| Literature DB >> 26347861 |
Alejandra Vargas-Tah1, Guillermo Gosset1.
Abstract
The aromatic compounds cinnamic and p-hydroxycinnamic acids (pHCAs) are phenylpropanoids having applications as precursors for the synthesis of thermoplastics, flavoring, cosmetic, and health products. These two aromatic acids can be obtained by chemical synthesis or extraction from plant tissues. However, both manufacturing processes have shortcomings, such as the generation of toxic subproducts or a low concentration in plant material. Alternative production methods are being developed to enable the biotechnological production of cinnamic and (pHCAs) by genetically engineering various microbial hosts, including Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pseudomonas putida, and Streptomyces lividans. The natural capacity to synthesize these aromatic acids is not existent in these microbial species. Therefore, genetic modification have been performed that include the heterologous expression of genes encoding phenylalanine ammonia-lyase and tyrosine ammonia-lyase activities, which catalyze the conversion of l-phenylalanine (l-Phe) and l-tyrosine (l-Tyr) to cinnamic acid and (pHCA), respectively. Additional host modifications include the metabolic engineering to increase carbon flow from central metabolism to the l-Phe or l-Tyr biosynthetic pathways. These strategies include the expression of feedback insensitive mutant versions of enzymes from the aromatic pathways, as well as genetic modifications to central carbon metabolism to increase biosynthetic availability of precursors phosphoenolpyruvate and erythrose-4-phosphate. These efforts have been complemented with strain optimization for the utilization of raw material, including various simple carbon sources, as well as sugar polymers and sugar mixtures derived from plant biomass. A systems biology approach to production strains characterization has been limited so far and should yield important data for future strain improvement.Entities:
Keywords: aromatics; biotechnology; cinnamic acid; metabolic engineering; natural products; p-hydroxycinnamic acid; phenylpropanoids
Year: 2015 PMID: 26347861 PMCID: PMC4542537 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Figure 1Central metabolism, aromatics biosynthetic pathways, and transport pathways from engineered . Dashed arrows indicate multiple enzyme reactions. EI, PTS enzyme I; HPr, PTS phosphohistidine carrier protein; EIIA, PTS glucose-specific enzyme II; PTS IICBGlc, integral membrane glucose permease; GalP, galactose permease; XylFGH, xylose transport proteins, AraFGH, arabinose transport proteins; DAHPS, DAHP synthase; aroG, gene encoding a feedback-inhibition-resistant version of DAHPS; tktA, transketolase; tyrB, tyrosine aminotransferase gene; PAL, phenylalanine ammonia lyase; TAL, tyrosine ammonia lyase; C4H, cinnamate 4-hydroxylase; AaeXAB, efflux pump from E. coli; SprABC, efflux pump from P. putida; G6P, glucose-6-phosphate; F6P, fructose-6-phosphate; G3P, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate; PEP, phosphoenolpyruvate; R5P, ribose-5-phosphate; Ru5P, ribulose-5-phosphate; S7P, sedoheptulose-7-phosphate; X5P, xylulose-5-phosphate; PYR, pyruvate; AcCoA, acetyl-CoA; TCA, tricarboxylic acids.
Kinetic parameters for phenylalanine ammonia lyase and tyrosine ammonia lyase enzymes from various organisms.
| Organism | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1277 | 15.6 | Kyndt et al. ( | |
| 270 | 19 | Rosler et al. ( | |
| 24.5 | 7.8 | Appert et al. ( | |
| 560 | 60 | Vannelli et al. ( | |
| 161 | 44 | Xue et al. ( | |
| 2330 | 432 | Vannelli et al. ( | |
| 584 | 212 | Vannelli et al. ( | |
| 448 | 154 | Vannelli et al. ( | |
| 23 | – | Xiang and Moore ( | |
| 1340 | 560 | Zhu et al. ( | |
| 68 | – | Cochrane et al. ( | |
| 64 | – | Cochrane et al. ( | |
| 256 | – | Cochrane et al. ( | |
| 71 | – | Cochrane et al. ( | |
| 2860 | 15.5 | Berner et al. ( |
Comparison of production parameters for aromatic acids synthesized by engineered microbial strains.
| Organism | PAL/TAL | Carbon source | pHCA (mg/L) | CA (mg/L) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | 7.0 | 4.9 | Vannelli et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 46.0 | 41.5 | Vannelli et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 24.6 | 56.3 | Vannelli et al. ( | ||
| LB | 79 | 186 | Vannelli et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 15.0 | 29.0 | Vargas-Tah et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | – | 78.5 | Vargas-Tah et al. ( | ||
| Arabinose | – | 151.4 | Vargas-Tah et al. ( | ||
| Simulated hydrolyzate | 58.4 | 15.6 | Vargas-Tah et al. ( | ||
| Simulated hydrolyzate | – | 55.9 | Vargas-Tah et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 2.3 | – | Vannelli et al. ( | ||
| Raffinose | 31.8 | – | Vannelli et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 36.8 | 46.5 | Nijkamp et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 141.2 | 10.4 | Nijkamp et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 1740.1 | 22.2 | Nijkamp et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | – | 61.4 | Nijkamp et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | – | 740.3 | Nijkamp et al. ( | ||
| Glycerol | – | 799.5 | Nijkamp et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 786 | – | Kawai et al. ( | ||
| Cellobiose | 736 | – | Kawai et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | 753 | – | Kawai et al. ( | ||
| Cellobiose | 743 | Kawai et al. ( | |||
| Cellulose | 500 | – | Kawai et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | – | 80.0 | Noda et al. ( | ||
| Glucose | – | 209.8 | Noda et al. ( | ||
| Glycerol | – | 450 | Noda et al. ( | ||
| Xylose | – | 300.0 | Noda et al. ( | ||
| Xylan | – | 130.0 | Noda et al. ( | ||
| Raw starch | – | 460.0 | Noda et al. ( | ||
| Cello-oligosaccharide | – | 490 | Noda et al. ( |
Figure 2Plant metabolites produced from CA and pHCA by engineered microbial strains.