| Literature DB >> 24009604 |
Bertram M Berla1, Rajib Saha, Cheryl M Immethun, Costas D Maranas, Tae Seok Moon, Himadri B Pakrasi.
Abstract
Photosynthetic organisms, and especially cyanobacteria, hold great promise as sources of renewably-produced fuels, bulk and specialty chemicals, and nutritional products. Synthetic biology tools can help unlock cyanobacteria's potential for these functions, but unfortunately tool development for these organisms has lagged behind that for S. cerevisiae and E. coli. While these organisms may in many cases be more difficult to work with as "chassis" strains for synthetic biology than certain heterotrophs, the unique advantages of autotrophs in biotechnology applications as well as the scientific importance of improved understanding of photosynthesis warrant the development of these systems into something akin to a "green E. coli." In this review, we highlight unique challenges and opportunities for development of synthetic biology approaches in cyanobacteria. We review classical and recently developed methods for constructing targeted mutants in various cyanobacterial strains, and offer perspective on what genetic tools might most greatly expand the ability to engineer new functions in such strains. Similarly, we review what genetic parts are most needed for the development of cyanobacterial synthetic biology. Finally, we highlight recent methods to construct genome-scale models of cyanobacterial metabolism and to use those models to measure properties of autotrophic metabolism. Throughout this paper, we discuss some of the unique challenges of a diurnal, autotrophic lifestyle along with how the development of synthetic biology and biotechnology in cyanobacteria must fit within those constraints.Entities:
Keywords: biofuel; cyanobacteria; flux balance analysis; metabolic flux analysis; synthetic biology; systems biology
Year: 2013 PMID: 24009604 PMCID: PMC3755261 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Model strains of cyanobacteria for synthetic biology.
| Conjugation, natural transformation, Tn5 mutagenesis, fusion PCR | 30 | 6–12 | Mixotrophic, autotrophic | Yes | Extensive systems biology datasets are available | Heidorn et al., | |
| Conjugation, natural Transformation, Tn5 mutagenesis | 38 | 12–24 | Autotrophic | No | A model strain for the study of circadian clocks | Chen et al., | |
| Conjugation, natural transformation | 38 | 3.5 | Mixotrophic, autotrophic | Yes | Among the fastest-growing strains known | Xu et al., | |
| Conjugation, natural transformation | 30 | >24 | Mixotrophic, autotrophic | No | Nitrogen-fixing, Filamentous | Zhang et al., | |
| Conjugation, Tn5 mutagenesis | 30 | ~20 | Autotrophic | No | Filamentous, Grows well in outdoor photo-bioreactors in a broad range of conditions | Taton et al., |
Figure 1Different methods for constructing cyanobacterial mutants. (A) shows the traditional method using double homologous recombination to insert a suicide vector into the genome at a neutral site (NS, gold) with upstream (US, orange) and downstream (DS, magenta) flanking regions in the vector. The insert contains an arbitrary sequence of interest (ATGCATG, green) and a selectable marker (SM, blue). (B) shows two methods of creating markerless mutants, either by selection-counterselection or by using a recombinase system such as FLP/FRT, The counter-selection method's first step is the same as for the method in panel a, except that the insert also contains a counter-selectable marker (CSM, purple) such as sacB. A second transformation is performed to create a markerless mutant. Alternatively, the insert can contain recombinase recognition sites (RRS, gray) that are controlled by an inducible recombinase at a second (or the same) site in the genome. While it erases the selectable marker, this method does leave a scar sequence behind. (C) shows genetic modification in trans via expression plasmids.
Figure 2DNA assembly methods. (A) Traditionally in cyanobacterial synthetic biology, plasmids are assembled in vitro and then propagated in E. coli before being transformed into cyanobacteria. (B) More recently, methods have been developed for in vitro assembly and direct transformation via fusion PCR. (C) Another recent method has been developed for in vivo plasmid assembly via homologous recombination in yeast which may also be applicable in certain cyanobacterial strains.
Inducible promoters used in cyanobacterial hosts.
| Inducer AsO2− 720 Mm | 100-fold | RT-PCR | Blasi et al., | ||||
| Inducer Cd2+ 2 μ M | 10-fold | RT-PCR | Blasi et al., | ||||
| Inducer Co2+ 6 μ M | Gene encoding EFE from | 500-fold | 48 nL ethylene mL−1 h−1 | Guerrero et al., | |||
| Inducer Co2+ 6.4 μ M | 70-fold | 70 RLU | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Co2+ 3 μ M | 10-fold | RT-PCR | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Co2+ 3 μ M | 10-fold | RT-PCR | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Co2+ 1 μ M | 10-fold | RT-PCR | Blasi et al., | ||||
| Inducer Cu2+ 0.5 μ M | Gene encoding EFE from | 5-fold | 28 nL ethylene mL−1 h−1 | Guerrero et al., | |||
| Inducer Cu2+ 3 μ M | 4.5-fold | 8% heterocyst frequency | Higa and Callahan, | ||||
| Inducer Cu2+ 0.3 μ M | Qualified but not quantified | 0% heterocysts from 10% uninduced | Callahan and Buikema, | ||||
| Repressor Fe3+ 30 μ M | 5000-fold | From 5000 RFU | Kunert et al., | ||||
| Repressor Fe2+ 0.043 mM | 170-fold | Luminescence (5.3 × 106 cpm) | Michel et al., | ||||
| Repressor Fe3+ 100 nM | 2-fold | From 0.012 RLU cell−1 s−1 | Boyanapalli et al., | ||||
| Inducer Ni2+ 0.5 μ M | 1000-fold | RT-PCR | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Ni2+ 5 μ M | 400-fold | RT-PCR | Blasi et al., | ||||
| Inducer Ni2+ 6.4 μ M | 50-fold | 50 RLU | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Zn2+ 2 μ M | 300-fold | 325,000 cps luminescence | Erbe et al., | ||||
| Inducer Zn2+ 5 μ M | 40-fold | RT-PCR | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Zn2+ 4 μ M | 40-fold | RT-PCR | Blasi et al., | ||||
| Inducer Zn2+ 3.2 μ M | 25-fold | 25 RLU | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Zn2+ 5 μ M | 10-fold | RT-PCR | Peca et al., | ||||
| Inducer Zn2+ 4 μ M | 8-fold | RT-PCR | Blasi et al., | ||||
| Inducer Zn2+ 2 μ M | Gene encoding EFE from | 2-fold | 2 nL ethylene mL−1 h−1 | Guerrero et al., | |||
| Inducer Zn2+ 3.5 μ M | Qualified but not quantified | 109 nmol H2 mg Chl−1 min−1 | Berto et al., | ||||
| Inducer aTc 103 ng/per ml | 290-fold | >10,000 RFU | Huang and Lindblad, | ||||
| Inducer IPTG 100 μ M | 160-fold for fructose + 30-fold for glucose | 160 μM fructose + 30 μM glucose | Niederholtmeyer et al., | ||||
| Inducer IPTG 1 mM | 36-fold | 340 nmol MU min−1 mg protein−1 (β-Glucuronidase activity) | Geerts et al., | ||||
| Inducer IPTG 1 mM | Gene encoding EFE from | 8-fold | 170 nL ethylene mL−1 h−1 | Guerrero et al., | |||
| Inducer IPTG 2 mM | Gene encoding GFPmut3B | 4-fold | 12 RFU | Huang et al., | |||
| Inducer IPTG 2 mM | Gene encoding GFPmut3B | 1.6-fold | 101 RFU | Huang et al., | |||
| Inducer IPTG 1 mM | 1.6-fold | 1.6 (relative to sADH and ALS activity) | Oliver et al., | ||||
| Inducer IPTG 1 mM | gene encoding EFE from | No significant difference | 170 nL ethylene mL−1 h−1 | Guerrero et al., | |||
| Inducer light 500 μmol photons m−2 s−1 | Qualified but not quantified | ~50 mg isoprene g DCW−1 d−1 | Lindberg et al., | ||||
| Inducer light 50 μ Em−2s−1 | Qualified but not quantified | 130 nmol H2 mg Chl−1 min−1 | Berto et al., | ||||
| Inducer light 30 μ Em−2s−1 | 17% heterocyst frequency | Chaurasia and Apte, | |||||
| Inducer/Repressor NO−3/NH+4 17.6 mM/17.6 mM | Gene encoding p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase from | 25-fold | 250 ng tocopherol mg DCW−1 | Qi et al., | |||
| Inducer/Repressor NO−3/NH+4 15.0 mM/3.75 mM | 5-fold | 260 nmol HCO−3 mg Chl−1 | Omata et al., | ||||
| Inducer/Repressor NO−3/NH+4 5.9 mM/10.0 mM | Qualified but not quantified | 250 mg labeled proteins for NMR L−1 | Desplancq et al., | ||||
In the presence of 5 μ M DCMU, which inhibits the PSII-dependent oxygen evolution.
Grown in the dark on 5 mM glucose.
Leaky production of 2,3-butanediol, no IPTG, and 1 mM IPTG similar.
Plac variants had differential expression early in growth phase but dynamic range was reduced as growth proceeded.
RFU = Relative Fluorescence Units; RLU = Relative Luminescence Units.
Figure 3Using fluxomics and genome scale models to link genotype to metabolic phenotype. From an annotated genome sequence, a stoichiometric model of metabolism can be constructed. That model can be solved via either prediction of an optimal flux phenotype (FBA) or measurement of actual flux phenotype (13C-MFA). These results can help suggest modifications for altering the phenotype of the cell in a desired manner. In this way, a synthetic biologist can design new strains, build them using genetic modification methods, and test their phenotypes before designing new modifications in an iterative fashion.