4.7 Article

Directed Evolution of an Improved Rubisco; In Vitro Analyses to Decipher Fact from Fiction

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20205019

关键词

photosynthesis; carbon fixation; synthetic biology; metabolic engineering

资金

  1. Australian Government through the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Translational Photosynthesis [CE140100015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inaccuracies in biochemically characterizing the amount and CO2-fixing properties of the photosynthetic enzyme Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) carboxylase/oxygenase continue to hamper an accurate evaluation of Rubisco mutants selected by directed evolution. Here, we outline an analytical pipeline for accurately quantifying Rubisco content and kinetics that averts the misinterpretation of directed evolution outcomes. Our study utilizes a new T7-promoter regulated Rubisco Dependent Escherichia coli (RDE3) screen to successfully select for the first Rhodobacter sphaeroides Rubisco (RsRubisco) mutant with improved CO2-fixing properties. The RsRubisco contains four amino acid substitutions in the large subunit (RbcL) and an improved carboxylation rate (k(cat)(C), up 27%), carboxylation efficiency (k(cat)(C)/K-m for CO2, increased 17%), unchanged CO2/O-2 specificity and a 40% lower holoenzyme biogenesis capacity. Biochemical analysis of RsRubisco chimers coding one to three of the altered amino acids showed Lys-83-Gln and Arg-252-Leu substitutions (plant RbcL numbering) together, but not independently, impaired holoenzyme (L8S8) assembly. An N-terminal Val-11-Ile substitution did not affect RsRubisco catalysis or assembly, while a Tyr-345-Phe mutation alone conferred the improved kinetics without an effect on RsRubisco production. This study confirms the feasibility of improving Rubisco by directed evolution using an analytical pipeline that can identify false positives and reliably discriminate carboxylation enhancing amino acids changes from those influencing Rubisco biogenesis (solubility).

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