4.7 Review

Strategies to Enhance Periplasmic Recombinant Protein Production Yields in Escherichia coli

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.797334

关键词

Escherichia coli; periplasm; recombinant protein; protein production; production optimization

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2019-04143]
  2. Carl Tryggers Foundation [CTS19:78]
  3. NOVO NORDISK FOUNDATION [NNF19OC0057673, 642863]
  4. Swedish Research Council [2019-04143] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Producing recombinant proteins in the periplasm of E. coli instead of in its cytoplasm has advantages such as enabling disulfide bond formation and controlling the nature of the mature protein, but challenges like hampered protein targeting, translocation, and folding as well as protein instability exist. Strategies to enhance periplasmic protein production yields focus on increasing the capacity of the secretory apparatus and preventing proteolysis, among other approaches.
Main reasons to produce recombinant proteins in the periplasm of E. coli rather than in its cytoplasm are to -i- enable disulfide bond formation, -ii- facilitate protein isolation, -iii- control the nature of the N-terminus of the mature protein, and -iv- minimize exposure to cytoplasmic proteases. However, hampered protein targeting, translocation and folding as well as protein instability can all negatively affect periplasmic protein production yields. Strategies to enhance periplasmic protein production yields have focused on harmonizing secretory recombinant protein production rates with the capacity of the secretory apparatus by transcriptional and translational tuning, signal peptide selection and engineering, increasing the targeting, translocation and periplasmic folding capacity of the production host, preventing proteolysis, and, finally, the natural and engineered adaptation of the production host to periplasmic protein production. Here, we discuss these strategies using notable examples as a thread.

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