Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Oct 31;17(10):e0276338. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276338

A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse genetic libraries

Michael Woolley 1, Zhilei Chen 1,*
Editor: Hodaka Fujii2
PMCID: PMC9621413  PMID: 36315516

Abstract

In vitro protein display methods can access extensive libraries (e.g., 1012–1014) and play an increasingly important role in protein engineering. However, the preparation of large libraries remains a laborious and time-consuming process. Here we report an efficient one-pot ligation & elongation (L&E) method for sizeable synthetic library preparation free of PCR amplification or any purification steps. As a proof of concept, we constructed an ankyrin repeat protein templated synthetic library with 1011 variants in 150 μL volume. The entire process from the oligos to DNA template ready for transcription is linearly scalable and took merely 90 minutes. We believe this L&E method can significantly simplify the preparation of synthetic libraries and accelerate in vitro protein display experiments.

Introduction

Protein therapeutics have a potentially limitless ability to improve how we treat diseases. However, developing new therapeutic proteins remains a long and challenging process. One of the most effective protein engineering strategies currently is directed evolution. This process mimics the natural evolution and enriches protein variants with the desired functions from large libraries of variants [1, 2]. Since the likelihood of identifying a desired variant is directly proportional to the size of the library, large protein libraries are highly desirable in directed evolution.

A prerequisite of directed evolution is protein display, a process of coupling phenotype (protein function) with genotype (DNA/RNA). Many display technologies have been developed to provide the linkage of phenotype to genotype. The library size afforded by cell-based protein display technologies such as phage, E. coli, and yeast display is limited by the cell transformation efficiency and is typically <1010, a library size that is relatively straightforward to produce with PCR-based methods [3–9]. Through negation of the transformation step, cell-free protein display technologies such as mRNA [10] and ribosome [11] display can screen much larger libraries with 1012–1014 different variants and are potentially superior to cell-based methods. However, preparation of libraries with 1012–1014 genetic diversity is both time-consuming and laborious [12]. For a gene with 500 bp, a typical PCR reaction (e.g., 50 μL) using 10 ng of DNA template has a maximum diversity of 2x1010 (10 ng/500 bp/ 660 (g/mol/bp) x 6x1023 molecules/mol). Thus, a library with 1012–1014 variants would require 2.5–250 mL of PCR reaction. The complexity in library preparation is further compounded in the case of antibody or scaffold libraries whose variable regions are scattered throughout the gene, necessitating multiple rounds of PCR reactions followed by gel purification and subsequent ligation of these PCR products to reconstitute the entire gene. For example, Kondo, et al. recently reported the synthesis of a monobody library with 1013 variants that required multiple 15 mL PCR reactions followed by digestion, ligation, and a final amplification in a 60 mL PCR reaction [13, 14]. According to the authors, the entire process took a whopping six months to complete [13].

To simplify the preparation of large libraries for in vitro protein display, we here report an alternative Ligation & Extension (L&E) method. To demonstrate this method, we used the Regulatory Factor X-associated Ankyrin-containing protein (RFXANK) [15, 16], a human ankyrin protein (named HARPin here), as a model binder scaffold. HARPin shares high structural homology to the designed ankyrin repeat protein (DARPin) previously developed by Pluckthun and co-workers [17, 18] and consists of 3 ankyrin repeat domains sandwiched between N- and C-capping domains (Fig 1A). The entire HARPin gene has 516 bp. We used a ligation-mediated strategy similar to that described previously [19, 20], which utilizes short antisense splint oligos that anneal at the junctions of adjacent forward strand fragments to generate the full-length gene. Nine synthetic sense oligos spanning the entire length of the HARPin gene and the T7 promoter are synthesized (i.e., NF1-9) and evenly divided into three groups (Fig 1B). The three oligos within each group are first ligated together with the help of short splint oligos (i.e., SP1-8, Fig 1C, step 1). All sense oligos, except for NF1, are phosphorylated at the 5’ end, while all splint oligos contain 3’ phosphate groups to prevent their ligation. In designing the oligos, we used the following criteria: i) total length <90 nucleotides, ii) splint oligo Tm ~40°C for the annealing region with each sense oligo, and iii) splint oligos bind the framework region of the binding scaffold and include no randomized codons. Next, the three ligation reactions are combined, and additional splint oligos are added to promote the formation of a long single-stranded DNA representing the entire gene (Fig 1C, step 2). Finally, primer CR, which anneals to the 3’ of the target gene, and a polymerase with strong strand displace activity (i.e., Bst 2.0), is added to generate the full-length double-stranded gene (Fig 1C, step 3). Although many partial gene fragments exist in the final reaction mixture, only the full-length gene contains the antisense strand of the T7 promoter, enabling the reaction product to be used directly for mRNA synthesis without any purification (Fig 1B, step 4).

Fig 1. Overview of Ligation & Elongation (L&E) library preparation method.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Structural alignment of HARPin (pdb: 3v30, yellow) and DARPin (pdb: 4j8y, blue). Residues in red and green color are randomized in the HARPin and DARPin libraries, respectively. (B) Schematic of an HARPin library and the oligos. Red x’s mark locations of randomized residues, which correspond to red residues in panel A. Green circles indicate the presence of 5’ phosphate moiety; red arrows indicate 3’ phosphate moiety. AR: ankyrin repeat. (C) L&E library construction workflow. The groups in Step 1 are as follows: Group 1: NF1, NF2, NF3, SP1, and SP2; Group 2: NF4, NF5, NF6, SP4, and SP5; and Group 3: NF7, NF8, NF9, SP7, SP8. NF: N-terminal forward, SP: Splint, CR: C-terminal reverse.

To demonstrate the L&E method, a sizeable HARPin library was prepared. In Step 1, three 30 μL ligation reactions, each containing 15 pmoles of the respective sense and splint oligos, were carried out at 37°C for 30 minutes, resulting in a dominant single-stranded DNA product corresponding to the ligation of the three sense oligos within each group (Fig 2A, yellow arrows). Next, in Step 2, the three ligation reactions were combined along with additional splint oligos in 100 μL reaction volume to generate the single-stranded full-length gene product. After a 30-minute incubation at 37°C, multiple new bands were visible on the gel. The largest product is presumed to correspond to the ligation product of all the sense oligos (620 nt), which includes the regions for the T7 promoter and ribosome binding site (RBS) (Fig 2A, green arrow). The final ligation reaction also contained multiple smaller DNA products from incomplete ligation of multiple sense oligos. In Step 3, 15 pmoles of primer CR, which contains a region necessary for hybridizing the puromycin-containing oligo, and 48 units of Bst 2.0, a polymerase with strong strand displacement activity, were added together with dNTPs. The reaction (150 μL) was carried out at 65°C for 30 minutes to generate the full-length double-stranded gene (693 bp). Step 3 produced a smear of DNA products ranging from approximately 100 bp to 700 bp (Fig 2B, lane 1). This is unsurprising given that the product of Step 2 contained multiple DNA fragments as well as excess NF oligos that can anneal to each other to yield an array of dsDNA of varying size.

Fig 2. Library preparation results.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

(A) Single-stranded DNA products of Step 1 and 2 visualized on a 15% TBE-Urea gel stained with SYBR Green. Yellow arrows mark the three-way ligation products of Step 1, and the green arrow marks the presumed complete ligation product after combining all three groups. (B) Double-stranded DNA products from Step 3 visualized on a 1% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide. Lanes 1 and 2 used DNA template of Ligation 2 (Step 2) produced in the presence and absence of ligase, respectively. Lane 3 (PC) contains gel-purified full-length HARPin double-stranded DNA (693 bp) amplified by PCR as a positive control. (C) mRNA product from Step 4 visualized on a denaturing 1.5% agarose gel stained with EtBr (1.5% agarose, 1% bleach). Lanes 1–3 contained the corresponding transcription product from panel B. The full-length mRNA contains 669 nt. The gels are representative of three independent experiments.

To demonstrate the utility of the DNA library without the need of purification, five microliters of the reaction product of Step 3 was used directly for mRNA transcription (Step 4). This in vitro transcription reaction routinely yielded 108–217 μg mRNA in 20 μL reaction volume. As anticipated, and despite the DNA template exhibiting a smearing pattern, the in vitro transcription reaction produced a single RNA product of the expected size (669 nt, Fig 2C, lane 1), validating our hypothesis that only the full-length gene contains the antisense DNA of the T7 promoter and that the nonspecific and shortened DNA fragments produced during library creation do not interfere with mRNA transcription. Thus, transcribed mRNA can be purified using a commercial RNA clean-up kit (e.g., Zymo Research EZNA RNA Clean & Concentrate kit) and be eluted in a buffer appropriate for the subsequent in vitro protein synthesis reaction.

The amount of the full-length double-stranded DNA product from Step 3 was quantified by qPCR (Fig 3). Starting from 15 pmoles (or 9x1012 molecules) of each sense oligo in Step 1, we routinely obtained 4.25x1011–1.07x1012 molecules of the double-stranded full-length gene product in the 150 μL reaction volume of Step 3, corresponding to an overall full-length gene ligation yield of 4.7–11.8%. Since the overall ligation efficiency is inversely proportional to the number of ligation events, increasing the length–thus reducing the number–of sense oligos may lead to a higher overall ligation efficiency. Importantly, the entire process of assembling the DNA library took one and a half hours and the reaction volume can be easily scaled up linearly for larger libraries. Moreover, it is conceivable that higher concentrations of oligos can be used during the ligation, making it possible to further reduce the reaction volume for larger libraries. This contrasts with the conventional PCR-based method used, for example, by Kondo, et al. which took months to create a monobody library with 1013 variants [13]. In addition, unlike the conventional PCR-based library creation methods that are at risk of introducing amplification bias and skewing the library diversity, our L&E method is PCR-free, offering it the potential to most faithfully preserve the DNA library diversity afforded by chemical synthesis.

Fig 3. L&E library quantification.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

(A) qPCR amplification plot. Black lines represent the standard curve. Red lines represent the serially diluted library samples (1:50, 1:250, 1:1250). (B) Visualization of the final qPCR products on a 1% agarose gel stained with EtBr. Lanes 1–5 are from reactions containing 9x109 – 9x105 molecules of the standard DNA. Lanes 6–9 are from reactions containing 50-, 250- and 1250-fold diluted HARPin library samples. Red arrow indicates the desired amplicon (609 bp). (-): qPCR product from ligase-negative control reaction. NTC: No template control PCR. Middle lane contains GeneRuler 100 bp Plus DNA ladder (Thermo Fisher); the most intense band corresponds to 500 bp. (C) Starting quantity (SQ) calculation based on the qPCR standard curve. Values represent the copy number. Total SQ is the extrapolated total copy number of library in a final 150 μL double-stranded DNA synthesis reaction.

We employed Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) to assess the quality of this new library. To simulate the conditions of the library’s use in protein engineering, 500 nanograms of the in vitro transcription mRNA product (from Fig 1, Step 4) was reverse transcribed and then PCR amplified to append the NGS linkers. Approximately 750 nanograms of the PCR product was subjected to the MiSeq Next-Generation Sequencing reaction and yielded a total of 293,067 sequence reads (Fig 4A). After removing duplicate sequences and those of incorrect length, the cleaned dataset contained 162,422 unique reads (Fig 4A). The frequency of each base at the randomized codon position ranges between 19.3% to 33.7% for the N nucleotides and 38.4% to 61.1% for the K nucleotides (S1 Fig), which is consistent with oligos synthesized with machine mixing (Fig 4B and S1 Fig). The average frequency of each amino acid at the randomized codon positions varies from 1.9% to 10.4%, which is consistent within that afforded by the NNK codon (Fig 4C and S2 Fig). Overall, 51.4% of the full-length reads contain at least one internal stop codon (Fig 4A). This is slightly lower than that predicted for a gene with 20 randomized NNK codons (62.5% = 1/32 STOP codon frequency at each position x 20 positions, assuming an even distribution of each possible base at the N and K positions). The final dataset of full-length sequences contained 78,808 unique variants (Fig 4A). The abundance of unique full-length sequences combined with a lack of noteworthy codon bias validate the use of L&E method for in vitro library creation.

Fig 4. Next-Generation Sequencing results.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

(A) Results of sequencing reads at each step of analysis. (B, C) Frequency analysis of the dataset containing de-duplicated, full-length sequences. (B) Average nucleotide frequency at each position of the NNK randomized codons. (C) Average frequency of each amino acid at the randomized residues *: STOP codon. Expected amino acid frequency denotes the relative frequency of each amino acid encoded by the 32 possible NNK codons, assuming an even distribution of possible nucleotides at each N and K position. Error bars represent standard deviations of the means. Expected frequency was calculated by dividing the number of codons for each amino acid by the total number of possible codons encoded by NNK (i.e., 32).

In conclusion, we report a simple and efficient L&E method for synthetic library creation. A synthetic library with ≥1011 variants was produced in a 150 μL reaction volume. The entire process, from the commercially available oligonucleotides to a DNA template ready for mRNA transcription, took 1.5 hours. Furthermore, since the in vitro reaction volume is linearly scalable, more extensive libraries can be easily accommodated without increasing the reaction time. Finally, although only the HARPin scaffold was used here, we believe that our method should be extendable to any synthetic library, making L&E an alternative library creation method that has the potential to significantly accelerate the in vitro protein engineering process.

Materials and methods

Oligonucleotides

All oligonucleotides were synthesized by Integrated DNA Technologies (Coralville, IA; S1 Table) and PAGE purified in-house. Briefly, 5 μL of 100 μM stock of each oligo was loaded onto a 5% Urea-PAGE gel and visualized after staining with SYBR Green II nucleic acid stain (Thermo Fisher; Waltham, MA). The appropriate bands were excised and resuspended in 800 μL TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 0.1 mM EDTA), underwent three rounds of freeze-thaw to disrupt the gel, and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours with shaking. The supernatant was transferred to fresh tubes the next day, and the DNA was concentrated via ethanol precipitation.

Library preparation

The sense and splint oligos were divided into three groups. Group 1: NF1, NF2, NF3, SP1, and SP2; Group 2: NF4, NF5, NF6, SP4, and SP5; and Group 3: NF7, NF8, NF9, SP7, SP8. The HARPin library was created in three steps (Fig 1C). In Step 1, each group of oligos (15 pmol each) were mixed with 2 U of T4 DNA ligase (Lucigen; Madison, WI), Ribo-ATP (1 mM, Thermo Fisher), PEG-8000 (7.5%, VWR; Wayne, PA) in 30 μL of 1x NEB buffer r2.1 (NEB; Ipswich, MA) and incubated at 37°C for 30 minutes. In Step 2, the three reactions from Step 1 were combined along with oligos SP3 and SP6 (15 pmoles each), 2 U of fresh T4 ligase, Ribo-ATP (final 1 mM), and PEG-8000 (final 7.5%) in 100 μL total reaction volume and incubated for an additional 30 minutes at 37°C to generate single-stranded DNA sense molecules spanning the entire HARPin gene and the T7 promoter. Aliquots of reactions from Steps 1 and 2 were visualized on Novex 15% TBE-Urea gels (Thermo Fisher) after staining with SYBR Green II nucleic acid stain (Thermo Fisher).

In Step 3, to generate the full-length double-stranded DNA, primer CR (15 pmoles) was added to the reaction mixture together with dNTPs (final 1.4 mM each, NEB); 15 μL of 10x isothermal amplification buffer (NEB); MgSO4 (final 8 mM total, NEB); and Bst 2.0 WarmStart polymerase (48 units, NEB) in a final reaction volume of 150 μL. The reaction was carried out at 65°C for 30 minutes, followed by heat inactivation at 80°C for 20 minutes. The double-stranded DNA molecules generated were visualized on 1% agarose gels stained with ethidium bromide (EtBr). GeneRuler 100 bp Plus ladder (Thermo Fisher) was used for comparison.

In vitro transcription

To demonstrate that only the full-length genes contain the anti-sense oligo of the promoter recognizable by the T7 RNA polymerase, 5 μL of the product from Step 3 was used directly for mRNA transcription reaction (20 μL total volume) using the TranscriptAid T7 High Yield Transcription kit (Thermo Fisher). After a 1.5-hour incubation at 37°C, RNase-Free DNase I (2 U, NEB) and DNase I Buffer (NEB) were added to the mixture to remove the DNA template (50 μL final reaction volume). The transcription products were cleaned up using RNA Clean & Concentrator-25 kit (Zymo Research; Irvine, CA). An aliquot of the synthesized mRNA was visualized on denaturing agarose gels (1.5% agarose and 1% bleach [21]) stained with EtBr. RiboRuler RNA Ladder, High Range (Thermo Scientific) was used for size comparison.

Library quantification

The amount of double stranded full-length HARPin gene synthesized in Step 3 was quantified via qPCR using primers HARPin_F and HARPin_R (S1 Table). A standard curve was constructed using serially diluted full-length HARPin DNA generated by PCR amplification and purified by agarose gel electrophoresis. Standard curve quantification results are shown in S2 Table. Three different dilutions of the library samples (Step 3) were used in the qPCR reactions to improve the estimation accuracy. All qPCR reactions were carried out as triplicates using Forget-Me-Not EvaGreen qPCR master mix (Biotium; Fremont, CA) and a Bio-Rad CFX96 Real-Time PCR system (Bio-Rad; Hercules, CA). The results were analyzed with Bio-Rad CFX Manager software. All qPCR reactions were also analyzed on 1% agarose gels to ensure that the quantification matches the desired target DNA product.

Library diversity analysis

The diversity of our library was analyzed using next generation sequencing (NGS). First, 500 ng of the mRNA library produced in Step 4 (Fig 1C) was reverse transcribed using the SuperScript II reverse transcription kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instruction, with oligo CR (S1 Table) serving as the primer. The resulting cDNA was then PCR amplified with Q5 High-Fidelity Polymerase (NEB) using primers NGS_F and NGS_R (S1 Table), which harbor the Illumina adapter sequences. The PCR product was then gel purified using the ZymoClean Gel DNA Recovery kit (Zymo Research) and subjected to Amplicon-EZ Next Generation Sequencing (Azenta Life Sciences; Chelmsford, MA). Paired reads were assembled using PEAR [22]. The dataset was processed (i.e., de-duplicated and filtered to only include full-length sequences) using Geneious Prime (v.2022.1.1, Biomatters Ltd; San Diego, CA). Frequency grid profiles were constructed using Unipro UGENE [23]. Sequences including stop codons were removed from the dataset using a Biopython script (https://github.com/milesroberts-123/extract-weird-proteins).

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Nucleotide frequency analysis.

Nucleotide frequency at each position of the sequenced amplicon, including reference sequence. Nucleotide numbers refer to position within the complete HARPin gene. Randomized codons are depicted in red. Analysis performed on dataset containing de-duplicated, full-length sequences.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, pdf)
S2 Fig. Amino acid frequency analysis.

Frequency of each amino acid at each position of the sequenced amplicon, including reference sequence. Residue numbers refer to position within the complete HARPin gene. Randomized residues are depicted in red. Analysis performed on dataset containing de-duplicated, full-length sequences.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, pdf)
S1 Table. Primer sequences.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (37KB, pdf)
S2 Table. qPCR standard curve results.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (46.5KB, pdf)
S1 Graphical abstract

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (1.8MB, tif)

Acknowledgments

Portions of this research were conducted with the advanced computing resources provided by Texas A&M High Performance Research Computing. Graphical abstract created with BioRender.com. We want to thank Benjamin Thomas for helpful discussion during the NGS data analysis.

Data Availability

All raw image files are included in the submission. Sequencing data and analysis are held in the OSF repository. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2STCW.

Funding Statement

Funding provided by a grant ZC received (DP2OD008756) from the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wang Y, Xue P, Cao M, Yu T, Lane ST, Zhao H. Directed Evolution: Methodologies and Applications. Chem Rev. 2021;121(20):12384–444. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McLure RJ, Radford SE, Brockwell DJ. High-throughput directed evolution: a golden era for protein science. Trends Chem. 2022;4(5):378–91. doi: 10.1016/j.trechm.2022.02.004 WOS:000793458600005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baker M. Protein engineering: navigating between chance and reason. Nat Methods. 2011;8(8):623–6. Epub 20110728. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1654 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bornscheuer U, Kazlauskas RJ. Survey of protein engineering strategies. Curr Protoc Protein Sci. 2011;Chapter 26:Unit26 7. doi: 10.1002/0471140864.ps2607s66 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cadwell RC, Joyce GF. Randomization of genes by PCR mutagenesis. PCR Methods Appl. 1992;2(1):28–33. doi: 10.1101/gr.2.1.28 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Keefe AD, Szostak JW. Functional proteins from a random-sequence library. Nature. 2001;410(6829):715–8. doi: 10.1038/35070613 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4476321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Simeon R, Chen Z. In vitro-engineered non-antibody protein therapeutics. Protein Cell. 2018;9(1):3–14. Epub 20170307. doi: 10.1007/s13238-017-0386-6 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5777970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Stemmer WP. Rapid evolution of a protein in vitro by DNA shuffling. Nature. 1994;370(6488):389–91. doi: 10.1038/370389a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tee KL, Wong TS. Polishing the craft of genetic diversity creation in directed evolution. Biotechnol Adv. 2013;31(8):1707–21. Epub 20130906. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.08.021 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Roberts RW, Szostak JW. RNA-peptide fusions for the in vitro selection of peptides and proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94(23):12297–302. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.23.12297 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC24913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hanes J, Pluckthun A. In vitro selection and evolution of functional proteins by using ribosome display. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94(10):4937–42. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.10.4937 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC24609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Olson CA, Roberts RW. Design, expression, and stability of a diverse protein library based on the human fibronectin type III domain. Protein Sci. 2007;16(3):476–84. doi: 10.1110/ps.062498407 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2203324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kondo T, Iwatani Y, Matsuoka K, Fujino T, Umemoto S, Yokomaku Y, et al. Antibody-like proteins that capture and neutralize SARS-CoV-2. Sci Adv. 2020;6(42). Epub 20201014. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd3916 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7556756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kondo T, Eguchi M, Tsuzuki N, Murata N, Fujino T, Hayashi G, et al. Construction of a Highly Diverse mRNA Library for in vitro Selection of Monobodies. Bio Protoc. 2021;11(16):e4125. Epub 20210820. doi: 10.21769/BioProtoc.4125 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8413553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gao J, Xu C. Structural basis for the recognition of RFX7 by ANKRA2 and RFXANK. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;523(1):263–6. Epub 20191219. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.12.059 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xu C, Jin J, Bian C, Lam R, Tian R, Weist R, et al. Sequence-specific recognition of a PxLPxI/L motif by an ankyrin repeat tumbler lock. Sci Signal. 2012;5(226):ra39. Epub 20120529. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2002979 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pluckthun A. Designed ankyrin repeat proteins (DARPins): binding proteins for research, diagnostics, and therapy. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015;55:489–511. Epub 2015/01/07. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010611-134654 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Binz HK, Stumpp MT, Forrer P, Amstutz P, Pluckthun A. Designing repeat proteins: well-expressed, soluble and stable proteins from combinatorial libraries of consensus ankyrin repeat proteins. J Mol Biol. 2003;332(2):489–503. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00896-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chen HB, Weng JM, Jiang K, Bao JS. A new method for the synthesis of a structural gene. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990;18(4):871–8. Epub 1990/02/25. doi: 10.1093/nar/18.4.871 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC330339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sui Z, An R, Komiyama M, Liang X. Stepwise Strategy for One-Pot Synthesis of Single-Stranded DNA Rings from Multiple Short Fragments. Chembiochem. 2021;22(6):1005–11. Epub 2020/10/31. doi: 10.1002/cbic.202000738 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Aranda PS, LaJoie DM, Jorcyk CL. Bleach gel: a simple agarose gel for analyzing RNA quality. Electrophoresis. 2012;33(2):366–9. doi: 10.1002/elps.201100335 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3699176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhang J, Kobert K, Flouri T, Stamatakis A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(5):614–20. Epub 20131018. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt593 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3933873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Okonechnikov K, Golosova O, Fursov M, team U. Unipro UGENE: a unified bioinformatics toolkit. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(8):1166–7. Epub 20120224. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts091 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hodaka Fujii

12 May 2022

PONE-D-22-08270

A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse libraries for in vitro protein engineering

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by three experts. Although they found it interesting, they think it necessary to incorporate additional data in the revised manuscript before publication. Please revise it according to their suggestions. Especially, sequencing data, preferably by NGS, to show diversity of the library should be necessary.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hodaka Fujii, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled "A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse libraries for in vitro protein engineering" by Woolley and Chen Claims a fast and simple mRNA library preparation method using ligation and elongation reaction. The authors utilized T4 DNA ligase to assemble and increase the size of the fragment with the aid of splint oligos. Bst2.0 polymerase then synthesized DNA from the CR oligo and strand-displaced the residual splint oligos to complete dsDNA. Simultaneous in vitro transcription could transcribe a sizeable mRNA library without further purification.

The method is clear, and the final result (mRNA library) is promising. I believe the authors can improve the manuscript with the following suggestions.

Major

1) It is unclear the actual diversity of the library by only showing the number of the library. Can you provide the sequencing data?

2) Due to the base-pairing between fragments and splint oligo, it seems you cannot randomize those regions (base-pairing regions). How many splint oligo bases do pair with fragments? Do you have a specific design role?

3) Figure 1, Steps 1-3: Residual SP oligos should be displayed in the figure because those SP oligos will not be strand-displaced until the end of step 3 by Bst2.0 polymerase.

Minor

1) Page 3, lines 24-30: Showing one or two directed evolution examples will strengthen the instruction part.

2) Page 5, lines 8-88: "was clearly visible on the gel" - How can you be sure this band is the regions for T7 promoter and RBS without comparing ladders? I was expecting the ladder in the original image in the supplementary information.

3) Page 7, lines 138-146: Although this manuscript focuses on the methodology but adding short comments on a potential ongoing protein engineering project in the conclusion part is highly recommended.

4) Page 8, line 151: Table 1 should be Table 2.

Recommend using the same table styles for Table 1 and Table 2.

Reviewer #2: The authors describe a ‘one-pot ligation and elongation’ method to accelerate the preparation of double-stranded DNA libraries for mRNA display of protein variants. mRNA display is a powerful technique, and the focus on library preparation should be of interest to the practitioner. That said, I do have reservations about publication of the work in current form (with the caveat that methods for DNA assembly and mRNA display are not my research focus). These fall into two categories:

1) Is the DNA assembly aspect of the work adequately placed in context? Some mention of the use of ‘splinted’ ligations in other situations may be helpful, for example:

Chen H, Weng J, Jiang K, Bao J (1990) A new method for the synthesis of a structural gene. Nucleic Acids Res. 18(4): 871-878.

-perhaps the original reference for assembly of ssDNA by enzymatic ligation using bridging oligos

Sui Z, An R, Komiyama M, Liang X (2021) Stepwise strategy for one-pot synthesis of single-stranded DNA rings from multiple short fragments. ChemBioChem. 22:1005-1011

-a recent application of one-pot, splinted ligation of ssDNA oligos to the preparation of circular ssDNA

2) Are sufficient data provided to establish the method as a sound one for mRNA display of protein libraries? Sequencing a subset of assembly products could provide an important quality control check for library construction. For example, the authors should sequence at least 20 library constructs to show the absence of insertions/deletions/mutations etc. at ligation points (i.e., that the construct remains in frame). Even better would be to use NGS (for example, do the amino acid frequencies of randomized positions match the expected frequencies, based on the library design?). Using an assembly product in translation would also be of interest, though is perhaps beyond the scope of this work.

Minor points:

-consider adding splint oligos to the Graphical Abstract, with unique coloring

-throughout, please define abbreviations (e.g. NF, CR, etc.)

-in the discussion, the authors may comment briefly on the specific steps involved to interface their library with mRNA display

-Fig 2b: The authors may clarify why a ‘smear’ is obtained during dsDNA synthesis, rather than a series of resolved co-products

-in Methods section, line 151: ‘Table 1’ should be ‘Table 2’

Reviewer #3: The authors report a one-pot method for the preparation of libraries starting from oligos pools.

For minor revisions, the authors should comment on the following:

- If full-length ligation yield is between ~5-12%, how is this expected to change as the number or length of sense oligos changes for different protein targets?

- The manuscript does not provide considerations beyond transcription, which raises some questions about utility:

-- While the method may be scalable, what are the scales tentatively required for protein engineering applications?

-- Is the fill-lenght mRNA yield negatively affected due to the lack of cleanup to alternate constructs?if so, to what extent? Figure 3c demonstrates significant significant quantity of 300-500bp and 700+bp products. The gel is cut off below ~100bp, and smaller truncated products are not shown to the reader.

-- is the one pot method compatible with in vitro translation? Or does the mRNA require cleanup/purification before translation?

-- For true utility with protein engineering, the compatibility with cell-free protein synthesis should be discussed or demonstrated.

-- is the scale used in this manuscript compatible with producing enough protein for analysis/characterization/selection?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zachary P Gates

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Hodaka Fujii

6 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-08270R1A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse libraries for in vitro protein engineeringPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 Your revised manuscript was reviewed by the original three reviewers. Some of them still raised a couple of issues. Please consider if they are acceptable to you.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hodaka Fujii, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors carefully addressed the reviewer's comment, and the revised manuscript has improved. The manuscript is recommended for publication.

Reviewer #2: This revision satisfactorily addresses all points raised during review.

One minor comment, for the authors’ consideration: In the new paragraph describing NGS results, consider stating concisely the reasoning behind how the NGS results validate the L&E method for library creation (e.g. with respect to both assembly product integrity, and library diversity).

Reviewer #3: Authors should consider modifying the article title to “PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse mRNA libraries”, as this change would address most of my concerns.

- Since the mRNA would require cleanup prior to in vitro translation, the protocol for protein engineering is no longer “one-pot”.

- Its true that 217 ug or ~1nmol mRNA in 20 uL reaction may be useful for mRNA display, the corresponding in vitro translation reaction is unlikely to produce enough protein for analysis or characterization, and only sufficient for selection in limited cases.

Therefore, the authors should demonstrate protein production and engineering efforts if that part of their claims.

Plugging the HARPin Library into NEB’s PURExpress kit could be a good starting point. Though this would also be inconsistent with the “one-pot” claim. Such an approach could be superior to purifying the mRNA prior to in vitro translation since handling of mRNA could cause problems and variability in different hands.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zachary P Gates

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Hodaka Fujii

2 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-08270R2A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse genetic libraries for in vitro protein engineeringPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 One of the reviewers still raised a concern about the title of the manuscript. Could you consider changing it according to their suggestion?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hodaka Fujii, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: This revision satisfactorily addresses all points raised during review, and is recommended for publication.

Reviewer #3: Authors state that:

"Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we modified the title of the manuscript as follows":

'A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse genetic libraries for in vitro

protein engineering' ".

This title appears to be unchanged and does not resolve my concerns.

To reiterate, the authors have not demonstrated that their method can be used for in vitro protein engineering, or that protein engineering can be done in "one-pot".

Premise of protein engineering should be removed form the title, possible options:

'A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse genetic libraries'

'A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse mRNA libraries'

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zachary P Gates

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 3

Hodaka Fujii

5 Oct 2022

A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse genetic libraries

PONE-D-22-08270R3

Dear Dr. Chen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hodaka Fujii, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hodaka Fujii

21 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-08270R3

A PCR-free rapid protocol for one-pot construction of highly diverse genetic libraries

Dear Dr. Chen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hodaka Fujii

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Nucleotide frequency analysis.

    Nucleotide frequency at each position of the sequenced amplicon, including reference sequence. Nucleotide numbers refer to position within the complete HARPin gene. Randomized codons are depicted in red. Analysis performed on dataset containing de-duplicated, full-length sequences.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, pdf)
    S2 Fig. Amino acid frequency analysis.

    Frequency of each amino acid at each position of the sequenced amplicon, including reference sequence. Residue numbers refer to position within the complete HARPin gene. Randomized residues are depicted in red. Analysis performed on dataset containing de-duplicated, full-length sequences.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, pdf)
    S1 Table. Primer sequences.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (37KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. qPCR standard curve results.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (46.5KB, pdf)
    S1 Graphical abstract

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.8MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (660.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (20.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (17.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw image files are included in the submission. Sequencing data and analysis are held in the OSF repository. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2STCW.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES