| Literature DB >> 31243078 |
Vinh G Tran1, Mingfeng Cao1, Zia Fatma1, Xiaofei Song1,2, Huimin Zhao3,4,5,6.
Abstract
The nonconventional yeast Issatchenkia orientalis has emerged as a potential platform microorganism for production of organic acids due to its ability to grow robustly under highly acidic conditions. However, lack of efficient genetic tools remains a major bottleneck in metabolic engineering of this organism. Here we report that the autonomously replicating sequence (ARS) from Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ScARS) was functional for plasmid replication in I. orientalis, and the resulting episomal plasmid enabled efficient genome editing by the CRISPR/Cas9 system. The optimized CRISPR/Cas9-based system employed a fusion RPR1'-tRNA promoter for single guide RNA (sgRNA) expression and could attain greater than 97% gene disruption efficiency for various gene targets. Additionally, we demonstrated multiplexed gene deletion with disruption efficiencies of 90% and 47% for double gene and triple gene knockouts, respectively. This genome editing tool can be used for rapid strain development and metabolic engineering of this organism for production of biofuels and chemicals.IMPORTANCE Microbial production of fuels and chemicals from renewable and readily available biomass is a sustainable and economically attractive alternative to petroleum-based production. Because of its unusual tolerance to highly acidic conditions, I. orientalis is a promising potential candidate for the manufacture of valued organic acids. Nevertheless, reliable and efficient genetic engineering tools in I. orientalis are limited. The results outlined in this paper describe a stable episomal ARS-containing plasmid and the first CRISPR/Cas9-based system for gene disruptions in I. orientalis, paving the way for applying genome engineering and metabolic engineering strategies and tools in this microorganism for production of fuels and chemicals.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9; Issatchenkia orientaliszzm321990; genome editing; metabolic engineering; synthetic biology
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31243078 PMCID: PMC6595149 DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00345-19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: mSphere ISSN: 2379-5042 Impact factor: 4.389
FIG 1Design and construction of an episomal plasmid, pIo-UG. (A) pIo-UG map containing I. orientalis URA3 selection marker, GFP expression cassette, E. coli elements (Ec-elements), S. cerevisiae ARS (ScARS), and LEU2 selection marker (ScLEU2). (B) The GFP expression peaks at 24 h and 120 h measured by flow cytometry.
FIG 2CRISPR/Cas9 system. (A) Constructs of various promoters for sgRNA expression. Triangles indicate tRNA cleavage site. (B) Scheme showing the design of CRISPR/Cas9 plasmid with RPR1′-tRNALeu as the promoter for sgRNA expression (pVT36b) and the Golden Gate cloning method to assemble gBlock containing HR donor and spacer into the plasmid.
FIG 3ADE2 disruption. (A) ADE2 knockout efficiencies using different promoters for sgRNA expression. All asterisks indicate statistical difference (P < 0.05) calculated using a two-tailed type II Student t test. Error represents standard deviation for biological triplicates. (B) qPCR analysis of sgRNA expression levels for different promoters. Data shown are sgRNA level normalized to the sgRNA level generated by the tRNALeu promoter. alg9 was used as the reference gene. Error bars represent standard deviations for biological triplicates.
Comparison of disruption efficiencies between RPR1 and RPR1′-tRNALeu promoters
| Gene | Disruption efficiency by promoter (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| 100 | 100 | |
| 90 ± 10 | 100 | |
| 100 | 100 | |
FIG 4DNA sequencing analysis. (A) SDH1 disruption. (B) SDH2 disruption in triple-gene disruption. (C) HIS3 disruption in triple-gene disruption.
FIG 5Scheme showing the assembly of CRISPR/Cas9 plasmid for multiplexed gene deletions. gBlock containing HR donor and spacer for each target site was first assembled into pVT36b. sgRNA expression cassettes were then PCR amplified, and the Golden Gate assembly method was used to clone the cassettes into pVT36z.
Multiplexed gene disruption efficiencies
| Genes | Disruption efficiency (%) |
|---|---|
| 72.8 ± 6.0 | |
| 89.9 ± 5.3 | |
| 46.7 |