4.6 Article

Combinatorial Engineering of Mevalonate Pathway for Improved Amorpha-4,11-Diene Production in Budding Yeast

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 111, 期 3, 页码 608-617

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bit.25123

关键词

mevalonate pathway; sesquiterpene; carotenoids; combinatorial engineering; pathway activity improvement; Saccharomyces cerevisiae

资金

  1. National University of Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Combinatorial genome integration of mevalonate pathway genes was performed with the aim of optimizing the metabolic flux for improved production of terpenoids in budding yeast. In the present study, we developed a novel -integration platform to achieve multiple genome integrations through modulating the concentration of antibiotics. By exploiting carotenoid biosynthesis as screening module, we successfully created a library of yeast colonies appeared with various intensities of orange color. As proof-of-concept that carotenoid overproducers could serve to boost the titer of other terpenoids, we further tested engineered strains for the production of amorpha-4,11-diene, an important precursor for antimalarial drug. However, we experienced some limitations of the carotenoid-based screening approach as it was only effective in detecting a small range of pathway activity improvement and further increasing mevalonate pathway activity led to a decreased orange color. By far, we were only able to obtain one mutant strain yielded more than 13-fold amorpha-4,11-diene over parental strains, which was approximately 64mg/L of caryophyllene equivalents. Further qPCR studies confirmed that erg10, erg13, thmg1 and erg12 involved in mevalonate pathway were overexpressed in this mutant strain. We envision the current -integration platform would form the basis of a generalized technique for multiple gene integrations in yeasta method that would be of significant interest to the metabolic engineering community. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2014;111: 608-617. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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