| Literature DB >> 31255171 |
Luísa Czamanski Nora1,2,3, Maren Wehrs2,3,4, Joonhoon Kim2,5, Jan-Fang Cheng6,7, Angela Tarver6,7, Blake A Simmons2,3, Jon Magnuson2,5, Miranda Harmon-Smith6, Rafael Silva-Rocha1, John M Gladden2,3,8, Aindrila Mukhopadhyay2,3,7, Jeffrey M Skerker9,10, James Kirby11,12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rhodosporidium toruloides is a promising host for the production of bioproducts from lignocellulosic biomass. A key prerequisite for efficient pathway engineering is the availability of robust genetic tools and resources. However, there is a lack of characterized promoters to drive expression of heterologous genes for strain engineering in R. toruloides.Entities:
Keywords: Bidirectional promoters; Fluorescent reporters; Metabolic engineering; Promoter characterization; Rhodotorula; Synthetic biology; Transformation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31255171 PMCID: PMC6599526 DOI: 10.1186/s12934-019-1167-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Fig. 1Experimental workflow. a A KU70-deficient strain of haploid R. toruloides IFO0880 was used for all experiments. Each promoter-reporter cassette was constructed in two orientations (1 and 2, above) in order to construct strains that report expression of both EGFP and mRuby2 from every promoter. 13 of the 29 promoters were predicted to be bidirectional (not shown). b Constructs were integrated into the CAR2 locus of the R. toruloides genome using a lithium-acetate-based transformation method. Strains harboring a correctly-targeted construct were determined by a white Δcar2 phenotype and fluorescence. c The Δku70 parent strain, a control ∆car2 strain, and three transformants for each of the 58 promoter strains were cultivated in 24-deep-well plates in four different media: YPD, SD supplemented with 1% (w/v) glucose, SD supplemented with 1% (w/v) xylose, and SD supplemented with 1% (w/v) each of glucose and xylose. Cultures were grown for 7 days, with sample collection at 8, 24, 48, 96 and 168 h. d Reporter gene expression was analyzed by flow cytometry. The upper and lower histograms show fluorescence from EGFP (upper, green histogram) and mRuby2 (lower, red histogram) driven by promoter P9, compared to the control ∆car2 strain (blue histograms); these populations were sampled at 24 h in SD supplemented with 1% (w/v) each of glucose and xylose
Fig. 2Expression of EGFP from monodirectional promoters. Fluorescence was measured by flow cytometry of cell populations sampled at five time points from four different media for strains harboring promoter constructs in orientation 1. The heatmap was generated using MultiExperiment Viewer (MeV), and promoters were clustered by hierarchical clustering using Euclidean distance. Fluorescence expression values are on a Log2 scale (color scale is shown in the upper bar), calculated as described in “Methods”. Each column represents a time point, shown in hours. Each row represents a promoter, named on the right side of the heatmap
Fig. 3Expression of mRuby2 from monodirectional promoters in orientation 2. Fluorescence was measured by flow cytometry of cell populations sampled at five time points from four different media. The heatmap was generated using MultiExperiment Viewer (MeV), and promoters were clustered by hierarchical clustering using Euclidean distance. Fluorescence expression values are on a Log2 scale (color scale is shown in the upper bar), calculated as described in “Methods”. Each column represents a time point, shown in hours. Each row represents a promoter, named on the right side of the heatmap
Fig. 4Expression of EGFP and mRuby2 from bidirectional promoters. Fluorescence of EGFP and mRuby2 for each bidirectional promoter pair was measured in strains harboring promoter constructs in orientation 1. The heatmap was generated using MultiExperiment Viewer (MeV), and promoters were clustered by hierarchical clustering using Euclidean distance. Fluorescence expression values are on a Log2 scale (color scale is shown in the upper bar), calculated as described in “Methods”. Each column represents a time point, shown in hours. Each row represents a promoter, named on the right side of the heatmap. All time points for all media are shown for both EGFP and mRuby
Fig. 5Expression of EGFP and mRuby2 from bidirectional promoters, in orientation 2. Fluorescence of EGFP and mRuby2 for each bidirectional promoter pair in orientation 2 was measured by flow cytometry of cell populations sampled at five time points from four different media. The heatmap was generated using MultiExperiment Viewer (MeV), and promoters were clustered by hierarchical clustering using Euclidean distance. Fluorescence expression values are on a Log2 scale (color scale is shown in the upper bar), calculated as described in “Methods”. Each column represents a time point, shown in hours. Each row represents a promoter, named on the right side of the heatmap
Fig. 6Correlation of fluorescence from two reporters expressed from R. toruloides promoters. To get a sense of promoter robustness, each promoter was cloned in front of two reporter genes, EGFP and mRuby2 (denoted as orientation 1 and 2 in Fig. 1). Average fluorescence output for both reporters at 48 h is charted for each promoter in four different media: correlation between EGFP expression from strains containing constructs in orientation 1 and mRuby2 expression from strains containing constructs in orientation 2. Solid line is the linear regression and dashed lines are the 95% confidence interval. YPD (a); SD supplemented with 1% (w/v) each of glucose and xylose (b); SD supplemented with 1% (w/v) glucose (c); and SD supplemented with 1% (w/v) xylose (d). Pearson correlation for promoter expression in SD with 1% glucose and 1% xylose resulted in a R2 of 0.6159 and for SD 1% glucose resulted in a R2 of 0.7223, both with a p value of < 0.0001. Correlation of promoter expression in SD 1% xylose resulted in a R2 of 0.471 and in YPD resulted in a R2 of 0.5041, both with a p value of 0.0005