ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
An Engineered Constitutive Promoter Set with Broad Activity Range for Cupriavidus necator H16
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Research Article

An Engineered Constitutive Promoter Set with Broad Activity Range for Cupriavidus necator H16
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Abayomi Oluwanbe Johnson
    Abayomi Oluwanbe Johnson
    Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom
  • Miriam Gonzalez-Villanueva
    Miriam Gonzalez-Villanueva
    Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom
  • Kang Lan Tee*
    Kang Lan Tee
    Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom
    *K.L.T.: Tel, +44 (0)114 222 7591; Fax, +44 (0)114 222 7501; E-mail, [email protected]
    More by Kang Lan Tee
  • Tuck Seng Wong*
    Tuck Seng Wong
    Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom
    *T.S.W.: Tel, +44 (0)114 222 7591; Fax, +44 (0)114 222 7501; E-mail, [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Synthetic Biology

Cite this: ACS Synth. Biol. 2018, 7, 8, 1918–1928
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.8b00136
Published June 27, 2018

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Well-characterized promoters with variable strength form the foundation of heterologous pathway optimization. It is also a key element that bolsters the success of microbial engineering and facilitates the development of biological tools like biosensors. In comparison to microbial hosts such as Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the promoter repertoire of Cupriavidus necator H16 is highly limited. This limited number of characterized promoters poses a significant challenge during the engineering of C. necator H16 for biomanufacturing and biotechnological applications. In this article, we first examined the architecture and genetic elements of the four most widely used constitutive promoters of C. necator H16 (i.e., PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25) and established a narrow 6-fold difference in their promoter activities. Next, using these four promoters as starting points and applying a range of genetic modifications (including point mutation, length alteration, incorporation of regulatory genetic element, promoter hybridization, and configuration alteration), we created a library of 42 constitutive promoters, all of which are functional in C. necator H16. Although these promoters are also functional in E. coli, they show different promoter strength and hierarchical rank of promoter activity. Subsequently, the activity of each promoter was individually characterized, using l-arabinose-inducible PBAD promoter as a benchmark. This study has extended the range of constitutive promoter activities to 137-fold, with some promoter variants exceeding the l-arabinose-inducible range of PBAD promoter. Not only has the work enhanced our flexibility in engineering C. necator H16, it presented novel strategies in adjusting promoter activity in C. necator H16 and highlighted similarities and differences in transcriptional activity between this organism and E. coli.

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society
Cupriavidus necator H16 (or Ralstonia eutropha H16) is a chemolithoautotrophic soil bacterium, most widely known for its ability to accumulate polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA). (1) This metabolically versatile organism is capable of utilizing a wide range of energy and carbon sources (including H2 and CO2) to support growth and achieving high cell density. (2) These intrinsic properties have cemented its potential applications in biological CO2 capture and utilization (3,4) as well as commercial-scale production of diverse bioproducts (5) including polymers, (6−9) hydrocarbons, (10−14) and amino acids. (15) Its potential will rapidly come into fruition, aided by the development of molecular tools. These include genome engineering methods to permanently alter its metabolic phenotype, (16) expression vectors to assemble heterologous pathways, (8,17) transposon-based random mutagenesis, (18) and transformation method to introduce recombinant plasmids. (19)
Maximal product yield and titer are key requirements in biomanufacturing. To this end, metabolic pathway optimization is vital in eliminating metabolic bottlenecks that compromise cellular productivity and metabolic phenotypes that are detrimental to cell viability. Proven strategies of tuning gene expression of a metabolic pathway include varying plasmid copy number, gene dosage, and promoter strength, among others. Leveraging on promoter strength for pathway optimization is the most straightforward strategy, which involves tuning promoter activity at both transcriptional and translational levels.
l-Arabinose-inducible PBAD promoter and anhydrotetracycline-inducible Ptet promoter are most widely applied to tune expression of genes, gene clusters, or operons in C. necator H16. (20−23) With a PBAD promoter, high inducer concentration (up to 1 g/L) is required to achieve high expression yield. The leaky Ptet promoter, on the other hand, is induced by a weak antibiotic that is undesirable and its promoter strength is comparatively weaker. These factors greatly limit the use of these two promoters for large-scale fermentation. The more recently developed 3-hydroxypropionic acid-inducible systems (24) and the p-cumate- and IPTG-inducible Pj5 promoters (25) are promising alternatives. Nonetheless, achieving scalable and tunable gene expression of a multigene pathway by solely relying on inducible expression systems is severely limited by the poor modularity of inducer-based systems (or potential risk of unwanted inducer crosstalk) and a limited number of C. necator H16-compatible inducible promoters. Further, the use of inducers such as l-arabinose or anhydrotetracycline on a large scale is commercially uneconomical.
In this regard, engineering constitutive promoters with a broad range of activities is a more facile means to modularly adjust gene expressions of a multigene pathway to the desired levels or ratios. In addition to facilitating static metabolic control, constitutive promoters are used to engineer more efficient inducible promoters (23) and to construct metabolite-sensing genetic circuits that in turn facilitate dynamic metabolic control in microorganisms. (26) Examples of constitutive promoters for use in C. necator H16 include Plac and Ptac promoters, native C. necator H16 promoters such as PphaC1 promoter, and coliphage T5 promoter and its variants such as Pj5, Pg25, Pn25, and Pn26 promoters. (17,21,27) Despite these precedent studies, there are knowledge gaps that hinder constitutive promoter utilization and engineering for C. necator H16, which are: (1) lack of a universal definition of promoter architecture, (2) lack of a universal reference scale for hierarchical ranking of constitutive promoter activities, and (3) limited examples of rational promoter engineering. The latter is in stark contrast to promoter engineering reported for E. coli and yeast.
In this study, we first examined the architecture of four notable C. necator H16-compatible constitutive promoters: the native PphaC1 promoter, a semisynthetic PrrsC promoter, and two coliphage T5 promoters, Pj5 and Pg25. We then evaluated their activities using in vivo fluorescence measurement of red fluorescent protein (RFP) expression to establish an understanding of the relationship between promoter architecture and activity. Guided by these structure–function relationships, we next proceeded to rational engineering of these four parental promoters. Our engineering strategies include combinations of point mutation, length alteration, incorporation of regulatory genetic element, promoter hybridization, and configuration alteration. This resulted in a collection of 42 promoters displaying a range of promoter activities. Of these, there are composite promoter variants that are stronger than the Pj5 promoter; the latter has previously been acclaimed to be the strongest known constitutive promoter for gene expression in C. necator H16. (17) This new promoter library is envisaged to further propel the biotechnological applications of C. necator H16.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Defining a Promoter and Quantifying Its Activity

Standardizing the definition of a promoter is deemed necessary and particularly relevant to this study for four obvious reasons: (1) to objectively benchmark the activities of wildtype and engineered promoters, (2) to critically assess promoter structure–function relationships, (3) to measure the effectiveness of various promoter engineering strategies, and (4) to compare promoters reported by various research groups. In this study, we describe a promoter as a constellation of three distinct genetic elements as shown in Figure 1A: (part 1) a core promoter sequence comprising −35 box, −10 box (or the Pribnow box), +1 transcriptional start, spacer of 16–18 bp between the −35, and the −10 boxes as well as the spacer between the −10 box and +1 site, (part 2) an upstream element (UP) that refers to the entire DNA sequence upstream of the core promoter sequence, and (part 3) a downstream element spanning the nucleotide after the +1 transcriptional start and the nucleotide before the translation initiation codon. Therefore, the 5′-untranslated region (5′-UTR) consists of the +1 transcriptional start and the downstream element, with the latter typically containing cis-acting regulatory elements such as the ribosome binding site (RBS). Putting it simply, a promoter is a defined stretch of sequence upstream of the translational start. This definition is not uncommon in genome annotation, particularly when the promoter boundary is unclear or ambiguous. This definition also presupposes that the functional characteristics of a given promoter are composite effect of all genetic elements within the predefined promoter architecture. To quantify promoter activity in C. necator H16, RFP was used as a reporter protein (Figure 1B). Briefly, DNA fragments corresponding to a promoter and rfp gene were cloned, in tandem, into a broad host range pBBR1MCS plasmid backbone harboring a chloramphenicol resistance gene (Figure 1B and Supporting Information, Figure S1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. (A) Promoter definition used in this study. (B) High-throughput characterization of engineered promoters using a fluorescence-based assay (5′-UTR, 5′-untranslated region; bp, base pair; CamR, chloramphenicol resistance gene; Rep, replication gene; RFP, red fluorescent protein).

Defining the Boundaries and Architectures of Four Parental Promoters

Because the four parental promoters, PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25, form the basis of this entire study, clearly defining their boundaries and examining their architectures are essential such that all subsequently engineered promoters can be compared against these four “standards”. All four parental promoters contain −35 box and −10 box that are almost identical to the hexameric promoter consensus sequences recognized by the E. coli housekeeping sigma factor σ70 (Figure 2A,B). (28) PphaC1 is known to be a relatively strong native promoter. (21,23,27) On the basis of the data reported by Fukui et al., the strength of PphaC1 is ∼58% that of Ptac. (21) It has been widely studied and applied for improved PHA-based biopolymer production in C. necator H16. (21,27) However, PphaC1 promoters of different lengths are used in various studies, making objective comparison impossible. In this study, PphaC1 promoter is defined as a 466-bp DNA sequence upstream of the translation start of the phaC1 gene. Previous studies of this promoter affirmed the presence of a 7-bp “AGAGAGA” Shine–Dalgarno (SD) sequence within its 5′-UTR. This native RBS is located 11 bp upstream of the translational start. (27) The PrrsC promoter used in this study is a combination of a 210-bp DNA sequence upstream of the +1 transcriptional start of the native rrsC gene, the first 5-bp of the native 5′-UTR and a 26-bp synthetic genetic element. The latter comprises a 20-bp RBS found in the pBBR1c-RFP PBAD promoter (see Supporting Information) flanked by an upstream 6-bp BglII restriction site. The synthetic RBS contains a purine-rich 5-bp “AGGAG” SD sequence known to markedly improve translation efficiency. This PrrsC is almost identical to the one used in Li and Liao, (23) with only minor difference in the downstream element that contains an RBS. Finally, the Pg25 and Pj5 promoters used in this study are both 75-bp DNA sequences, identical to those previously reported by Gentz and Bujard. (29)

Figure 2

Figure 2. (A) Boundaries and architectures of the four parental promoters, PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25, used in this study. (B) Comparison of the four parental promoters to an Escherichia coli σ70 promoter. (C) Activities of the four parental promoters.

Narrow Range of Promoter Activities between the Four Parental Promoters

Fluorescence measurement of RFP expression revealed a narrow range of promoter activities (defined as relative fluorescence unit normalized by optical density; see Methods and Materials) between the four parental promoters (Figure 2C). The ratio of promoter activities between the strongest (Pg25) and the weakest (PphaC1) is only 6.3. The promoter activity of PrrsC is 1.7-fold higher than that of PphaC1. This difference may be attributed to the synthetic RBS in PrrsC being more effective in promoting translation compared to the native RBS in PphaC1. The coliphage T5 promoters, Pj5 (75 bp) and Pg25 (75 bp), are much shorter in length compared to PphaC1 (466 bp) and PrrsC (241 bp). They have previously been reported as some of the strongest constitutive promoters in E. coli. (29) The strong transcriptional activity was also verified in C. necator H16. (17) The A/T rich sequence of many coliphage T5 promoters, particularly in their upstream elements, has been implicated in accounting for their high transcriptional activity. (29) Indeed, the upstream elements of both Pj5 and Pg25 promoters show high A/T contents (65% for Pj5 and 85% for Pg25), and the difference in the A/T content may partly be responsible for the higher activity of Pg25 relative to Pj5 (Figure 2B). In addition, Pg25 possesses within its 5′-UTR the purine-rich 5-bp SD sequence used in most commercially available pET and pBAD vectors, which is lacking in Pj5 (Figure 2A). Important to point out, Gruber et al. had an opposite observation that the strength of Pj5 was stronger than that of Pg25. (17) The promoter sequences used by Gruber et al. were different compared to those used in this study, although the core promoter sequences remain identical (Supporting Information, Figure S2). Promoters in Gruber et al. were essentially a core promoter sequence flanked by NotI and EcoRI restriction sites. Further, they both contain an RBS of T7 gene 10, downstream to the core promoter sequence. These differences could explain the discrepancy between the two studies. It further emphasizes the necessity to define a promoter for objective comparison of promoters used, created or engineered by various researchers.
Our initial examination of the four parental promoters highlighted two critical points which guided our subsequent promoter engineering: (1) conservation of −35 and −10 boxes is important for maintaining high transcriptional activity in C. necator H16, and (2) promoter length or A/T content or cis-acting genetic regulatory element (such as a synthetic RBS) could potentially influence transcriptional activity in C. necator H16 significantly.

Expanding the Range of Promoter Activities through Rational Engineering

Informed by our understanding of the four “standard” promoters, we proceed to increase the range of promoter activities beyond the existing 6.3-folds between PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25. Our objectives are threefold: (1) creating both weaker (“tuning down”) and stronger (“tuning up”) promoter variants to further expand the promoter activity range, (2) generating promoter variants that exceed or at least cover the entire l-arabinose inducible range of PBAD promoter, and (3) developing a set of promoters with gradual increase in activity (i.e., having promoters with activities evenly distributed across the entire promoter activity scale).
To this end, we applied a range of rational engineering approaches. These strategies, summarized in Supporting Information, Table S1 and Figure S3, can be loosely classified into five categories: (A) point mutation, (B) length alteration, (C) incorporation of regulatory genetic element, (D) promoter hybridization, and (E) configuration alteration. Category A, point mutation, includes base substitution, single-base insertion, and single-base deletion. Category B, length alteration, refers to truncation or extension of a promoter from either terminus and insertion or deletion of a stretch of random DNA sequence. Incorporating cis-acting translational regulatory elements such as T7 stem-loop and RBS are grouped within category C. Category D, promoter hybridization, encompasses both creating hybrid promoters and incorporating cis-acting transcriptional regulatory element such as an operator. Category E, configuration alteration, involves transcriptional amplification using a secondary promoter that is placed in divergent configuration to a primary promoter. In other words, composite promoters are placed in category E. Each category is further divided into subcategories (e.g., C1 for T7 stem-loop and C2 for RBS in category C) and subsub-categories (e.g., B1a for truncation of 25 bp upstream of −35 box and B1b for truncation of 50 bp upstream of −35 box in category B) to pinpoint specific modification made. Using a combination of the aforementioned strategies, we created in total 38 promoter variants as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of 42 Parental Promoters and Their Variants Engineered Using a Combination of Promoter Engineering Strategies (A = Point Mutation, B = Length Alteration, C = Incorporation of Regulatory Genetic Element, D = Promoter Hybridization, and E = Configuration Alteration)a
a

Numbers in bracket represent promoter digital identifier, in the format of [activity level – relative activity to PphaC1[A1] – promoter length].

Promoter Nomenclature

On the basis of the classification of our promoter engineering strategies, we devised a promoter nomenclature system to systematically name all 38 engineered promoters (Table 1). The system is designed to provide three pieces of key information: parental promoter, modifications made, and promoter architecture, using the standard format of Pparent[M1M2M3···]. In this nomenclature system, capital P signifies a promoter. Italic subscript “parent” indicates the parental promoter from which the engineered promoter is derived. All modifications made are summarized in bracketed subscript “[M1M2M3···],” with the modifications arranged in sequence of appearance to reflect the engineered promoter architecture. As an example, Pj5[C1C2] is a promoter variant engineered from the parental promoter Pj5 by inserting a T7-stem loop (denoted by C1) as well as an RBS (denoted by C2) in its 5′-UTR. The T7-stem loop was placed upstream of the RBS, as indicated by C1 that comes before C2.

Mutations in −35 Box Tuned Transcriptional Activity down

Li and Liao previously reported PphaC1-G3 promoter, in which its −35 box was mutated from “TTGACA” to “TTCGGC” (Figure 3A). (23) This promoter variant was shown to retain 15% of the activity of its PphaC1 parent when characterized using enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP) as a reporter. (23) To validate our initial hypothesis that conserved −35 and −10 boxes are necessary in maintaining high transcriptional activity in C. necator H16, we recreated PphaC1-G3, and this variant was named PphaC1[A1] in our nomenclature system. RFP fluorescence measurement ascertained that PphaC1[A1] retains 16% of the activity of PphaC1 (Figure 3B). This data also indicated that both reporter proteins, RFP and eGFP, give similar outcome in transcriptional activity quantification. RFP and eGFP are commonly used in synthetic biology for characterization of biological parts (e.g., promoter, terminator). (30,31) Li and Liao also created a promoter library with mutated −35 box (TTNNNN). All promoter variants screened showed lower activity in comparison to the wildtype promoter. (23) Therefore, mutations in −35 box likely tune the transcriptional activity down.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (A) Architectures of parental promoters and their engineered variants. (B) Activities of parental promoters and their engineered variants.

A Minimal PphaC1 Promoter with Enhanced Activity

PphaC1 (466 bp) is the longest promoter among the four parental promoters. To find the minimal functional sequence, we created 5′→3′ truncated variants of PphaC1: 25 bp truncation in PphaC1[B1a], 50 bp in PphaC1[B1b], 100 bp in PphaC1[B1c], and 124 bp in PphaC1[B 1d] (Figure 3A). Interestingly, removing the entire upstream element (124 bp) in PphaC1[B 1d] resulted in highest promoter activity, which is 2-fold higher compared to that of its PphaC1 parent (Figure 3B). This suggested that cis-acting elements exist within the upstream element of PphaC1 and contribute to transcriptional suppression.

Synthetic RBS and RBS Repeat Increased Transcriptional Activity

Our initial study with the four parental promoters, along with a previous study conducted by Bi et al., (20) motivated us to further investigate the effects of cis-acting translational regulatory elements on promoter activity. We focused specifically on the 26-bp synthetic genetic element derived from PrrsC (containing a 20-bp RBS found in the pBBR1c-RFP PBAD promoter flanked by an upstream 6-bp BglII restriction site, herein denoted as synthetic RBS) and the 37-bp T7 stem-loop reported by Bi et al. (20) We observed a 4.7-fold increase in promoter activity when a synthetic RBS was added to Pj5 (the Pj5[C2] variant) (Figure 3B). On the contrary, there was no significant change in promoter activity when a T7 stem-loop was added to Pj5 (the Pj5[C1] variant). A drop in promoter activity was observed when a T7 stem-loop was added to Pj5[C2] (the Pj5[C1C2] variant). As such, synthetic RBS is an effective means to amplify promoter activity. We then added the same synthetic RBS to Pg25 and created a variant Pg25[C2] that also showed ∼50% increase in promoter activity. A smaller promoter activity increase in Pg25[C2] could be attributed to a pre-existing effective SD sequence (“AGGAG”) in Pg25.

Repeat of −35 and −10 Boxes Increased Transcriptional Activity

The −35 and −10 boxes are highly conserved regions in prokaryotic promoters, essential for the binding of RNA polymerases. To test if creating more binding sites for RNA polymerase would further increase transcriptional activity, we created the Pg25[D1] variant. In this variant, we duplicated the DNA sequence spanning −35 box and −10 box. In essence, this hybrid promoter is a tandem repeat of two Pg25 promoters, and we observed ∼40% increase in promoter activity (Figure 3). Again, incorporating a synthetic RBS (Pg25[D1C2]) gave an additive effect, resulting in further increase in promoter activity.

Operator Insertion Reduced Transcriptional Activity Drastically

Hybrid promoters are crucial genetic elements in the construction of biosensors. Using a malonyl-CoA biosensor (26) as an example, we inserted the fapO operator sequence “TTAGTACCTGATACTAA” in PrrsC promoter to create two variants: PrrsC[D4] (fapO inserted between −35 and −10 boxes) and PrrsC[D6] (fapO inserted within the 5′-UTR) (Figure 3A). fapO operator is conserved in Gram-positive bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis and acts as a cis-regulatory unit for transcriptional regulation of fatty acid biosynthesis. For both promoter variants, we observed a drastic activity reduction to ∼10% of their PrrsC parent (Figure 3B). The position of operator and the copy number of operator could therefore significantly change the transcriptional activity of the resultant hybrid promoters. Our data corroborated a previous study by Li and Liao, where tetO operators were inserted to create PrrsC hybrid promoters. (23)

Divergent Promoters, Arranged in Back-to-Back, Increased Transcriptional Activity

The distance between and the relative transcriptional directions of adjacent genes are known to be important in some organisms. Neighboring genes arranged in head-to-head (HH) orientation, for instance, could be coregulated and this has been proven experimentally. (32) For gene pairs in HH arrangement, promoters that effect divergent transcription can be organized in three possible ways: back-to-back, overlapping, or face-to-face (Figure 4A). (33) In a recent attempt to construct a malonyl-CoA biosensor for C. necator H16 (publication in preparation), we discovered the significance of divergent transcription in this organism. Therefore, we created 21 composite promoters to systematically investigate divergent transcription in C. necator H16. Each composite promoter is made up of two promoters arranged in back-to-back (or divergent to each other). The promoter driving the RFP expression is termed the primary promoter, while the counterpart is called the secondary promoter.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (A) For gene pairs in HH arrangement, promoters that effect divergent transcription can be organized in three possible ways: back-to-back, overlapping, or face-to-face. (B) Composite promoters engineered using Pg25 as parental promoter. (C) Composite promoters engineered using PrrsC as parental promoter. (D) Composite promoters engineered using Pj5 as parental promoter. (E) Composite promoters with PphaC1 as secondary promoter. (F) Composite promoters with Pg25 as secondary promoter. (G) Composite promoters with Pj5[A1C1C2] as secondary promoter. In graphs E and F, red, blue and orange symbols represent primary promoter activity, composite promoter activity, and fold change, respectively.

When PphaC1 (denoted as modification subscript E1), Pg25 (modification subscript E2), and Pj5[A1C1C2] (modification subscript E3) was applied individually as secondary promoters, they generally served as transcriptional amplifiers, increasing the transcriptional activity of the primary promoters (Figure 4B–G). The promoter activities of these three secondary promoters follow the order of Pj5[A1C1C2] > Pg25 > PphaC1 (eq E3 > E2 > E1). Interestingly, transcriptional amplification depends on the transcriptional activities of both the primary and the secondary promoters. For the same primary promoter, activity enhancement typically decreases with the increased activity of the secondary promoter (Figure 4B–D, herein described as secondary promoter effect). Also, for the same secondary promoter, activity enhancement decreases with the increased activity of the primary promoter (Figure 4E–G, herein described as primary promoter effect). We postulate that secondary promoter effect is attributed to the fact that weaker secondary promoter competes less with the primary promoter for transcriptional machinery or factors. If a secondary promoter of very high activity is used, the competition is so strong that it diminishes the activity of the primary promoter (data not shown). The primary promoter effect observed is perhaps more intuitive and easier to comprehend. If the primary promoter displays high activity, it is more difficult to further improve its activity using an amplifier. It is important to point out that transcriptional enhancement resulted from divergent promoters is not universal to all prokaryotic systems. Generally, we did not observe such behaviors when we tested our composite promoters in E. coli (data not shown).

Promoter Characterization using PBAD as Reference Scale

This study resulted in a set of 42 constitutive promoters, including the four parental promoters. The ratio of promoter activities between the strongest (Pj5[E1A3C2]) and the weakest (PphaC1[A1], eq PphaC1-G3 reported by Li and Liao (23)) is 137. These promoters showed incremental increase in activity across the entire scale (Figure 5A). To promote the widespread use of these promoters, we benchmarked each of them using l-arabinose inducible PBAD promoter as a reference scale. Supporting Information, Figure S4, illustrates the dose-dependent induction of PBAD promoter, using l-arabinose concentration from 0.001% (w/v) to 0.200% (w/v). Expression maxima was reached at 0.200% (w/v) l-arabinose. As depicted in Figure 5B, our engineered promoters covered the entire l-arabinose inducible range (indicated by scattered data points). We categorized all promoters into five activity levels to aid promoter selection: Level 1 (with promoter activity between 0–2000 au), level 2 (2000–4000 au), level 3 (4000–6000 au), level 4 (6000–8000 au), and level 5 (>8000 au). With a PBAD promoter, one could only achieve expression levels between 1 and 4. Through promoter engineering, we obtained seven level 5 variants (Pj5[A3C2], Pj5[C2], Pj5[E1C1C2], Pj5[E2C2], Pj5[E2A3C2], Pj5[E1C2], and Pj5[E1A3C2]) with promoter activities exceeding that of PBAD (Supporting Information, Table S2). For easy classification of all engineered promoters, we developed a numerical coding system (Table 1) and assigned a digital identifier to each promoter. This will allow us to develop a C. necator H16-specific promoter database (work in progress). Each promoter code is in the format of [X-Y-Z], with X representing activity level, Y representing relative activity to PphaC1[A1], and Z representing promoter length. While conceptualizing our engineered promoter nomenclature and coding systems, we have endeavored to make them universal such that they can be applied to other promoters yet to be developed.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (A) Hierarchical ranking of all 42 constitutive promoters reported in this study. (B) The range of promoter activity was expanded from 6-fold to 137-fold after applying combination of promoter engineering strategies (A = point mutation, B = length alteration, C = incorporation of regulatory genetic element, D = promoter hybridization and E = configuration alteration). Promoters derived from PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25 were colored in blue, green, pink, and red, respectively. Promoters were categorized into five activity levels: Level 1 (with promoter activity between 0–2000 au), level 2 (2000–4000 au), level 3 (4000–6000 au), level 4 (6000–8000 au) and level 5 (>8000 au). Each promoter was benchmarked against PBAD promoter, induced using various concentrations of l-arabinose, from 0.001% (w/v) to 0.200% (w/v).

Summary of Rational Promoter Engineering for C. necator H16

Figure 6 provides an overview of the rational promoter engineering strategies discussed in this article. It shows the effect of a specific modification by looking at the promoter activity difference before and after that particular modification. Creating mutation(s) within −35 box and inserting operator sequence(s) resulted in drastic reduction in promoter activity (represented by red data points), while inserting a T7 stem-loop caused almost no change in promoter activity. On the contrary, inserting a synthetic RBS and applying a transcriptional amplifier (specifically PphaC1 or Pj5[A1C1C2]) gave the highest increase in promoter activity (>100%). In fact, those promoters that are stronger than PBAD promoter (indicated as blue data points) were mostly created using either one of these strategies or combination of them. All the other strategies provided marginal promoter activity increase (from 10% to 50%). Also clearly reflected in Figure 5B, creating divergent promoters is the most effective way of broadening the range of promoter activity. It is worthy of note that relative promoter activity change is dependent on the parental promoter, judging on the work presented in this article.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Relative promoter activity change upon application of promoter engineering strategies (A = point mutation, B = length alteration, C = incorporation of regulatory genetic element, D = promoter hybridization, and E = configuration alteration). Modifications that resulted in loss of promoter activity were indicated as red data points. Promoters with activities higher than PBAD promoter were indicated as blue data points.

The Use of Engineered Constitutive Promoters in C. necator H16

The use of strong constitutive promoters could potentially result in (a) bacterial growth impairment due to high metabolic burden and/or (b) protein excretion/leakage due to high protein expression level. To study these effects, we selected representative promoters from each activity level (Supporting Information, Table S3) and conducted further characterization. We observed similar growth for most of the strains (Figure 7), with growth rates (μmax) falling between 0.21 and 0.24 h–1 (Supporting Information, Table S3). For promoter Pj5[E2C2], which is a level 5 promoter, we noticed a slight drop in growth rate with μmax of 0.18 h–1 (Supporting Information, Table S3). Comparing fluorescence of cell culture and of spent medium (Figure 8) confirmed that there was no protein excretion/leakage. Fluorescence of spent medium was maintained at the level of ∼1000 au throughout the bacterial cultivation. This value was almost identical to that of the control (C. necator H16 harboring pBBR1MCS-1). To study the time-dependent increase in fluorescence signal, we fitted the cell culture fluorescence vs time data to a four-parameter dose–response curve (Supporting Information, Figure S5 and Table S4) for all promoters from level 2 and above. The fluorescence increase was mainly caused by bacterial growth. If we divided the fluorescence measured (Figure 8) by the OD600 (Figure 7), the ratio was kept almost constant at cultivation times above 12 h (Figure S6), further verifying our approach in promoter activity quantification in 96-well plate by taking the RFU/OD600 at t = 48 h.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Growth curves of C. necator H16 harboring either pBBR1MCS-1 (control; black line) or plasmids containing various engineered constitutive promoters [Pg25 (red line), PphaC1[B 1d] (blue line), PrrsC[E1D4] (brown line), Pg25[E3] (green line), Pg25[D1C2] (pink line), Pj5[E1A1C1C2] (orange line), and Pj5[E2C2] (purple line)].

Figure 8

Figure 8. Fluorescence of cell culture (black columns) and of spent medium (gray columns) of C. necator H16 harboring either pBBR1MCS-1 (control) or plasmids containing various engineered constitutive promoters (Pg25, PphaC1[B1d], PrrsC[E1D4], Pg25[E3], Pg25[D1C2], Pj5[E1A1C1C2], and Pj5[E2C2]).

Conclusion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article (1) reported and characterized a set of 42 constitutive promoters with a broad range of promoter activity, which are derived from the four most widely used constitutive promoters for C. necator H16 (PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25), (2) introduced a nomenclature system and a coding system for engineered promoters, (3) sketched out the relationship between promoter architecture and its resultant activity, (4) highlighted similarities (conservation of −35 and −10 boxes) and differences (composite promoters) in transcriptional activity between C. necator H16 and E. coli, and (5) provided guidelines for rational promoter engineering. We strongly believe our constitutive promoter toolbox that exceeds the activity range of the inducible PBAD promoter will serve the biotechnology community working on C. necator H16, be it strain engineering for industrial biomanufacturing or developing advanced molecular biology tools for this organism.

Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Materials

All DNA modifying enzymes were purchased from either New England Biolabs (Hitchin, UK) or Agilent (Craven Arms, UK). Nucleic acid purification kits were purchased from Qiagen (Manchester, UK). All oligonucleotides were synthesized by Eurofins (Ebersberg, Germany).

Strains

Escherichia coli DH5α was used for all molecular cloning, plasmid propagation, and maintenance. Cupriavidus necator H16 (DSM-428, purchased from DSMZ, Braunschweig, Germany) was used for all experiments described in this article.

Promoter Engineering and Sequences

All plasmids were derived from pBBR1c-RFP (see Supporting Information) and constructed using standard molecular biology techniques. All engineered promoters were verified by restrictive analysis and/or DNA sequencing, and their sequences were provided in the Supporting Information.

Bacterial Cultivation and Transformation

C. necator H16 was cultivated at 30 °C in nutrient broth (NB: 5 g/L peptone, 1 g/L beef extract, 2 g/L yeast extract, 5 g/L NaCl; pH 7.0 ± 0.2 @ 25 °C) supplemented with 10 μg/mL of gentamicin. Cells were transformed with plasmids using the electroporation protocol described by Tee et al., (19) plated on NB agar supplemented with 10 μg/mL of gentamicin and 25 μg/mL of chloramphenicol, and incubated at 30 °C for 40–60 h. E. coli DH5α was transformed with plasmids using the standard CaCl2 method, plated on TYE agar (10 g/L tryptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, 8 g/L NaCl, 15 g/L agar) supplemented with 25 μg/mL of chloramphenicol, and incubated overnight at 37 °C.

Promoter Activity Quantification Using Fluorescence Assay

Transformants of C. necator H16, carrying either an RFP-null or an RFP-expressing vector, were precultured in 96-well microtiter plate containing 200 μL/well of NB supplemented with 10 μg/mL of gentamicin and 25 μg/mL of chloramphenicol at 30 °C for 40 h. This preculture was used to inoculate a fresh clear-bottom 96-well microtiter plate [Greiner Bio-One (Stonehouse, UK)] containing 200 μL/well of NB supplemented with 10 μg/mL of gentamicin, 25 μg/mL of chloramphenicol as well as 0–0.2% (w/v) l-arabinose (when required) to induce RFP expression. The plate was cultivated at 30 °C for a total of 48 h. OD600 and fluorescence (Ex 584 nm, Em 607 nm; bottom read) were measured using SpectraMax M2e microplate/cuvette reader [Molecular Devices (Wokingham, UK)] after 12 h of cultivation and repeated at 6 h intervals. Relative fluorescence unit (RFU) was calculated by normalizing fluorescence value with the fluorescence value of C. necator H16 carrying an RFP-null vector (negative control). The RFU value therefore represents the fluorescence fold increase owing to RFP expression. RFU/OD600 value was then calculated as the ratio of RFU and OD600 value of the respective strain. The ratio was used to account for potential metabolic burden due to high protein expression level, affecting bacterial growth. Promoter activity (PA) was defined as the RFU/OD600 value after 48 h of cultivation. The ratio of RFU/OD600 was more or less a constant at cultivation time more than 12 h. All experiments were done in triplicate.

Fold Change and Relative Promoter Activity Change

Fold change and relative promoter activity change were calculated by using the formulas:

Effects of Engineered Constitutive Promoters on Bacterial Growth and Protein Excretion

Selected plasmids were freshly transformed into C. necator H16, and single colonies were picked to prepare overnight cultures. Falcon tubes, containing 6 mL of fresh mineral salts medium (MSM) (34) supplemented with 10 g/L sodium gluconate (carbon source), 10 μg/mL gentamicin, and 25 μg/mL chloramphenicol, were inoculated at a starting OD600 of 0.2. Cells were cultivated at 30 °C and sampled at regular time intervals. OD600 of each sample was measured using BioPhotometer Plus [Eppendorf (Stevenage, UK)]. For all samples collected, the fluorescence (Ex 584 nm, Em 607 nm; bottom read) of the cell culture (90 μL) and of the spent medium (90 μL) was measured using SpectraMax M2e microplate/cuvette reader [Molecular Devices (Wokingham, UK)].

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acssynbio.8b00136.

  • Experimental procedures; plasmid map of pBBR1c-RFP; alignment of Pj5 and Pg25 promoters used in this study and in Gruber et al. (2014); graphical representation of rational promoter engineering strategies; l-arabinose-dose dependent induction of PBAD promoter; curve fitting of cell culture fluorescence vs time data; fluorescence of cell culture normalized by OD600 value; promoter sequences; subcategories of each promoter engineering strategy; promoter activity table; specific growth rates of C. necator H16 carrying plasmids containing various promoters (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
    • Kang Lan Tee - Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom Email: [email protected]
    • Tuck Seng Wong - Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United KingdomOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7689-9057 Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Abayomi Oluwanbe Johnson - Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom
    • Miriam Gonzalez-Villanueva - Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Advanced Biomanufacturing Centre, University of Sheffield, Sir Robert Hadfield Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom
  • Author Contributions

    T.S.W. and K.L.T. conceived and supervised the project. A.O.J. and M.G. performed the experiments and analyzed the data. T.S.W., K.L.T., and A.O.J. wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed the content of the manuscript and provided critical revisions on the manuscript.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We thank the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, ChELSI and EPSRC (EP/E036252/1), for financial support. A.O.J. and M.G.V. are supported by the University of Sheffield and CONACYT (Mexico) scholarships, respectively.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 34 other publications.

  1. 1
    Pohlmann, A., Fricke, W. F., Reinecke, F., Kusian, B., Liesegang, H., Cramm, R., Eitinger, T., Ewering, C., Pötter, M., Schwartz, E., Strittmatter, A., Voss, I., Gottschalk, G., Steinbüchel, A., Friedrich, B., and Bowien, B. (2006) Genome sequence of the Bioplastic-producing ″Knallgas″ bacterium Ralstonia eutropha H16. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (10), 125762,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt1244
  2. 2
    Volodina, E., Raberg, M., and Steinbüchel, A. (2016) Engineering the heterotrophic carbon sources utilization range of Ralstonia eutropha H16 for applications in biotechnology. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 36 (6), 978991,  DOI: 10.3109/07388551.2015.1079698
  3. 3
    Jajesniak, P., Omar Ali, H. E. M., and Wong, T. S. (2014) Carbon dioxide capture and utilization using biological systems: Opportunities and challenges. J. Bioprocess. Biotech. 4, 155,  DOI: 10.4172/2155-9821.1000155
  4. 4
    Peplow, M. (2015) Industrial biotechs turn greenhouse gas into feedstock opportunity. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 11231125,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt1115-1123
  5. 5
    Brigham, C. J., Zhila, N., Shishatskaya, E., Volova, T. G., and Sinskey, A. J. (2012) Manipulation of Ralstonia eutropha carbon storage pathways to produce useful bio-based products. Subcell. Biochem. 64, 34366,  DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5055-5_17
  6. 6
    Lutke-Eversloh, T. and Steinbüchel, A. (2003) Novel precursor substrates for polythioesters (PTE) and limits of PTE biosynthesis in Ralstonia eutropha. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 221, 191196,  DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00185-X
  7. 7
    Steinbüchel, A. and Pieper, U. (1992) Production of a copolyester of 3-hydroxybutyric acid and 3-hydroxyvaleric acid from single unrelated carbon sources by a mutant of Alcaligenes eutrophus. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37, 16,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00174193
  8. 8
    Voss, I. and Steinbüchel, A. (2006) Application of a KDPG-aldolase gene-dependent addiction system for enhanced production of cyanophycin in Ralstonia eutropha strain H16. Metab. Eng. 8 (1), 6678,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2005.09.003
  9. 9
    Valentin, H. E., Zwingmann, G., Schönebaum, A., and Steinbüchel, A. (1995) Metabolic pathway for biosynthesis of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-4-hydroxybutyrate) from 4-hydroxybutyrate by Alcaligenes eutrophus. Eur. J. Biochem. 227 (1–2), 4360,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1995.tb20358.x
  10. 10
    Chen, J. S., Colon, B., Dusel, B., Ziesack, M., Way, J. C., and Torella, J. P. (2015) Production of fatty acids in Ralstonia eutropha H16 by engineering beta-oxidation and carbon storage. PeerJ 3, e1468,  DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1468
  11. 11
    Crépin, L., Lombard, E., and Guillouet, S. E. (2016) Metabolic engineering of Cupriavidus necator for heterotrophic and autotrophic alka(e)ne production. Metab. Eng. 37, 92101,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2016.05.002
  12. 12
    Marc, J., Grousseau, E., Lombard, E., Sinskey, A. J., Gorret, N., and Guillouet, S. E. (2017) Over expression of GroESL in Cupriavidus necator for heterotrophic and autotrophic isopropanol production. Metab. Eng. 42, 7484,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2017.05.007
  13. 13
    Müller, J., MacEachran, D., Burd, H., Sathitsuksanoh, N., Bi, C., Yeh, Y. C., Lee, T. S., Hillson, N. J., Chhabra, S. R., Singer, S. W., and Beller, H. R. (2013) Engineering of Ralstonia eutropha H16 for autotrophic and heterotrophic production of methyl ketones. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79 (14), 44339,  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00973-13
  14. 14
    Lu, J., Brigham, C. J., Gai, C. S., and Sinskey, A. J. (2012) Studies on the production of branched-chain alcohols in engineered Ralstonia eutropha. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 96 (1), 28397,  DOI: 10.1007/s00253-012-4320-9
  15. 15
    Lütte, S., Pohlmann, A., Zaychikov, E., Schwartz, E., Becher, J. R., Heumann, H., and Friedrich, B. (2012) Autotrophic production of stable-isotope-labeled arginine in Ralstonia eutropha strain H16. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78 (22), 788490,  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01972-12
  16. 16
    Park, J. M., Jang, Y. S., Kim, T. Y., and Lee, S. Y. (2010) Development of a gene knockout system for Ralstonia eutropha H16 based on the broad-host-range vector expressing a mobile group II intron. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 309, 193200,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.02041.x
  17. 17
    Gruber, S., Hagen, J., Schwab, H., and Koefinger, P. (2014) Versatile and stable vectors for efficient gene expression in Ralstonia eutropha H16. J. Biotechnol. 186, 7482,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.06.030
  18. 18
    Raberg, M., Heinrich, D., and Steinbüchel, A. (2015) Analysis of PHB Metabolism Applying Tn5Mutagenesis in Ralstonia eutropha. In Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology Protocols; Springer Protocols Handbooks (McGenity, T., Timmis, K., and Nogales, B., Eds.) pp 120148, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  19. 19
    Tee, K. L., Grinham, J., Othusitse, A. M., Gonzalez-Villanueva, M., Johnson, A. O., and Wong, T. S. (2017) An Efficient Transformation Method for the Bioplastic-Producing ″Knallgas″ Bacterium Ralstonia eutropha H16. Biotechnol. J. 12, 1700081,  DOI: 10.1002/biot.201700081
  20. 20
    Bi, C., Su, P., Müller, J., Yeh, Y. C., Chhabra, S. R., Beller, H. R., Singer, S. W., and Hillson, N. J. (2013) Development of a broad-host synthetic biology toolbox for Ralstonia eutropha and its application to engineering hydrocarbon biofuel production. Microb. Cell Fact. 12, 107,  DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-12-107
  21. 21
    Fukui, T., Ohsawa, K., Mifune, J., Orita, I., and Nakamura, S. (2011) Evaluation of promoters for gene expression in polyhydroxyalkanoate-producing Cupriavidus necator H16. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 89 (5), 152736,  DOI: 10.1007/s00253-011-3100-2
  22. 22
    Guzman, L. M., Belin, D., Carson, M. J., and Beckwith, J. (1995) Tight regulation, modulation, and high-level expression by vectors containing the arabinose PBAD promoter. J. Bacteriol. 177 (14), 412130,  DOI: 10.1128/jb.177.14.4121-4130.1995
  23. 23
    Li, H. and Liao, J. C. (2015) A synthetic anhydrotetracycline-controllable gene expression system in Ralstonia eutropha H16. ACS Synth. Biol. 4 (2), 1016,  DOI: 10.1021/sb4001189
  24. 24
    Hanko, E. K. R., Minton, N. P., and Malys, N. (2017) Characterisation of a 3-hydroxypropionic acid-inducible system from Pseudomonas putida for orthogonal gene expression control in Escherichia coli and Cupriavidus necator. Sci. Rep. 7, 1724,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-01850-w
  25. 25
    Gruber, S., Schwendenwein, D., Magomedova, Z., Thaler, E., Hagen, J., Schwab, H., and Heidinger, P. (2016) Design of inducible expression vectors for improved protein production in Ralstonia eutropha H16 derived host strains. J. Biotechnol. 235, 929,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.04.026
  26. 26
    Johnson, A. O., Gonzalez-Villanueva, M., Wong, L., Steinbüchel, A., Tee, K. L., Xu, P., and Wong, T. S. (2017) Design and application of genetically-encoded malonyl-CoA biosensors for metabolic engineering of microbial cell factories. Metab. Eng. 44, 253264,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2017.10.011
  27. 27
    Arikawa, H. and Matsumoto, K. (2016) Evaluation of gene expression cassettes and production of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) with a fine modulated monomer composition by using it in Cupriavidus necator. Microb. Cell Fact. 15, 184,  DOI: 10.1186/s12934-016-0583-7
  28. 28
    Kutuzova, G. I., Frank, G. K., Makeev, V., Esipova, N. G., and Polozov, R. V. (1997) [Fourier analysis of nucleotide sequences. Periodicity in E. coli promoter sequences]. Biofizika 42 (2), 35462
  29. 29
    Gentz, R. and Bujard, H. (1985) Promoters recognized by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase selected by function: highly efficient promoters from bacteriophage T5. J. Bacteriol. 164, 707
  30. 30
    Guo, Y., Dong, J., Zhou, T., Auxillos, J., Li, T., Zhang, W., Wang, L., Shen, Y., Luo, Y., Zheng, Y., Lin, J., Chen, G. Q., Wu, Q., Cai, Y., and Dai, J. (2015) YeastFab: the design and construction of standard biological parts for metabolic engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 43 (13), e88,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv464
  31. 31
    Phelan, R. M., Sachs, D., Petkiewicz, S. J., Barajas, J. F., Blake-Hedges, J. M., Thompson, M. G., Reider Apel, A., Rasor, B. J., Katz, L., and Keasling, J. D. (2017) Development of Next Generation Synthetic Biology Tools for Use in Streptomyces venezuelae. ACS Synth. Biol. 6 (1), 159166,  DOI: 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00202
  32. 32
    Gherman, A., Wang, R., and Avramopoulos, D. (2009) Orientation, distance, regulation and function of neighbouring genes. Hum. Genomics 3 (2), 143156,  DOI: 10.1186/1479-7364-3-2-143
  33. 33
    Beck, C. F. and Warren, R. A. (1988) Divergent promoters, a common form of gene organization. Microbiol. Rev. 52 (3), 31826
  34. 34
    Schlegel, H. G., Kaltwasser, H., and Gottschalk, G. (1961) [A submersion method for culture of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria: growth physiological studies]. Arch. Microbiol. 38, 20922,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00422356

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 36 publications.

  1. Jeremy David Adams, Douglas S. Clark. Techno-Economic Assessment of Electromicrobial Production of n-Butanol from Air-Captured CO2. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (17) , 7302-7313. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c08748
  2. Jonas Kretz, Vera Israel, Matthew McIntosh. Design–Build–Test of Synthetic Promoters for Inducible Gene Regulation in Alphaproteobacteria. ACS Synthetic Biology 2023, 12 (9) , 2663-2675. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00251
  3. Kevin W. Keating, Eric M. Young. Systematic Part Transfer by Extending a Modular Toolkit to Diverse Bacteria. ACS Synthetic Biology 2023, 12 (7) , 2061-2072. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00104
  4. Yi Rao, Peifen Li, Xinxin Xie, Jiemin Li, Yongqing Liao, Xin Ma, Dongbo Cai, Shouwen Chen. Construction and Characterization of a Gradient Strength Promoter Library for Fine-Tuned Gene Expression in Bacillus licheniformis. ACS Synthetic Biology 2021, 10 (9) , 2331-2339. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.1c00242
  5. Michael Weldon, Christian Euler. Physiology-informed use of Cupriavidus necator in biomanufacturing: a review of advances and challenges. Microbial Cell Factories 2025, 24 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-025-02643-x
  6. Minglong Li, Khalid Doudin, David B. Robins, Georgios Tetradis-Mairis, Tuck Seng Wong, Kang Lan Tee. Microbial synthesis of polyhydroxyalkanoate blends with engineered Pseudomonas putida. New Biotechnology 2025, 88 , 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2025.05.004
  7. Yu‐Chieh Lin, I‐Son Ng. Rewiring Cupriavidus necator for Enhanced Polyhydroxybutyrate Production via Genetic Toolkits and Feeding Strategy. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 2025, 274 https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.29043
  8. Ye Wang, Yao Tian, Dake Xu, Shaoan Cheng, Wen-Wei Li, Hao Song. Recent advances in synthetic biology toolkits and metabolic engineering of Ralstonia eutropha H16 for production of value-added chemicals. Biotechnology Advances 2025, 79 , 108516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2025.108516
  9. Yuheng Wang, Lin Cui, Lijuan Ding, Xiaoyun Su, Huiying Luo, Huoqing Huang, Yuan Wang, Bin Yao, Jie Zhang, Xiaolu Wang. Unlocking the potential of Cupriavidus necator H16 as a platform for bioproducts production from carbon dioxide. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 2024, 40 (12) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-024-04200-x
  10. Simon Arhar, Thomas Rauter, Holly Stolterfoht-Stock, Vera Lambauer, Regina Kratzer, Margit Winkler, Marianna Karava, Robert Kourist, Anita Emmerstorfer-Augustin. CO2-based production of phytase from highly stable expression plasmids in Cupriavidus necator H16. Microbial Cell Factories 2024, 23 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-023-02280-2
  11. Yiquan Zhao, Le Xue, Zhiyi Huang, Zixian Lei, Shiyu Xie, Zhenzhen Cai, Xinran Rao, Ze Zheng, Ning Xiao, Xiaoyu Zhang, Fuying Ma, Hongbo Yu, Shangxian Xie. Lignin valorization to bioplastics with an aromatic hub metabolite-based autoregulation system. Nature Communications 2024, 15 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53609-3
  12. Lara Santolin, Sebastian L. Riedel, Christopher J. Brigham. Synthetic biology toolkit of Ralstonia eutropha (Cupriavidus necator). Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 2024, 108 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-024-13284-2
  13. Tingting Sun, Di Liu, Linmeng Zhang, Taiping Fan, Yujie Cai. Efficient production of (2R, 3R)-butanediol from xylose by an engineered Serratia marcescens. Systems Microbiology and Biomanufacturing 2024, 4 (2) , 820-830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43393-023-00219-7
  14. Lei Wang, Junhu Yao, Tao Tu, Bin Yao, Jie Zhang. Heterotrophic and autotrophic production of L-isoleucine and L-valine by engineered Cupriavidus necator H16. Bioresource Technology 2024, 398 , 130538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2024.130538
  15. Daniel Casey, Laura Diaz-Garcia, Mincen Yu, Kang Lan Tee, Tuck Seng Wong. From Knallgas Bacterium to Promising Biomanufacturing Host: The Evolution of Cupriavidus necator. 2024https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2024_269
  16. Jeremy David Adams, Kyle B. Sander, Craig S. Criddle, Adam P. Arkin, Douglas S. Clark. Engineering osmolysis susceptibility in Cupriavidus necator and Escherichia coli for recovery of intracellular products. Microbial Cell Factories 2023, 22 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-023-02064-8
  17. Sofia Markakiou, Ana Rute Neves, Ahmad A. Zeidan, Paula Gaspar, . Development of a Tetracycline-Inducible System for Conditional Gene Expression in Lactococcus lactis and Streptococcus thermophilus. Microbiology Spectrum 2023, 11 (3) https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00668-23
  18. Xuewei Pan, Mi Tang, Jiajia You, Yanan Hao, Xian Zhang, Taowei Yang, Zhiming Rao. A Novel Method to Screen Strong Constitutive Promoters in Escherichia coli and Serratia marcescens for Industrial Applications. Biology 2023, 12 (1) , 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12010071
  19. Lien De Wannemaeker, Indra Bervoets, Marjan De Mey. Unlocking the bacterial domain for industrial biotechnology applications using universal parts and tools. Biotechnology Advances 2022, 60 , 108028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.108028
  20. Alejandro Salinas, Callum McGregor, Victor Irorere, Christian Arenas-López, Rajesh Reddy Bommareddy, Klaus Winzer, Nigel P. Minton, Katalin Kovács. Metabolic engineering of Cupriavidus necator H16 for heterotrophic and autotrophic production of 3-hydroxypropionic acid. Metabolic Engineering 2022, 74 , 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2022.10.014
  21. Erik K.R. Hanko, Gillian Sherlock, Nigel P. Minton, Naglis Malys. Biosensor-informed engineering of Cupriavidus necator H16 for autotrophic D-mannitol production. Metabolic Engineering 2022, 72 , 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2022.02.003
  22. Josie L. McQuillan, Anthony J. Berndt, Ashley E. Sproles, Stephen P. Mayfield, Jagroop Pandhal. Novel cis-regulatory elements as synthetic promoters to drive recombinant protein expression from the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii nuclear genome. New Biotechnology 2022, 68 , 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2022.01.001
  23. Marilene Pavan, Kristina Reinmets, Shivani Garg, Alexander P. Mueller, Esteban Marcellin, Michael Köpke, Kaspar Valgepea. Advances in systems metabolic engineering of autotrophic carbon oxide-fixing biocatalysts towards a circular economy. Metabolic Engineering 2022, 71 , 117-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2022.01.015
  24. Silvia Brojanigo, Nicoletta Gronchi, Tiziano Cazzorla, Tuck Seng Wong, Marina Basaglia, Lorenzo Favaro, Sergio Casella. Engineering Cupriavidus necator DSM 545 for the one-step conversion of starchy waste into polyhydroxyalkanoates. Bioresource Technology 2022, 347 , 126383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126383
  25. Jie Liu, Jianmin Liu, Liang Guo, Jia Liu, Xiulai Chen, Liming Liu, Cong Gao. Advances in microbial synthesis of bioplastic monomers. 2022, 35-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aambs.2022.05.002
  26. Sofia Milker, Dirk Holtmann. First time β-farnesene production by the versatile bacterium Cupriavidus necator. Microbial Cell Factories 2021, 20 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-021-01562-x
  27. Haojie Pan, Jia Wang, Haoliang Wu, Zhongjian Li, Jiazhang Lian. Synthetic biology toolkit for engineering Cupriviadus necator H16 as a platform for CO2 valorization. Biotechnology for Biofuels 2021, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-021-02063-0
  28. Dyah Candra Hapsari Subagyo, Rie Shimizu, Izumi Orita, Toshiaki Fukui. Isopropanol production with reutilization of glucose-derived CO2 by engineered Ralstonia eutropha. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 2021, 132 (5) , 479-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2021.08.004
  29. Christopher C. Azubuike, Angharad M.R. Gatehouse, Thomas P. Howard. pCAT vectors overcome inefficient electroporation of Cupriavidus necator H16. New Biotechnology 2021, 65 , 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2021.07.003
  30. Jesús Torres‐Bacete, José Luís García, Juan Nogales. A portable library of phosphate‐depletion based synthetic promoters for customable and automata control of gene expression in bacteria. Microbial Biotechnology 2021, 14 (6) , 2643-2658. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13808
  31. Justin Panich, Bonnie Fong, Steven W. Singer. Metabolic Engineering of Cupriavidus necator H16 for Sustainable Biofuels from CO2. Trends in Biotechnology 2021, 39 (4) , 412-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.01.001
  32. Daniel Siebert, Bernhard J. Eikmanns, Bastian Blombach. Exploiting Aerobic Carboxydotrophic Bacteria for Industrial Biotechnology. 2021, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2021_178
  33. Ruohao Tang, Caihong Weng, Xiaowei Peng, Yejun Han. Metabolic engineering of Cupriavidus necator H16 for improved chemoautotrophic growth and PHB production under oxygen-limiting conditions. Metabolic Engineering 2020, 61 , 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2020.04.009
  34. Bart Pander, Zahara Mortimer, Craig Woods, Callum McGregor, Andrew Dempster, Lisa Thomas, Joshua Maliepaard, Robert Mansfield, Peter Rowe, Preben Krabben. Hydrogen oxidising bacteria for production of single‐cell protein and other food and feed ingredients. Engineering Biology 2020, 4 (2) , 21-24. https://doi.org/10.1049/enb.2020.0005
  35. Robina Manzoor, Maqbool Ahmed, Naveeda Riaz, Bushra Hafeez Kiani, Ullah Kaleem, Yasmeen Rashid, Ali Nawaz, Muhammad Umer Farooq Awan, Hooria Khan, Umera Imtiaz, Yasir Rasheed, Imdad Kaleem, Aamir Rasool. Self-Redirection of Metabolic Flux toward Squalene and Ethanol Pathways by Engineered Yeast. Metabolites 2020, 10 (2) , 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo10020056
  36. Miriam González-Villanueva, Hemanshi Galaiya, Paul Staniland, Jessica Staniland, Ian Savill, Tuck Seng Wong, Kang Lan Tee. Adaptive Laboratory Evolution of Cupriavidus necator H16 for Carbon Co-Utilization with Glycerol. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2019, 20 (22) , 5737. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20225737

ACS Synthetic Biology

Cite this: ACS Synth. Biol. 2018, 7, 8, 1918–1928
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.8b00136
Published June 27, 2018

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Article Views

10k

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. (A) Promoter definition used in this study. (B) High-throughput characterization of engineered promoters using a fluorescence-based assay (5′-UTR, 5′-untranslated region; bp, base pair; CamR, chloramphenicol resistance gene; Rep, replication gene; RFP, red fluorescent protein).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (A) Boundaries and architectures of the four parental promoters, PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25, used in this study. (B) Comparison of the four parental promoters to an Escherichia coli σ70 promoter. (C) Activities of the four parental promoters.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (A) Architectures of parental promoters and their engineered variants. (B) Activities of parental promoters and their engineered variants.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (A) For gene pairs in HH arrangement, promoters that effect divergent transcription can be organized in three possible ways: back-to-back, overlapping, or face-to-face. (B) Composite promoters engineered using Pg25 as parental promoter. (C) Composite promoters engineered using PrrsC as parental promoter. (D) Composite promoters engineered using Pj5 as parental promoter. (E) Composite promoters with PphaC1 as secondary promoter. (F) Composite promoters with Pg25 as secondary promoter. (G) Composite promoters with Pj5[A1C1C2] as secondary promoter. In graphs E and F, red, blue and orange symbols represent primary promoter activity, composite promoter activity, and fold change, respectively.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. (A) Hierarchical ranking of all 42 constitutive promoters reported in this study. (B) The range of promoter activity was expanded from 6-fold to 137-fold after applying combination of promoter engineering strategies (A = point mutation, B = length alteration, C = incorporation of regulatory genetic element, D = promoter hybridization and E = configuration alteration). Promoters derived from PphaC1, PrrsC, Pj5, and Pg25 were colored in blue, green, pink, and red, respectively. Promoters were categorized into five activity levels: Level 1 (with promoter activity between 0–2000 au), level 2 (2000–4000 au), level 3 (4000–6000 au), level 4 (6000–8000 au) and level 5 (>8000 au). Each promoter was benchmarked against PBAD promoter, induced using various concentrations of l-arabinose, from 0.001% (w/v) to 0.200% (w/v).

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Relative promoter activity change upon application of promoter engineering strategies (A = point mutation, B = length alteration, C = incorporation of regulatory genetic element, D = promoter hybridization, and E = configuration alteration). Modifications that resulted in loss of promoter activity were indicated as red data points. Promoters with activities higher than PBAD promoter were indicated as blue data points.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Growth curves of C. necator H16 harboring either pBBR1MCS-1 (control; black line) or plasmids containing various engineered constitutive promoters [Pg25 (red line), PphaC1[B 1d] (blue line), PrrsC[E1D4] (brown line), Pg25[E3] (green line), Pg25[D1C2] (pink line), Pj5[E1A1C1C2] (orange line), and Pj5[E2C2] (purple line)].

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Fluorescence of cell culture (black columns) and of spent medium (gray columns) of C. necator H16 harboring either pBBR1MCS-1 (control) or plasmids containing various engineered constitutive promoters (Pg25, PphaC1[B1d], PrrsC[E1D4], Pg25[E3], Pg25[D1C2], Pj5[E1A1C1C2], and Pj5[E2C2]).

  • References


    This article references 34 other publications.

    1. 1
      Pohlmann, A., Fricke, W. F., Reinecke, F., Kusian, B., Liesegang, H., Cramm, R., Eitinger, T., Ewering, C., Pötter, M., Schwartz, E., Strittmatter, A., Voss, I., Gottschalk, G., Steinbüchel, A., Friedrich, B., and Bowien, B. (2006) Genome sequence of the Bioplastic-producing ″Knallgas″ bacterium Ralstonia eutropha H16. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (10), 125762,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt1244
    2. 2
      Volodina, E., Raberg, M., and Steinbüchel, A. (2016) Engineering the heterotrophic carbon sources utilization range of Ralstonia eutropha H16 for applications in biotechnology. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 36 (6), 978991,  DOI: 10.3109/07388551.2015.1079698
    3. 3
      Jajesniak, P., Omar Ali, H. E. M., and Wong, T. S. (2014) Carbon dioxide capture and utilization using biological systems: Opportunities and challenges. J. Bioprocess. Biotech. 4, 155,  DOI: 10.4172/2155-9821.1000155
    4. 4
      Peplow, M. (2015) Industrial biotechs turn greenhouse gas into feedstock opportunity. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 11231125,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt1115-1123
    5. 5
      Brigham, C. J., Zhila, N., Shishatskaya, E., Volova, T. G., and Sinskey, A. J. (2012) Manipulation of Ralstonia eutropha carbon storage pathways to produce useful bio-based products. Subcell. Biochem. 64, 34366,  DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5055-5_17
    6. 6
      Lutke-Eversloh, T. and Steinbüchel, A. (2003) Novel precursor substrates for polythioesters (PTE) and limits of PTE biosynthesis in Ralstonia eutropha. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 221, 191196,  DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00185-X
    7. 7
      Steinbüchel, A. and Pieper, U. (1992) Production of a copolyester of 3-hydroxybutyric acid and 3-hydroxyvaleric acid from single unrelated carbon sources by a mutant of Alcaligenes eutrophus. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37, 16,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00174193
    8. 8
      Voss, I. and Steinbüchel, A. (2006) Application of a KDPG-aldolase gene-dependent addiction system for enhanced production of cyanophycin in Ralstonia eutropha strain H16. Metab. Eng. 8 (1), 6678,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2005.09.003
    9. 9
      Valentin, H. E., Zwingmann, G., Schönebaum, A., and Steinbüchel, A. (1995) Metabolic pathway for biosynthesis of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-4-hydroxybutyrate) from 4-hydroxybutyrate by Alcaligenes eutrophus. Eur. J. Biochem. 227 (1–2), 4360,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1995.tb20358.x
    10. 10
      Chen, J. S., Colon, B., Dusel, B., Ziesack, M., Way, J. C., and Torella, J. P. (2015) Production of fatty acids in Ralstonia eutropha H16 by engineering beta-oxidation and carbon storage. PeerJ 3, e1468,  DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1468
    11. 11
      Crépin, L., Lombard, E., and Guillouet, S. E. (2016) Metabolic engineering of Cupriavidus necator for heterotrophic and autotrophic alka(e)ne production. Metab. Eng. 37, 92101,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2016.05.002
    12. 12
      Marc, J., Grousseau, E., Lombard, E., Sinskey, A. J., Gorret, N., and Guillouet, S. E. (2017) Over expression of GroESL in Cupriavidus necator for heterotrophic and autotrophic isopropanol production. Metab. Eng. 42, 7484,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2017.05.007
    13. 13
      Müller, J., MacEachran, D., Burd, H., Sathitsuksanoh, N., Bi, C., Yeh, Y. C., Lee, T. S., Hillson, N. J., Chhabra, S. R., Singer, S. W., and Beller, H. R. (2013) Engineering of Ralstonia eutropha H16 for autotrophic and heterotrophic production of methyl ketones. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79 (14), 44339,  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00973-13
    14. 14
      Lu, J., Brigham, C. J., Gai, C. S., and Sinskey, A. J. (2012) Studies on the production of branched-chain alcohols in engineered Ralstonia eutropha. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 96 (1), 28397,  DOI: 10.1007/s00253-012-4320-9
    15. 15
      Lütte, S., Pohlmann, A., Zaychikov, E., Schwartz, E., Becher, J. R., Heumann, H., and Friedrich, B. (2012) Autotrophic production of stable-isotope-labeled arginine in Ralstonia eutropha strain H16. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78 (22), 788490,  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01972-12
    16. 16
      Park, J. M., Jang, Y. S., Kim, T. Y., and Lee, S. Y. (2010) Development of a gene knockout system for Ralstonia eutropha H16 based on the broad-host-range vector expressing a mobile group II intron. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 309, 193200,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.02041.x
    17. 17
      Gruber, S., Hagen, J., Schwab, H., and Koefinger, P. (2014) Versatile and stable vectors for efficient gene expression in Ralstonia eutropha H16. J. Biotechnol. 186, 7482,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.06.030
    18. 18
      Raberg, M., Heinrich, D., and Steinbüchel, A. (2015) Analysis of PHB Metabolism Applying Tn5Mutagenesis in Ralstonia eutropha. In Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology Protocols; Springer Protocols Handbooks (McGenity, T., Timmis, K., and Nogales, B., Eds.) pp 120148, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    19. 19
      Tee, K. L., Grinham, J., Othusitse, A. M., Gonzalez-Villanueva, M., Johnson, A. O., and Wong, T. S. (2017) An Efficient Transformation Method for the Bioplastic-Producing ″Knallgas″ Bacterium Ralstonia eutropha H16. Biotechnol. J. 12, 1700081,  DOI: 10.1002/biot.201700081
    20. 20
      Bi, C., Su, P., Müller, J., Yeh, Y. C., Chhabra, S. R., Beller, H. R., Singer, S. W., and Hillson, N. J. (2013) Development of a broad-host synthetic biology toolbox for Ralstonia eutropha and its application to engineering hydrocarbon biofuel production. Microb. Cell Fact. 12, 107,  DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-12-107
    21. 21
      Fukui, T., Ohsawa, K., Mifune, J., Orita, I., and Nakamura, S. (2011) Evaluation of promoters for gene expression in polyhydroxyalkanoate-producing Cupriavidus necator H16. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 89 (5), 152736,  DOI: 10.1007/s00253-011-3100-2
    22. 22
      Guzman, L. M., Belin, D., Carson, M. J., and Beckwith, J. (1995) Tight regulation, modulation, and high-level expression by vectors containing the arabinose PBAD promoter. J. Bacteriol. 177 (14), 412130,  DOI: 10.1128/jb.177.14.4121-4130.1995
    23. 23
      Li, H. and Liao, J. C. (2015) A synthetic anhydrotetracycline-controllable gene expression system in Ralstonia eutropha H16. ACS Synth. Biol. 4 (2), 1016,  DOI: 10.1021/sb4001189
    24. 24
      Hanko, E. K. R., Minton, N. P., and Malys, N. (2017) Characterisation of a 3-hydroxypropionic acid-inducible system from Pseudomonas putida for orthogonal gene expression control in Escherichia coli and Cupriavidus necator. Sci. Rep. 7, 1724,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-01850-w
    25. 25
      Gruber, S., Schwendenwein, D., Magomedova, Z., Thaler, E., Hagen, J., Schwab, H., and Heidinger, P. (2016) Design of inducible expression vectors for improved protein production in Ralstonia eutropha H16 derived host strains. J. Biotechnol. 235, 929,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.04.026
    26. 26
      Johnson, A. O., Gonzalez-Villanueva, M., Wong, L., Steinbüchel, A., Tee, K. L., Xu, P., and Wong, T. S. (2017) Design and application of genetically-encoded malonyl-CoA biosensors for metabolic engineering of microbial cell factories. Metab. Eng. 44, 253264,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2017.10.011
    27. 27
      Arikawa, H. and Matsumoto, K. (2016) Evaluation of gene expression cassettes and production of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) with a fine modulated monomer composition by using it in Cupriavidus necator. Microb. Cell Fact. 15, 184,  DOI: 10.1186/s12934-016-0583-7
    28. 28
      Kutuzova, G. I., Frank, G. K., Makeev, V., Esipova, N. G., and Polozov, R. V. (1997) [Fourier analysis of nucleotide sequences. Periodicity in E. coli promoter sequences]. Biofizika 42 (2), 35462
    29. 29
      Gentz, R. and Bujard, H. (1985) Promoters recognized by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase selected by function: highly efficient promoters from bacteriophage T5. J. Bacteriol. 164, 707
    30. 30
      Guo, Y., Dong, J., Zhou, T., Auxillos, J., Li, T., Zhang, W., Wang, L., Shen, Y., Luo, Y., Zheng, Y., Lin, J., Chen, G. Q., Wu, Q., Cai, Y., and Dai, J. (2015) YeastFab: the design and construction of standard biological parts for metabolic engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 43 (13), e88,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv464
    31. 31
      Phelan, R. M., Sachs, D., Petkiewicz, S. J., Barajas, J. F., Blake-Hedges, J. M., Thompson, M. G., Reider Apel, A., Rasor, B. J., Katz, L., and Keasling, J. D. (2017) Development of Next Generation Synthetic Biology Tools for Use in Streptomyces venezuelae. ACS Synth. Biol. 6 (1), 159166,  DOI: 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00202
    32. 32
      Gherman, A., Wang, R., and Avramopoulos, D. (2009) Orientation, distance, regulation and function of neighbouring genes. Hum. Genomics 3 (2), 143156,  DOI: 10.1186/1479-7364-3-2-143
    33. 33
      Beck, C. F. and Warren, R. A. (1988) Divergent promoters, a common form of gene organization. Microbiol. Rev. 52 (3), 31826
    34. 34
      Schlegel, H. G., Kaltwasser, H., and Gottschalk, G. (1961) [A submersion method for culture of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria: growth physiological studies]. Arch. Microbiol. 38, 20922,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00422356
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acssynbio.8b00136.

    • Experimental procedures; plasmid map of pBBR1c-RFP; alignment of Pj5 and Pg25 promoters used in this study and in Gruber et al. (2014); graphical representation of rational promoter engineering strategies; l-arabinose-dose dependent induction of PBAD promoter; curve fitting of cell culture fluorescence vs time data; fluorescence of cell culture normalized by OD600 value; promoter sequences; subcategories of each promoter engineering strategy; promoter activity table; specific growth rates of C. necator H16 carrying plasmids containing various promoters (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.