4.5 Article

Empirical model and in vivo characterization of the bacterial response to synthetic gene expression show that ribosome allocation limits growth rate

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 773-783

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/biot.201100084

关键词

Cell resources; Cellular chassis modeling; Heterologous system; Synthetic biology

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [FP6-NESTs 043340, FP7-ICT-043338, FP7-ICT-265505]
  2. ATIGE-Genopole
  3. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  4. MIT-France
  5. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [TIN2006-12860]
  6. Generalitat Valenciana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synthetic biology uses modeling to facilitate the design of new genetic constructions. In particular, it is of utmost importance to model the reaction of the cellular chassis when expressing heterologous systems. We constructed a mathematical model for the response of a bacterial cell chassis under heterologous expression. For this, we relied on previous characterization of the growth-rate dependence on cellular resource availability (in this case, DNA and RNA polymerases and ribosomes). Accordingly, we estimated the maximum capacities of the cell for heterologous expression to be 46% of the total RNA and the 33% of the total protein. To experimentally validate our model, we engineered two genetic constructions that involved the constitutive expression of a fluorescent reporter in a vector with a tunable origin of replication. We performed fluorescent measurements using population and single-cell fluorescent measurements. Our model predicted cell growth for several heterologous constructions under five different culture conditions and various plasmid copy numbers with significant accuracy, and confirmed that ribosomes act as the limiting resource. Our study also confirmed that the bacterial response to synthetic gene expression could be understood in terms of the requirement for cellular resources and could be predicted from relevant cellular parameters.

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

4.5
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