Skip to main content
Elsevier Sponsored Documents logoLink to Elsevier Sponsored Documents
. 2015 Dec;35:46–51. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.02.004

Synthetic biology advances for pharmaceutical production

Rainer Breitling 1, Eriko Takano 1
PMCID: PMC4617476  PMID: 25744872

Graphical abstract

graphic file with name fx1.jpg

Highlights

  • Synthetic biology is quickly moving from proof of concept to industrial application.

  • Pharmaceuticals are a promising target for advanced genetic engineering.

  • Genome sequence data indicate vast underexploited biosynthetic capacity.

  • Synthetic biology can create libraries of novel chemicals enriched for bioactivity.

  • Synthetic biology expands the range of available chassis organisms for industry.

Abstract

Synthetic biology enables a new generation of microbial engineering for the biotechnological production of pharmaceuticals and other high-value chemicals. This review presents an overview of recent advances in the field, describing new computational and experimental tools for the discovery, optimization and production of bioactive molecules, and outlining progress towards the application of these tools to pharmaceutical production systems.


Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2015, 35:46–51

This review comes from a themed issue on Pharmaceutical biotechnology

Edited by Guillermo de la Cueva-Méndez and Dror Seliktar

For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial

Available online 3rd March 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2015.02.004

0958-1669/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

The synthetic biology revolution

Synthetic biology has seen rapid advances in the last couple of years. Initially focusing on proof-of-concept studies illustrating our ability of writing genetic code on a large scale and demonstrating the usefulness of introducing engineering concepts into biology, the field is now quickly moving towards industrial applications [1–7]. In particular, the engineering of microbial production systems for high-value small molecules is seen to hold great potential, aiming at compounds that range from flavours and fragrances to clinically relevant pharmaceuticals [8]. While just a few years ago, synthetic biology was seen as an avant-garde concept, its ideas and methods have now largely entered the mainstream of molecular biology and genetic engineering, so much so that the necessity for its ambitious engineering metaphors is already being debated [9,10]. In this review we provide a concise overview of some of the early achievements in the synthetic biology of pharmaceuticals and the advances in tools (molecular and computational) that are expected to drive this field forward rapidly.

Synthetic biology for pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals have inspired some of the earliest success stories of synthetic biology for two main reasons: on the one hand, small-molecule drugs in current use (from aspirin to artemisinin) are very often derived from natural products, so that a return to microbial production systems is seen as relatively straight-forward. On the other hand, many natural biosynthetic pathways show a surprising level of built-in modularity at many levels, which can be exploited by the engineering approaches of synthetic biology [11,12]. This is particularly true for the large group of bioactive natural products that are active as antibiotics and related compounds: the evolutionary requirements for rapid diversification and for robust cross-species compatibility of pathways that are constantly exchanged between host organisms have shaped large modular assembly lines that can serve as starting points for synthetic biology. Cummings et al. [13] and Poust et al. [14] have recently reviewed the possibilities and limitations of this approach with a particular focus on polyketide synthases, and Kittleson et al. examine the challenges of modular genetic engineering from a broader systems biological perspective [15].

The synthetic biology of pharmaceuticals is further inspired by the recent avalanche of microbial genome and metagenome sequences which revealed an unexpected richness of unexplored biosynthetic capacities in almost every genome analysed [16,17]. For example, the recently published first comprehensive assessment of secondary metabolite diversity across microbial kingdoms, based on the computational analysis of more than 1100 complete genome sequences, detected more than 30 000 putative biosynthetic gene clusters (estimating a false-discovery rate of 5%) [18]. These were broadly distributed across the phylogenetic tree, with clusters of particular richness in, for example, actinomycetes, Burkholderia and Pseudomonas, but ‘talented’ strains of high predicted biosynthetic capacity being found in almost every larger bacterial group. A targeted analysis of Actinobacteria, combining genome mining and metabolomics, concluded that this group alone encodes for hundreds of thousands of possible drug leads [19••]. Under standard conditions, the majority of this biosynthetic potential is silent or cryptic, and synthetic biology is seen as a potential tool for awakening and mining this rich source of potential drug candidates on a large scale [17,20–24]. Additional genetic engineering can then be applied to obtain variations and further diversity, with new or improved bioactivity [25,26].

Tools for the synthetic biology of pharmaceuticals

Synthetic biology, like all engineering disciplines, relies on the availability of powerful standardized tools for all steps along the design–build–test (and learn) cycle. Many of the required tools, for example genome synthesis, assembly and editing methods [27–29], are broadly generic. Others are specific to the field of small-molecule synthetic biology. These begin with methods for the comprehensive discovery and annotation of biosynthetic building blocks in newly sequenced genomes [30], as exemplified by the antiSMASH pipeline [31,32]. In combination with advances in mass spectrometry-based analytics these annotations can be used to link genome information directly to bioactive compounds observed in bacterial cultures: this has recently been demonstrated for peptidic metabolites (both non-ribosomal peptides and Ribosomally synthesized and posttranslationally modified peptides, RIPPs), where incomplete and noisy sequence information derived from mass spectrometry can be used to successfully identify the gene clusters likely to produce them, and even to determine the actual structure of the end product [33,34••].

Another exciting source of biosynthetic building blocks is promised by recent advances in the de novo computational design of enzymes with activities that were previously unavailable in biologicals systems [35]. Enzyme engineering approaches also benefit from the increasing availability of genome sequences, which allow evolution-guided manipulation of existing enzymes, for example, for altered substrate specificity in molecular assembly lines for polyketides or non-ribosomal peptides [36,37]. For example, identification of the recombination events underlying a major switch in substrate specificity during evolution of a bacterial non-ribosomal peptide synthase, allowed Crüsemann et al. [36] to create enzyme variants that accepted alternative substrates, based on the inferred recombination points.

Analogous evolutionary strategies can also be applied at the pathway level, as demonstrated by the recent rational design of novel functional polyketide synthases by emulating the natural evolutionary processes underlying the diversification of this biosynthetic class [38]. By examining the shared evolutionary history of the polyketides aureothin, spectinabilin and luteoreticulin, it was possible to develop a rational strategy of recombination and domain exchanges that reprogramme the aureothin polyketide biosynthetic pathway into a pathway that produced luteoreticulin. Protein engineering can also be very useful at the small scale, for instance creating enzymatic building blocks that are not affected by the end-product inhibition that is usually seen in natural enzymes. Schendzielorz et al. recently demonstrated the power of this ‘mutein’ approach in a case study on amino acid biosynthesis in Corynebacterium glutamicum, where high-throughput removal of inhibition allowed a massive increase in production titres [39••].

Other approaches to diversifying the pool of available chemical building blocks rely on a variety of experimental approaches. Walker et al. used synthetic biology to develop a library of new fluorinated building blocks for biomolecules [40••]. Starting from the fluoroacetate pathway of Streptomyces cattleya, the only known natural source of fluorinated biomolecules, they engineered acetate-based polyketide biosynthesis to incorporate the fluorinated precursor, via synthesis of fluoromalonyl-CoA as a modified extender unit. As many other natural products, ranging from isoprenoids to steroids and alkaloids, are also acetate-derived, this strategy offers potentially a general approach for expanding the chemical space around known pharmaceuticals.

The production of small molecules, whether awakened from genome information or optimized in a native or heterologous host, requires not only expression of the core biosynthetic pathway, but also sufficient supply of precursors and reduced competition from alternative reactions. Computational modelling has been useful for this purpose, and the specific challenges of modelling for secondary metabolite production have recently been reviewed [41]. The increasing availability of automated model construction and curation tools further increases the accessibility of the technology [42] and enables, for example, the comprehensive computational survey of potential production hosts for heterologous pathways [43].

Other computational tools allow the design of the actual pharmaceutical production system. A particularly ambitious recent example is the Retropath tool for the principled design of entire metabolic circuits [44••], based on constraining information about the metabolic capacities of the envisaged host organism (chassis) and the scope of available chemical reactions. In addition to the production modules, the Retropath framework also allows exploration of the design space for biosensing and regulation of the synthetic pathways, with the ultimate aim of enabling the construction of smart therapeutics, which integrate pharmaceutical synthesis and point-of-need delivery. Proof-of-concept examples of similar devices have recently been introduced, including engineered Escherichia coli that can sense and kill Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms by eavesdropping on the target quorum sensing signals and releasing antibiotic pyocin proteins in response [45].

While much of the actual DNA-level building of engineered systems for pharmaceutical production relies on generic tools, it is especially reliant on emerging methods for the large-scale assembly of libraries of biosynthetic pathways, to explore chemical space around existing bioactive compounds or to discover new activities based on hybrids and module-shuffled assemblies of biosynthetic building blocks from various sources. A focused review of DNA assembly methods available for this particular challenge has recently been provided by Cobb et al. [46]. Recent developments in the use of phage integrases for the multiplexed pathway assembly offer another important contribution to the toolbox of synthetic biology especially for the engineering of biosynthetic libraries [47••].

Moreover, the development of universal transfer and expression systems specifically for large biosynthetic gene clusters shuttled between species facilitates the exploration of bioactive molecules from a variety of sources. For example, Loeschke et al. introduced a systems that combines conjugation-based DNA transfer, randomized transposition-based integration into the host genome, and T7 RNA polymerase-driven bidirectional transcription for concerted gene expression [48]. Applications to pigmented secondary metabolites, zeaxanthin and prodigiosin, demonstrated the utility of this system in different bacterial species. A similar system, specifically for bioprospecting in filamentous fungi, was recently presented by Unkles et al. [49].

The design–build–test cycle is closed by the debugging of the engineered microbes, for example, by high-resolution metabolomics, which allows not only the quantitation of product levels, but more importantly a global assessment of metabolic bottlenecks and potentially deleterious side reactions [50–52]. The insights gained at this step are then available to drive another iteration of the cycle, improving the predictive models and informing the next steps in pathway engineering.

Applications of synthetic biology for pharmaceuticals

The first and most widely publicized application of synthetic biology for the industrial production of an important drug is the case of semi-synthetic artemisinin. This antimalarial drug was originally obtained from plant sources but can now be produced at large quantities in heterologous hosts, including Saccharomyces cerevisiae [53]. The project leading to the commercially viable engineered strains took almost ten years and established a large number of basic concepts and technologies required for the successful design of biosynthetic systems for pharmaceutical compounds [54], ranging from optimization of the chassis organism for precursor supply (in this case, artemisinic acid, which proved to be unavailable in sufficient amounts even in engineered strains of the originally intended production host E. coli), to the importance of eliminating or reducing unwanted side reactions (such as the production of reactive oxygen species, which severely limited the viability of early artemisinic acid producing yeast strains). The ability to pursue many design routes in parallel allowed the exploration of additional useful concepts, for instance the use of engineered protein scaffolds to optimize the relative activities of enzymes along a designer production pathway [55], or the importance of subtle balancing of enzyme activities along a pathway for optimal production [56,57••].

Synthetic biology for other pharmaceuticals can now build on the experiences of the artemisinin project, and consequently the last few years have seen rapid developments in the field, not only for closely related isoprenoids, such as taxol [58], farnesene [59] and many others [58,60–62].

Jaitzig et al. demonstrated the possibility of heterologous expression of the huge molecular assembly lines required for pharmaceutically interesting natural products in the most attractive production host, E. coli [63]. They expressed the entire 654 kDa non-ribosomal peptide synthase for valinomycin in soluble and active form, creating a valuable system to produce analogues of the drug by making full use of the genome engineering methods available for E. coli.

Shao et al. applied the refactoring strategy of synthetic biology for awakening a silent biosynthetic pathway [64]: by removing all native regulatory control of the spectabilin cluster of Streptomyces orinoci and replacing it with a system of constitutive and inducible heterologous promoters in a plug-and-play scaffold, they achieved the straight-forward production of the end product at detectable levels amenable for analysis and further optimization.

Klein et al. harnessed the power of synthetic biology in yeast, S. cerevisiae, to create an entire library of 74 novel chemical compounds enriched for bioactive compounds [65••]. Using randomly assembled biosynthetic pathways from a variety of natural sources [66] in combination with an internal activity screen in the same cells used for the production, they were able to target the discovery process towards molecules with structural and biophysical properties that comply with traditional rules for drug-likeness.

Important advances have also been made in the establishing of engineered host systems (chassis) that are optimized for the production of pharmaceuticals and other secondary metabolites. Komatsu et al. developed genome-minimized variants of the industrial microbe Streptomyces avermitilis, which grow faster than the wild type, lacked the principal endogenous biosynthetic gene clusters that often result in precursor competition and analytical complexity, and successfully achieved substantial heterologous expression of a large number of secondary metabolite gene clusters [67]. Nikel et al. argue for environmental Pseudomonas strains exhibiting favourable metabolic and stress-tolerance properties as promising new hosts for biotechnological applications, based on the increasing ability of synthetic biology to engineer such non-classical model organisms [68]. Given the increasing ease of genome engineering in multicellular organisms, for example, using the CRISPR-Cas system and related technologies [69,70], even plants (and plant cell cultures) are increasingly returning to the focus as potential biotechnological production systems for pharmaceutical compounds, given their versatile endogenous metabolism [71,72].

Conclusions

The use of microbial production systems for pharmaceuticals and other high-value chemicals is clearly entering a new phase right now. The ambitious engineering aims of synthetic biology are rapidly becoming a reality, based on advances in our ability to edit genomes, identify and optimize biosynthetic building blocks, rapidly create libraries of pathways and novel compounds, and to debug and improve the engineered systems. As has always been the case for natural products research, diversity will remain a key feature: synthetic biology is built on diversity of computational tools, genome engineering methods, analytical and screening technologies, but it also enables new diversity at the level of host organisms and chassis, as well as biosynthetic modules and bioactive end products. All of these come together within the shared framework of the design–build–test cycle of synthetic biology, which in the coming years will move many of the examples indicated in this review from the proof-of-concept stage to wide-spread application in the pharmaceutical industry.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

Contributor Information

Rainer Breitling, Email: rainer.breitling@manchester.ac.uk.

Eriko Takano, Email: eriko.takano@manchester.ac.uk.

References

  • 1.Keasling J.D. Synthetic biology for synthetic chemistry. ACS Chem Biol. 2008;3:64–76. doi: 10.1021/cb7002434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Khalil A.S., Collins J.J. Synthetic biology: applications come of age. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11:367–379. doi: 10.1038/nrg2775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Forster A.C., Lee S.Y. Editorial: NextGen SynBio has arrived. Biotechnol J. 2012;7:827. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Prindle A. Synthetic biology at all scales. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31:607–608. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wang Y.H., Wei K.Y., Smolke C.D. Synthetic biology: advancing the design of diverse genetic systems. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng. 2013;4:69–102. doi: 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061312-103351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Singh V. Recent advancements in synthetic biology: current status and challenges. Gene. 2014;535:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2013.11.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Agapakis C.M. Designing synthetic biology. ACS Synth Biol. 2014;3:121–128. doi: 10.1021/sb4001068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hayden E.C. Synthetic-biology firms shift focus. Nature. 2014;505:598. doi: 10.1038/505598a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cole J.A. Synthetic biology: old wine in new bottles with an emerging language that ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous? FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2014;351:113–115. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Way J.C., Collins J.J., Keasling J.D., Silver P.A. Integrating biological redesign: Where synthetic biology came from and where it needs to go. Cell. 2014;157:151–161. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Frasch H.J., Medema M.H., Takano E., Breitling R. Design-based re-engineering of biosynthetic gene clusters: plug-and-play in practice. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2013;24:1144–1150. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2013.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Medema M.H., Breitling R., Bovenberg R., Takano E. Exploiting plug-and-play synthetic biology for drug discovery and production in microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:131–137. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cummings M., Breitling R., Takano E. Steps towards the synthetic biology of polyketide biosynthesis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2014;351:116–125. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Poust S., Hagen A., Katz L., Keasling J.D. Narrowing the gap between the promise and reality of polyketide synthases as a synthetic biology platform. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014;30:32–39. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kittleson J.T., Wu G.C., Anderson J.C. Successes and failures in modular genetic engineering. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2012;16:329–336. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2012.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wilson M.C., Piel J. Metagenomic approaches for exploiting uncultivated bacteria as a resource for novel biosynthetic enzymology. Chem Biol. 2013;20:636–647. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2013.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Helfrich E.J.N., Reiter S., Piel J. Recent advances in genome-based polyketide discovery. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014;29:107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cimermancic P., Medema M.H., Claesen J., Kurita K., Wieland Brown L.C., Mavrommatis K., Pati A., Godfrey P.A., Koehrsen M., Clardy J. Insights into secondary metabolism from a global analysis of prokaryotic biosynthetic gene clusters. Cell. 2014;158:412–421. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19••.Doroghazi J.R., Albright J.C., Goering A.W., Ju K.S., Haines R.R., Tchalukov K.A., Labeda D.P., Kelleher N.L., Metcalf W.W. A roadmap for natural product discovery based on large-scale genomics and metabolomics. Nat Chem Biol. 2014;10:963–968. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; These two papers provide a fascinating global overview of the diversity of biosynthetic capabilities among microbes.
  • 20.Li J.W.H., Vederas J.C. Drug discovery and natural products: end of an era or an endless frontier? Science. 2009;325:161–165. doi: 10.1126/science.1168243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bologa C.G., Ursu O., Oprea T.I., Melançon C.E., Tegos G.P. Emerging trends in the discovery of natural product antibacterials. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2013;13:678–687. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2013.07.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Müller R., Wink J. Future potential for anti-infectives from bacteria — how to exploit biodiversity and genomic potential. Int J Med Microbiol. 2014;304:3–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2013.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Porro D., Branduardi P., Sauer M., Mattanovich D. Old obstacles and new horizons for microbial chemical production. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014;30:101–106. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rebets Y., Brötz E., Tokovenko B., Luzhetskyy A. Actinomycetes biosynthetic potential: how to bridge in silico and in vivo? J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;41:387–402. doi: 10.1007/s10295-013-1352-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wright G. Perspective: Synthetic biology revives antibiotics. Nature. 2014:509. doi: 10.1038/509S13a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wright G.D. Something old, something new: revisiting natural products in Antibiotic drug discovery. Can J Microbiol. 2014;60:147–154. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2014-0063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Song C.W., Lee S.Y. Rapid one-step inactivation of single or multiple genes in Escherichia coli. Biotechnol J. 2013;8:776–784. doi: 10.1002/biot.201300153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gibson D.G. Programming biological operating systems: genome design, assembly and activation. Nat Methods. 2014;11:521–526. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Krappmann S. Genetic surgery in fungi: employing site-specific recombinases for genome manipulation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98:1971–1982. doi: 10.1007/s00253-013-5480-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Weber T. In silico tools for the analysis of antibiotic biosynthetic pathways. Int J Med Microbiol. 2014;304:230–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2014.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31•.Blin K., Medema M.H., Kazempour D., Fischbach M.A., Breitling R., Takano E., Weber T. antiSMASH 2.0 — a versatile platform for genome mining of secondary metabolite producers. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:W204–W212. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; This most recent release of the most widely used software for chemistry-centred genome mining opens up a treasure chest of secondary metabolite biosynthesis in microbial genomes.
  • 32.Medema M.H., Blin K., Cimermancic P., de Jager V., Zakrzewski P., Fischbach M.A., Weber T., Takano E., Breitling R. antiSMASH: rapid identification, annotation and analysis of secondary metabolite biosynthesis gene clusters in bacterial and fungal genome sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:W339–W346. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Medema M.H., Paalvast Y., Nguyen D.D., Melnik A., Dorrestein P.C., Takano E., Breitling R. Pep2Path: automated mass spectrometry-guided genome mining of peptidic natural products. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10:e1003822. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34••.Zhang Q., Ortega M., Shi Y., Wang H., Melby J.O., Tang W., Mitchell D.A., van der Donk W.A. Structural investigation of ribosomally synthesized natural products by hypothetical structure enumeration and evaluation using tandem MS. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:12031–12036. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406418111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; These two papers demonstrate the power of combining computational analysis with mass spectrometry-based analytics for the discovery of new natural products.
  • 35.Zanghellini A. De novo computational enzyme design. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014;29:132–138. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36•.Crüsemann M., Kohlhaas C., Piel J. Evolution-guided engineering of nonribosomal peptide synthetase adenylation domains. Chem Sci. 2013;4:1041–1045. [Google Scholar]; This paper illustrates how evolutionary information derived from genome sequencing data can inform and accelerate the engineering of enzymes for the synthesis of natural product variants.
  • 37.Beer R., Herbst K., Ignatiadis N., Kats I., Adlung L., Meyer H., Niopek D., Christiansen T., Georgi F., Kurzawa N. Creating functional engineered variants of the single-module non-ribosomal peptide synthetase IndC by T domain exchange. Mol Biosyst. 2014;10:1709–1718. doi: 10.1039/c3mb70594c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38•.Sugimoto Y., Ding L., Ishida K., Hertweck C. Rational design of modular polyketide synthases: morphing the aureothin pathway into a luteoreticulin assembly line. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2014;53:1560–1564. doi: 10.1002/anie.201308176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Evolution-guided engineering of an entire biosynthetic pathway.
  • 39••.Schendzielorz G., Dippong M., Grünberger A., Kohlheyer D., Yoshida A., Binder S., Nishiyama C., Nishiyama M., Bott M., Eggeling L. Taking control over control: use of product sensing in single cells to remove flux control at key enzymes in biosynthesis pathways. ACS Synth Biol. 2014;3:21–29. doi: 10.1021/sb400059y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Taking the synthetic biology concept of refactoring from the genome to the protein level by freeing biosynthetic enzymes from unwanted product inhibition.
  • 40••.Walker M.C., Thuronyi B.W., Charkoudian L.K., Lowry B., Khosla C., Chang M.C.Y. Expanding the fluorine chemistry of living systems using engineered polyketide synthase pathways. Science. 2013;341:1089–1094. doi: 10.1126/science.1242345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Exploiting the natural modularity of natural product biosynthesis for the creation of a library of new chemicals.
  • 41.Breitling R., Achcar F., Takano E. Modeling challenges in the synthetic biology of secondary metabolism. ACS Synth Biol. 2013;2:373–378. doi: 10.1021/sb4000228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bautista E.J., Zinski J., Szczepanek S.M., Johnson E.L., Tulman E.R., Ching W.M., Geary S.J., Srivastava R. Semi-automated curation of metabolic models via flux balance analysis: a case study with mycoplasma gallisepticum. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013:9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zakrzewski P., Medema M.H., Gevorgyan A., Kierzek A.M., Breitling R., Takano E. MultiMetEval: comparative and multi-objective analysis of genome-scale metabolic models. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e51511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44••.Carbonell P., Parutto P., Baudier C., Junot C., Faulon J.L. Retropath: automated pipeline for embedded metabolic circuits. ACS Synth Biol. 2014;3:565–577. doi: 10.1021/sb4001273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Developing a comprehensive computational framework for the design of metabolic circuits.
  • 45.Saeidi N., Wong C.K., Lo T.M., Nguyen H.X., Ling H., Leong S.S., Poh C.L., Chang M.W. Engineering microbes to sense and eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a human pathogen. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7:521. doi: 10.1038/msb.2011.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46•.Cobb R.E., Ning J.C., Zhao H. DNA assembly techniques for next-generation combinatorial biosynthesis of natural products. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;41:469–477. doi: 10.1007/s10295-013-1358-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Exploring new DNA assembly techniques with a specific focus on natural products development.
  • 47••.Fogg P.C.M., Colloms S., Rosser S., Stark M., Smith M.C.M. New applications for phage integrases. J Mol Biol. 2014;426:2703–2716. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2014.05.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Phage-encoded integrases as a broadly useful tool for genome engineering, which special potential for the production of new pharmaceuticals.
  • 48.Loeschcke A., Markert A., Wilhelm S., Wirtz A., Rosenau F., Jaeger K.E., Drepper T. TREX: a universal tool for the transfer and expression of biosynthetic pathways in bacteria. ACS Synth Biol. 2013;2:22–33. doi: 10.1021/sb3000657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Unkles S.E., Valiante V., Mattern D.J., Brakhage A.A. Synthetic biology tools for bioprospecting of natural products in eukaryotes. Chem Biol. 2014;21:502–508. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2014.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Breitling R., Ceniceros A., Jankevics A., Takano E. Metabolomics for secondary metabolite research. Metabolites. 2013;3:1076–1083. doi: 10.3390/metabo3041076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nguyen Q.T., Merlo M.E., Medema M.H., Jankevics A., Breitling R., Takano E. Metabolomics methods for the synthetic biology of secondary metabolism. FEBS Lett. 2012;586:2177–2183. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Merlo M.E., Jankevics A., Takano E., Breitling R. Exploring the metabolic state of microorganisms using metabolomics. Bioanalysis. 2011;3:2443–2458. doi: 10.4155/bio.11.248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Paddon C.J., Westfall P.J., Pitera D.J., Benjamin K., Fisher K., McPhee D., Leavell M.D., Tai A., Main A., Eng D. High-level semi-synthetic production of the potent antimalarial artemisinin. Nature. 2013;496:528–532. doi: 10.1038/nature12051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Paddon C.J., Keasling J.D. Semi-synthetic artemisinin: a model for the use of synthetic biology in pharmaceutical development. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12:355–367. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dueber J.E., Wu G.C., Malmirchegini G.R., Moon T.S., Petzold C.J., Ullal A.V., Prather K.L., Keasling J.D. Synthetic protein scaffolds provide modular control over metabolic flux. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:753–759. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Anthony J.R., Anthony L.C., Nowroozi F., Kwon G., Newman J.D., Keasling J.D. Optimization of the mevalonate-based isoprenoid biosynthetic pathway in Escherichia coli for production of the anti-malarial drug precursor amorpha-4,11-diene. Metab Eng. 2009;11:13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ymben.2008.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57••.Woo H.M., Murray G.W., Batth T.S., Prasad N., Adams P.D., Keasling J.D., Petzold C.J., Lee T.S. Application of targeted proteomics and biological parts assembly in E. coli to optimize the biosynthesis of an anti-malarial drug precursor, amorpha-4,11-diene. Chem Eng Sci. 2013;103:21–28. [Google Scholar]; A rapid strategy for optimizing the relative enzyme levels along a metabolic pathway to optimize the biosynthesis of the desired end product.
  • 58.Jiang M., Stephanopoulos G., Pfeifer B.A. Downstream reactions and engineering in the microbially reconstituted pathway for Taxol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;94:841–849. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4016-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zhu F., Zhong X., Hu M., Lu L., Deng Z., Liu T. In vitro reconstitution of mevalonate pathway and targeted engineering of farnesene overproduction in Escherichia coli. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111:1396–1405. doi: 10.1002/bit.25198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Immethun C.M., Hoynes-O’Connor A.G., Balassy A., Moon T.S. Microbial production of isoprenoids enabled by synthetic biology. Front Microbiol. 2013:4. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Wriessnegger T., Pichler H. Yeast metabolic engineering — targeting sterol metabolism and terpenoid formation. Prog Lipid Res. 2013;52:277–293. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2013.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Vickers C.E., Bongers M., Liu Q., Delatte T., Bouwmeester H. Metabolic engineering of volatile isoprenoids in plants and microbes. Plant Cell Environ. 2014;37:1753–1775. doi: 10.1111/pce.12316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Jaitzig J., Li J., Süssmuth R.D., Neubauer P. Reconstituted biosynthesis of the nonribosomal macrolactone antibiotic valinomycin in Escherichia coli. ACS Synth Biol. 2014;3:432–438. doi: 10.1021/sb400082j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Shao Z., Rao G., Li C., Abil Z., Luo Y., Zhao H. Refactoring the silent spectinabilin gene cluster using a plug-and-play scaffold. ACS Synth Biol. 2013;2:662–669. doi: 10.1021/sb400058n. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65••.Klein J., Heal J.R., Hamilton W.D.O., Boussemghoune T., Tange T.O., Delegrange F., Jaeschke G., Hatsch A., Heim J. Yeast synthetic biology platform generates novel chemical structures as scaffolds for drug discovery. ACS Synth Biol. 2014;3:314–323. doi: 10.1021/sb400177x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Exploiting the power of synthetic biology to create an entire library of bioactive novel molecules.
  • 66.Naesby M., Nielsen S.V., Nielsen C.A., Green T., Tange T.O., Simon E., Knechtle P., Hansson A., Schwab M.S., Titiz O. Yeast artificial chromosomes employed for random assembly of biosynthetic pathways and production of diverse compounds in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microb Cell Fact. 2009;8:45. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-8-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Komatsu M., Komatsu K., Koiwai H., Yamada Y., Kozone I., Izumikawa M., Hashimoto J., Takagi M., Omura S., Shin-Ya K. Engineered Streptomyces avermitilis host for heterologous expression of biosynthetic gene cluster for secondary metabolites. ACS Synth Biol. 2013;2:384–396. doi: 10.1021/sb3001003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Nikel P.I., Martínez-García E., De Lorenzo V. Biotechnological domestication of pseudomonads using synthetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12:368–379. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kim H., Kim J.S. A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:321–334. doi: 10.1038/nrg3686. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Sander J.D., Joung J.K. CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:347–350. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Staniek A., Bouwmeester H., Fraser P.D., Kayser O., Martens S., Tissier A., van der Krol S., Wessjohann L., Warzecha H. Natural products — modifying metabolite pathways in plants. Biotechnol J. 2013;8:1159–1171. doi: 10.1002/biot.201300224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wilson S.A., Cummings E.M., Roberts S.C. Multi-scale engineering of plant cell cultures for promotion of specialized metabolism. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014;29:163–170. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES