Coexistence of different populations of cells and isolation of tasks can provide enhanced robustness and adaptability or impart new functionalities to a culture. However, generating stable cocultures involving cells with vastly different growth rates can be challenging. To address this, we developed living analytics in a multilayer polymer shell (LAMPS), an encapsulation method that facilitates the coculture of mammalian and bacterial cells. We leverage LAMPS to preprogram a separation of tasks within the coculture: growth and therapeutic protein production by the mammalian cells and l-lactate biosensing by Escherichia coli encapsulated within LAMPS. LAMPS enable the formation of a synthetic bacterial-mammalian cell interaction that enables a living biosensor to be integrated into a biomanufacturing process. Our work serves as a proof-of-concept for further applications in bioprocessing since LAMPS combine the simplicity and flexibility of a bacterial biosensor with a viable method to prevent runaway growth that would disturb mammalian cell physiology.
Coexistence of different populations of cells and isolation of tasks can provide enhanced robustness and adaptability or impart new functionalities to a culture. However, generating stable cocultures involving cells with vastly different growth rates can be challenging. To address this, we developed living analytics in a multilayer polymer shell (LAMPS), an encapsulation method that facilitates the coculture of mammalian and bacterial cells. We leverage LAMPS to preprogram a separation of tasks within the coculture: growth and therapeutic protein production by the mammalian cells and l-lactate biosensing by Escherichia coli encapsulated within LAMPS. LAMPS enable the formation of a synthetic bacterial-mammalian cell interaction that enables a living biosensor to be integrated into a biomanufacturing process. Our work serves as a proof-of-concept for further applications in bioprocessing since LAMPS combine the simplicity and flexibility of a bacterial biosensor with a viable method to prevent runaway growth that would disturb mammalian cell physiology.
Like any other industrial process, bioindustries strongly rely
on monitoring and controlling actions to maintain the optimal operating
conditions.[1] To that end, the concentrations
of substrates and key metabolites need to be tightly monitored. This
is commonly performed by electrochemical or chromatography techniques,
which normally require destructive sampling and are used off-line.[2] In this regard, there is a growing interest in
harnessing the ability of living systems to interact with their environment
to develop analytical devices, i.e., biosensors. They leverage the
naturally evolved ability of organisms, cells, or biomolecules to
detect and respond to a specific target molecule or ligand. Biosensors
can compare favorably with their physicochemical counterparts in terms
of sensitivity, specificity, and limit of detection.[3,4] They are also capable of detecting complex analytes such as proteins
in a simpler way compared to traditional approaches.[5,6] Therefore, their versatility allows biosensors to find numerous
applications for quantitative measurements,[7−9] as diagnostic
tools[10,11] or as wearable devices.[12] Furthermore, the use of standardized and modular parts
and an engineering workflow that follows the design-build-test-learn
cycle allows the implementation of more sophisticated designs to enhance
the performance of the biosensor. Examples include the use of toggle
or bistable switches,[13,14] logic gates,[15] and transcriptional amplifiers.[16] Recent examples of more complex biosensor designs with higher functionality
include the construction of oscillators to coordinate the dynamic
behavior of thousands of colonies in response to the concentration
of the analyte,[17] the amplification of
the biosensor response,[18] or the integration
of biosensors as a regulatory element to control the dynamics of the
genes involved in the biosynthesis of chemicals.[19] In addition, innovative designs are based on different
kinds of output signals beyond the more traditional reporter proteins
such as green fluorescent protein (GFP), including fluorescence resonance
energy transfer (FRET) or structural changes in nucleic acids probes.[20−22]Biosensors also possess an emerging potential to become a
foundational
technology for metabolite control in biomanufacturing. Here, whole-cell
biosensors (based on living cells) are of particular interest because
they can be easily programmed for control actions linked to biosensing,
bringing new capabilities to a bioprocess. In addition, they are easy
and inexpensive to produce once assembled. However, the integration
of whole-cell bacterial biosensors in a biomanufacturing process will
require strict compartmentalization to control the populations of
the biosensing and producing cells to avoid undesired growth of the
former and depletion of nutrients.Here we establish a framework
for the use of whole-cell biosensors
in biomanufacturing. As a proof-of-concept, we have selected a bacterial–mammalian
coculture, as it represents the biggest challenge in terms of differences
in physiology and growth rate in a cell culture and remains underexplored
for this kind of application. In particular, we employed an Escherichia coli whole-cell biosensor that expresses
GFP in response to the concentration of l-lactate. This allows
us to capitalize on synthetic biology tools widely established in E. coli for rapid biosensor development. However,
because bacteria such as E. coli have
high growth rates, they can easily overgrow the population of mammalian
cells in the culture. Therefore, the main challenge is to balance
the system so that both populations survive and function correctly.
To overcome this challenge, we present a method to encapsulate the
whole-cell bacterial biosensor, based on an inner hydrogel core carrying
the E. coli biosensor coated by a polymeric
multilayer shell to impart further physical and chemical stability
that we have called living analytics in a multilayer polymer shell
(LAMPS). We show how LAMPS produce a GFP signal in response to the l-lactate and coculture them with two different mammalian cell
lines. Given the simplicity of the encapsulation described here, it
would be possible to build different LAMPS modules to detect additional
metabolites of interest or to produce different output signals to
facilitate multiplexing. Therefore, LAMPS could be deployed widely
in biomanufacturing processes by allowing self-regulated and preprogramed
responses to key metabolites in a cell culture.
Results
Whole-Cell Biosensor Design and Optimization
We built
a coculture consisting of an E. coli whole-cell l-lactate biosensor encapsulated in LAMPS and
a free-growing mammalian cell culture (Figure a). The l-lactate responsiveness
of LAMPS is encoded on a plasmid within the bacteria that carries
an l-lactate-inducible promoter derived from the lldPRD operon
in E coli and a transcriptional unit
to overexpress the LldR regulator to reduce basal GFP expression (Figure b).[23,24] We tested our initial biosensor plasmid, the β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside
(IPTG)-inducible pLac,[24] in E. coli cells encapsulated in an alginate hydrogel
(LAB). The LAB hydrogel cores prepared had a mean diameter of 1.6
mm (polydispersity index 0.00157, Figure S1). The increase in GFP fluorescence upon l-lactate addition
confirmed that the E. coli-pLac cells
retain their functionality when encapsulated, and therefore, suggesting
that they can be used as the biosensing element in a coculture system
(Figure c,d).
Figure 1
Coculture design
and validation of the biosensor element. (a) Design
of the bacteria–mammalian cell coculture proposed in this work
comprising an E. coli whole-cell biosensor
encapsulated in an alginate hydrogel matrix with additional polymer
coatings and a free-growing mammalian cell culture. The containment
of the bacteria in the hydrogel must ensure that no bacteria are released
into the liquid medium and, at the same time, allow inward diffusion
of the lactate. The increase in lactate concentration during mammalian
cell growth induces the expression of GFP by the encapsulated lactate-biosensing E. coli, which remain inside the hydrogel during
the course of the coculture. (b) Biosensor design for the detection
of lactate. O1 and O2 represent the operator sites of the lldPRD promoter,
flanking the constitutive promoter BBa_J23117. In the absence of lactate,
LldR transcription factor binds to both operators. In the presence
of lactate, LldR detaches from O2 and the expression of GFP is induced.[23] Three different promoter upstream of the lldR
gene were analyzed: hyperspank (IPTG-inducible), BBa_J23100, and BBa_J23118.
(c) GFP fluorescence of E. coli cells
carrying the pLac plasmid and encapsulated in an alginate hydrogel
observed under blue light. Beads were incubated in buffer A, with
0-, 1-, or 10 mM lactate and 0.01, 0.1, 0.25, or 1 mM IPTG (to induce
regulator expression) at 37 °C overnight. Scale bar: 6.8 mm.
(d) Contour plots of the fluorescence scan across the surface of alginate
beads incubated overnight in M9 with different concentrations of lactate.
These fluorescence scans were used to analyze the GFP signal produced
by LAMPS as a function of the concentration of lactate in the culture
medium. (e) Lactate titration experiments with liquid cultures of E. coli carrying one of the three different lactate-sensing
plasmids: pLac, pLac_100, or pLac_118. Cells were grown in M9 with
glucose 0.4% as a carbon source. The lines represent the mean and
shading indicates the standard deviation (n = 2).
The equivalent experiment with glycerol is included in the Supporting Information (Figure S2).
Coculture design
and validation of the biosensor element. (a) Design
of the bacteria–mammalian cell coculture proposed in this work
comprising an E. coli whole-cell biosensor
encapsulated in an alginate hydrogel matrix with additional polymer
coatings and a free-growing mammalian cell culture. The containment
of the bacteria in the hydrogel must ensure that no bacteria are released
into the liquid medium and, at the same time, allow inward diffusion
of the lactate. The increase in lactate concentration during mammalian
cell growth induces the expression of GFP by the encapsulated lactate-biosensing E. coli, which remain inside the hydrogel during
the course of the coculture. (b) Biosensor design for the detection
of lactate. O1 and O2 represent the operator sites of the lldPRD promoter,
flanking the constitutive promoter BBa_J23117. In the absence of lactate,
LldR transcription factor binds to both operators. In the presence
of lactate, LldR detaches from O2 and the expression of GFP is induced.[23] Three different promoter upstream of the lldR
gene were analyzed: hyperspank (IPTG-inducible), BBa_J23100, and BBa_J23118.
(c) GFP fluorescence of E. coli cells
carrying the pLac plasmid and encapsulated in an alginate hydrogel
observed under blue light. Beads were incubated in buffer A, with
0-, 1-, or 10 mM lactate and 0.01, 0.1, 0.25, or 1 mM IPTG (to induce
regulator expression) at 37 °C overnight. Scale bar: 6.8 mm.
(d) Contour plots of the fluorescence scan across the surface of alginate
beads incubated overnight in M9 with different concentrations of lactate.
These fluorescence scans were used to analyze the GFP signal produced
by LAMPS as a function of the concentration of lactate in the culture
medium. (e) Lactate titration experiments with liquid cultures of E. coli carrying one of the three different lactate-sensing
plasmids: pLac, pLac_100, or pLac_118. Cells were grown in M9 with
glucose 0.4% as a carbon source. The lines represent the mean and
shading indicates the standard deviation (n = 2).
The equivalent experiment with glycerol is included in the Supporting Information (Figure S2).To simplify the workflow and eliminate
the need for IPTG addition,
we exchanged the IPTG-inducible Hyperspank promoter driving the expression
of the LldR with a constitutive promoter. Two constitutive promoters
of different strength, BBa_J23100 (strong) and BBa_J23118 (medium),[25] from the Anderson library were cloned into the
biosensor plasmid and tested with a l-lactate titration experiment
in liquid culture. The original and both new designs show an l-lactate-dependent response within the commonly encountered range
of l-lactate concentration in bioprocesses (0–20 mM)
when tested in a medium containing glucose or glycerol as a carbon
source (Figures e
and S1). For both carbon sources, the design
with the medium strength constitutive promoter pLac_118 had the highest
signal-to-noise ratio (3.77, 8.41, and 10.34 for pLac, pLac_100, and
pLac_118, respectively, after 10 h of incubation with 20 mM of l-lactate) while maintaining the same level of background signal
and limit of detection (0.05 mM of l-lactate). A higher dynamic
range is desired since it both increases sensitivity and results in
a smaller number of encapsulated cells needed for the detection. Therefore,
pLac_118 was selected as the best design available and used for all
subsequent experiments.
Encapsulation of Biosensing
Bacteria
Optimization of LAMPS Coating
Next,
we studied how to contain the bacteria within LAMPS to avoid their
escape and subsequent overgrowth/contamination of the mammalian cell
culture. The containment strategy must allow sufficient diffusion
of the analyte to preserve the biosensor responsiveness. Since alginate
alone is insufficient to prevent bacterial escape, we decided to base
our approach on a multilayer (onionlike) encapsulation, alternating
layers of alginate (negatively charged), and positively charged polymers.[26,27] In addition, the extra layers of coating can also compensate for
the mechanical and chemical instabilities of alginate in the absence
of divalent cations.[28] While there is extensive
research about coating hydrogel beads,[28] few studies have examined the propensity for bacterial escape. Recent
work has suggested that an outer coating consisting of photocrosslinked
methacrylate,[29] polydopamine (PD),[30] or polyacrylamide[9] help to prevent microbial release. Based on this, we selected polydopamine
(PD), chitosan (CH), and poly-l-lysine (PLL) as positively
charged polymers to explore (Figure a).
Figure 2
Optimization of LAMPS coating. (a) Elements of LAMPS:
the LAB core,
composed of an alginate matrix encapsulating lactate-sensing E. coli cells, is coated with a polymer of opposite
charge to isolate the encapsulated bacteria and prevent their escape,
creating LAMPS (living analytics in a multilayer polymer shell). Polydopamine
(PD), chitosan (CH), and poly-l-lysine (PLL) were tested
as coating polymers. The properties of LAMPS with one layer of coating
polymer are summarized in the table (n.d. stands for not determined).
(b) Fluorescence signal upon lactate induction in M9, for one- and
two-layer LAMPS prepared with CH and PLL. From left to right: CH-1
layer, CH-2 layer, PLL-1 layer, and PLL-2 layer. For two-layered LAMPS,
induction of the response was delayed around 2 h, but the maximum
signal and background remained mostly unaltered.
Optimization of LAMPS coating. (a) Elements of LAMPS:
the LAB core,
composed of an alginate matrix encapsulating lactate-sensing E. coli cells, is coated with a polymer of opposite
charge to isolate the encapsulated bacteria and prevent their escape,
creating LAMPS (living analytics in a multilayer polymer shell). Polydopamine
(PD), chitosan (CH), and poly-l-lysine (PLL) were tested
as coating polymers. The properties of LAMPS with one layer of coating
polymer are summarized in the table (n.d. stands for not determined).
(b) Fluorescence signal upon lactate induction in M9, for one- and
two-layer LAMPS prepared with CH and PLL. From left to right: CH-1
layer, CH-2 layer, PLL-1 layer, and PLL-2 layer. For two-layered LAMPS,
induction of the response was delayed around 2 h, but the maximum
signal and background remained mostly unaltered.After coating with PD for 3.5 h, cells did not escape from LAMPS
during an overnight incubation in buffer A, but colony-forming units
were observed after plating samples from LAMPS that had been disrupted.
However, no colony-forming units were observed on the plates when
LAMPS were coated for 12 h with PD. This suggests that PD has some
degree of toxicity for E. coli, even
though it seems to be innocuous for Saccharomyces cerevisiae.[30] In addition, PD coating is opaque,
with an absorption spectrum covering the UV–visible range,[31] which makes it incompatible with biosensing
applications based on fluorescence excitation. Conversely, CH and
PLL generated a translucent coating, with CH performing better in
terms of cell survivability and coating transparency, while PLL conferred
higher resistance to swelling (Figures a and S2). In addition,
preliminary tests using LAMPS with one coating layer of either CH
or PLL prevented the release of bacteria after incubation in buffer
A in 3/4 and 4/4 samples, for CH and PLL, respectively.The
performance of LAMPS after the onionlike encapsulation was
tested for both polycations (PCs), to ensure the desired containment
of the bacteria in a culture environment. LAMPS with one (LAB-PC)
and two (LAB-PC-alginate-PC) coating layers were incubated in M9 culture
medium in a 96-well plate, and the fluorescence was monitored every
20 min. Figure b shows
the response of LAMPS with one and two PC layers in the presence and
absence of l-lactate. LAMPS prepared with both CH and PLL
showed a clear response when the media was spiked with l-lactate
(10 mM), confirming that it is possible to perform monitoring of the
fluorescence signal of the living biosensor without the need to disrupt
the LAMPS first. In the absence of l-lactate, a stable background
response was recorded during the first 10 h of incubation.Overall,
the number of layers had a significant effect on the dynamics
of the LAMPS response, particularly on the lag phase. The activation
of the LAMPS with one layer of positively charged polymer was around
2 h faster in culture medium compared to those with two layers, for
both CH and PLL, though the opposite occurred when LAMPS were incubated
in buffer A, which lacks a carbon source (Figure S4). This suggests that the diffusion of nutrients and/or l-lactate is slower in the multilayer coating, probably due
to the thicker coating layer. However, for both positively charged
polymers and regardless of the number of layers, the maximum signal
and background level were similar at the end of the incubation.We also tested the performance of CH and PLL coatings in bigger
culture volumes, incubating LAMPS overnight in 1 mL of M9 in a 24-well
plate, instead of in 200 μL as in the previous experiment. Here,
the CH-coated LAMPS cracked open, exposing the LAB core (Figure S3b). Therefore, since PLL coatings prevented
cell escape, LAMPS swelling and maintained their integrity in bigger
volumes; these were used for all subsequent experiments.
Dose–Response, Preservation, and
Soiling of LAMPS
We next studied some features of LAMPS that
are relevant for their performance as a biosensor in a coculture.
First, we tested the response of LAMPS to a range of metabolically
relevant concentrations of l-lactate and calculated the transfer
functions after 1, 2.6, and 5 h of incubation (Figure a). The increase in fluorescence with the
increase in l-lactate and over time confirms that LAMPS are
responsive to l-lactate concentrations up to at least 20
mM. However, at longer times, the signal saturated at concentrations
greater than 2 mM in small volume cultures (Figure S5). Interestingly, when LAMPS were cultured in larger volumes,
the range of detection was extended up to 20 mM (see the end of the
section and Figure e).
Figure 3
LAMPS dose–response, cryopreservation, and soiling reduction.
(a) Transfer functions of freshly prepared LAMPS as a function of
the lactate concentration after 1, 2.6, and 5 h of incubation. (b)
Effect of cryopreservation on LAMPS response. Time course of the response
of LAMPS at 20 mM of lactate after several days of cryopreservation.
(c) Effect of preincubation in growth medium on the LAMPS response,
for beads frozen 10 and 24 days (left and right, respectively). LAMPS
were preincubated in M9 for 1 h before beginning the lactate induction
experiment where 10 mM (blue) and 0 mM (red) of lactate were tested.
Straight lines: preincubated LAMPS; dashed lines: no preincubation.
(d) Effect of an additional outer layer of alginate crosslinked with
BaCl2. For both cases, alginate-coated LAMPS (straight
lines) were compared with those finished in a PLL outer layer (dashed
lines). Responses at 0 and 10 mM of lactate (red and blue lines, respectively)
were tested. All experiments shown in this figure were carried out
in a 96-well plate, with one LAMP bead per well and 200 μL of
M9. The plots display the average fluorescence values of the scanned
surface in the plate reader at each time point. The lines represent
the mean and shading indicates the standard deviation (n = 2). (e) Fluorescence signal of LAMPS as a function of the concentration
of l-lactate, incubated in 1 mL of different media. The fluorescence
reads obtained by the scan of the surface of LAMPS are presented as
a box chart. The box contains the reads within the percentiles 25–75%;
the error bars represent the mean of all of the values ± standard
deviation (SD); the mean is indicated by a circle and the median by
a horizontal red line.
LAMPS dose–response, cryopreservation, and soiling reduction.
(a) Transfer functions of freshly prepared LAMPS as a function of
the lactate concentration after 1, 2.6, and 5 h of incubation. (b)
Effect of cryopreservation on LAMPS response. Time course of the response
of LAMPS at 20 mM of lactate after several days of cryopreservation.
(c) Effect of preincubation in growth medium on the LAMPS response,
for beads frozen 10 and 24 days (left and right, respectively). LAMPS
were preincubated in M9 for 1 h before beginning the lactate induction
experiment where 10 mM (blue) and 0 mM (red) of lactate were tested.
Straight lines: preincubated LAMPS; dashed lines: no preincubation.
(d) Effect of an additional outer layer of alginate crosslinked with
BaCl2. For both cases, alginate-coated LAMPS (straight
lines) were compared with those finished in a PLL outer layer (dashed
lines). Responses at 0 and 10 mM of lactate (red and blue lines, respectively)
were tested. All experiments shown in this figure were carried out
in a 96-well plate, with one LAMP bead per well and 200 μL of
M9. The plots display the average fluorescence values of the scanned
surface in the plate reader at each time point. The lines represent
the mean and shading indicates the standard deviation (n = 2). (e) Fluorescence signal of LAMPS as a function of the concentration
of l-lactate, incubated in 1 mL of different media. The fluorescence
reads obtained by the scan of the surface of LAMPS are presented as
a box chart. The box contains the reads within the percentiles 25–75%;
the error bars represent the mean of all of the values ± standard
deviation (SD); the mean is indicated by a circle and the median by
a horizontal red line.We also tested the cryopreservation
of LAMPS as a solution to tackle
batch-to-batch variability and the need to prepare them just before
use. Figure b compares
the response of freshly prepared LAMPS and those cryopreserved at
−80 °C for several days. The maximum signal decreased
as the storage time increased. Nonetheless, LAMPS remained responsive
to l-lactate and the E. coli cells did not escape during the experiment, suggesting that the
integrity of the polymer shell is not affected by freezing or storage.
Since the decrease in the signal can stem from a reduction of the
number of viable E. coli inside LAMPS,[9] we attempted to recover the bacterial population
by preincubation in a fresh medium to reactivate the cells prior to
repeating the l-lactate titration experiment. With reactivation,
LAMPS frozen for 10 days had an l-lactate response similar
to freshly prepared LAMPS (Figure c). Furthermore, LAMPS cryopreserved for 24 days retained
∼50% of the maximum signal when reactivated before use compared
to no signal at all without reactivation (Figure c).Next, in order to improve the measurement
of the fluorescence signal,
we aimed to reduce surface soiling by adding an additional outer layer
of alginate (Figure S6). Given the reversible
nature of alginate crosslinking with Ca2+ ions, Ba2+, a stronger crosslinker, was used to achieve a more stable
outer layer.[32]Figure d shows that the addition of a Ba2+-crosslinked outer alginate layer (LAB-PLL-Alg-PLL-AlgBa) considerably reduces the fluorescence signal compared to LAMPS
without it (LAB-PLL-Alg-PLL). However, the outer layer visibly reduced
the soiling of the beads after an overnight incubation in several
different media (Figure S6). Moreover,
the background signal of LAMPS terminating with alginate remained
almost unchanged over a 16 h incubation, as opposed to the signal
drift from 10 h onwards for those without it (Figure d). Taking into account the lower background,
the reduction of the fluorescence signal from the additional layer
is less relevant. The data also suggest that the surface soiling may
interfere with fluorescence detection. When the Ba2+ was
omitted, and therefore the alginate outer layer was not crosslinked,
the fluorescence was similar to LAMPS with a PLL outer layer (Figure d) and only a minimal
reduction in soiling was observed (Figure S6), suggesting that the crosslinking is necessary to retain the final
alginate outer layer.Taking this as the final design, we compared
the response of LAMPS
incubated in 1 mL of two types of fresh mammalian cell culture media
(CD-CHO and Ham’s F-12) supplemented with l-lactate
(Figure e, center
and right). In each case, the signal proportionally increased with
the l-lactate concentration between 0 and 100 mM. The differential
response compared to the experiments in Figure a conducted in 200 μL highlights the
importance of the medium/LAMPS volume ratio as a parameter affecting
the signal of the biosensor, which may require optimization for future
use.
LAMPS as Biosensing Elements
in Mammalian–Bacteria
Cocultures
Finally, we tested the ability of LAMPS to act
as l-lactate biosensing units in coculture with mammalian
cells. For this, we grew two Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell lines:
adherent Flp-In CHO cells or IgG-producing CHO (IgG-C) suspension-adapted
cells as cocultures with LAMPS.The two cell lines were grown
in batch culture with no feed addition for 1–4 days. LAMPS
were added to each culture at different times to measure the l-lactate concentration. After 20 h of coculture, LAMPS were recovered
to perform the fluorescence readings (Figure a). For adherent Flp-In CHO, each experiment
was conducted in duplicate or triplicate, in wells with one LAMPS
bead in each well. For suspension IgG-C cells, experiments were conducted
in duplicate with two LAMPS in each flask, giving a total of four
LAMPS scanned for each day.
Figure 4
Cocultures of mammalian cells and LAMPS. (a)
Box plots of the fluorescence
reads from LAMPS after 20 h of coculture with mammalian cells. Each
box presents the fluorescence reads obtained by the scan of the surface
of one LAMPS. The box contains the reads within the 25–75%
percentile; the error bars represent the mean of all of the values
± SD, where the mean is indicated by a circle and the median
by a horizontal red line. For adherent Flp-In CHO (left), each experiment
was conducted in duplicate or triplicate, while for suspension IgG-C
cells (right), experiments were conducted in duplicate with two LAMPS
in each flask. The letters (a–c) inset in the graphs indicate
significant differences in the means of the fluorescence reads for
each day according to a Tukey test (p < 0.01).
(b) Extracellular lactate concentration in the coculture supernatants
measured by an enzymatic assay. (c) Titer in mg/L (bars) and specific
productivity in μg/105 cell/day (squares) for the
antibody produced by the IgG-C cells during the coculture experiments.
(d) Culture viability (diamonds) and cell density (bars) of the mammalian
cells. For (b)–(d), error bars indicate the SD of the mean
values of the biological replicates shown in (a). (e) Images of flasks
on day 4 of the experiment with IgG-C cells after 20 h of incubation.
From left to right: cocultures with two LAMPS added (duplicates),
kanamycin control and negative control using LAB cores (beads where
the biosensing E. coli are encapsulated
but not covered with successive PLL and alginate layers).
Cocultures of mammalian cells and LAMPS. (a)
Box plots of the fluorescence
reads from LAMPS after 20 h of coculture with mammalian cells. Each
box presents the fluorescence reads obtained by the scan of the surface
of one LAMPS. The box contains the reads within the 25–75%
percentile; the error bars represent the mean of all of the values
± SD, where the mean is indicated by a circle and the median
by a horizontal red line. For adherent Flp-In CHO (left), each experiment
was conducted in duplicate or triplicate, while for suspension IgG-C
cells (right), experiments were conducted in duplicate with two LAMPS
in each flask. The letters (a–c) inset in the graphs indicate
significant differences in the means of the fluorescence reads for
each day according to a Tukey test (p < 0.01).
(b) Extracellular lactate concentration in the coculture supernatants
measured by an enzymatic assay. (c) Titer in mg/L (bars) and specific
productivity in μg/105 cell/day (squares) for the
antibody produced by the IgG-C cells during the coculture experiments.
(d) Culture viability (diamonds) and cell density (bars) of the mammalian
cells. For (b)–(d), error bars indicate the SD of the mean
values of the biological replicates shown in (a). (e) Images of flasks
on day 4 of the experiment with IgG-C cells after 20 h of incubation.
From left to right: cocultures with two LAMPS added (duplicates),
kanamycin control and negative control using LAB cores (beads where
the biosensing E. coli are encapsulated
but not covered with successive PLL and alginate layers).Fluorescence readings from the adherent Flp-In CHO cells
were very
low across the whole experiment and lower than that of the LAMPS incubated
with culture medium spiked with l-lactate (Figure e). This suggests either the
depletion of a key nutrient enabling bacterial biosensor functionality
or the production of a metabolite that quenches fluorescence after
the Flp-In CHO cells has been growing in the culture medium. In contrast,
for cocultures of suspension IgG-C cells, the fluorescence was the
lowest on day 1, increased on day 2, and showed a slight decrease
on day 4. In this case, the fluorescence of LAMPS matches the trend
of extracellular l-lactate concentration (Figure b).In addition to LAMPS
fluorescence, we also measured the cell density,
viability, and, in the case of the IgG-C cells, monoclonal antibody
production of the cocultures and compared these with the monoculture
controls. Remarkably, the titer and antibody productivity of the IgG-C
cells remained unaltered in cocultures with LAMPS (Figure c). In addition, the bacteria
did not have a significant effect on the cell viability or density
of either cell line when compared to positive control CHO cells grown
alone (Figure d).
Finally, for both cell lines and for all biological replicates, no
release of E. coli was detected after
20 h of coculture, confirming that LAMPS provided total containment
of the encapsulated bacteria in an actual coculture environment (Figure e). For comparison
purposes, a negative control experiment with LAMPS lacking coating
layers (LAB with a single layer of alginate only) was performed. Here,
the proliferation of the released E. coli was clearly observed after the 20 h incubation (Figure e, far right).
Discussion
The interest in coculture spans from the
study of cell–cell
interactions to the improvement of production processes.[33−36] Microbial communities have been extensively used to distribute labor
and reduce metabolic burden,[37] making use
of natural or synthetic interactions.[38,39] In the particular
case of mammalian–microbe cocultures, they are of interest
as models for infection studies, for example, in microbiota–host
interactions.[40−44] However, their application to manufacturing is less explored, even
though cocultures represent a point of focus for the expansion of
biomanufacturing.[45] Some early examples
that have been recently demonstrated are cocultures of epithelial
cells and Pichia pastoris or HEK293T
cells and engineered auxotrophic E. coli.[46−48] However, applications of interkingdom cocultures for manufacturing
have not been reported to date, in part due to the existing gap in
compartmentalization technologies that allow both types of cells to
survive and function correctly. This work demonstrates vital progress
in this direction by applying a rationally designed and optimized
biosensor of a key metabolite in biomanufacturing paired with a simple
encapsulation methodology to permit the coculture of l-lactate-biosensing
bacteria with mammalian cells. This allows a division of labor where
the two types of cells share the same culture environment, but each
maintains its functionality. The methodology is modular and readily
extensible to other types of biosensors, cell types, and applications,
making cocultures broadly useful for the implementation of synthetic
biology tools such as biosensors or regulatory networks into biomanufacturing.Among the various options to contain bacteria, we opted for hydrogel
encapsulation due to its simplicity, flexibility, and the wide range
of available materials.[49] Alginate is the
most commonly used matrix for encapsulation because of its ease of
handling and biocompatibility.[50] However,
the main challenge for the construction of LAMPS is the need for full
containment of the encapsulated E. coli to prevent contamination. We show that a multilayer coating of alternate
layers of alginate hydrogel and CH or PLL completely prevents the
escape of the encapsulated bacteria while maintaining their ability
to sense and report the concentration of l-lactate in small
volumes of M9 medium. The delay in the LAMPS response when adding
successive CH or PLL layers suggests a decrease in the diffusion rate
of l-lactate and/or nutrients to the interior of LAMPS and
confirms the stacking of polycations and alginate layers onto the
LAB core. In contrast, Mao et al.[27] reported
no decrease in the rate of diffusion of dextran molecules up to 200
kDa to the interior of alginate-PL-alginate micrometric beads. This
suggests that factors other than the molecular weight, such as size,
charge, or electrostatic attraction/repulsion, might have an effect
on the diffusion of molecules in and out of the beads and should be
considered for each particular application. Further experimentation
showed that CH coating failed when testing LAMPS in culture volumes
bigger than 200 μL. This could be due to increased diffusion
of Ca2+ ions out of the alginate gel core or because of
lower physical resistance. The effect of Ca2+ diffusion
can be tackled by supplementing the incubation medium with Ca2+. However, this may be undesirable when mammalian culture
media are involved, since they have well-defined and complex formulations.
Therefore, since CH coating was unable to maintain structural integrity,
we chose PLL as the best coating counterion for the preparation of
LAMPS. We also found that LAMPS with an outer alginate layer has reduced
soiling, particularly when crosslinked with BaCl2, leading
to a lower background signal and preventing signal drift.Similar
to the behavior of the liquid cultures of the unencapsulated
whole-cell biosensor, LAMPS showed a dose-dependent response when
exposed to a range of l-lactate concentrations within normal
metabolic levels, both in bacterial growth medium (M9) and in two
types of mammalian cell culture media (Ham’s F-12 and CD-CHO).
We observed that the medium itself had an important effect on the
induced and background signals of LAMPS. For example, LAMPS culture
in Ham’s F-12 had a background fluorescence around 10 times
higher than that in M9 or CD-CHO. This could be attributed to differences
in the growth of E. coli in different
media with varying nutrient sources or variations in the concentration
of other autoflorescent species.The results also demonstrate
successful cryopreservation of LAMPS,
which can contribute to the production of standardized biosensors
that provide reliable and reproducible measurements. We found that
incubation in a fresh medium to recover the bacterial population allowed
the use of cryopreserved LAMPS that had been stored up to 10 days
with responses similar to freshly prepared ones. In future, the cryopreservation
storage limit might be further extended with the use of cryoprotective
substances and/or lower cryopreservation temperatures.[27,51]Finally, we used the optimized LAMPS encapsulation to combine
a
living biosensor with a mammalian cell culture. LAMPS produced a GFP
signal during their coculture with IgG-C but appeared to be quenched
when cocultured with Flp-In CHO. This suggests that the signal is
influenced by factors other than just the concentration of l-lactate. In particular, the consumption of nutrients by the mammalian
cells during the monoculture period may reduce E. coli growth rate, which can explain the drop in the signal of LAMPS after
day 3 for IgG-C. This multivariate effect makes it challenging to
calibrate LAMPS fluorescence versus the concentration of l-lactate to enable absolute quantification since the calibration
curve would need to be adapted to each medium, culture stage, and
cell line (and may require a calibration curve in spent medium at
each time point for a high degree of accuracy). Therefore, more research
would be necessary to adapt LAMPS to other cell lines and media and
to enable accurate quantification of l-lactate. Nonetheless,
these results show for the first time an approach to perform mammalian–bacteria
cocultures, where both kinds of cells can coexist in a controlled
fashion and perform separated tasks. Remarkably, for both mammalian
cell lines, there were no significant differences in culture viability
and density between the cocultures and the monoculture positive control.
More importantly, this was also the case for the productivity and
titer of a recombinant antibody produced by the IgG-C cells. This
confirms that the energy requirements of the E. coli encapsulated in LAMPS did not impose a detectable burden on the
mammalian cells. The proof-of-concept demonstration shown here enables
the application of other whole-cell biosensors in cocultures, addressing
compatibility issues that restrict the practical use of many synthetic
microbial biosensors.[52] Overall, our results
demonstrate that LAMPS can be used in the rational design-build-test-learn
cycles in synthetic biology because of their modularity and ease of
preparation, which can seed new applications of engineered cells as
tools in biomanufacturing.
Conclusions
In this
work, we have shown that LAMPS enable the construction
of a synthetic bacterial–mammalian cell coculture with a predesigned
separation of tasks. This represents a demonstration of a living biosensor
that can be integrated into a biomanufacturing process. We envisage
that our work provides a new methodology for the analysis of cells
during production that can facilitate bioprocess development to increase
yields and product quality. LAMPS may be very useful for processes
run in systems such as wave bags or miniature bioreactors, where fewer
analytical probes are available. The concept could be expanded to
include arrays of biosensors for different molecules, given the flexibility
for their design.[53] Capitalizing on the
modularity and simplicity of LAMPS, it would be easy to spatially
arrange different engineered biological tools in a coculture or even
to build circuits that combine different LAMPS modules, in line with
the “plug and play” view of synthetic biology.[33] Furthermore, LAMPS biosensing could be easily
repurposed to distributed and modular control elements. The replacement
of the GFP fluorescence signal with an active molecule (secreted enzyme
or transcription factor, for example) will make it possible to couple
the detection of metabolites with an action affecting the liquid culture
or to interface with an electronic system.[54] LAMPS can expand the applicability of the wide array of engineered
cells made available by synthetic biology research to practical use
in biomanufacturing. In particular, LAMPS could be used as living
control units, enabling an autonomous and dynamic regulation of l-lactate concentration or other relevant parameters.
Methods
Salts and other ingredients for buffers and
bacteria culture media,
dopamine hydrochloride, fetal bovine serum (FBS), l-glutamine,
sodium l-(+)-lactate, kanamycin sulfate, β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG), and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Alginic acid sodium
salt from brown algae (ref 71238), poly-l-lysine hydrochloride
(MW 15 000–30 000 Da), and low-molecular-weight
chitosan (ref 448869) were also supplied by Sigma-Aldrich. Chemically
competent E. coli NEB5α cells
were purchased from New England Biolabs (NEB, MA).M9 culture
medium was prepared with 33.7 mM Na2HPO4, 22
mM KH2PO4, 8.55 mM NaCl, and 9.35
mM NH4Cl as 10× stock and autoclaved. It was supplemented
with 0.4% d-glucose (or glycerol), 1 mM MgSO4,
0.3 mM CaCl2, and 1 mg/L thiamine from stocks that were
prepared separately and filter-sterilized. Krebs–Ringer N-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine-N′-ethanesulfonic
acid (HEPES) (KRH buffer) buffer was prepared with 20 mM HEPES, 135
mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 0.4 mM K2HPO4, adjusted to
pH 7.4, autoclaved, and supplemented with 1 mM MgSO4, and
1 mM CaCl2 from stocks prepared separately and filter-sterilized.
Incubation buffer (buffer A) consisted of 10 mM HEPES, 150 mM NaCl,
20 mM CaCl2, and disruption buffer (buffer B) of 0.1 M
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and 0.2 M potassium citrate;
both were filter-sterilized.
Whole-Cell Biosensor Preparation
and Encapsulation
The biosensor used in this work (Figure b) was adapted from
Trantidou et al.[24] by replacing the inducible
Hyperspank promoter
K143015, controlling the expression of the LldR transcription factor,
with the promoters J23100 or J23118 (see Supporting Methods for sequences).E. coli cells from precultures, grown as described in the Supporting Methods, were pelleted at 7000 g for 5 min and
resuspended in fresh M9 to OD600 of 2. Solutions of 2%
sodium alginate and 100 mM CaCl2 were prepared in 10 mM
Tris pH 8.5, as described in Kim et al. and filtered-sterilized with
a 0.45 μm syringe filter.[30] The E. coli suspension and the alginate solution were
thoroughly mixed in a 1:3 volume ratio (0.25 and 0.75 mL, respectively)
in a sterile Eppendorf tube, and the mixture was drawn into a 1 mL
syringe. Alginate–bacteria beads were formed by dropwise addition
of the mixture from a height of 1 cm into 100 mL of CaCl2 solution in a sterile glass bottle under gentle magnetic agitation
using a sterile 30G-blunt end needle (RS Components, U.K.). The alginate
hydrogel beads were crosslinked for 30 min, collected with a sterile
cell strainer (Fisher, U.K.), washed with fresh sterile CaCl2 solution, and incubated for 1 min in 10 mL of KRH buffer in a Petri
dish. The resulting beads after this step are labeled as living analytic
biosensors (LABs) in the manuscript.For the addition of polymer
coatings to create LAMPS, LABs were
covered with successive layers of a polymer by dip coating. Here,
LAB was transferred to a 15 mL Falcon tube containing 5 mL of a solution
of 1 mg/mL poly-l-lysine (PLL) in KRH buffer, incubated for
10 min under gentle agitation and washed with fresh KRH buffer. When
desired, the second layer of alginate was added by the subsequent
incubation of the beads in a 0.2% alginate solution in 10 mM Tris
buffer pH 8.5 for 10 min. Beads were washed with KRH for 1 min and
again incubated in the PLL solution for 10 min. The PLL solution was
removed and the beads were washed with 5 mL of sterile in 0.15 M mannitol.
Next, 5 mL of 1 mg/mL PLL in 0.15 M mannitol was added, incubating
the beads for 2 h. Finally, the effect of an additional outer layer
of alginate was also studied. For that, the beads were rinsed with
KRH buffer, incubated in a 0.2% alginate solution in 10 mM Tris buffer
pH 8.5 for 10 min, washed with KRH, and finally crosslinked in a solution
of 50 mM BaCl2, 0.15 M mannitol for 5 min. After the addition
of the last coating layer, LAMPS were rinsed with KRH buffer. Beads
not used directly after preparation were cryopreserved in a 1:1 mix
of incubation buffer and glycerol 50% in 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes. They
were initially frozen at −18 °C and moved to −80
°C after 24 h. When desired, beads were disrupted by incubation
in 1 mL of buffer B at 37 °C for at least 10 min. Modifications
of the described protocol for coatings with dopamine, and chitosan
are detailed in the Supporting Information.
Coculture Experiments
Two CHO cell
lines were used. Suspension-adapted Chinese hamster ovary cells producing
an IgG antibody (IgG-C) were maintained in CD-CHO medium (Life Technologies,
Paisley, U.K.) at 36.5 °C, 150 rpm, and 5% CO2. Cells
were passaged three times every 3–4 days prior to the coculture
experiments, at a seeding density of 3 × 105 cell/mL.
The second cell line was the adherent Flp-In CHO (Thermo Scientific,
EEUU). These were seeded at a 1:10 density in T75 flasks with an adherent
surface and vented cap (Sarstedt). Cells were grown in Ham’s
F12 (Sigma) containing 10% FBS and 2 mM l-glutamine (according
to manufacturer’s instructions). Flp-In CHO cells were grown
at 37 °C with a 5% CO2 atmosphere and also subcultured
three times prior the coculture experiment.Coculture experiments
were conducted over 4 days to test the response of LAMPS in different
growth phases using cryopreserved beads from the same batch for each
time-course experiment. LAMPS were prepared 6 days prior to the experiment
and frozen and stored at −80 °C as described above. Each
day prior to their use, LAMPS were defrosted at 4 °C for 1 h,
washed with fresh M9, and incubated in M9-glucose at 37 °C for
1 h (12 beads/5 mL of medium). LAMPS were rinsed with PBS and individually
transferred to the mammalian cell culture with a sterile plastic Pasteur
pipette. LAMPS beads were cocultured for 20 h with CHO cell cultures
previously grown for 1–4 days, under the same conditions as
those used for mammalian cell monoculture. In the coculture experiments
with adherent CHO cells, one LAMPS bead was added to each well of
a six-well plate along with 2 mL of cell culture. For suspension cells,
two LAMPS were added to 20 mL of IgG-C cell cultures in 125 mL Erlenmeyer
flasks. Both experiments had at least one independent duplicate. Kanamycin
was supplemented to a concentration of 37.5 mg/L at the beginning
of the coculture. Positive controls consisting of mammalian cell cultures
in the absence of LAMPS were used to assess cell growth and productivity,
with and without the addition of kanamycin. Negative controls using
LAB (without the PLL and alginate coating layers) were also used.The Supporting Information contains
additional information about methods used to measure culture viability
and cell density, IgG antibody and l-lactate concentration,
and fluorescence measurements in LAMPS.
LAMPS
Fluorescence
For the fluorescence
measurements, LAMPS were placed in 96-well spheroid microplates (Corning).
The semispherical shape of the well traps the bead in the center during
measurement. A 20 × 20 matrix scan was made within a 2 mm radius
of the center of the well using a CLARIOstar plate reader (BMG Labtech).
For the incubation experiments carried out inside the plate reader,
LAMPS were incubated in 200 μL of M9 culture medium, taking
reads every 20 min using a gain value of 2424. The average value of
the 316 reads of the matrix scan was taken as the overall fluorescence
of the bead.End-point single read measurements were used for
experiments where LAMPS were incubated externally (cocultures and l-lactate calibration curves). In these experiments, LAMPS were
recovered from the medium, rinsed with fresh buffer A (10 mM HEPES,
150 mM NaCl, 20 mM CaCl2), and placed in 96-well spheroid
microplates containing 200 μL of buffer A. In this case, the
reads corresponding to the empty section of the well were not considered
for the calculation of the average fluorescence of LAMPS, and the
gain was fixed at 1000.
Authors: Angelo S Mao; Berna Özkale; Nisarg J Shah; Kyle H Vining; Tiphaine Descombes; Liyuan Zhang; Christina M Tringides; Sing-Wan Wong; Jae-Won Shin; David T Scadden; David A Weitz; David J Mooney Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Andrea K Erickson; Palmy R Jesudhasan; Melinda J Mayer; Arjan Narbad; Sebastian E Winter; Julie K Pfeiffer Journal: Cell Host Microbe Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 21.023