| Literature DB >> 23890095 |
Felix Jakob1, Christian Lehmann, Ronny Martinez, Ulrich Schwaneberg.
Abstract
Recombinant protein production in prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms was a key enabling technology for the rapid development of industrial and molecular biotechnology. However, despite all progress the improvement of protein production is an ongoing challenge and of high importance for cost-effective enzyme production. With the epMEGAWHOP mutagenesis protocol for vector backbone optimization we report a novel directed evolution based approach to increase protein production levels by randomly introducing mutations in the vector backbone. In the current study we validate the epMEGAWHOP mutagenesis protocol for three different expression systems. The latter demonstrated the general applicability of the epMEGAWHOP method. Cellulase and lipase production was doubled in one round of directed evolution by random mutagenesis of pET28a(+) and pET22b(+) vector backbones. Protease production using the vector pHY300PLK was increased ~4-times with an average of ~1.25 mutations per kb vector backbone. The epMEGAWHOP does not require any rational understanding of the expression machinery and can generally be applied to enzymes, expression vectors and related hosts. epMEGAWHOP is therefore from our point of view a robust, rapid and straight forward alternative for increasing protein production in general and for biotechnological applications.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23890095 PMCID: PMC3750827 DOI: 10.1186/2191-0855-3-39
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Figure 1The five epMEGAWHOP steps to increase protein production by vector backbone mutagenesis. Step I: megaprimer generation, Step II: amplification of the vector backbone under error-prone conditions (0.05 mM Mn2+), Step III: transformation into E. coli DH5α and isolation of plasmids. The expression hosts (E. coli BL21-Gold (DE3) or B. subtilis DB104) were transformed subsequently with the isolated plasmids, Step IV: agar plate pre-screening with selection based on halo formation, and Step V: screening in microtiter plate format to quantify increase in enzyme production.
Overview of the expression systems used for developing and validating the epMEGAWHOP method
| pET28a(+) | Cellulase (CelA2) | Intracellular | |
| pET22b(+) | Lipase A (BSLA) | Periplasmatic | |
| pHY300PLK | Protease (subtilisin Carlsberg) | Extracellular |
Figure 2Activity studies and SDS-PAGE visualization of produced CelA2, BSLA, subtilisin Carlsberg wild type. a) Activity measurements are performed with not optimized (left column) and mutagenized vector backbones (right column) in 96-well microtiter plate. Constructs with an M1 label habor an epMEGAWHOP optimized vector backbone; b) Visualization of production levels of CelA2 (proteins in supernatant of lysate), BSLA and subtilisin Carlsberg (proteins in culture supernatant after precipitation) by SDS-PAGE in combination with Coomassie brilliant blue staining. The reported relative activity values are the average of three 96-well microtiter plate measurements in which each construct was expressed 8 times per plate. Deviations are calculated from the corresponding mean values.
Figure 3Functional study of the repressor under induced (left bars) and non-induced (right bars) conditions employing pET28a(+)-CelA2, pET28a(+)M1-CelA2, pET22b(+)-BSLA and pET22b(+)M1-BSLA expression systems. Constructs with an M1 label harbor an epMEGAWHOP optimized vector backbone. Enzyme activity levels were determined with the corresponding screening systems in 96-well microtiter plate formats for CelA2 and BLSA. The reported values are the average of three 96-well microtiter plate measurements in which each hydrolase was expressed 8 times per plate and deviations are calculated from the corresponding mean values.
Sequencing results of vector backbones that were subjected to epMEGAWHOP optimization
| | | | | | | |||||||||
| 488 | A | - | T | f1 origin | 123 | T | - | C | T7 term | 209 | A | - | G | Tet |
| 850 | G | - | C | Kan | 2007 | A | - | G | na | 684 | A | - | G | Tet |
| 2233 | T | - | C | pBR322 ori | 3701 | A | - | G | Tet | 1584 | T | - | C | pTet |
| 2396 | T | - | C | na | 4563 | T | - | C | 3238 | T | - | C | pAMP | |
| 3170 | T | - | C | na | 4794 | C | - | T | 4221 | T | - | C | na | |
| 5193 | A | - | T | T7 prom | 4332 | A | - | - | ori-177 | |||||
The positions of the mutations in the corresponding vector backbones are based on the sequenced vector backbone prior epMEGAWHOP. Alignments of all three vector systems to the corresponding ‘parents’ are included in Additional file 1: Figure S1. Nucleotide position 1 is the base after the stop codon (ATT, TAA) of the inserted genes.
na: no corresponding function of the gene sequence could be assigned.
Kan/Tet: Kanamycin/Tetracyclin resistance gene.
pTET/pAMP: promoter region Tetracyclin/Ampicilin resistance gene (identified with a promoter prediction tool (Reese 2001)).