Difference between revisions of "Team:Amsterdam/Project/Stability"

 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
   
 
   
  
<p>A big challenge in biotechnology and synthetic biology today is genetic instability.
+
<p>‘An elephant in the room: Obvious, important, yet largely ignored.’ That’s how Patrik Jones described the problem of genetic stability in this <A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126474/">publication</A> last year. The problem, in a nutshell, is that micro-organisms don’t like to allocate precious carbon resources to biofuel molecules or other human-desired compounds - they would rather use them to grow instead. Not literally so perhaps, but in most circumstances in the lab where organisms are cultivated, or in bioreactors of any form, species are under constant selection pressure for growth rate. After all, an organism that produces a compound and transports it out of the cell is forced to divide its resources between growth and product formation. As such, any resources that go into the making of a product are not allocated to its growth. A mutant that loses its production activity, however, will allocate more resources to growth, grow faster in comparison, and therefore take over a population in a matter of generations. </p>
It has been called the elephant in the room which nobody could (or wanted) to see (<A
+
<p>In practice, this means that novel gene insertions implemented to drive product formation often quickly accumulate mutations that render them inactive (sometimes a single mutation in a gene’s promoter is sufficient to do so). The result: bioreactor runs that often face sudden declines in productivity, a massive problem when it comes to large-scale implementation of bioproduction. Even many of the wonderful parts included in the iGEM registry would face this problem when scaled up in application. This is the problem of genetic stability: how stable is a producing strain when faced with the pervasise evolutionary pressure that selects for growth rather than productivity? Or, more specifically, how fast does a producing strain accumulate mutations that results in a decline or complete stop in productivity?
HREF="texts_for_wiki.html#jones2014genetic">Jones, 2014</A>).  
+
A lot of the applications in synthetic biology work because an organism contains a certain gene construct which contains a set of genes which, when expressed, produces enzymes responsible for the synthesis of certain products.
+
<BR>These products are then excreted from the cell to be used by other organisms (us humans for example).
+
A lot of parts in the part registry of iGEM also work based on this 'plug-and-play' rationale.  
+
After we, iGEM teams, find such an interesting set of genes, we register it, we characterize it and we envision big scale applications. But in reality a lot of these applications wouldn't work. This has everything to do with genetic instability.
+
<BR>In most circumstances in the lab where organisms are cultivated, or in bioreactors of any form, species are under a constant selection pressure for growth rate. This means that mutants with a slightly higher growth rate will take over an entire population within a few generations.
+
An organism which produces a compound and transports it out of the cell, always has to divide the resources it has between growth and the production of the compound. The producing cells continuously diverge a part of the mass out of the cell. This means it can no longer use this mass for growth. So a hypothetical mutant which loses this producing activity will have a (slightly) higher growth rate, and thus soon take over the culture, making it loose its production.
+
So if an organism can easily accumulate mutations such that it will loose its production, it will be genetically very unstable. And sometimes all it takes for a producing strain to lose a gene activity is a single mutation in the promoter.
+
<BR>In the physiology section (link) you can see the results when we tried to characterize several producing strain. In the results, we can see that indeed after a while the growth rate of non stable producers goes up, while at the same time the production of compound goes down. These results seem to be in line with our ideas about genetic instability.
+
<BR>Certainly in large scale applications the costs and effort to re-inoculate a culture, because the production of the old one has stopped can add up to significant amounts. This makes these applications not only economically less feasible, it is also less sustainable, since a lot of recourses are needed to re-inoculate.
+
<BR>We see it as a major challenge in synthetic biology to improve this stability.
+
So this was also the first question we had in the wet lab. How do we make a <SPAN  CLASS="textit">Synechocystis</SPAN> strain which stably produces a carbon compound?
+
We created an algorithm to answer this question, called the Stable compound generator.
+
 
+
 
</p>
 
</p>
 +
<p>There is no easy way of solving this problem. Most biotech companies deal with it simply by re-innoculating their producing strain. Yet the costs involved in re-innocultion and lost production can add up to significant amounts. The problem is exacerbated when using cyanobacteria, the proposed pillars of the CO2-fixating, sustainable production processes of the bio-based economy. Their slow growth and naturally stronger tension between catabolism and anabolism make the problem both more costly and more frequent. After we demonstrated genetic instability in action in our lactate-producing Synechocystis strain, we therefore decided to make central stability one of the core aspects of our project and tried to create a stable carbon producer. Below is an overview of the different components - found separetely on the respective project page - that highlight our demonstration of genetic instability, the way we tackled the issue, and our evidence supprting that we indeed found a way to overcome it. </p>
 +
 
 
  
Line 55: Line 43:
 
</section>
 
</section>
  
 +
<section id="results" class="wrapper style4">
 +
<div class="container">
 +
<div class="row">                                                
 +
<div class="4u">
 +
                                <header>
 +
<h4>Instability In Action</h4>
 +
</header>
 +
 +
<section class="special">
 +
<a href="#" class="image fit"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/0/0f/Amsterdam_qp_lacate.png" alt="" /></a>
 +
<p>We were confronted with the importance of genetic stability at the very start of our project. When we tested the first carbon-sharing <i>Synechocystis</i> strain that we wanted to use - a lactate producer - by cultivating it in a turbidostat, we observed a sharp decline in lactate production after fifteen generations. At the same time, OD measurements showed an increase in growth rate. This suggests that the ldh gene or its promoter accumulated mutations that rendered the gene or LDH enzyme inactive. To imagine how this would impact our consortium, just think of what would happen if your partner suddenly stopped preparing meals for you if you happened to be unable to cook your own. As far as we know, this is the first and clearest demonstration of genetic instability shown in cyanobacteria thus far.
 +
</p>
 +
 +
</section>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="4u">
 +
                                <header>
 +
<h4>Production = Growth</h4>
 +
</header>
 +
 +
<section class="special">
 +
<a href="#" class="image fit"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/a/a0/Acetate_pathway.png" alt="" /></a>
 +
<p>To overcome genetic instability, we have to overcome the tension between allocating resources to product and growth. Via our modelling efforts, we discovered metabolites that are produced as side-products in the biomass-formation pathway. These metabolites, which include carbon compounds that can be used as fuel for product-producing chemotrophs, are then recycled and used in biomass-formation pathway. Knocking out the recycling reaction, however, can result in the accumulation of that metabolite. Doing so tightly couples production to biomass formation such that when biomass is formed, so is the metabolite and vice versa. We're essentially redirecting the evolutionary pressure that selects for growth to work with us, instead of against us. We call it ‘growth-coupled production.’
 +
</p>
 +
 +
</section>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="4u">
 +
                                <header>
 +
<h4>Stable Romance, Forever</h4>
 +
</header>
 +
 +
<section class="special">
 +
<a href="#" class="image fit"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/f4/Amsterdam_qp_acetate_avg.png" alt="" /></a>
 +
<p>Based on the list that our model produced of possible metabolites that can be generated in growth-coupled fashion, we chose Acetate. We then ran the same turbidostat experiments to assess the stability of acetate production over time while measuring growth rate. This revealed that in contrast to lactate production, which declined rapidly after a brief period of time, acetate production remained stable over long periods of time. We thus successfully coupled to the production of metabolite to growth, overcoming genetic stability by channelling the evolutionary pressure of growth in the same direction as product formation. Producing compounds like this can mean the difference between a photobioreactor that stops producing after a few days and one that can keep running for months at a time.
  
 +
</p>
 +
 +
</section>
 +
</div>               
 +
 +
 +
    </div>  
 +
                    </div>
 +
</section>
 +
       
  
 
</html>
 
</html>

Latest revision as of 20:08, 2 October 2015

iGEM Amsterdam 2015

The starting point

There is an elephant in the room

Background

‘An elephant in the room: Obvious, important, yet largely ignored.’ That’s how Patrik Jones described the problem of genetic stability in this publication last year. The problem, in a nutshell, is that micro-organisms don’t like to allocate precious carbon resources to biofuel molecules or other human-desired compounds - they would rather use them to grow instead. Not literally so perhaps, but in most circumstances in the lab where organisms are cultivated, or in bioreactors of any form, species are under constant selection pressure for growth rate. After all, an organism that produces a compound and transports it out of the cell is forced to divide its resources between growth and product formation. As such, any resources that go into the making of a product are not allocated to its growth. A mutant that loses its production activity, however, will allocate more resources to growth, grow faster in comparison, and therefore take over a population in a matter of generations.

In practice, this means that novel gene insertions implemented to drive product formation often quickly accumulate mutations that render them inactive (sometimes a single mutation in a gene’s promoter is sufficient to do so). The result: bioreactor runs that often face sudden declines in productivity, a massive problem when it comes to large-scale implementation of bioproduction. Even many of the wonderful parts included in the iGEM registry would face this problem when scaled up in application. This is the problem of genetic stability: how stable is a producing strain when faced with the pervasise evolutionary pressure that selects for growth rather than productivity? Or, more specifically, how fast does a producing strain accumulate mutations that results in a decline or complete stop in productivity?

There is no easy way of solving this problem. Most biotech companies deal with it simply by re-innoculating their producing strain. Yet the costs involved in re-innocultion and lost production can add up to significant amounts. The problem is exacerbated when using cyanobacteria, the proposed pillars of the CO2-fixating, sustainable production processes of the bio-based economy. Their slow growth and naturally stronger tension between catabolism and anabolism make the problem both more costly and more frequent. After we demonstrated genetic instability in action in our lactate-producing Synechocystis strain, we therefore decided to make central stability one of the core aspects of our project and tried to create a stable carbon producer. Below is an overview of the different components - found separetely on the respective project page - that highlight our demonstration of genetic instability, the way we tackled the issue, and our evidence supprting that we indeed found a way to overcome it.

Instability In Action

We were confronted with the importance of genetic stability at the very start of our project. When we tested the first carbon-sharing Synechocystis strain that we wanted to use - a lactate producer - by cultivating it in a turbidostat, we observed a sharp decline in lactate production after fifteen generations. At the same time, OD measurements showed an increase in growth rate. This suggests that the ldh gene or its promoter accumulated mutations that rendered the gene or LDH enzyme inactive. To imagine how this would impact our consortium, just think of what would happen if your partner suddenly stopped preparing meals for you if you happened to be unable to cook your own. As far as we know, this is the first and clearest demonstration of genetic instability shown in cyanobacteria thus far.

Production = Growth

To overcome genetic instability, we have to overcome the tension between allocating resources to product and growth. Via our modelling efforts, we discovered metabolites that are produced as side-products in the biomass-formation pathway. These metabolites, which include carbon compounds that can be used as fuel for product-producing chemotrophs, are then recycled and used in biomass-formation pathway. Knocking out the recycling reaction, however, can result in the accumulation of that metabolite. Doing so tightly couples production to biomass formation such that when biomass is formed, so is the metabolite and vice versa. We're essentially redirecting the evolutionary pressure that selects for growth to work with us, instead of against us. We call it ‘growth-coupled production.’

Stable Romance, Forever

Based on the list that our model produced of possible metabolites that can be generated in growth-coupled fashion, we chose Acetate. We then ran the same turbidostat experiments to assess the stability of acetate production over time while measuring growth rate. This revealed that in contrast to lactate production, which declined rapidly after a brief period of time, acetate production remained stable over long periods of time. We thus successfully coupled to the production of metabolite to growth, overcoming genetic stability by channelling the evolutionary pressure of growth in the same direction as product formation. Producing compounds like this can mean the difference between a photobioreactor that stops producing after a few days and one that can keep running for months at a time.