4.7 Review

Engineering microbial consortia by division of labor

期刊

MICROBIAL CELL FACTORIES
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12934-019-1083-3

关键词

C-13-metabolic flux analysis; Cross-feeding; Metabolite channeling; Reporter protein; Subpopulations

资金

  1. NSF [MCB 1616619]
  2. DOE [DESC0018324]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During microbial applications, metabolic burdens can lead to a significant drop in cell performance. Novel synthetic biology tools or multi-step bioprocessing (e.g., fermentation followed by chemical conversions) are therefore needed to avoid compromised biochemical productivity from over-burdened cells. A possible solution to address metabolic burden is Division of Labor (DoL) via natural and synthetic microbial consortia. In particular, consolidated bioprocesses and metabolic cooperation for detoxification or cross feeding (e.g., vitamin C fermentation) have shown numerous successes in industrial level applications. However, distributing a metabolic pathway among proper hosts remains an engineering conundrum due to several challenges: complex subpopulation dynamics/interactions with a short time-window for stable production, suboptimal cultivation of microbial communities, proliferation of cheaters or low-producers,intermediate metabolite dilution, transport barriers between species, and breaks in metabolite channeling through biosynthesis pathways. To develop stable consortia, optimization of strain inoculations, nutritional divergence and crossing feeding, evolution of mutualistic growth, cell immobilization, and biosensors may potentially be used to control cell populations. Another opportunity is direct integration of non-bioprocesses (e.g., microbial electrosynthesis) to power cell metabolism and improve carbon efficiency. Additionally, metabolic modeling and C-13-metabolic flux analysis of mixed culture metabolism and cross-feeding offers a computational approach to complement experimental research for improved consortia performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据