| Literature DB >> 22685389 |
Javier Carrera1, Asun Fernández Del Carmen, Rafael Fernández-Muñoz, Jose Luis Rambla, Clara Pons, Alfonso Jaramillo, Santiago F Elena, Antonio Granell.
Abstract
Considering cells as biofactories, we aimed to optimize its internal processes by using the same engineering principles that large industries are implementing nowadays: lean manufacturing. We have applied reverse engineering computational methods to transcriptomic, metabolomic and phenomic data obtained from a collection of tomato recombinant inbreed lines to formulate a kinetic and constraint-based model that efficiently describes the cellular metabolism from expression of a minimal core of genes. Based on predicted metabolic profiles, a close association with agronomic and organoleptic properties of the ripe fruit was revealed with high statistical confidence. Inspired in a synthetic biology approach, the model was used for exploring the landscape of all possible local transcriptional changes with the aim of engineering tomato fruits with fine-tuned biotechnological properties. The method was validated by the ability of the proposed genomes, engineered for modified desired agronomic traits, to recapitulate experimental correlations between associated metabolites.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22685389 PMCID: PMC3369923 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002528
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Comput Biol ISSN: 1553-734X Impact factor: 4.475
Figure 1Lean Manufacturing as a model applied in systems and synthetic biology.
From omic data (transcriptomics, metabolomics and phenomics), a quantitative global model was constructed using reverse engineering methods. The predictive model was used to propose genome perturbations, to improve desired phenotypes with relevant biotechnological applications. The genome perturbations were guided by an in silico optimization that imposed the desired selective pressure.
Figure 2Predictive power and statistical significance of the effective global model of tomato fruit.
(A) Prediction of the agronomic properties experimentally measured over the 169 RILs. The straight line represents the exact prediction. (B) Distance between distributions of Pearson correlations for the fruit agronomic properties, metabolites and genes (green, red and blue points, respectively) over training sets and in random permutations of them with different noise levels. (C, D) Histogram of Pearson correlations between the measured and predicted metabolite and gene levels over their training sets (blue bars) and over sets with a 10- and 5-fold cross validation tests (red bars), respectively.
Figure 3Exploration and statistical significance of the landscape of multiple agronomic properties of interest for tomato fruit applying local perturbations in its effective TRN.
(A) Agronomic properties improved by perturbing a single gene as function of efficiency reached by that transcriptional perturbation with respect to the wild-type scenario; only perturbations causing positive mean efficiencies are plotted. Both agronomic properties and efficiencies of a single perturbation are tested on the 169 RILs and error bars represent their minimum and maximum values in both axis. (B) Relationship between agronomic properties in the wild-type genome and the average of the agronomic properties resulting of all single perturbations in the wild-type TRN for each RIL; vertical error bars represent the best and worst optimized re-engineered TRN for a given RIL. (C) Average number of single gene perturbations that overcome a given efficiency threshold in the 169 RILs (light bars; error bars represent standard deviation for the 169 RILs) and average probability of selecting the same gene-perturbation in a set of RILs (dark bars; error bars show standard deviation for all genes of the TRN). Left and right columns represent perturbations of single gene in case of knockout or over-expression, respectively. (A, B) show fitness as related to the acceptability of tomato fruit (blue) and production vs. quality (red); (C) and fitness values associated to maximize only fruit quality (green). Agronomic properties are plotted in arbitrary units.
The top 5 single-gene knockouts and over-expressions that maximize the agronomic properties of the tomato fruit resulting of optimize several objectives.
Notice that the first five genes is the top 5 of single-gene knockouts and the following five is the top 5 in over-expression.
Efficiencies were selected in the RIL where the perturbation maximizes the fitness.
Probability of selecting the given perturbation across the set of RILs at the maximum level of efficiencies.
Figure 4Experimental validation of the landscape of tomato agronomic properties by using genetic perturbations.
Heuristic exploration (A) and statistical significance (B) of the landscape of multiple desired agronomic properties of tomato fruit perturbing its effective TRN adding multiple genetic changes and, predictive power (C–F) for optimizing the levels of volatile compounds and identifying compounds in closed metabolic pathways. (A) Median efficiencies reached by transcriptional perturbation based in gene knockouts or over-expression to improve agronomic properties. (B) Average number of single gene perturbations that overcome an efficiency threshold in the top 5 RILs scored by single perturbation (light bars; error bars represent standard deviation for the selected RILs) and average probability of selecting the same multiple-perturbation commonly in a set of RILs (dark bars; error bars show standard deviation for all genes of the TRN). Precision, recall and F-score (green, red and blue lines, respectively) compare observed experimentally volatile compound correlations vs inferred set of potential genetic perturbations (gene knockout (C, D) or over-expression (E, F)) shared to optimize each compound independently. Note that experimental metabolite correlations r<0.5 were not considered in (D, F).
The top 10 pairs-gene knockouts or over-expressions that maximize the agronomic properties of the tomato fruit.
| Gene | Gene Annotation | Efficiency |
|
| ||
|
|
| 16.54 |
|
|
| 16.54 |
|
|
| 16.40 |
|
|
| 16.37 |
|
|
| 16.07 |
|
|
| 15.90 |
|
|
| 15.87 |
|
|
| 15.85 |
|
|
| 15.84 |
|
|
| 15.78 |
|
| ||
| LE27F15; LE29L05 | Protein kinase family protein; branched-chain amino acid aminotransferase | 422.60 |
| LE16D08; LE6G08 | Similar to 60S ribosomal protein L35; sucrose phosphate synthase | 360.63 |
| LE9A08; LE15E23 | GRAM domain-containing protein/ABA-responsive protein-related; putative threonyl-tRNA synthetase | 303.04 |
| LE18E13; LE8A19 | MYB transcription factor; putative glycerophosphoryl diester phosphodiesterase family protein | 263.91 |
| LE32B05; LE4D06 | YABBY2-like transcription factor YAB2; tRNA-dihydrouridine synthase A, putative | 253.33 |
|
|
| 244.32 |
| LE29E13; LE13F06 | Fyve finger-containing phosphoinositide kinase, fyv1, putative; transmembrane protein, putative | 242.56 |
| LE13F06; LE15J03 | Transmembrane protein, putative; ankyrin-like protein | 240.19 |
| LE17G02; LE15D07 | Pantothenate kinase, putative; polynucleotide kinase- 3′-phosphatase, putative | 239.10 |
| LE15D07; LE20I03 | Polynucleotide kinase- 3′-phosphatase, putative; DEX1, calcium ion binding | 239.03 |
|
| ||
| LE13F06; LE15J03 | Transmembrane protein, putative; ankyrin-like protein | 49.79 |
| LE12O13; LE33G22 | Prefoldin subunit, putative; adenylate kinase, putative | 49.16 |
| LE2C24; LE29J02 | ATAB2; RNA binding; GTP-binding protein LepA homolog | 49.15 |
| LE12P11; LE2C24 | Not found; ATAB2; RNA binding | 48.81 |
| LE2C24; LE21J01 | ATAB2; RNA binding; Dolichyl-phosphate beta-glucosyltransferase, putative | 48.28 |
| LE12O13; LE25M06 | Prefoldin subunit, putative; Pre-mRNA-processing protein prp39, putative | 46.63 |
| LE12O13; LE14B20 | Prefoldin subunit, putative; clathrin adaptor complexes medium subunit family protein | 46.18 |
| LE14B20; LE21J01 | Clathrin adaptor complexes medium subunit family protein; dolichyl-phosphate beta-glucosyltransferase, putative | 44.86 |
| LE33B09; LE2C24 | Not found; ATAB2; RNA binding | 44.64 |
|
|
| 44.05 |
Efficiencies were selected in the RIL where the perturbation maximizes the fruit acceptability, quality and, quality vs production (RILs 103, 142, and 135, respectively).
Knockout genes were showed in bold type and the others were gene over-expressed.