Metabolic variability in bioprocessing: Implications of microbial phenotypic heterogeneity

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 32, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 608-616

  Delvigne, Frank ^a   Zune, Quentin ^a   Lara, Alvaro R ^b   Al Soud, Waleed ^c   Sørensen, Søren J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^b DEPARTAMENTO DE PROCESOS Y TECNOLOGÍA   (Mexico)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Bioprocess optimization; Metabolic engineering; Microbial stress; Stochasticity

Indexed keywords

GENE EXPRESSION; METABOLISM;

BIOPROCESS MONITORING; BIOPROCESS OPTIMIZATION; FUNDAMENTAL STUDIES; LARGE SCALE BIOREACTORS; METABOLIC REACTIONS; METABOLIC VARIABILITY; MICROBIAL POPULATIONS; STOCHASTICITY;

METABOLIC ENGINEERING;

BIOFILM REACTOR; BIOPROCESS; BIOREACTOR; BIOSENSOR; FLOW CYTOMETRY; GENE EXPRESSION; HEREDITY; METABOLIC ENGINEERING; MICROBIAL PHENOTYPIC HETEROGENEITY; MICROBIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA AND FUNCTIONS; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; REVIEW; BACTERIUM; FUNGUS; GENOTYPE; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; METABOLISM; MICROBIOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

BACTERIA; BIOREACTORS; FUNGI; GENOTYPE; INDUSTRIAL MICROBIOLOGY; METABOLIC ENGINEERING; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 84918573843     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: 18793096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.10.002     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Müller S., et al. Origin and analysis of microbial population heterogeneity in bioprocesses. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2010, 21:100-113.
2. Delvigne F., Goffin P. Microbial heterogeneity affects bioprocess robustness: Dynamic single cell analysis contribute to understanding microbial populations. Biotechnol. J. 2014, 9:61-72.
3. de Lorenzo V. From the selfish gene to selfish metabolism: revisiting the central dogma. Bioessays 2014, 14:201300153.
4. Sanchez A., Golding I. Genetic determinants and cellular constraints in noisy gene expression. Science 2013, 342:1188-1193.
5. Ryall B., et al. Culture history and population heterogeneity as determinants of bacterial adaptation: the adaptomics of a single environmental transition. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2011, 76:597-625.
6. Casadesus J., Low D.A. Programmed heterogeneity: epigenetic mechanisms in bacteria. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288:13929-13935.
7. Tracy B., et al. Development and application of flow-cytometric techniques for analyzing and sorting endospore-forming clostridia. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74:7497-7506.
8. Alonso S., et al. Physiological heterogeneity of Pseudomonas taetrolens during lactobionic acid production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 96:1465-1477.
9. Want A., et al. Studies related to antibody fragment (Fab) production in Escherichia coli W3110 fed-batch fermentation processes using multiparameter flow cytometry. Cytometry A 2009, 75:148-154.
10. Lee K., et al. Characterization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae promoters for heterologous gene expression in Kluyveromyces marxianus. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97:2029-2041.
11. Levy S.F., et al. Bet hedging in yeast by heterogeneous, age-correlated expression of a stress protectant. PLoS Biol. 2012, 10:8.
12. Love K., et al. Integrated single-cell analysis shows Pichia pastoris secretes protein stochastically. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2010, 106:319-325.
13. Mustafi N., et al. Application of a genetically encoded biosensor for live cell imaging of L-valine production in pyruvate dehydrogenase complex-deficient Corynebacterium glutamicum strains. PLoS ONE 2014, 9:e85731.
14. Bennett M.R., et al. Metabolic gene regulation in a dynamically changing environment. Nature 2008, 454:1119-1122.
15. Takors R. Scale-up of microbial processes: impacts, tools and open questions. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 160:3-9.
16. Neubauer P., Junne S. Scale-down simulators for metabolic analysis of large-scale bioprocesses. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2010, 21:114-121.
17. Lara A.R., et al. Living with heterogeneities in bioreactors - understanding the effects of environmental gradients on cells. Mol. Biotechnol. 2006, 34:355-381.
18. Lapin A., et al. Modeling the dynamics of E. coli populations in the three-dimensional turbulent field of a stirred bioreactor - a structured-segregated approach. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61:4783-4797.
19. Lidstrom M., Konopka M. The role of physiological heterogeneity in microbial population behavior. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6:705-712.
20. Acar M., et al. Stochastic switching as a survival strategy in fluctuating environments. Nat. Genet. 2008, 40:471-475.
21. Nikolic N., et al. Analysis of fluorescent reporters indicates heterogeneity in glucose uptake and utilization in clonal bacterial populations. BMC Microbiol. 2013, 13:258.
22. Labhsetwar P., et al. Heterogeneity in protein expression induces metabolic variability in a modeled Escherichia coli population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:14006-14011.
23. van Heerden J., et al. Lost in transition: startup of glycolysis yields subpopulations of nongrowing cells. Science 2014, 343:1-9.
24. Grunberger A., et al. Single-cell microfluidics: opportunity for bioprocess development. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2014, 29:15-23.
25. Young J., et al. Measuring single-cell gene expression dynamics in bacteria using fluorescence time-lapse microscopy. Nat. Protoc. 2011, 7:80-88.
26. Davey H.M., Hexley P. Red but not dead? Membranes of stressed Saccharomyces cerevisiae are permeable to propidium iodide. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13:163-171.
27. Hewitt C.J., et al. A comparison of high cell density fed-batch fermentations involving both induced and non-induced recombinant Escherichia coli under well-mixed small-scale and simulated poorly mixed large-scale conditions. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007, 96:495-505.
28. Lapin A., et al. Multi-scale spatio-temporal modeling: lifelines of microorganisms in bioreactors and tracking molecules in cells. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 2010, 121:23-43.
29. Morchain J., et al. A coupled population balance model and CFD approach for the simulation of mixing issues in lab-scale and industrial bioreactors. AIChE J. 2014, 60:27-40.
30. Delafosse A., et al. CFD-based compartment model for description of mixing in bioreactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2014, 106:76-85.
31. Taniguchi Y., et al. Quantifying E. coli proteome and transcriptome with single-molecule sensitivity in single cells. Science 2010, 329:533-538.
32. Jahn M., et al. Subpopulation-proteomics in prokaryotic populations. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 24:79-87.
33. Arnoldini M., et al. Monitoring of dynamic microbiological processes using real-time flow cytometry. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e80117.
34. Brognaux A., et al. A low-cost, multiplexable, automated flow cytometry procedure for the characterization of microbial stress dynamics in bioreactors. Microb. Cell Fact. 2013, 12:1475-2859.
35. Delvigne F., et al. Dynamic single-cell analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae under process perturbation: comparison of different methods for monitoring the intensity of population heterogeneity. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2014, 10.1002/jctb.4430.
36. Okumus B., et al. Fluidic and microfluidic tools for quantitative systems biology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2014, 25:30-38.
37. Love K.R., et al. Systematic single-cell analysis of Pichia pastoris reveals secretory capacity limits productivity. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e37915.
38. Dusny C., et al. Isolated microbial single cells and resulting micropopulations grow faster in controlled environments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78:7132-7136.
39. Bachmann H., et al. Availability of public goods shapes the evolution of competing metabolic strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:14302-14307.
40. Boedicker J., et al. Microfluidic confinement of single cells of bacteria in small volumes initiates high-density behavior of quorum sensing and growth and reveals its variability. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed Engl. 2009, 48:5908-5911.
41. Boyle P.M., Silver P.A. Parts plus pipes: synthetic biology approaches to metabolic engineering. Metab. Eng. 2012, 14:223-232.
42. Michener J.K., et al. Applications of genetically-encoded biosensors for the construction and control of biosynthetic pathways. Metab. Eng. 2012, 14:212-222.
43. Curran K.A., Alper H.S. Expanding the chemical palate of cells by combining systems biology and metabolic engineering. Metab. Eng. 2012, 14:289-297.
44. Lee J., et al. Systems metabolic engineering of microorganisms for natural and non-natural chemicals. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2012, 8:536-546.
45. Scheidle M., et al. High-throughput screening of Hansenula polymorpha clones in the batch compared with the controlled-release fed-batch mode on a small scale. FEMS Yeast Res. 2010, 10:83-92.
46. Fuentes L.G., et al. Modification of glucose import capacity in Escherichia coli: physiologic consequences and utility for improving DNA vaccine production. Microb. Cell Fact. 2013, 12:1475-2859.
47. Borja G.M., et al. Engineering Escherichia coli to increase plasmid DNA production in high cell-density cultivations in batch mode. Microb. Cell Fact. 2012, 11:1475-2859.
48. Enfors S.O., et al. Physiological responses to mixing in large scale bioreactors. J. Biotechnol. 2001, 85:175-185.
49. Holm A.K., et al. Metabolic and transcriptional response to cofactor perturbations in Escherichia coli. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285:17498-17506.
50. Hou J., et al. Metabolic impact of increased NADH availability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76:851-859.
51. Schendzielorz G., et al. Taking control over control: use of product sensing in single cells to remove flux control at key enzymes in biosynthesis pathways. ACS Synth. Biol. 2013, 15:15.
52. New A.M., et al. Different levels of catabolite repression optimize growth in stable and variable environments. PLoS Biol. 2014, 12:14.
53. Wang X., et al. Heteroresistance at the single-cell level: adapting to antibiotic stress through a population-based strategy and growth-controlled interphenotypic coordination. MBio 2014, 5:e00942-e1013.
54. Nikel P.I., et al. The private life of environmental bacteria: pollutant biodegradation at the single cell level. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 16:628-642.
55. Johnson D.R., et al. Metabolic specialization and the assembly of microbial communities. ISME J. 2012, 6:1985-1991.
56. Halan B., et al. Biofilms as living catalysts in continuous chemical syntheses. Trends Biotechnol. 2012, 30:453-465.
57. Stewart P.S., Franklin M.J. Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6:199-210.
58. Gross R., et al. Characterization of a biofilm membrane reactor and its prospects for fine chemical synthesis. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2009, 105:705-717.
59. Rosche B., et al. Microbial biofilms: a concept for industrial catalysis?. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27:636-643.
60. Zune Q., et al. High-energy X-ray tomography analysis of a metal packing biofilm reactor for the production of lipopeptides by Bacillus subtilis. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2014, 89:382-390.
61. Morgenroth E., Milferstedt K. Biofilm engineering: linking biofilm development at different length and time scales. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2009, 8:203-208.
62. Amato S.M., et al. The role of metabolism in bacterial persistence. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5:70.
63. Klumpp S., et al. Molecular crowding limits translation and cell growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:16754-16759.
64. Trevors J.T., et al. The molecularly crowded cytoplasm of bacterial cells: dividing cells contrasted with viable but non-culturable (VBNC) bacterial cells. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2012, 15:1-6.
65. Diaz M., et al. Application of flow cytometry to industrial microbial bioprocesses. Biochem. Eng. J. 2010, 48:385-407.
66. Klein J., et al. TLM-Tracker: software for cell segmentation, tracking and lineage analysis in time-lapse microscopy movies. Bioinformatics 2012, 28:2276-2277.
67. Fritzsch F.S.O., et al. Single-cell analysis in biotechnology, systems biology, and biocatalysis. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 2012, 3:129-155.
68. Edd J.F., et al. Controlled encapsulation of single-cells into monodisperse picolitre drops. Lab Chip 2008, 8:1262-1264.
69. Lencastre Fernandes R., et al. Experimental methods and modeling techniques for description of cell population heterogeneity. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011, 29:575-599.
70. Delvigne F., et al. Bioreactor mixing efficiency modulates the activity of a prpoS::GFP reporter gene in E. coli. Microb. Cell Fact. 2009, 8:1475-2859.
71. Potzkei J., et al. Real-time determination of intracellular oxygen in bacteria using a genetically encoded FRET-based biosensor. BMC Biol. 2012, 10:1741-7007.
72. Schallmey M., et al. Looking for the pick of the bunch: high-throughput screening of producing microorganisms with biosensors. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2014, 27:148-154.
73. Binder S., et al. Recombineering in Corynebacterium glutamicum combined with optical nanosensors: a general strategy for fast producer strain generation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41:6360-6369.
74. Wang D., Bodovitz S. Single cell analysis: the new frontier in 'omics'. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28:281-290.
75. Junker J.P., van Oudenaarden A. Every cell is special: genome-wide studies add a new dimension to single-cell biology. Cell 2014, 157:8-11.