4.4 Article

A Polylinker Approach to Reductive Loop Swaps in Modular Polyketide Synthases

期刊

CHEMBIOCHEM
卷 9, 期 16, 页码 2740-2749

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cbic.200800332

关键词

erythromycin; natural products; polyketides; Streptomyces; synthetic biology

资金

  1. BBSRC
  2. Schweizerische Nationalfonds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple versions of the DEBS 1-TE gene, which encodes a truncated bimodular polyketide synthase (PKS) derived from the erythromycin-producing PKS, were created by replacing the DNA encoding the ketoreductase (KR) domain in the second extension module by either of two synthetic oligonucleotide linkers. This made available a total of nine unique restriction sites for engineering. The DNA for donor reductive loops, which are sets of contiguous domains comprising either KR or KR and dehydratase (DH), or KR, DH and enoylreductase (ER) domains, was cloned from selected modules of five natural PKS multienzymes and spliced into module 2 of DEBS 1-TE using alternative polylinker sites. The resulting hybrid PKSs were tested for triketide production in vivo. Most of the hybrid multienzymes were active, vindicating the treatment of the reductive loop as a single structural unit, but yields were dependent on the restriction sites used. Further, different donor reductive loops worked optimally with different splice sites. For those reductive loops comprising DH, ER and KR domains, premature TE-catalysed release of partially reduced intermediates was sometimes seen, which provided further insight into the overall stereochemistry of reduction in those modules. Analysis of loops containing KR only, which should generate stereocentres at both C-2 and C-3, revealed that the 3-hydroxy configuration (but not the 2-methyl configuration) could be altered by appropriate choice of a donor loop. The successful swapping of reductive loops provides an interesting parallel to a recently suggested pathway for the natural evolution of modular PKSs by recombination.

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

4.4
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