Abstract
This mini-review provides a perspective of traditional, emerging and future applications of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and how genome editing tools can be used to overcome current challenges in all these applications. It also describes available tools and how these can be further developed, and takes current legislation into account. Genome editing tools are necessary for the construction of strains for new applications and products, but can also play a crucial role in traditional ones, such as food and probiotics, as a research tool for gaining mechanistic insights and discovering new properties. Traditionally, recombinant DNA techniques for LAB have strongly focused on being food-grade, but they lack speed and the number of genetically tractable strains is still rather limited. Further tool development will enable rapid construction of multiple mutants or mutant libraries on a genomic level in a wide variety of LAB strains. We also propose an iterative Design–Build–Test–Learn workflow cycle for LAB cell factory development based on systems biology, with ‘cell factory’ expanding beyond its traditional meaning of production strains and making use of genome editing tools to advance LAB understanding, applications and strain development.
Keywords: genetic tool development, food fermentation, biotherapeutics, phytotherapeutics, synthetic biology, GMO regulation
Traditional, emerging and future applications of lactic acid bacteria can all benefit from genome editing and a proposed Design–Build–Test–Learn workflow cycle for advancement of strain development.
INTRODUCTION
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are a phylogenetically diverse but functionally related group of bacteria comprising the families Aerococcaceae, Carnobacteriaceae, Enterococcaceae, Lactobacillaceae, Leuconostocaceae and Streptococcaceae. They are low-GC, Gram-positive, facultatively anaerobic, non-sporulating bacteria and have a highly fermentative lifestyle, converting a range of sugars into mainly lactic acid. LAB have a long history in different forms of food-related biotechnology and are gaining attention towards novel uses due to their safety for human and animal consumption, metabolic versatility and wide ecological niche adaptation (including industrial-scale fermentations) (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.
Overview of traditional, emerging and future applications of LAB with the most important contributions of genome editing tools for each, including current regulatory requirements. For all applications, genome editing provides the possibility to make tailored design strains with desired properties, but the direct use of GMO strains is currently limited; here we have depicted only possibilities within the current legislation. *For food ingredients and enzymes: mostly non-GMO via self-cloning. **Currently not approved, but GMOs are needed to reach the desired application.
Genome editing tools for LAB are limited compared to species like Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Escherichia coli, mostly due to restrictive legislations, and poor consumer acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. Although LAB were a pioneer group studied for development of genetic tools, with many cloning vectors derived from them still routinely used (De Vos 2011), their tools have mainly focused on being food-grade and less on generating many mutants in a short time. Furthermore, laboratory evolution and random mutagenesis have been widely applied for strain improvement in food applications, as strains resulting from these methods are considered non-GMO. However, such methods do not result in targeted modifications and selection of the right strains is often laborious, despite bioinformatics being highly instrumental to narrow down the initial strain selection (Walsh et al.2017). The expansion of LAB genome editing tools with a focus on speed to enable fast, clean, targeted and stable genomic modifications for a wide variety of strains is crucial for both fundamental studies and applications.
In this mini-review, we provide a perspective of traditional, emerging and future applications of LAB and how genome editing can advance all these LAB fields, regardless the strain's GMO-status in the final application (Fig. 1). Furthermore, we discuss available tools and suggest how these can be further developed to enable or advance all these applications and fundamental studies, taking also current legislation into account. Finally, we propose an iterative Design–Build–Test–Learn workflow cycle based on systems biology, similar to what is currently used for industrial production platform strains (Palsson 2015; Campbell, Xia and Nielsen 2017). The focus is on engineering single/pure strains and not on microbial community engineering, which has recently been reviewed elsewhere (Sheth et al.2016; Bober, Beisel and Nair 2018; Zerfaß, Chen and Soyer 2018).
APPLICATIONS OF LAB AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF GENOME EDITING
Food fermentations
Fermentation of food and beverages has been carried out for thousands of years (10 000 BC), most likely for food preservation (Prajapati and Nair 2003). The most recent trends in using LAB for food are related to improving properties like nutritional value (e.g. vitamin production), organoleptic quality (e.g. flavour formation) or technofunctionalities (e.g. polysaccharide formation). LAB are also key in primary processing of ingredients such as cocoa and coffee beans (De Vuyst and Weckx 2016; Pereira, Soccol and Soccol 2016) and significantly influence the final product quality (see also Agro-applications). With the longest commercial use and an estimated market growth of 7.2% for the next five years (Mordor Intelligence 2018), fermented food is one of the most important economical applications of LAB.
A primary strategy for research in food applications is screening microbial collections (Bourdichon et al. 2012). However, with global access to microbial and genetic diversity now limited by the Nagoya Protocol and uncertainties about its interpretation (Darajati et al.2013; Johansen 2017), achieving genetic variation through genomic manipulation gains relevance. Due to poor consumer acceptance of GMOs, and restrictive legislation, strain development for food applications mainly relies on untargeted and laborious methods based on evolution (Derkx et al. 2014; Bachmann et al. 2015; Johansen 2018), or on targeted but limited non-GMO methods (Zeidan et al. 2017) (see GMO vs non-GMO).
Nevertheless, even without the final GMO-strain ending up in the product, food applications can benefit from genome editing as a research tool (Fig. 1). For example, targeted mutagenesis can be applied to predicted genes for a certain trait to evaluate their function and phenotype (Derkx et al. 2014). This is especially important for compounds of which the production is not yet fully understood, such as expolysaccharides (Zeidan et al.2017). It can also aid in guiding more targeted selection and reduced screening size to select for naturally evolved strains towards the desired modification(s), such as was shown for phage-resistance factor YjaE in Lactococcus lactis (Stuer-Lauridsen and Janzen 2006). Altogether, improved understanding of compound formation and microbial metabolism will aid in more rational and accelerated efforts to achieve superior properties in food products. Advancing genome editing methods for a wide variety of strains will enable for example screening of mutant libraries, which will further accelerate these processes.
Probiotics
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has defined probiotics as live organisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host. Especially Lactobacillus species have attracted attention as probiotics, which are used as adjuvant or prophylaxis against many different diseases (Reid 2017; Mays and Nair 2018), as well as in a range of animal husbandries (Syngai et al. 2016). The market for probiotics is ever-expanding, with a projected world-wide size of $46.55 billion by 2020 (Salvetti and O’Toole 2017). Nevertheless, the complex molecular mechanistics of modes of action of both probiotics and LAB–host–pathogen interactions are poorly understood (Lebeer et al. 2018).
After implementation of EU legislation on health claims in 2009, no probiotics have been granted the right to claim health benefits in the EU. A vast amount of scientific literature indicates beneficial effects of probiotics, but so far in all cases the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) considered the scientific substantiation insufficient and rejected all health claims (Dronkers et al. 2018). The most important aspects for this are the lack of molecular and mechanistic knowledge of probiotic modes of action, irreproducibility of trials, as well as strong individual responses of the hosts, and strain-specificity (Glanville et al.2015; Salvetti and O’Toole 2017; van Pijkeren and Barrangou 2017).
Improving molecular insight into the (dis)functionality of probiotics and observed strain-specificity will be instrumental in achieving the right to health claims and hence further secure markets. Although genomics-, transcriptomics- and metabolomics-based studies are valuable tools (also termed ‘probiogenomics’ in this context) (Guinane, Crispie and Cotter 2016) for identification of potential biomarkers, combining these with genome editing can provide molecular mechanistic insight (Fig. 1) (Lebeer et al. 2018). Similar to food, GMOs are not allowed in probiotics, and despite a few examples (Bron et al. 2007; Lebeer et al. 2018), using GMOs/genome editing as research tool is still relatively underexploited. Advancing genome editing tools to be less time-consuming and more suitable for rapid screening (with suitable fast readout methods) and applicable to a larger number of strains, would potentially enable identification of novel, unpredicted factors. Furthermore, once regulations allow, genome editing could be used to create GMO-/improved probiotics that could for example be combined with biotherapeutics (van Pijkeren and Barrangou 2017).
Industrial production platforms for green chemicals, fuels and enzymes
A wide range of products can be made through bio-based production via microbial fermentation of biomass-derived sugars to replace fossil resources, such as (building blocks for) plastics, nylons, solvents, fuels, pharmaceuticals and food and cosmetic ingredients. Traditional work horses for this type of cell factories are E. coli and S. cerevisiae, mostly because their genetic tools are well-developed and their metabolism is relatively well-understood. LAB are gaining interest as alternative hosts for many reasons, which have been extensively reviewed elsewhere (Gaspar et al.2013; Boguta et al.2014; Mazzoli et al. 2014; Bosma, Forster and Nielsen 2017; Sauer et al. 2017; Hatti-Kaul 2018).
One main advantage of LAB is their food-grade safety and adaptation to food-related environments, enabling their use as production platforms in food-related processes. A recent example is the use of metabolically engineered L. lactis for ethanol production from lactose in whey, showcasing an alternative of waste valorisation in cheese-making (Liu et al.2016). Attempts have been made to ferment the whey-lactose with yeasts, but these suffer from low robustness and slow fermentation; using L. lactis proved a promising solution on which the company Alcowhey was founded (Liu et al. 2016; Jensen et al.2017). Another LAB-suitable application would be the in-process production of proteins or enzymes for food products by starter or adjunct strains (Matthews et al.2004). LAB enzymes are also employed for production of food-grade speciality chemicals, pharmaceutical intermediates and nutraceuticals, mostly as whole cell catalysts (Hatti-Kaul 2018). Cofactor regeneration is a challenge in such processes but ingenious solutions using natural substrates have been employed as source of reducing equivalents (Perna et al.2016).
Except for L. lactis, no extensive metabolic engineering has been performed to obtain economically competitive LAB platform organisms (Gaspar et al.2013; Mazzoli et al.2014; Bosma, Forster and Nielsen 2017; Sauer et al.2017). This is largely due to underdeveloped genome editing tools for industrially relevant strains. For example, many Lactobacillus and Pediococcus spp. have been shown to be more tolerant to several stresses compared to L. lactis, but lack widely applicable high-throughput genetic tools (Boguta et al.2014; Bosma, Forster and Nielsen 2017). Advancing tools for such organisms is important to make use of the wide variety of LAB and their metabolic capacities.
Agro-applications
To feed the ever-growing world population, crop health is crucial. The use of pesticides is increasingly regarded as undesired, creating the need for organic solutions. Traditionally, research on plant health-promoting microorganisms has focused on Rhizobia, Bacillus and Pseudomonas; LAB also form a part of the phytomicrobiome of several plant species, but have yet been underexplored (Axel et al.2012; Lamont et al.2017). Examples of LAB biocontrol activities are production of reactive oxygen species, bacteriocins (see Biotherapeutics), competitive colonisation (overgrowing pathogens) and alteration of the plant immune response (Gajbhiye and Kapadnis 2016; Konappa et al.2016; Lamont et al.2017). In many cases, the identity of the antimicrobial compound and which genes encode for it is unknown. Moreover, little is known about the molecular interactions between LAB and plants. Similar to described above for probiotics, genome editing will aid in increasing understanding, which will lead to new possibilities for biocontrol and improvement of plant growth and health (Lamont et al.2017), expanding LAB to a type of plant probiotics.
Moreover, plant health is related to food and feed for organoleptic and technofunctional properties in the final product. The presence of LAB in the phytomicrobiome has shown to influence for example the processes and tastes of sourdough fermentation of durum wheat flour (Minervini et al.2015) and milk derived from silage-fed cows (Kalač 2011). A better understanding of the dynamics of the phytomicrobiome in raw material and food processing could guide new applications or technofunctionalities in the food industry.
Altogether, the agro-industry is a promising LAB application field and whereas the use of GMOs in organic farming is currently out of the question, genome editing can be beneficial as a research tool (Fig. 1).
Biotherapeutics
One of the most promising novel applications of LAB is their medical use in therapeutics, prevention and diagnosis (Mays and Nair 2018). Especially their use as delivery agents of drugs and vaccines is gaining attention. LAB are particularly suitable as they are already generally recognised health-improving agents and safe for human consumption. Efforts using LAB as biotherapeutics have mostly focused on gastrointestinal tract-related ailments using the strains as oral vectors, leveraging their capacity to survive stomach acids and adhere to the intestinal epithelium (De Moreno De Leblanc et al.2015; Hwang et al.2016; Carvalho et al.2017; Durrer, Allen and Hunt von Herbing 2017). LAB are also being developed for mucosal (vagina and mouth) delivery of molecules and as vaccines (Wang et al.2016), as well as for wound treatment (Vågesjö et al.2018). Many LAB naturally produce antimicrobial peptides (e.g. bacteriocins), which are currently commercialised in the purified form for veterinary use (Ahmad et al.2017). These compounds have demonstrated high specificity and potency in vivo; they are a potential alternative to fight the rising antimicrobial resistance, and also have applications in food preservation and probiotics (Yang et al.2014; Mathur et al. 2017). Targeted delivery via synthetic biology can potentiate their use as antimicrobial agents of the future. Also, CRISPR-based antimicrobials hold great promise (Pursey et al.2018) and would be highly interesting to develop also using LAB. Another attractive field is the use of LAB for diagnosis by acting as biosensors inside or outside of the body (Lubkowicz et al.2018).
The microbial therapeutics and diagnostics market is estimated to occupy close to 79% of the therapeutics segment by 2030 with annual growths over 80% from 2019 onwards, attracting boosts in funding and investment (Microbiome Therapeutics and Diagnostics Market (2nd Edition), 2017–2030 2017). As a new field, there are no commercially available LAB-biotherapeutics yet, besides the non-GMO ones composing the community in human faecal transplantations approved by the FDA (FDA 2016). This is expected to change soon, as the first clinical trials by pharmaceutical companies with live-engineered biotherapeutics are on-going (Bron and Kleerebezem 2018). Although more research is required regarding efficiency, fundamental questions and safety, LAB as biotherapeutics can bring a revolution in personalised and precise medicine (Mays and Nair 2018).
Stable and tuneable modifications via genome editing and synthetic biology are crucial in this field for the addition of the therapeutic compounds to the microbial delivery host, as well as for the insertion of regulation mechanisms, delivery strategies and biocontainment systems (Mays and Nair 2018) (Fig. 1). The absence of genetic markers, such as antibiotics, in the final strain is essential to avoid risk of transferring antibiotic resistance to pathogens inhabiting the host. Furthermore, the current tools are mostly limited to a few strains (L. lactis) while several Lactobacillus spp. have proven a more promising target group due to prolonged survival and colonisation of the gastrointestinal tract. Currently, their limited genetic accessibility and toolbox restrain their use (Allain et al.2015; van Pijkeren and Barrangou 2017; Bron and Kleerebezem 2018). Finally, as with probiotics, better understanding of the interactions with the host on a molecular and cellular level is needed to enable full development of LAB as biotherapeutics (Fig. 1) (van Pijkeren and Barrangou 2017).
OVERVIEW OF LAB GENOME EDITING TOOLS: CURRENT AND FUTURE
Several methods have been developed for making genomic modifications in LAB, including food-grade ones that result in strains labelled as non-GMO (see also GMO vs non-GMO). These are still very useful for the many LAB applications where GMOs are not allowed, and continue to gain interest (Bron et al.2019). However, to further expand LAB applications as described above, the following advancements are required: (i) increase editing speed, (ii) methods for multiplexing (i.e. simultaneous modification of several genomic loci in one editing round) and (iii) broaden the range of strains that can be transformed and edited. This section discusses how these can be achieved via existing methods and future developments, following the different steps of the editing process from transformation to mutant construction (Fig. 2). We focus on methods that can be targeted to any desired place in the genome with stable and marker-free results. Also, screening/readout systems for the generated mutants are required, but as this is a field in itself and out of the scope of this review, the reader is referred to other recent publications (Chen et al.2017; Duarte, Barbier and Schaerli 2017; Emanuel, Moffitt and Zhuang 2017; Longwell, Labanieh and Cochran 2017).
Figure 2.
Schematic overview of transformation and genome editing methods currently available for LAB. Only methods that result in clean mutations (or silencing) and that can be targeted to any desired site in the genome are shown. The grey arrow on the chromosomes represents the target gene of interest. Abbreviations: Chr.: chromosome; str.: strand; ABR: antibiotic resistance; ssDNA: single stranded DNA; dsDNA: double stranded DNA; gRNA: guide RNA, which can be either a single guide (sgRNA) or a dual crRNA:tracrRNA. (A), Transformation methods. For electroporation/chemical/heat shock transformation, the yellow flash indicates any of these external treatments (electrical pulse, chemical treatment or heat shock). For the protoplast-based method, the left arrow indicates protoplast fusion of two different cells and the right arrow indicates transformation of protoplasts. (B), Integration/homologous recombination (HR) methods. Plasmid-based HR uses the native recombination machinery. dsDNA recombineering requires the expression of a phage λ- or Rac prophage-derived exonuclease (Exo or RecE) and an ssDNA binding protein (Beta or RecT), whereas ssDNA recombineering only requires the single-stranded binding protein. In the case of the λ-Red system, also Gam can be added, which inhibits host DNA exonucleases (Van Pijkeren and Britton 2012; Pines et al. 2015). A marker can be introduced within the homologous regions but this does not result in clean mutations. Without marker insertion (as depicted here), the result can be either wild-type or mutant, which need to be verified by PCR, and for which Cas9 can be used as counter-selection as depicted in C. (C), CRISPR-Cas-based editing and silencing tools. The two methods on the left could be used in combination with any of the integration methods shown in B. For endogenous systems, a type II system is depicted here with Cas9 as effector molecule, but also other endogenous systems could be used for both editing and silencing, although this has not yet been shown in LAB (Luo et al.2015; Rath et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016). Repurposing endogenous systems to target the organism's own genome can be achieved by plasmid-based expression of the native minimal CRISPR array (leader and two repeats), or a synthetic single guide RNA based on the native system, together with desired spacer(s) to target a (or multiple) gene(s) of interest. Prerequisites are that the native system is active under the in vivo editing conditions and that the different components and the PAM recognised by the system are characterised (Crawley et al.2018). Gene silencing using catalytically inactive Cas9 (‘dead’ Cas9, dCas) has only been shown as proof of principle in L. lactis (Berlec et al.2018) but the tuneable nature has not yet been exploited in LAB, but several methods for this are available and have been shown in other organisms (Mougiakos et al.2016).
Transformation (DNA transfer) and genetic accessibility
Transformation (the process to introduce DNA) is the critical first step towards any genome editing and can be achieved via naturally occurring or artificial methods (Fig. 2A). Natural methods, particularly conjugation, have been exploited to achieve non-GMO LAB strains (Pedersen et al.2005; Derkx et al.2014; Bron et al.2019). Conjugative plasmids and transposons are very common in LAB, but the details of conjugative mechanisms are not fully understood and this field needs improvement to widen its applicability (Kullen and Klaenhammer 2000; Dahmane et al.2017; Bron et al.2019). Phage transduction is a wide-spread phenomenon in LAB but not yet frequently harnessed for targeted DNA exchange (Bron et al.2019). It also is a potential tool for human microbiome engineering (Sheth et al.2016). Natural competence, in which exogenous DNA translocates through a native DNA uptake machinery, is well-known in Streptococcus (Gardan et al.2009; Muschiol et al.2015), but only recently identified and achieved in Lactococcus (David et al.2017; Mulder et al.2017). The abundance of natural competence is likely underestimated (Blokesch 2016; Bron et al.2019) and the new findings might pave the way for natural transformation in other LAB that are so far considered non-genetically accessible.
In artificial methods, cells need to be made competent through for example washing with cell envelope-weakening solutions, after which external agents are used for cell permeabilisation and transformation. Electroporation is the most suitable method for high-throughput purposes due to its simplicity, efficiency and wide applicability (Landete 2017). Generalised electroporation protocols have been successfully used to transform a wide range of LAB strains. Although these studies indicate that the majority of LAB is genetically accessible through electroporation, efficiencies varied strongly among strains and protocols need to be optimised (Landete et al.2014; Bosma, Forster and Nielsen 2017). A method with low efficiencies and less suitable for targeted modification but suitable for the large-scale exchange of genomic DNA for e.g. evolutionary engineering via genome shuffling, is protoplast fusion (Mercenier and Chassy 1988; Patnaik et al.2002).
Bacteria, including LAB, have evolved defence strategies against foreign DNA, such as restriction modification (RM) and CRISPR-Cas systems or combinations thereof (Dupuis et al. 2013). In RM-systems, a set of enzymes discriminates self from non-self DNA by methylating it and cleaving the invading DNA (Vasu and Nagaraja 2013). Recent reports have shown the existence of ‘phase-variable’ RM-systems in LAB, which result in variable methylation patterns (De Ste Croix et al.2017), and as of yet ununderstood restriction-like factors that mutate during the editing process (Ortiz-Velez et al.2018). Limitations for introducing and maintaining foreign DNA have been mainly related to RM-systems and to further develop any genome editing method, it is often required to bypass these (Teresa Alegre, Carmen Rodríguez and Mesas 2004; Spath, Heinl and Grabherr 2012; Joergensen et al.2013).
Genome editing (DNA integration)
Detailed descriptions of traditional and currently available LAB genome editing methods are provided in several recent reviews (Bosma, Forster and Nielsen 2017; Landete 2017; Hatti-Kaul 2018). Here, we outline the main steps and bottlenecks in LAB genome editing and focus on how recent advancements can be further developed to improve this. Classically, LAB genome editing for targeted genomic modifications is based on integrative plasmids to insert or remove a gene of interest via two crossover events using the cells’ native recombination machinery (Fig. 2B). Steps in this procedure that can be time-consuming are the selection of integrants (i.e. cells that have correctly integrated the exogenous DNA over the homologous regions) and the curing of the integrative plasmid after homologous recombination (HR). Several tools have traditionally been used to make these processes more efficient, such as thermo-sensitive and suicide vectors and counter-selectable markers. Instead, the more recently developed method of recombineering enables direct integration of linear ssDNA or dsDNA oligos into the genome with the help of phage-derived recombination systems (Fig. 2B). This avoids curing integrative plasmids from the cells and cloning of HR regions, making this method more suitable for high-throughput purposes. However, recombineering requires identification of phage-derived proteins and optimisation of the system for each new strain, and hence has been developed for less strains than plasmid-based systems. Recombineering has been established in Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus gasseri (Van Pijkeren and Britton 2012), Lactobacillus casei (Xin et al.2018) and Lactobacillus plantarum (Yang, Wang and Qi 2015; Leenay et al.2018). Also, site-specific recombination systems based on phage integrases and phage attachment sites have been developed for LAB, often as food-grade systems (Alvarez, Herrero and Suárez 1998; Brøndsted and Hammer 1999; Grath, van Sinderen and Fitzgerald 2002). Although these systems are very valuable and applicable to a wide range of strains for stable integrations, we will not go into detail here as they are limited to integrations into specific locations in the genome (i.e. in the phage attachment sites only).
For both plasmid-based and recombineering methods, a critical bottleneck step is the selection of correctly edited mutants. Plasmid-based editing can result in either mutants or wild-type revertants (Fig. 2B), and recombineering efficiencies are inherently low, resulting in large amounts of wild-type cells: for ssDNA recombineering in L. reuteri, efficiency was 0.4%–19% (Pijkeren and Britton 2014). This creates an often laborious and time-consuming PCR-based screening process. Marker insertion-and-removal systems such as Cre-lox have been employed in some LAB to overcome this, but such methods leave small scars and hence are not fully clean (Yang, Wang and Qi 2015; Xin et al. 2018). To increase efficiencies of clean editing systems, it is necessary to establish selection tools for mutants, or counter-selection tools against wild-types. Most recently, CRISPR-Cas9-technology has proven a powerful counter-selection tool in bacteria (Fig. 2C) and to significantly speed up and advance engineering (Mougiakos et al.2016, 2018).
CRISPR-Cas-based genome editing
CRISPR-Cas systems in nature function as prokaryotic adaptive immune systems (Barrangou et al.2007; Brouns et al.2008) and although a wide variety exists (Koonin, Makarova and Zhang 2017), Cas9—the endonuclease of Type II CRISPR-Cas systems—has gained most fame as a versatile genome editing tool. When directed to its target DNA by a provided guide RNA and recognising its target next to a short DNA motif called protospacer adjacent motif (PAM), Cas9 creates blunt dsDNA breaks (Fig. 2C). Whereas eukaryotes can repair such breaks by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), this system is absent or inactive in most bacteria (Bowater and Doherty 2006). Hence, they are unable to repair Cas9-induced breaks, which creates a powerful counter-selection tool against wild-type cells as these will be killed due to Cas9 cleavage (Fig. 2C) (Mougiakos et al. 2016). In L. reuteri, Cas9-based selection of mutants after ssDNA recombineering increased the efficiency from 0.4%–19% to 100% (Oh and Van Pijkeren 2014). Cas9-based editing has now been established in L. reuteri together with ssDNA recombineering (Oh and Van Pijkeren 2014), in L. plantarum with dsDNA recombineering and plasmid-based HR (Leenay et al. 2018), and with plasmid-based HR in L. lactis (van der Els et al.2018). Cas9 has also been used for removal of large mobile genetic elements in Streptococcus thermophilus (Selle, Klaenhammer and Barrangou 2015) and L. lactis (van der Els et al.2018).
A major challenge of using Cas9 in bacteria is that its activity must be tightly controlled to allow HR-based genome editing before killing wild-type cells, requiring tightly controllable expression systems or multiple plasmids and transformation rounds. A nickase-variant of Cas9 makes single stranded nicks instead of double stranded breaks due to a mutation in one of the two active sites of Cas9. These nicks are less lethal, and are furthermore suggested to enhance HR (Song et al. 2017). The nickase was used together with an integrative plasmid in L. casei with an efficiency up to 65%, requiring only a single transformation round (Song et al.2017).
Establishing HR/Cas9-based editing methods is not trivial due to strong and yet ununderstood strain-specific differences. A direct comparison of recombineering- and plasmid-based methods in L. plantarum showed several strain-specific differences in efficiencies (Leenay et al. 2018). Moreover, Cas9 has shown to be toxic in certain bacteria, for which subsequently alternative CRISPR-Cas systems such as Cas12a (formerly Cpf1) have been successful (Jiang et al.2017). Several alternative Cas9s and other CRISPR-Cas-systems are now being characterised for genome editing in other microorganisms, showing advantages such as wider applicability, specificity, stability or less toxicity (Jiang et al. 2017; Mougiakos et al. 2017; Nakade, Yamamoto and Sakuma 2017). Evaluating such alternative systems in LAB might open new possibilities for CRISPR-Cas-based editing in a wider range of LAB. Furthermore, the repurposing of endogenous CRISPR-Cas systems, which are abundantly present in LAB (Sun et al. 2015), into counter-selection systems is a promising recent approach for broadening the number of engineerable species (Fig. 2C) (Crawley et al.2018).
All reported genome modifications in LAB so far only make one modification at a time, while multiplexing would be crucial for many applications including fundamental studies. Multiplexing is complicated with plasmid-based HR and would strongly benefit from establishing recombineering methods for more strains. Another interesting option in this regard is the recently developed base editing, in which a catalytically impaired Cas9-variant is coupled to a cytidine deaminase that does not make DNA breaks, but C to T (or G to A) substitutions (Kim et al.2017). This can be used to make targeted point mutations to create premature stop codons and inactivate genes without the need for HR. It has only been used in few bacteria (Kim et al.2017; Eid, Alshareef and Mahfouz 2018; Zheng et al.2018) and not yet for LAB.
Gene silencing and synthetic biology
A catalytically ‘dead’ Cas9-variant (dCas9) can be used for high-throughput and tuneable gene silencing instead of gene editing: mutating both Cas9-active sites creates a catalytically inactive Cas9 that binds DNA but does not cleave it (Bikard et al.2013; Qi et al.2013). This has not been exploited for LAB other than as proof of principle in L. lactis (Berlec et al.2018) and would be a highly valuable addition to the toolbox. No HR is needed, creating an easy screening tool with high potential for multiplexing. Although not yet used for this purpose in LAB, its tuneable nature creates a powerful tool for investigating downregulation of essential genes (Fig. 2C) (Peters et al.2016; Mougiakos et al.2018; Rousset et al.2018).
Regarding synthetic biology developments, improving regulatory control systems is highly desirable, especially for bio-therapeutic applications. Particularly, promoters that can be induced in e.g. the gut by the host metabolites to control gene expression in vivo at the targeted location (Bober, Beisel and Nair 2018), as well as bio-containment strategies, which are crucial for safety (Wegmann et al.2017). Systems based on quorum-sensing or reciprocal transcriptional repression systems have been used for inducing autolysis in E. coli (Chan et al.2016; Hwang et al.2017) and could be adapted to LAB. Gene circuits construction is also important for the development of bacterial biosensors, where engineered strains can detect certain molecules related to a disease in the human host.
GMO vs non-GMO
Regulations surrounding GMOs are complex and consumer acceptance plays an important role in the reluctance to use GMOs, especially in food. In the EU, GMOs are not allowed in the final product (i.e. as food, probiotics or bio- and phytotherapeutics), but are allowed as contained production hosts (i.e. as producers of chemicals, fuels and enzymes in which the organism remains within a factory/reactor) (Johansen 2018). Even if the microorganism does not end up in the final product but is used to produce food ingredients (e.g. enzymes), lack of consumer acceptance of GMO-products puts pressure on food and also ingredient companies to use GMO-free enzymes (Derkx et al.2014). Therefore, even contained microorganisms in such cases should be non-GMO.
For these reasons, genome editing tools for LAB traditionally focus on systems labelled as non-GMO. Next to strains created via random mutagenesis or laboratory evolution, the current EU legislation considers strains generated by natural gene transfer methods (e.g. conjugation; transduction) as non-GMO, provided none of the involved strains is a GMO (Sybesma et al.2006; Johansen 2017). For contained use, microorganisms are also considered non-GMO if they are made by ‘self-cloning,’ which means modification of a strain with DNA taken from the strain itself or from a very close relative. This may involve recombinant vectors as long as these consist of DNA from this same or closely related strain (Meacher 2000; Verstrepen, Chambers and Pretorius 2006; Landete 2017). By definition, this also means that clean deletion mutants created with such LAB-vectors are considered non-GMO (De Vos 1999). Self-cloning and its ‘non-GMO’ label is only allowed for contained use and the organisms created by such methods are not allowed in the final product (Sybesma et al.2006; Johansen 2018), or should be inactivated at the end of the process.
Regarding advanced genome editing tools (e.g. recombineering; CRISPR-Cas), if the tool vectors come from species related to the target strain, they could be considered as ‘self-cloning,’ having the added advantage of being clean/marker-free if using appropriate methods (Fig. 2). Targeted genomic modifications would result in a similar genotype as the wild-type strain, plus or minus a specific gene that could also have been edited by a classical method like random mutagenesis (Johansen 2017). It has been argued by several players in the field that it is questionable whether a strain obtained via random mutagenesis (currently allowed for human consumption) is safer than if that same strain was obtained via targeted and clean self-cloning methods (Johansen 2017; Bron et al.2019). However, the EU-court has recently ruled against allowing such new genome editing methods (including CRISPR-Cas) as ‘non-GMO,’ whereas in the USA Cas9-edited plants have recently been allowed (Callaway 2018; Court of Justice of the European Union 2018). This does not change the current situation, but it does mean that allowance of any form of non-contained GMOs, including via clean methods, is unlikely in the near future in the EU. Nevertheless, information dissemination for public awareness and further investigation of potential long-term effects of GMOs is still needed (Sybesma et al.2006; Fears and Ter Meulen 2017; Johansen 2017; Csutak and Sarbu 2018).
CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
In the long term, genome editing could be used to create tailored LAB strains for properties on demand for any given application. This is currently done for e.g. production platforms. For more traditional applications related to human consumption, this possibility is restrained by regulations and consumer opinion. Nevertheless, genome editing can be applied for strain advancement in an indirect way as a research tool, by improving knowledge on the strain itself and the relations with its hosts, as well as provide guidance towards targets for modifications using ‘natural’ or accepted editing methods avoiding a GMO label. To enable such developments, more advanced genome editing tools need to be developed, for a wider range of LAB. This includes making more strains genetically accessible for transformation and establishing recombineering and CRISPR-Cas-based methods, including multiplex genome editing and silencing.
For all applications described here, whether the final strain is a GMO or not, the LAB can be considered as microbial cell factories, and an iterative Design–Build–Test–Learn workflow could be applied similar to that used in the development of traditional industrial biotechnology strains for green chemical production (e.g. E. coli; S. cerevisiae) (Palsson 2015) (Fig. 3). Such a systems biology-based workflow has been shown to significantly speed up the process of cell factory development by combining genome editing and synthetic biology, in silico prediction and models, and high-throughput methods/automation (Campbell, Xia and Nielsen 2017). To be applied to the wide variety of LAB applications described here, this workflow could be used as in a classical metabolic engineering approach, generating GMO or non-GMO strains depending on the modification method used, but also as a research tool for fundamental understanding of the strains by designing mechanistically targeted experiments with non-GMOs as final result (Figs 1 and 3). Accelerated methods for strain construction, selection and screening/readout tools are crucial for advancing this strategy. Also, expanding and improving genome-scale metabolic models is needed to strengthen the in silico part (Stefanovic, Fitzgerald and McAuliffe 2017; Rau and Zeidan 2018). An ever-increasing interest in LAB and the advances in genome editing and biotechnological developments will undoubtedly provide breakthrough solutions for innovation in the wide and ever-expanding applications of LAB.
Figure 3.
Iterative Design–Build–Test–Learn workflow for cell factory development. Proposed workflow generally applicable to all forms of cell factories discussed in this review based on systems biology for rational and advanced strain development. Adapted for LAB from the ‘classical’ industrial workflow described elsewhere (Palsson 2015; Campbell, Xia and Nielsen 2017). In a full cycle, strains that pass through Build are manipulated by genome editing methods that result in GMO or non-GMO strains (see GMO vs non-GMO). For targeted engineering, the desired genotypes are planned in the Design step. The same workflow can be applied to a collection of strains where no genetic modification is performed, but rather goes directly to experimental screening (Test). In this case, in silico work can aid in the pre-selection of the strains to be tested experimentally based on genomic information (Design). This can also be a second cycle after a first one which included genome editing to determine targets. In all cases, experimental data analysis and computer integration on e.g. genome scale models (Learn) will bring information that can be used for planning and designing the next iterative cycle. *In the EU, self-cloning is allowed for contained use, but not for non-contained applications such as food and probiotics.
FUNDING
This work was supported by Hans Werthén Fonden, Sweden; Marine Biotechnology ERA-NET ‘ThermoFactories’ (grant number 5178–00003B); and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark.
Conflict of interest. None declared.
REFERENCES
- Ahmad V, Khan MS, Jamal QMS et al. Antimicrobial potential of bacteriocins: In therapy, agriculture and food preservation. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2017;49:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Allain T, Aubry C, Natividad JM et al. Engineering lactic acid bacteria and Bifidobacteria for mucosal delivery of health molecules. Biotechnol Lact Acid Bact Nov Appl Second Ed 2015:170–90. [Google Scholar]
- Alvarez MA, Herrero M, Suárez JE. The site-specific recombination system of the Lactobacillus Species Bacteriophage A2 integrates in Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Virology 1998;250:185–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Axel C, Zannini E, Coffey A et al. Ecofriendly control of potato late blight causative agent and the potential role of lactic acid bacteria: a review. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012;96:37–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bachmann H, Pronk JT, Kleerebezem M et al. Evolutionary engineering to enhance starter culture performance in food fermentations. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2015;32:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 2007;315:1709–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Berlec A, Škrlec K, Kocjan J et al. Single plasmid systems for inducible dual protein expression and for CRISPR-Cas9/CRISPRi gene regulation in lactic acid bacterium Lactococcus lactis/CRISPRi gene regulation in lactic acid bacterium Lactococcus lactis. Sci Rep 2018;8:1709–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bikard D, Jiang W, Samai P et al. Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR-Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41:7429–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blokesch M. Natural competence for transformation. Curr Biol 2016;26:R1126–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bober JR, Beisel CL, Nair NU. Synthetic biology approaches to engineer probiotics and members of the human microbiota for biomedical applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2018;20:277–300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boguta AM, Bringel F, Martinussen J et al. Screening of lactic acid bacteria for their potential as microbial cell factories for bioconversion of lignocellulosic feedstocks. Microb Cell Fact 2014;13:97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bosma EF, Forster J, Nielsen AT. Lactobacilli and pediococci as versatile cell factories – Evaluation of strain properties and genetic tools. Biotechnol Adv 2017;35:419–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bourdichon F, Casaregola S, Farrokh C et al. Food fermentations: Microorganisms with technological beneficial use. Int J Food Microbiol 2012;154:87–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bowater R, Doherty AJ. Making ends meet: Repairing breaks in bacterial DNA by non-homologous end-joining. PLoS Genet 2006;2:e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bron PA, Kleerebezem M. Lactic acid bacteria for delivery of endogenous or engineered therapeutic molecules. Front Microbiol 2018;9, DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bron PA, Marcelli B, Mulder J et al. Renaissance of traditional DNA transfer strategies for improvement of industrial lactic acid bacteria. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2019;56:61–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bron PA, Meijer M, Bongers RS et al. Dynamics of competitive population abundance of Lactobacillus plantarum ivi gene mutants in faecal samples after passage through the gastrointestinal tract of mice. J Appl Microbiol 2007;103:1424–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brouns SJJ, Jore MM, Lundgren M et al. Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 2008;321:960–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brøndsted L, Hammer K. Use of the integration elements encoded by the temperate lactococcal bacteriophage TP901-1 to obtain chromosomal single-copy transcriptional fusions in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999;65:960–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Callaway E. CRISPR plants now subject to tough GM laws in European Union. Nature 2018;560:16–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Campbell K, Xia J, Nielsen J. The impact of systems biology on bioprocessing. Trends Biotechnol 2017;35:1156–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho RDDO, do Carmo FLR, de Oliveira Junior A et al. Use of wild type or recombinant lactic acid bacteria as an alternative treatment for gastrointestinal inflammatory diseases: A focus on inflammatory bowel diseases and mucositis. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chan CTY, Lee JW, Cameron DE et al. “'Deadman' and 'Passcode' microbial kill switches for bacterial containment. Nat Chem Biol 2016;12:82–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chen J, Vestergaard M, Jensen TG et al. Finding the needle in the haystack - the use of microfluidic droplet technoloty to identify vitamin-secreting Lacic Acid Bacteria. mBio - Am Soc Microbiol 2017;8:e00526–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 111/18: Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive Judgm Case C-528/16 2018:2001–2. [Google Scholar]
- Crawley AB, Henriksen ED, Stout E et al. Characterizing the activity of abundant, diverse and active CRISPR-Cas systems in lactobacilli. Sci Rep 2018;8:11544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Csutak O, Sarbu I.. Chapter 6 - Genetically Modified Microorganisms: Harmful or Helpful? Elsevier Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Dahmane N, Robert E, Deschamps J et al. Impact of Cell Surface Molecules on Conjugative Transfer of the Integrative and Conjugative Element ICE St3 of Streptococcus thermophilus. Kivisaar M (ed.) Appl Environ Microbiol 2017;84, DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02109-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Darajati W, Pratiwi S, Herwinda E et al. Nagoya Protocol. Diversity 2013;12:1–320. [Google Scholar]
- David B, Radziejwoski A, Toussaint F et al. Natural DNA transformation is functional in Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris KW2. Vieille C (ed.). Appl Environ Microbiol 2017;83, DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01074-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Derkx PM, Janzen T, Sørensen KI et al. The art of strain improvement of industrial lactic acid bacteria without the use of recombinant DNA technology. Microb Cell Fact 2014;13:S5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dronkers TMG, Krist L, Van Overveld FJ et al. The ascent of the blessed: Regulatory issues on health effects and health claims for probiotics in Europe and the rest of the world. Benef Microbes 2018;9:1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Duarte JM, Barbier I, Schaerli Y. Bacterial microcolonies in gel beads for high-throughput screening of libraries in synthetic biology. ACS Synth Biol 2017;6:1988–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dupuis MÈ, Villion M, Magadán AH et al. CRISPR-Cas and restriction-modification systems are compatible and increase phage resistance. Nat Commun 2013;4:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Durrer KE, Allen MS, Hunt von Herbing I. Genetically engineered probiotic for the treatment of phenylketonuria (PKU); assessment of a novel treatment in vitro and in the PAHenu2 mouse model of PKU. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0176286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eid A, Alshareef S, Mahfouz MM. CRISPR base editors: Genome editing without double-stranded breaks. Biochem J 2018;475:1955–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van der Els S, James JK, Kleerebezem M et al. Versatile Cas9-Driven Subpopulation Selection Toolbox for Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol 2018:AEM.02752-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Emanuel G, Moffitt JR, Zhuang X. High-throughput, image-based screening of pooled genetic-variant libraries. Nat Meth 2017;14:1159–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- FDA Enforcement policy regarding investigational new drug requirements for use of fecal microbiota for transplantation to treat Clostridium difficile infection not responsive to standard therapies. US Food and Drug Administration Fed Regist 2016;78:42965–6. [Google Scholar]
- Fears R, Ter Meulen V. How should the applications of genome editing be assessed and regulated? Elife 2017;6, DOI: 10.7554/eLife.26295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gajbhiye MH, Kapadnis BP. Antifungal-activity-producing lactic acid bacteria as biocontrol agents in plants. Biocontrol Sci Technol 2016;26:1451–70. [Google Scholar]
- Gardan R, Besset C, Guillot A et al. The oligopeptide transport system is essential for the development of natural competence in Streptococcus thermophilus strain LMD-9. J Bacteriol 2009;191:4647–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gaspar P, Carvalho AL, Vinga S et al. From physiology to systems metabolic engineering for the production of biochemicals by lactic acid bacteria. Biotechnol Adv 2013;31:764–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Glanville J, King S, Guarner F et al. A review of the systematic review process and its applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union. Nutr J 2015;14:16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grath SM, van Sinderen D, Fitzgerald GF. Bacteriophage-derived genetic tools for use in lactic acid bacteria. Int Dairy J 2002;12:3–15. [Google Scholar]
- Guinane CM, Crispie F, Cotter PD. Value of Microbial Genome Sequencing for Probiotic Strain Identification and Characterization: Promises and Pitfalls. Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam, NL, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hatti-Kaul R, Chen L, Dishisha T et al. Lactic acid bacteria: From starter cultures to producers of chemicals. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2018;365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hwang IY, Koh E, Kim HR et al. Reprogrammable microbial cell-based therapeutics against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Drug Resist Updat 2016;27:59–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hwang IY, Koh E, Wong A et al. Engineered probiotic Escherichia coli can eliminate and prevent Pseudomonas aeruginosa gut infection in animal models. Nat Comms 2017;8:15028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Intelligence Mordor. Global Fermented Foods & Drinks Market - Growth, Trends and Forecast (2018 - 2023). Mordor Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen PR, Liu J, Solem C et al. A bacterial cell factory for efficient production of ethanol from whey 2017:WO2017144672A1.
- Jiang Y, Qian F, Yang J. et al. CRISPR-Cpf1 assisted genome editing of Corynebacterium glutamicum. Nat Commun 2017;8:15179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Joergensen ST, Regueira TB, Kobmann B et al. Bacterial mutants with improved transformation efficiency. 2013:WO2013173711A1.
- Johansen E. Future access and improvement of industrial lactic acid bacteria cultures. Microb Cell Fact 2017;16:1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johansen E. Use of natural selection and evolution to develop new starter cultures for fermented foods. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 2018;9:411–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kalač P. The effects of silage feeding on some sensory and health attributes of cow's milk: A review. Food Chem 2011;125:307–17. [Google Scholar]
- Kim YB, Komor AC, Levy JM et al. Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusions. Nat Biotechnol 2017;35:371–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Konappa NM, Maria M, Uzma F et al. Lactic acid bacteria mediated induction of defense enzymes to enhance the resistance in tomato against Ralstonia solanacearum causing bacterial wilt. Scientia Horticulturae 2016;207:183–92. [Google Scholar]
- Koonin E V, Makarova KS, Zhang F. Diversity, classification and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems. Curr Opin Microbiol 2017;37:67–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kullen MJ, Klaenhammer TR. Genetic modification of intestinal lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. Curr Issues Mol Biol 2000;2:41–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lamont JR, Wilkins O, Bywater-Ekegärd M et al. From yogurt to yield: Potential applications of lactic acid bacteria in plant production. Soil Biol Biochem 2017;111:1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Landete JM. A review of food-grade vectors in lactic acid bacteria: From the laboratory to their application. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2017;37:296–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Landete JM, Arqués JL, Á Peirotén et al. An improved method for the electrotransformation of lactic acid bacteria: A comparative survey. J Microbiol Methods 2014;105:130–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lebeer S, Bron PA, Marco ML et al. Identification of probiotic effector molecules: Present state and future perspectives. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2018;49:217–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leenay RT, Vento JM, Shah M et al. Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9 in Lactobacillus plantarum revealed that editing outcomes can vary across strains and between methods. Biotechnol J 2018:1700583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Li Y, Pan S, Zhang Y et al. Harnessing Type I and Type III CRISPR-Cas systems for genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res 2016;44:e34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu J, Dantoft SH, Würtz A et al. A novel cell factory for efficient production of ethanol from dairy waste. Biotechnol Biofuels 2016;9:33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Longwell CK, Labanieh L, Cochran JR. High-throughput screening technologies for enzyme engineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2017;48:196–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lubkowicz D, Ho CL, Hwang IY et al. Reprogramming probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri as a biosensor for Staphylococcus aureus derived AIP-I detection. ACS Synth Biol 2018;7:1229–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luo ML, Mullis AS, Leenay RT et al. Repurposing endogenous type I CRISPR-Cas systems for programmable gene repression. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:674–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mathur H, Field D, Rea MC et al. Bacteriocin-antimicrobial synergy: A medical and food perspective. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Matthews A, Grimaldi A, Walker M et al. Lactic acid bacteria as a potential source of enzymes for use in vinification. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004;70:5715–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mays ZJ, Nair NU. Synthetic biology in probiotic lactic acid bacteria: At the frontier of living therapeutics. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2018;53:224–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mazzoli R, Bosco F, Mizrahi I et al. Towards lactic acid bacteria-based biorefineries. Biotechnol Adv 2014;32:1216–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meacher M. The genetically modified organisms (contained use) regulations 2000. 2000. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi.
- Mercenier A, Chassy BM. Strategies for the development of bacterial transformation systems. Biochimie 1988;70:503–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Research and Markets. Microbiome Therapeutics and Diagnostics Market (2nd edition), 2017–2030. 2017. Report ID 4377904.
- Minervini F, Celano G, Lattanzi A et al. Lactic acid bacteria in durum wheat flour are endophytic components of the plant during its entire life cycle. Appl Environ Microbiol 2015;81:6736–48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Moreno De Leblanc A, Del Carmen S, Chatel JM et al. Current review of genetically modified lactic acid bacteria for the prevention and treatment of colitis using murine models. Gastroenterol Res Prac 2015;2015, DOI: 10.1155/2015/146972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mougiakos I, Bosma EF, Ganguly J et al. Hijacking CRISPR-Cas for high-throughput bacterial metabolic engineering: advances and prospects. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2018;50:146–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mougiakos I, Bosma EF, de Vos WM et al. Next generation prokaryotic engineering: The CRISPR-Cas toolkit. Trends Biotechnol 2016;34:575–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mougiakos I, Mohanraju P, Bosma EF et al. Characterizing a thermostable Cas9 for bacterial genome editing and silencing. Nat Commun 2017;8, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-01591-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mulder J, Wels M, Kuipers OP et al. Unleashing natural competence in Lactococcus lactis by induction of the competence regulator ComX. Appl Environ Microbiol 2017;83:e01320–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Muschiol S, Balaban M, Normark S et al. Uptake of extracellular DNA: Competence induced pili in natural transformation of Streptococcus pneumoniae. BioEssays 2015;37:426–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nakade S, Yamamoto T, Sakuma T. Cas9, Cpf1 and C2c1/2/3?What's next?? Bioengineered 2017;8:265–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Oh JH, Van Pijkeren JP. CRISPR–Cas9-assisted recombineering in Lactobacillus reuteri. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:e131-. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ortiz-Velez L, Ortiz-Villalobos J, Schulman A et al. Genome alterations associated with improved transformation efficiency in Lactobacillus reuteri. Microb Cell Fact 2018;17:138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Palsson BO. Model-Driven Discovery Systems Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 407–21. [Google Scholar]
- Patnaik R, Louie S, Gavrilovic V et al. Genome shuffling of Lactobacillus for improved acid tolerance. Nat Biotechnol 2002;20:707–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pedersen MB, Iversen SL, Sørensen KI et al. The long and winding road from the research laboratory to industrial applications of lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2005;29:611–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pereira GV, de M, Soccol VT, Soccol CR. Current state of research on cocoa and coffee fermentations. Curr Opin Food Sci 2016;7:50–57. [Google Scholar]
- Perna FM, Ricci MA, Scilimati A et al. Cheap and environmentally sustainable stereoselective arylketones reduction by Lactobacillus reuteri whole cells. J Mol Catal B: Enzymatic 2016;124:29–37. [Google Scholar]
- Peters JM, Colavin A, Shi H et al. A Comprehensive, CRISPR-based functional analysis of essential genes in bacteria. Cell 2016;165:1493–506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Pijkeren J-P, Barrangou R. Genome editing of food-grade lactobacilli to develop therapeutic probiotics. Microbiol Spectr 2017;5, DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.BAD-0013-2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Pijkeren JP, Britton RA. Precision genome engineering in lactic acid bacteria. Microb Cell Fact 2014;13:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Pijkeren JP, Britton RA. High efficiency recombineering in lactic acid bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:e76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pines G, Freed EF, Winkler JD et al. Bacterial recombineering: Genome engineering via phage-based homologous recombination. ACS Synth Biol 2015;4:1176–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Prajapati J.B., Nair BM. The history of fermented foods. In: Farnworth, ER (Ed) Fermented Functional Foods, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2003, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Pursey E, Sünderhauf D, Gaze WH et al. CRISPR-Cas antimicrobials: Challenges and future prospects. PLoS Pathog 2018;14:e1006990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Qi LS, Larson MH, Gilbert LA et al. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 2013;152:1173–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rath D, Amlinger L, Hoekzema M et al. Efficient programmable gene silencing by Cascade. Nucleic Acids Res 2015;43:237–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rau MH, Zeidan AA. Constraint-based modeling in microbial food biotechnology. Biochem Soc Trans 2018;0:BST20170268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reid G. The development of probiotics for women's health. Can J Microbiol 2017;63:269–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rousset F, Cui L, Siouve E et al. Genome-wide CRISPR-dCas9 screens in E. coli identify essential genes and phage host factors. Blokesch M (ed.) PLOS Genet 2018;14:e1007749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Salvetti E, O’Toole PW. When regulation challenges innovation: The case of the genus Lactobacillus. Trends Food Sci Technol 2017;66:187–94. [Google Scholar]
- Sauer M, Russmayer H, Grabherr R et al. The efficient clade: Lactic acid bacteria for industrial chemical production. Trends Biotechnol 2017;35:756–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Selle K, Klaenhammer TR, Barrangou R. CRISPR-based screening of genomic island excision events in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:8076–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sheth RU, Cabral V, Chen SP et al. Manipulating bacterial communities by in situ microbiome engineering. Trends Genet 2016;32:189–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Song X, Huang H, Xiong Z et al. CRISPR-Cas9 D10A Nickase-Assisted Genome Editing in Lactobacillus casei. Appl Environ Microbiol 2017:AEM.01259-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spath K, Heinl S, Grabherr R. “Direct cloning in Lactobacillus plantarum: Electroporation with non-methylated plasmid DNA enhances transformation efficiency and makes shuttle vectors obsolete”. Microb Cell Fact 2012;11:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Ste Croix M, Vacca I, Kwun MJ et al. Phase-variable methylation and epigenetic regulation by type I restriction–modification systems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2017;41:S3–S15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stefanovic E, Fitzgerald G, McAuliffe O. Advances in the genomics and metabolomics of dairy lactobacilli: A review. Food Microbiol 2017;61:33–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stuer-Lauridsen B, Janzen T. Bacteriophage resistant lactic acid bacteria. Eur Pat Specif 2006;EP 1 8383:1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Sun Z, Harris HMB, McCann A et al. Expanding the biotechnology potential of lactobacilli through comparative genomics of 213 strains and associated genera. Nat Commun 2015;6:8322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sybesma W, Hugenholtz J, De Vos WM et al. Safe use of genetically modified lactic acid bacteria in food. Bridging the gap between consumers, green groups, and industry. Electron J Biotechnol 2006;9:0–0. [Google Scholar]
- Syngai GG, Gopi R, Bharali R et al. Probiotics - the versatile functional food ingredients. J Food Sci Technol 2016;53:921–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Teresa Alegre M, Carmen Rodríguez M, Mesas JM. Transformation of Lactobacillus plantarum by electroporation with in vitro modified plasmid DNA. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2004;241:73–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vasu K, Nagaraja V. Diverse functions of restriction-modification systems in addition to cellular defense. Microbiol Molecular Biol Rev 2013;77:53–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Verstrepen KJ, Chambers PJ, Pretorius IS. The development of superior yeast strains for the food and beverage industries: Challenges, opportunities and potential benefits. In: Querol A., Fleet G. (eds). Yeasts in Food and Beverages. Berlin: Springer, 2006, 399–444. [Google Scholar]
- De Vos WM. Safe and sustainable systems for food-grade fermentations by genetically modified lactic acid bacteria. Int Dairy J 1999;9:3–10. [Google Scholar]
- De Vos WM. Systems solutions by lactic acid bacteria: From paradigms to practice. Microb Cell Fact 2011;10:S2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Vuyst L, Weckx S. The cocoa bean fermentation process: From ecosystem analysis to starter culture development. J Appl Microbiol 2016;121:5–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vågesjö E, Öhnstedt E, Mortier A et al. Accelerated wound healing in mice by on-site production and delivery of CXCL12 by transformed lactic acid bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2018;115:201716580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Walsh AM, Crispie F, Claesson MJ et al. Translating omics to food microbiology. Ann Rev Food Sci Technol 2017;8:113–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wang M, Gao Z, Zhang Y et al. Lactic acid bacteria as mucosal delivery vehicles: A realistic therapeutic option. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2016;100:5691–701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wegmann U, Carvalho AL, Stocks M et al. Use of genetically modified bacteria for drug delivery in humans: Revisiting the safety aspect. Sci Rep 2017;7:2294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xin Y, Guo T, Mu Y et al. Coupling the recombineering to Cre-lox system enables simplified large-scale genome deletion in Lactobacillus casei. Microb Cell Fact 2018;17:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yang P, Wang J, Qi Q. Prophage recombinases-mediated genome engineering in Lactobacillus plantarum. Microb Cell Fact 2015;14:154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yang S-C, Lin C-H, Sung CT et al. Antibacterial activities of bacteriocins: Application in foods and pharmaceuticals. Front Microbiol 2014;5:241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zeidan AA, Poulsen VK, Janzen T et al. Polysaccharide production by lactic acid bacteria: From genes to industrial applications. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2017;41:S168–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zerfaß C, Chen J, Soyer OS. Engineering microbial communities using thermodynamic principles and electrical interfaces. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2018;50:121–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zheng K, Wang Y, Li N et al. Highly efficient base editing in bacteria using a Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusion. Commun Biol 2018;1:32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]