4.6 Article

Improved L-phenylglycine synthesis by introducing an engineered cofactor self-sufficient system

期刊

SYNTHETIC AND SYSTEMS BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 513-521

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.synbio.2021.12.008

关键词

L-phenylglycine; Whole-cell biocatalyst; Self-sufficient; Protein scaffold; Hydroxymandelate synthase

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31900064]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province of China [LH2019C012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An L-phg synthesis pathway was developed in Escherichia coli, resulting in increased L-phg production by introducing new enzymes, a cofactor self-sufficient system, and a protein scaffold.
L-phenylglycine (L-phg) is a valuable non-proteinogenic amino acid used as a precursor to beta-lactam antibiotics, antitumor agent taxol and many other pharmaceuticals. L-phg synthesis through microbial bioconversion allows for high enantioselectivity and sustainable production, which will be of great commercial and environmental value compared with organic synthesis methods. In this work, an L-phg synthesis pathway was built in Escherichia coli resulting in 0.23 mM L-phg production from 10 mM L-phenylalanine. Then, new hydroxymandelate synthases and hydroxymandelate oxidases were applied in the L-phg synthesis leading to a 5-fold increase in L-phg production. To address 2-oxoglutarate, NH4+, and NADH shortage, a cofactor self-sufficient system was introduced, which converted by-product L-glutamate and NAD(+) to these three cofactors simultaneously. In this way, L-phg increased 2.5-fold to 2.82 mM. Additionally, in order to reduce the loss of these three cofactors, a protein scaffold between synthesis pathway and cofactor regeneration modular was built, which further improved the L-phg production to 3.72 mM with a yield of 0.34 g/g L-phe. This work illustrated a strategy applying for whole-cell biocatalyst converting amino acid to its value-added chiral amine in a cofactor selfsufficient manner.

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

4.6
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