Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis: A Comparative Analysis of Engineering Strategies and Industrial Applications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of microbial host systems for the synthesis of bioactive natural products, which are crucial for drug development. Targeting researchers and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational biology of native and heterologous hosts, details advanced genetic engineering and synthetic biology methodologies, and addresses key challenges in troubleshooting and optimization. By presenting rigorous validation frameworks and comparative performance metrics, this review serves as a strategic guide for selecting and engineering microbial platforms to accelerate the discovery and scalable production of high-value compounds for biomedical and clinical applications.

The Microbial Host Landscape: Native Producers and Surrogate Platforms

Natural products, defined as chemical compounds or substances produced by living organisms such as plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms, have served as a cornerstone of medicine since ancient civilizations [1]. These structurally complex molecules, evolved over millions of years to serve specific biological functions, represent an invaluable resource for drug discovery and development [2]. The historical significance of natural products is undeniable, with approximately 80% of all medicines derived from plant sources in the early 1900s [3]. The serendipitous discovery of penicillin from Penicillium notatum by Alexander Fleming in 1928 marked a pivotal shift toward microorganisms as primary sources of therapeutic compounds [3]. Today, despite advances in synthetic chemistry, natural products continue to play a vital role in modern medicine, with approximately 60% of approved small molecule medicines related to natural products and 69% of all antibacterial agents originating from these compounds [3].

The pharmaceutical significance of natural products stems from their enormous structural complexity, diversity, and evolutionarily selected interactions with biomolecules [2]. These "privileged chemical scaffolds" typically exhibit subnanomolar potency and striking target specificity, making them invaluable for probing biological processes, understanding disease mechanisms, and inspiring new drug designs [2]. As microbial genomes continue to reveal their secrets, it has become increasingly apparent that the vast majority of natural product biosynthetic potential remains untapped, presenting both a challenge and opportunity for pharmaceutical research [4].

Microbial Hosts as Production Platforms: A Comparative Analysis

The choice of microbial host for natural product synthesis represents a critical decision point in pharmaceutical development. Native and heterologous host systems each present distinct advantages and limitations that must be carefully evaluated based on project requirements, with engineering strategies increasingly enabling optimized production across diverse platforms.

Native Host Systems: Advantages and Engineering Challenges

Native hosts—naturally occurring microorganisms with innate biosynthetic capability for target natural products—offer several significant advantages for pharmaceutical production. These systems are already equipped with all necessary cellular factors for natural product biosynthesis, including precursors, regulatory elements, self-resistance mechanisms, and transport systems [2]. This biological completeness often requires relatively smaller-scale genetic manipulation compared to heterologous systems to achieve meaningful production improvements [2].

However, engineering native hosts, particularly non-model actinomycetes, presents substantial technical challenges. Restriction-modification (RM) systems that recognize and selectively degrade exogenous DNA significantly hamper genetic engineering efforts [2]. Transformation efficiencies in actinomycetes are typically orders of magnitude lower than in model systems like E. coli or yeast [2]. Potential solutions include mimicking host DNA methylation patterns, avoiding RM recognition sites, and disrupting native RM systems [2].

Advanced genetic tools have been developed to address these limitations. Well-characterized regulatory elements including promoters and ribosomal binding sites (RBSs) with wide dynamic ranges have been engineered specifically for GC-rich actinomycetes [2]. The kasOp promoter, one of the strongest known in *Streptomyces, achieves activity one to two orders of magnitude greater than the widely used ermEp promoter [2]. Inducible systems like the thiostrepton-inducible tipA promoter and theophylline riboswitch E (offering 30 to 260-fold induction with low basal expression) enable precise temporal control of gene expression [2].

Heterologous Host Systems: Expanding the Production Frontier

Heterologous hosts—surrogate microorganisms engineered to produce natural products through introduction of exogenous biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs)—provide powerful alternatives to native systems. These platforms overcome inherent limitations of native producers, including unculturability, slow growth rates, and genetic intractability [4].

Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae emerged as prevalent expression platforms following the successful production of recombinant human insulin Humulin [3]. These model organisms offer well-characterized genetics, rapid growth, established fermentation protocols, and extensive synthetic biology toolkits [3] [4]. However, challenges include the lack of unconventional post-translational modifications, proteolytic instability, poor solubility, and activation of cell stress responses in these systems [3].

Refactoring BGCs for heterologous expression involves substantial pathway engineering, particularly for uncharacterized gene clusters [2] [4]. Synthetic biology approaches have enabled the redesign of natural product pathways using standardized genetic parts with predictable expression levels, facilitating optimized production in non-native hosts [4]. The capacity for DNA synthesis has expanded dramatically, making routine the synthesis of 20–100 kb fragments required for large gene clusters [4].

Comparative Analysis of Microbial Production Hosts

Table 1: Comparison of Microbial Host Systems for Natural Product Synthesis

Host System	Advantages	Limitations	Key Engineering Strategies	Representative Products
Native Actinomycetes	Complete native biosynthetic machinery; Self-resistance mechanisms; Native regulatory networks	Often genetically intractable; Slow growth rates; Complex regulation; Restriction-modification systems	Promoter engineering; Regulatory network manipulation; Precursor pathway enhancement; RM system disruption	Erythromycin [3]; Vancomycin [3]; Tetracyclines [3]
E. coli	Rapid growth; Extensive genetic tools; Well-established fermentation	Lack of specialized PTMs; Potential protein misfolding; Toxicity of pathway intermediates	Codon optimization; Pathway refactoring; Co-expression of chaperones; Metabolic engineering	Artemisinin precursors [4]; Recombinant proteins [3]
S. cerevisiae	Eukaryotic PTM capacity; Compartmentalization; GRAS status	Lower yields; Complex genetics; Unwanted glycosylation	Organelle engineering; Metabolic pathway balancing; Synthetic biology tools	Recombinant insulin [3]; Vanillin [4]
Aspergillus spp.	Robust secondary metabolism; Natural product secretors; Industrial relevance	Complex regulation; Large genomes; Secondary metabolite background	Pathway activation; Regulatory gene overexpression; Gene knockout	Aspirochlorine [5]; Gliotoxin [5]

Table 2: Genetic Toolbox for Microbial Host Engineering

Genetic Tool	Function	Native Host Applications	Heterologous Host Applications
Constitutive Promoters	Continuous gene expression	kasOp, ermEp, synthetic promoters [2]	T7, PGK, GAP promoters [4]
Inducible Systems	Temporal control of expression	tipA (thiostrepton), nitAp (ε-caprolactam) [2]	Tet-On, GAL systems, arabinose-inducible [4]
Riboswitches	Post-transcriptional regulation	Theophylline riboswitch E* [2]	Synthetic riboswitches [4]
CRISPR-Cas9	Genome editing	Gene knockouts, regulatory network engineering [4]	Multiplex engineering, gene activation [4]
DNA Assembly Methods	Pathway construction	BAC libraries, cosmids [2]	Gibson assembly, Golden Gate, yeast assembly [4]

Experimental Approaches: From Discovery to Production Optimization

Genome Mining and Biosynthetic Gene Cluster Activation

Advances in genome sequencing have revealed that potentially useful biosynthetic gene clusters in microorganisms vastly outnumber previously known natural products [4]. Genome mining approaches utilize bioinformatic tools like antiSMASH (Antibiotics & Secondary Metabolite Analysis Shell) to identify BGCs in sequenced genomes [4]. These tools enable comparative analysis of BGCs across strains, predicting chemical structures and classifying pathways based on key enzymes such as polyketide synthases (PKS) and non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS) [4].

Once identified, silent or poorly expressed BGCs require activation for product characterization. Strategies include manipulating pathway-specific regulators, replacing native promoters with strong inducible counterparts, and engineering ribosomal binding sites to optimize translation [4]. Heterologous expression in specialized hosts such as Streptomyces coelicolor, Aspergillus nidulans, or Saccharomyces cerevisiae provides an alternative approach for activating silent BGCs [5] [4].

Analytical and Quantification Methods for Natural Products

Comprehensive analytical techniques are essential for characterizing and quantifying natural products throughout the discovery and optimization pipeline. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy has emerged as a powerful tool for both structural elucidation and quantification [6].

Quantitative NMR (qNMR) methods offer significant advantages for natural product analysis, including non-destructiveness, high flux, short analysis time, and the ability to quantify compounds without identical reference standards [6]. The basic principle of qNMR relies on the direct proportionality between the integral area of resonance peaks and the number of nuclei generating the signal [6]. Absolute quantification methods include:

• Internal Standard Method: Uses compounds with known structure and purity as references [6]
• External Standard Method: Employed when reference materials are available [6]
• ERETIC Method: Electronic Reference to access In vivo Concentrations uses an artificial reference signal generated by a free coil arrangement [6]

Ideal internal standards exhibit stable physical and chemical properties, good solubility in deuterated reagents, high purity, and minimal signal peaks that do not overlap with analyte signals [6]. Common choices include 2,4,6-triiodophenol, 1,3,5-trichloro-2-nitrobenzene, and maleic acid [6].

Metabolic Engineering and Synthetic Biology Strategies

Engineering microbial hosts for enhanced natural product production involves sophisticated metabolic manipulation to redirect cellular resources toward desired compounds. Key strategies include:

Precursor Pathway Engineering: Amplifying the supply of essential biosynthetic building blocks represents a fundamental approach for titer improvement. For example, engineering the mevalonate pathway in E. coli enabled significant production of isoprenoid precursors, resulting in taxadiene (a Taxol precursor) titers exceeding 1 gram per liter [4]. Similar strategies have been applied for polyketide and non-ribosomal peptide precursors.

Co-factor Balancing: Natural product biosynthesis often depends on specialized co-factors that may be limiting in heterologous hosts. Engineering NADPH regeneration, S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) availability, and methylmalonyl-CoA supply has proven effective for enhancing production of various compounds [2].

Dynamic Metabolic Regulation: Implementing synthetic genetic circuits that respond to metabolite levels enables self-regulating production systems. These circuits can dynamically control pathway expression, bypass toxic intermediate accumulation, and optimize resource allocation between growth and production phases [4].

Genome-Scale Engineering: Tools like CRISPR-Cas9 enable multiplexed genome editing, allowing simultaneous modification of multiple genomic targets to eliminate competing pathways, remove regulatory bottlenecks, and insert optimized synthetic pathways [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Natural Product Pharmaceutical Research

Reagent/Category	Function/Application	Specific Examples	Considerations for Use
Deuterated Solvents	NMR spectroscopy for structural elucidation and quantification	DMSO-d6, CDCl3, D2O, methanol-d4 [6]	Residual proton signals can be used as internal standards [6]
qNMR Internal Standards	Absolute quantification of natural products	2,4,6-triiodophenol, maleic acid, dimethyl terephthalate [6]	Must not overlap with analyte signals; chemically stable; highly pure [6]
Genetic Engineering Enzymes	DNA manipulation for pathway engineering	Restriction enzymes; ligases; polymerases; recombinases [2] [4]	Methylation-aware enzymes for actinomycetes [2]
Selectable Markers	Selection of engineered microbial strains	Antibiotic resistance genes (kanamycin, apramycin, thiostrepton) [2]	Host-specific resistance markers; combinatorial markers for multiplexing [2]
Inducers and Repressors	Controlled gene expression	Thiostrepton (tipA induction); ε-caprolactam (nitA induction); theophylline (riboswitches) [2]	Concentration optimization; background expression levels; cost at scale [2]
Bioinformatic Tools	Genome mining and pathway prediction	antiSMASH; NRPSpredictor2; BAGEL3; PKMiner [4]	Database-dependent accuracy; manual curation often required [4]
2,4-Diethylpyridine	2,4-Diethylpyridine, CAS:626-21-1, MF:C9H13N, MW:135.21 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
C4-ceramide	C4-ceramide, MF:C22H43NO3, MW:369.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The pharmaceutical significance of natural products remains undiminished in the modern era, with these complex molecules continuing to provide valuable therapeutics and inspiration for new drug designs. Microbial hosts—both native and heterologous—offer complementary platforms for natural product discovery and production, with ongoing advances in genetic engineering steadily overcoming historical limitations.

Future progress in this field will likely be driven by several key technological developments. Machine learning approaches for predicting BGC function and chemical output from sequence data will accelerate prioritization of targets for experimental characterization [4]. Single-cell metabolomics techniques will enhance our understanding of microbial chemical communication and natural product roles in microbial communities [7]. Cell-free biosynthesis systems may circumvent challenges associated with cellular toxicity and complex regulation [4]. Finally, automated strain engineering platforms will enable high-throughput optimization of microbial hosts for industrial-scale production of valuable natural pharmaceuticals [2] [4].

As these technologies mature, the partnership between natural products and microbial hosts will continue to yield new medicines to address emerging health challenges, reaffirming nature's enduring role as pharmacy to humanity.

Actinomycetes, a group of Gram-positive bacteria with high G+C content, represent one of nature's most prolific producers of bioactive secondary metabolites. These filamentous bacteria, particularly the genus Streptomyces, are native hosts to intricate biosynthetic pathways that yield an estimated two-thirds of all clinically used antibiotics, alongside numerous antifungals, antivirals, anticancer agents, and immunosuppressants [8] [9]. Their evolutionary history as soil-dwelling microorganisms has equipped them with sophisticated regulatory networks and enzymatic machinery specifically adapted for the production of complex natural products [10]. Unlike engineered heterologous hosts, actinomycetes possess inherent cellular environments, native post-translational modification systems, and endogenous precursor pools that have co-evolved with their biosynthetic pathways [11]. This native configuration provides distinct advantages for natural product synthesis, particularly for complex molecules requiring specialized folding, modification, or assembly. The genomic architecture of actinomycetes reveals a remarkable commitment to secondary metabolism, with approximately 5-10% of their coding capacity dedicated to biosynthetic gene clusters for mostly cryptic secondary metabolites [12]. This review comprehensively examines the inherent capabilities and native regulatory networks of actinomycetes as native hosts, providing a comparative analysis with alternative microbial platforms for natural product synthesis research.

Inherent Biosynthetic Capabilities of Actinomycetes

Metabolic Diversity and Enzymatic Repertoire

Actinomycetes possess an extraordinary capacity for producing structurally diverse secondary metabolites with potent biological activities. This biosynthetic proficiency stems from their extensive enzymatic toolbox and metabolic flexibility, enabling the synthesis of complex molecules that are challenging to produce in engineered heterologous hosts. The native metabolic architecture of actinomycetes has been refined through evolution to support the production of secondary metabolites under specific environmental conditions [10].

Table 1: Major Classes of Natural Products Derived from Actinomycetes

Natural Product Class	Representative Examples	Biological Activity	Producing Actinomycete
Aminoglycosides	Streptomycin, Gentamicin	Antibacterial	Streptomyces griseus
Macrolides	Erythromycin	Antibacterial	Saccharopolyspora erythraea
Tetracyclines	Tetracycline	Antibacterial	Streptomyces aureofaciens
Glycopeptides	Vancomycin	Antibacterial	Amycolatopsis orientalis
Polyketides	Doxorubicin	Anticancer	Streptomyces peucetius
Enediynes	Calicheamicin	Anticancer	Micromonospora echinospora
Immunosuppressants	Rapamycin	Immunosuppressive	Streptomyces hygroscopicus

The metabolic prowess of actinomycetes extends beyond the production of antibiotics to include diverse chemical classes. Terpenoids, including monoterpenoids (linalool, geraniol), sesquiterpenoids (artemisinin, valencene), and diterpenoids, represent another significant class of natural products accessible through actinomycete biosynthesis [13]. These isoprenoid compounds derive from basic five-carbon isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) units assembled through sophisticated enzymatic processes. Notably, actinomycetes employ both the mevalonate (MVA) pathway and, in some cases, the non-mevalonate (DXP) pathway for terpenoid biosynthesis, providing metabolic flexibility that can be exploited for production enhancement [13].

Genomic Potential and Cryptic Biosynthetic Pathways

Genome sequencing of actinomycetes has revealed a striking discrepancy between their observed and potential metabolic output. While traditional screening methods typically detect only one or two antimicrobial compounds per strain under laboratory conditions, genomic analyses indicate that most actinomycete species possess the genetic capacity to produce approximately 10-15 specialized metabolites on average [9]. These "cryptic" or "silent" biosynthetic gene clusters represent an extensive untapped reservoir of novel chemical diversity with potential pharmaceutical applications.

The activation of these silent gene clusters presents both a challenge and opportunity for natural product discovery. Various strategies have been developed to access this hidden chemical potential, including manipulation of regulatory networks, co-cultivation with other microorganisms, and simulation of environmental conditions that may trigger cluster expression [10]. The persistence of these intact but silent gene clusters throughout evolution suggests their products confer selective advantages in natural ecological contexts, potentially providing defense against competitors or facilitating interactions with other organisms in complex microbial communities [9].

Native Regulatory Networks in Actinomycetes

Hierarchical Control Systems

Actinomycetes employ sophisticated, multi-layered regulatory networks that coordinate secondary metabolism with physiological and developmental processes. These networks integrate environmental signals with intracellular cues to precisely control the timing and level of natural product biosynthesis, typically activating these pathways during the transition from growth to stationary phase or in response to specific environmental stresses [14].

Table 2: Key Regulatory Systems Controlling Secondary Metabolism in Actinomycetes

Regulatory Level	Regulatory Elements	Function	Representative Targets
Global	Streptomyces Antibiotic Regulatory Proteins (SARPs)	Pathway-specific activation	Actinorhodin, Undecylprodigiosin
Global	TetR-family regulators	Repression or activation of multiple pathways	Doxorubicin, Tetracycline
Pleiotropic	ppGpp	Stringent response mediator	Multiple antibiotics
Hormonal	γ-butyrolactones and their receptors	Quorum-sensing and antibiotic production	A-factor in S. griseus
Transcriptional	Sigma factors	RNA polymerase specificity	σWhiG in sporulation
Post-translational	Ser/Thr protein kinases	Phosphorylation-mediated signaling	Multiple cellular processes

The manipulation of these native regulatory systems represents a powerful strategy for enhancing natural product yields or activating silent biosynthetic gene clusters. Overexpression of positive regulators or deletion of repressors can dramatically increase metabolite production, as demonstrated in various Streptomyces species [14] [9]. Understanding these hierarchical control systems is therefore essential for both fundamental research and industrial application of actinomycetes as production hosts.

Ecological Context and Regulatory Triggers

The regulatory networks in actinomycetes have evolved in response to specific ecological contexts and environmental triggers. In natural settings, these bacteria exist within complex microbial communities where their secondary metabolites serve ecological functions such as defense against competitors, communication with symbiotic partners, or facilitation of nutrient acquisition [10]. The leaf-cutter ant ecosystem provides a compelling example of actinomycete natural product regulation in an ecological context, where actinomycetes associated with the ant cuticle produce antifungals such as dentigerumycin, candicidin, and nystatin variants to protect the fungal gardens from pathogenic Escovopsis species [10].

Figure 1: Native Regulatory Networks in Actinomycetes. This diagram illustrates the complex signaling pathways that control secondary metabolite production in actinomycetes, integrating environmental cues with intracellular regulatory systems to activate biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) for ecological functions.

Environmental conditions profoundly influence regulatory decisions in actinomycetes. Nutrient limitation, particularly phosphate deprivation, often triggers antibiotic production through activation of the stringent response and ppGpp signaling. Similarly, carbon source regulation, nitrogen availability, and iron concentration can dramatically impact the expression of biosynthetic gene clusters [14]. Understanding these ecological triggers provides researchers with strategies to "awaken" silent gene clusters by simulating natural environmental conditions or adding specific signaling molecules in laboratory cultures.

Comparative Analysis with Heterologous Hosts

Advantages of Native Actinomycete Hosts

Native actinomycete hosts offer several distinct advantages over engineered heterologous systems for natural product biosynthesis. Their complete and co-evolved post-translational modification systems ensure proper folding and function of complex biosynthetic enzymes, including polyketide synthases (PKSs) and non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs) [11]. Actinomycetes naturally provide essential precursor metabolites at appropriate levels and compartmentalization, supporting efficient biosynthesis without requiring extensive metabolic engineering [12]. Their native regulatory systems, while complex, have evolved to optimally coordinate pathway expression with cellular resources, preventing metabolic burden that often plagues heterologous expression [14].

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Native vs. Heterologous Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

Parameter	Native Actinomycete Hosts	Heterologous Hosts (E. coli, Yeast)
Post-translational Modifications	Native, co-evolved systems	Often requires engineering or is incomplete
Precursor Availability	Endogenous pools available	Requires extensive metabolic engineering
Complex Pathway Expression	Optimized native regulation	Often burdensome, requires refactoring
Handling Large Gene Clusters	Natural capacity up to 150 kb	Limited, often requires fragmentation
Cryptic Cluster Activation	Possible via native regulation	Only expressed if cluster is activated
Production Titers	Highly variable (mg/L to g/L)	Can be very high with optimization
Genetic Manipulation	Can be challenging and slow	Typically rapid and efficient
Fermentation Development	Well-established for some species	Often requires new process development

The capacity of actinomycetes to harbor and express large biosynthetic gene clusters is particularly noteworthy. Artificial chromosomes have been successfully developed to transfer entire biosynthetic pathways between actinomycetes, demonstrating their ability to maintain and express complex genetic information exceeding 150 kb in size [12]. This capability is essential for expressing the large gene clusters encoding complex natural products such as polyketides and non-ribosomal peptides, which often challenge the capacity of conventional heterologous hosts.

Limitations and Challenges

Despite their advantages, native actinomycete hosts present significant challenges for natural product synthesis research. Genetic manipulation of actinomycetes remains more time-consuming and technically demanding compared to model heterologous hosts like E. coli and S. cerevisiae [11]. Their slow growth rates, complex morphologies, and often poorly characterized genetics can hinder high-throughput engineering approaches. Additionally, the very same native regulatory networks that provide advantages for coordinated expression can also suppress production under laboratory conditions or make metabolic fluxes difficult to redirect [14].

The native physiology of actinomycetes introduces additional challenges for industrial-scale production. Their filamentous growth creates complex rheological properties in fermenters, impacting oxygen transfer and mixing efficiency. Many actinomycetes also produce multiple secondary metabolites simultaneously, complicating downstream purification processes. Furthermore, the genetic instability observed in some streptomycetes, particularly regarding the loss of antibiotic production capabilities, presents challenges for maintaining production consistency in industrial settings [9].

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Strategies for Activating Cryptic Gene Clusters

Several experimental approaches have been developed to access the silent metabolic potential of actinomycetes by activating cryptic biosynthetic gene clusters. One of the most effective methods involves the manipulation of regulatory genes, either through overexpression of pathway-specific activators or deletion of repressors [9]. This approach requires prior identification of the relevant regulatory elements, which can be achieved through comparative genomics, transcriptomics, or targeted gene disruption studies.

Co-cultivation of actinomycetes with other microorganisms represents another powerful strategy for cluster activation. This method simulates natural microbial interactions that may trigger defensive metabolite production. For example, co-culturing Streptomyces species with fungal pathogens has been shown to induce the production of antifungal compounds that are not detected in axenic cultures [10]. Similarly, the addition of signaling molecules or microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs) can mimic microbial interactions and activate silent pathways.

Environmental simulation approaches seek to recreate the specific conditions under which cryptic clusters are naturally expressed. This may involve cultivating actinomycetes under nutrient limitation, oxidative stress, or specific pH conditions that mirror their native habitats [10] [15]. For marine-derived actinomycetes, simulation of oceanic conditions including salinity, pressure, and temperature has proven effective for activating unique metabolic pathways [9].

Genetic Tools for Pathway Manipulation

Advanced genetic tools have dramatically enhanced our ability to manipulate native actinomycete hosts for natural product research and production. The development of CRISPR/Cas9 systems specifically optimized for actinomycetes has enabled efficient genome editing, including gene knockouts, point mutations, and promoter replacements [9]. These tools facilitate both the dissection of biosynthetic pathways and the engineering of strains for improved production.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Natural Product Discovery in Actinomycetes. This workflow outlines the key steps in identifying, activating, and engineering biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) in native actinomycete hosts, integrating bioinformatic, analytical, and genetic approaches.

Artificial chromosome vectors have been developed for transferring large biosynthetic gene clusters between actinomycete strains. These E. coli-Streptomyces shuttle artificial chromosomes enable the mobilization of entire pathways from intractable wild isolates into well-characterized laboratory hosts that are more amenable to genetic manipulation and fermentation [12]. This approach has been particularly valuable for accessing the biosynthetic potential of rare or difficult-to-culture actinomycetes.

Promoter engineering represents another key genetic strategy for enhancing natural product yields in native hosts. The replacement of native promoters with strong, inducible systems such as the nitrilase promoter (PnitA) or the tipA promoter has enabled hyperinducible expression of biosynthetic pathways, resulting in production levels exceeding 400 mg/L in some cases [11]. Similarly, the engineering of ribosomal binding sites and codon optimization can significantly improve the expression of specific pathway components.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Actinomycete Research

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Experimental Context
Expression Vectors	pIJ系列, pSET152, Artificial Chromosomes	Gene expression, gene knockout, heterologous expression	Genetic manipulation of actinomycetes [12] [11]
Inducible Promoters	tipA, PnitA, actI/actIII	Tightly regulated gene expression	Hyperinducible expression systems [11]
Gene Editing Systems	CRISPR/Cas9, SceI meganuclease	Targeted genome editing	Specific gene knockout, promoter replacement [9]
Selective Markers	Apramycin, Thiostrepton, Kanamycin	Selection of recombinant strains	Selection after genetic manipulation [11]
Specialized Media	ISP Media, R2YE, SFM	Actinomycete cultivation and sporulation	Isolation, fermentation, genetic manipulation [15]
Signal Molecules	A-Factor, γ-butyrolactones	Elicitation of silent BGCs	Activation of cryptic metabolic pathways [14]
Enzyme Inhibitors	Protease inhibitors, Phosphatase inhibitors	Protection of native proteins and metabolites	Metabolic analysis, enzyme characterization [11]
Cholest-5-ene-3,25-diol	Cholest-5-ene-3,25-diol, MF:C27H46O2, MW:402.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Lucidin3-O-glucoside	Lucidin3-O-glucoside, MF:C21H20O10, MW:432.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

This toolkit enables researchers to manipulate actinomycetes at genetic, metabolic, and regulatory levels, facilitating the discovery and production of novel natural products. The continued development of specialized reagents, particularly those enabling high-efficiency genetic manipulation in non-model actinomycetes, remains an active area of research that is critical for advancing the field.

Actinomycetes as native hosts represent unparalleled natural architects of complex secondary metabolites, possessing inherent capabilities and sophisticated regulatory networks refined through evolutionary history. Their extensive enzymatic repertoire, native precursor supply, and coordinated regulatory systems provide distinct advantages for the biosynthesis of complex natural products that often challenge engineered heterologous hosts. While genetic manipulation challenges persist, advanced tools including CRISPR/Cas9 systems, artificial chromosomes, and promoter engineering approaches are rapidly overcoming these limitations.

The future of actinomycete research lies in leveraging our growing understanding of their native regulatory networks to activate silent biosynthetic potential and optimize production systems. Integration of multi-omics approaches with synthetic biology tools will enable deeper insights into the complex interplay between regulation, metabolism, and natural product synthesis in these remarkable microorganisms. As antibiotic resistance continues to pose serious threats to global health, unlocking the full biosynthetic potential of actinomycetes through sophisticated manipulation of their native capabilities remains an urgent research priority with profound implications for drug discovery and development.

In the realm of synthetic biology and natural product synthesis, the selection of an appropriate microbial host is paramount. Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Streptomyces species have emerged as predominant chassis organisms, each offering a distinct set of advantages and limitations. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of these three hosts, focusing on their performance in producing valuable compounds such as antibiotics, terpenoids, and recombinant proteins. The analysis encompasses their inherent metabolic capabilities, genetic tractability, and scalability, supported by experimental data and established protocols to aid researchers in making an informed selection for their specific applications.

The heterologous production of natural products and recombinant proteins is a cornerstone of modern industrial and pharmaceutical biotechnology. An ideal host should exhibit robust growth, genetic stability, straightforward engineering, and the innate cellular machinery to support the synthesis and often the secretion of complex molecules. While no universal host exists, three microbial workhorses have proven exceptionally capable: the Gram-negative bacterium E. coli, the eukaryotic yeast S. cerevisiae, and the Gram-positive, filamentous Streptomyces species.

E. coli is celebrated for its rapid growth and well-characterized genetics. S. cerevisiae, as a eukaryote, offers post-translational modifications and is generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Streptomyces, renowned as native producers of over half of all known antibiotics, possess a specialized metabolism highly conducive to the synthesis and export of complex secondary metabolites. The choice among them hinges on the specific requirements of the target product, necessitating a clear understanding of their comparative strengths and weaknesses.

Comparative Host Characteristics and Performance Data

The fundamental characteristics and performance metrics of E. coli, S. cerevisiae, and Streptomyces hosts are summarized in the table below, providing a snapshot of their capabilities based on compiled experimental data.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Model Heterologous Hosts

Feature	Escherichia coli	Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Streptomyces species
Organism Type	Gram-negative bacterium	Unicellular eukaryote (Yeast)	Gram-positive, filamentous bacterium
Typical Product Classes	Terpenoids, higher alcohols, L-Tryptophan, recombinant proteins [16] [17] [18]	Terpenoids, higher alcohols, L-Tryptophan, ethanol [16] [19] [17]	Antibiotics, enzymes, recombinant proteins [20] [21] [22]
Key Advantages	Rapid growth, high yield, extensive genetic tools, well-understood physiology [16] [17]	GRAS status, subcellular compartmentalization, expresses P450 enzymes, robust [23] [18]	Native secondary metabolite producer, high secretion capacity, correct folding of large enzymes [20] [21] [22]
Major Limitations	Inclusion body formation, lack of secretion, endotoxin production [22]	Lower yields for some pathways, hyper-glycosylation, complex central metabolism [17] [22]	Slow growth, complex morphology, genetic manipulation can be challenging [20] [24]
Representative Product Yield	IPP (Terpenoid precursor): High theoretical yield via DXP pathway [23]	IPP (Terpenoid precursor): Lower theoretical yield via MVA pathway on glucose [23]	Actinorhodin: ~2-fold increase with morphological engineering [24]
Secretion Capacity	Poor; periplasmic accumulation or intracellular inclusion bodies [22]	Moderate; can be retained in periplasm [22]	High; natural and efficient protein secretion system [20] [22]
Genetic Tools	Extensive and sophisticated	Extensive and sophisticated	Available, but less developed than for E. coli and yeast [20]

In-depth Performance Analysis in Key Applications

Precursor Supply for Terpenoid Biosynthesis

Terpenoids represent a vast class of valuable natural products. E. coli and S. cerevisiae utilize different native pathways for producing the universal terpenoid precursors, isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP). In silico profiling reveals critical differences in their metabolic potential.

E. coli uses the 1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate (DXP) pathway, fed by pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate. In contrast, S. cerevisiae employs the mevalonate (MVA) pathway, which uses acetyl-CoA as a precursor. When glucose is the carbon source, the MVA pathway has a lower potential maximum yield for terpenoid precursors than the DXP pathway because of carbon loss during the formation of acetyl-CoA [23]. This theoretical disadvantage is reflected in practice, where the flexible central metabolism of E. coli often makes it a more productive host for compounds like butanols and propanols [17].

Table 2: Comparative Terpenoid Pathway Analysis in E. coli and S. cerevisiae

Aspect	E. coli (DXP Pathway)	S. cerevisiae (MVA Pathway)
Precursors	Pyruvate + Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate [23]	Acetyl-CoA [23]
Stoichiometry (per IPP)	GAP + PYR + 3 NADPH + 2 ATP → IPP + CO₂ + 3 NADP⁺ + 2 ADP [23]	3 AcCoA + 2 NADPH + 3 ATP → IPP + CO₂ + 2 NADP⁺ + 3 ADP [23]
Carbon Yield on Glucose	Higher potential; less carbon loss [23]	Lower potential; carbon loss in AcCoA formation [23]
Common Engineering Strategies	Overexpression of dxs, idi, ispDF; or introduction of heterologous MVA pathway [23]	Overexpression of truncated HMG1 (feedback-resistant), downregulation of ERG9, expression of upc2-1 [23]
Advantages of Pathway	Higher carbon efficiency from glucose [23]	More amenable to expression of plant P450 enzymes for functionalization [23]

The following diagram illustrates the integration of these pathways into the central metabolism of their respective hosts and key engineering targets.

Production of Antibiotics and Complex Secondary Metabolites

Streptomyces species are the dominant native producers of antibiotics and possess a cellular environment uniquely suited for their synthesis [21]. A significant challenge in the field is that a large proportion of biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) in Streptomyces are "cryptic," meaning they are not expressed under standard laboratory conditions. Coculture with other bacteria, particularly mycolic acid-containing bacteria like Tsukamurella pulmonis, has been shown to be a powerful method to awaken these silent clusters [25].

Key Experimental Protocol: Coculture for Cryptic Metabolite Induction [25]

• Streak the inducer bacterium (e.g., T. pulmonis TP-B0596) on an appropriate agar plate.
• Overlay the Streptomyces strain (e.g., S. lividans TK23) using a soft-agar spore suspension.
• Incubate for 2-3 days at 30°C and observe for pigment production or antibiotic activity zones around the inducer colony.
• Liquid Coculture: Inoculate separate seed cultures of both strains. Transfer a volume of the Streptomyces culture and the inducer culture (e.g., 3:1 ratio) into fresh production medium (e.g., A-3M). Incubate with shaking for up to 7 days. Analyze the broth for metabolite production.

This method successfully induced red pigment production in 88.4% of soil-derived Streptomyces strains when cocultured with T. pulmonis, leading to the discovery of novel antibiotics like alchivemycin A [25].

While E. coli and S. cerevisiae are easier to engineer, they often lack the precursor pools, cofactors, and tailoring enzymes required for functional expression of large, complex BGCs from Streptomyces [20] [21]. Streptomyces hosts like S. albus and S. coelicolor are preferred chassis for heterologous antibiotic production because they naturally possess these necessary components [21].

Recombinant Protein Production and Secretion

The capacity to produce and secrete functional recombinant proteins is critical for industrial enzymes and biopharmaceuticals.

• E. coli: While it can achieve high yields, production is often plagued by the formation of inclusion bodies (misfolded protein aggregates) and an inability to secrete proteins efficiently into the extracellular space. The presence of endotoxins also complicates the purification of therapeutic proteins [22].
• S. cerevisiae: It secretes proteins effectively and can perform eukaryotic post-translational modifications. However, it often suffers from hyper-glycosylation of therapeutic proteins and can retain products in the periplasmic space [22].
• Streptomyces: These bacteria are exceptional secretors, a trait evolved from their saprophytic lifestyle. They offer a powerful protein secretion system, making them ideal for producing enzymes like glycosyl hydrolases, laccases, and lipases [22]. Secretion simplifies downstream processing, promotes correct disulfide bond formation, and avoids intracellular toxicity. For instance, a Streptomyces halstedii phospholipase was produced at levels 60 times higher in S. lividans than in E. coli [22].

Fermentation Performance and Morphological Engineering

A critical, often overlooked aspect in host selection is performance under industrial fermentation conditions.

• Ethanol Production: In side-by-side fermentations of AFEX-pretreated corn stover hydrolysate, S. cerevisiae 424A(LNH-ST) demonstrated superior robustness and was the only strain to effectively co-ferment glucose and xylose in undetoxified, unsupplemented hydrolysate, making it the most relevant for industrial cellulosic ethanol production [19].
• Morphological Engineering of Streptomyces: The natural mycelial growth of Streptomyces causes high broth viscosity, poor oxygen transfer, and slow growth. Controlled expression of the morphogene ssgA has been used to fragment the mycelia, leading to significantly enhanced growth rates and a twofold increase in enzyme yield in S. lividans fermentations [24]. This morphological engineering is a crucial strategy for making Streptomyces more suitable for large-scale processes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Strains

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Strains for Heterologous Expression

Item Name	Function/Application	Relevant Host
pGWS4-SD Plasmid	Vector for controlled overexpression of the ssgA morphogene to improve growth and productivity in fermentations [24]	Streptomyces
Tsukamurella pulmonis TP-B0596	Mycolic acid-containing bacterium used as an inducer strain to activate cryptic natural product BGCs in coculture [25]	Streptomyces
S. albus J1074 Chassis	A minimized-genome Streptomyces strain used for efficient heterologous expression of BGCs with high genetic stability [21]	Streptomyces
E. coli KO11 Strain	Metabolically engineered strain for ethanologenic fermentation of both hexose and pentose sugars [19]	E. coli
S. cerevisiae 424A(LNH-ST) Strain	Metabolically engineered strain for co-fermentation of glucose and xylose in lignocellulosic hydrolysates [19]	S. cerevisiae
A-3M Medium	Defined production medium used for secondary metabolite production in combined-culture experiments [25]	Streptomyces
Hydrocodone N-Oxide	Hydrocodone N-Oxide, MF:C18H21NO4, MW:315.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Butyloctylmagnesium	Butyloctylmagnesium | Organomagnesium Reagent for Research	Butyloctylmagnesium is a key precursor for Ziegler-Natta catalysts. This solution is For Research Use Only (RUO); not for diagnostic or human use.

The choice between E. coli, S. cerevisiae, and Streptomyces is not a matter of identifying a superior host, but of matching the host's strengths to the project's goals.

• Choose E. coli when targeting high-volume, simpler natural products like terpenoids or organic acids, where rapid growth, high yields, and extensive genetic tools are the priority, and where post-translational modifications or secretion are not required.
• Choose S. cerevisiae for eukaryotic proteins requiring basic post-translational modifications, for pathways involving P450 enzymes, or for fermentation processes where its robustness and GRAS status are critical, such as in food or pharmaceutical applications.
• Choose Streptomyces for the expression of complex antibiotics and other secondary metabolites, especially when the BGCs are large, GC-rich, or require specific tailoring enzymes. It is also the host of choice for the industrial secretion of hydrolytic enzymes.

Future advancements will rely on continued metabolic engineering and the development of sophisticated tools to further refine these already powerful microbial chassis, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in natural product synthesis.

The selection of an optimal microbial host is a critical first step in the successful engineering of strains for the synthesis of natural products, therapeutic proteins, and other high-value compounds. This decision fundamentally shapes the experimental trajectory, influencing the complexity of genetic engineering required, the ultimate functionality of the product, and the feasibility of industrial-scale production. Within this framework, three technical criteria emerge as paramount: precursor availability, which dictates the host's innate metabolic capacity to support the desired pathway; post-translational modification (PTM) capabilities, which determine the ability to produce correctly folded and functional eukaryotic proteins; and scalability, which encompasses the host's robustness and productivity in large-scale fermentation. This guide provides a comparative analysis of common microbial hosts—Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Bacillus subtilis—against these criteria, supported by experimental data and methodologies relevant to research scientists and drug development professionals.

Comparative Analysis of Microbial Hosts

The table below provides a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the most commonly employed microbial hosts based on the three key selection criteria.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

Host Organism	Precursor Availability & Metabolic Strength	Post-Translational Modification Capabilities	Scalability & Typical Product Yield	Ideal Application Scope
Escherichia coli	- Amino Acids & Organic Acids: Excellent; simple, well-defined media [26].- Sugar Nucleotides (e.g., UDP-galactose): Good; robust endogenous pathways, can be enhanced to achieve concentrations supporting synthesis at ~50 mM [27].- Aromatic Precursors: Moderate; requires pathway engineering.	- PTM Support: Very limited natively [26].- Disulfide Bonds: Achievable with engineered strains (e.g., Origami, CyDisCo) [26].- Phosphorylation, Acetylation, Glycosylation: Requires extensive co-expression of foreign enzymes (e.g., JNK1, glycosylation clusters) [26].- Lacks eukaryotic-type glycosylation.	- Scalability: Excellent; high-density fermentation well-established [26].- Protein Yield: Can dedicate up to 40% of dry cell weight to recombinant protein [26].- Process Cost: Low.	Non-glycosylated proteins, enzymes, small molecule natural products, membrane proteins (with specialized strains).
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	- Acetyl-CoA & Isoprenoids: Good; native mevalonate pathway [28].- Lipids & Sterols: Excellent.- GDP-fucose: Moderate; engineered pathways reported yields of ~0.2 mg/L [27].	- PTM Support: Broad; native eukaryotic machinery [26].- N-Glycosylation: Yes, but high-mannose type; humanization requires engineering.- Disulfide Bonds, Phosphorylation, Acetylation: Supported.	- Scalability: Good; established industrial fermentation.- Robustness: High tolerance to low pH and organic solvents [28].- Protein Yield: Generally lower than E. coli.	Glycosylated proteins, secretory pathways, complex eukaryotic enzymes, biofuels.
Bacillus subtilis	- Amino Acids & Vitamins: Excellent; high secretion capacity.- Nucleotide Sugars: Moderate.	- PTM Support: Limited; prokaryote, but Gram-positive.- Disulfide Bonds: Can be supported.- Protease Activity: High; often requires knockout strains (e.g., WB600) [26].	- Scalability: Excellent; used in large-scale industrial enzyme production.- Secretion: High efficiency of protein secretion simplifies downstream processing.- Process Cost: Low.	Industrial enzymes, antigens, non-glycosylated secreted proteins.

Experimental Protocols for Host Evaluation

To objectively assess a host against the key criteria, the following experimental protocols can be employed.

Protocol for Quantifying Precursor Availability

Aim: To measure the intracellular pool of a key precursor, such as UDP-glucose, in engineered E. coli [27].

• Principle: Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) provides the sensitivity and specificity required to quantify charged metabolic intermediates from a cellular extract.
• Methodology:
  • Culture & Harvest: Grow the engineered strain in a defined medium to mid-exponential phase. Rapidly harvest cells via vacuum filtration or centrifugation at -20°C to immediately quench metabolism.
  • Metabolite Extraction: Lyse the cell pellet using a cold methanol-water extraction buffer (e.g., 40:40:20 methanol:acetonitrile:water) to precipitate proteins and extract metabolites.
  • LC-MS Analysis:
    • Chromatography: Use a reverse-phase (e.g., C18) or HILIC column for separation. A water-acetonitrile gradient with volatile buffers like ammonium acetate is typical.
    • Mass Spectrometry: Operate the mass spectrometer in negative ionization mode for sugar nucleotides. Use Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) for high sensitivity, targeting specific mass transitions for UDP-glucose.
  • Quantification: Generate a standard curve using pure UDP-glucose to calculate the absolute concentration in the cell extract, normalized to cell dry weight or total protein.

Protocol for Assessing PTM Capability (e.g., Glycosylation)

Aim: To evaluate the functionality of a glycosylation pathway engineered into E. coli [26].

• Principle: A combination of a lectin blot and mass spectrometry confirms the attachment and basic structure of the glycans on the target recombinant protein.
• Methodology:
  • Protein Expression & Purification: Express the target protein in the engineered E. coli strain harboring the heterologous glycosylation system (e.g., the pgl cluster from Campylobacter jejuni). Purify the protein using affinity chromatography.
  • Lectin Blot Analysis:
    • Separate the purified protein via SDS-PAGE and transfer to a membrane.
    • Probe the membrane with a conjugated lectin (e.g., Concanavalin A for mannose-type glycans). Chemiluminescent detection indicates successful glycosylation.
  • Mass Spectrometric Validation:
    • Digest the glycosylated protein with trypsin.
    • Analyze the peptides/glycopeptides using LC-MS/MS. The observed mass shift of the peptide corresponds to the mass of the attached glycan. Tandem MS can fragment the glycan to elucidate its structure.

Protocol for Evaluating Scalability in a Bioreactor

Aim: To determine the maximum biomass and product titer of an engineered E. coli strain under controlled, scalable conditions [29].

• Principle: Fed-batch fermentation allows for the high-cell-density cultivation of microbes by controlled nutrient feeding, mimicking industrial production.
• Methodology:
  • Bioreactor Setup: A bench-top bioreactor (e.g., 5 L) is equipped with controls for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, temperature, and agitation.
  • Fermentation Process:
    • Batch Phase: Begin with a rich medium. As the carbon source (e.g., glucose) is depleted, indicated by a spike in DO, initiate the feed.
    • Fed-Batch Phase: Initiate an exponential feed of a concentrated nutrient feed (e.g., 50% glucose w/v, with salts) to maintain a desired specific growth rate and prevent overflow metabolism.
    • Induction: Induce recombinant protein expression typically at mid-to-late exponential phase.
  • Analytics: Periodically sample the broth to measure optical density (OD600), dry cell weight (DCW), and product titer (e.g., via HPLC or ELISA). The final DCW and product concentration are the key scalability metrics.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key reagents and tools for engineering and evaluating microbial hosts.

Table 2: The Scientist's Toolkit for Host Engineering and Analysis

Reagent / Tool	Function & Application	Example Use Case
CRISPR-Cas9 System	Enables precise genome editing for gene knockouts, knock-ins, and regulatory element engineering [30].	Integrating a heterologous biosynthetic gene cluster into the host chromosome [30].
dCas9-based CRISPRi/a	Provides programmable transcriptional repression (CRISPRi) or activation (CRISPRa) without altering the DNA sequence, used for fine-tuning metabolic pathways [28].	Knocking down multiple phosphatase genes to enhance lycopene yield in E. coli [28].
Specialized E. coli Strains	Engineered chassis with specific functionalities for difficult-to-express proteins [26].	- Origami strain: for cytoplasmic disulfide bond formation [26].- Rosetta strain: supplies rare tRNAs to alleviate codon bias [26].
Synthetic Promoter/RBS Libraries	Provides a set of genetic parts with characterized and varying strengths to control the expression level of pathway genes [31].	Optimizing the expression balance of multiple enzymes in a synthetic pathway to maximize flux and minimize metabolic burden.
Metabolomics Standards	Certified reference compounds for LC-MS/MS, essential for accurate absolute quantification of intracellular metabolites [27].	Quantifying the intracellular concentration of UDP-galactose in a metabolically engineered strain [27].

Critical Pathways and Engineering Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the core PTMs and a systematic host evaluation workflow.

Key Post-Translational Modification Pathways

This diagram visualizes three of the most significant PTMs, highlighting their molecular components and functional impacts.

Microbial Host Selection and Engineering Workflow

This flowchart outlines a systematic, iterative decision-making process for selecting and optimizing a microbial host.

The comparative analysis underscores that no single microbial host is universally superior. The selection is a strategic decision based on the target product's specific characteristics. Escherichia coli remains the workhorse for non-glycosylated products where high yield and scalability are paramount. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the default choice for proteins requiring eukaryotic PTMs, albeit with consideration for its non-human glycosylation. Bacillus subtilis offers distinct advantages for the secretion of industrial enzymes. As synthetic biology tools advance, the trend is moving toward the rational design of specialized, minimal chassis that are precisely tailored for specific applications, thereby blurring the lines between natural innate capabilities and engineered performance [26]. This guide provides the foundational criteria and experimental framework for researchers to make an informed initial selection and pursue a systematic engineering strategy.

Engineering the Cellular Factory: Tools and Strategies for Pathway Implementation

The efficient production of natural products (NPs) and recombinant proteins in microbial hosts is a cornerstone of modern industrial and pharmaceutical biotechnology. Success in these endeavors hinges on the availability of sophisticated genetic toolkits that enable precise control over gene expression. Actinomycetes, particularly Streptomyces species, are Gram-positive bacteria renowned for their unparalleled capacity to produce a vast array of bioactive secondary metabolites, including antibiotics, chemotherapeutics, and immunosuppressants [32] [3]. Their genomes are treasure troves of biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs), yet a significant challenge persists: many of these BGCs are silent or cryptic under standard laboratory conditions, and production titers of known compounds are often low [33] [32] [34].

Overcoming these hurdles requires advanced synthetic biology approaches centered on well-characterized genetic control elements. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these essential tools—promoters, ribosomal binding sites (RBSs), and inducible systems—for actinomycetes and other common hosts. It is structured within the broader thesis of selecting and optimizing microbial chassis for NP synthesis, providing researchers with objective performance data and detailed methodologies to streamline their genetic engineering efforts.

Constitutive Promoter Library: A Comparative Strength Analysis

Promoters are the key regulators of gene expression, and a library of well-characterized constitutive promoters is indispensable for fine-tuning metabolic pathways. Constitutive promoters provide constant transcriptional activity, making them ideal for driving the expression of biosynthetic genes without the need for external inducers. The strength of a promoter is a primary determinant of the expression level of a target gene, and comparing this strength quantitatively is crucial for rational design.

Quantitative Comparison of Promoter Strength

The activity of promoters is typically measured using reporter genes, such as xylE (encoding catechol 2,3-dioxygenase) or gusA (encoding β-glucuronidase). The table below summarizes the performance of several key promoters in Streptomyces albus J1074, a common heterologous host, providing a clear basis for comparison.

Table 1: Comparison of Constitutive Promoter Strength in Streptomyces albus J1074

Promoter Name	Origin / Type	Reported Strength (XylE Activity, U/mg)	Relative Strength vs. ermEp*	Key Characteristics
stnYp	Streptomyces flocculus	~200 (at 24 h) [35]	~1.6x stronger [35]	Strong, constitutive; conserved -10 (TAGCAT) and -35 (TTGGCG) motifs [35]
SP44	Synthetic (engineered from kasOp*) [35]	~125 (at 24 h) [35]	~1.2x stronger [35]	One of the strongest engineered synthetic promoters [35]
kasOp*	Streptomyces coelicolor (engineered) [35]	~105 (at 24 h) [35]	Baseline (for this comparison)	Engineered SARP family regulator promoter [35]
ermEp*	Saccharopolyspora erythraea (engineered) [36] [35]	~80 (at 24 h) [35]	Baseline	Widely used, derived from ermE with a TGG deletion [36] [35]
P72	Synthetic (weakest in its library) [37]	N/A (Used as a weak baseline)	N/A	Used to measure even small changes in translation efficiency [37]

Experimental Protocol: Promoter Strength Assay Using XylE

Objective: To quantitatively measure and compare the strength of constitutive promoters in a Streptomyces host. Principle: The promoter of interest is cloned upstream of the promoterless xylE gene. The enzyme catechol 2,3-dioxygenase converts the colorless substrate catechol into a yellow product, 2-hydroxymuconic semialdehyde, which can be quantified spectrophotometrically. The rate of this reaction is directly proportional to promoter strength [35].

Materials:

• Reporter Plasmid: pDR3 or similar integrative vector with a multiple cloning site upstream of a promoterless xylE gene [35].
• Host Strain: S. albus J1074 or other genetically tractable Streptomyces.
• Culture Medium: Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) or another appropriate medium.
• Substrate: 0.5 M Catechol solution (in water).
• Spectrophotometer.

Method:

• Cloning: Amplify the promoter sequence (e.g., ~339 bp for native stnYp) and clone it into the reporter plasmid. Sequence the construct to verify integrity.
• Strain Construction: Introduce the verified plasmid into the host strain via intergeneric conjugation from E. coli ET12567/pUZ8002 [35]. Select exconjugants on apramycin-containing medium.
• Cultivation and Harvest: Inoculate 25 mL of TSB medium with spores or mycelium and incubate at 30°C, 220 rpm. Harvest mycelial samples by centrifugation during the exponential (e.g., 24 h) and stationary (e.g., 48 h, 72 h) growth phases.
• Cell Extract Preparation: Wash the cell pellets and disrupt them by sonication or glass bead milling in a suitable buffer (e.g., 50 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.0). Clarify the lysate by centrifugation to obtain a soluble cell-free extract.
• Enzyme Assay:
  • Dilute the cell extract appropriately.
  • In a cuvette, mix 950 µL of 50 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.5) and 50 µL of cell extract.
  • Start the reaction by adding 10 µL of 0.5 M catechol.
  • Immediately measure the increase in absorbance at 375 nm (A₃₇₅) for 2-3 minutes.
• Calculation:
  • One unit of XylE activity is defined as the amount of enzyme that produces 1 μmol of 2-hydroxymuconic semialdehyde per minute (ε₃₇₅ = 44,000 M⁻¹cm⁻¹).
  • Calculate the specific activity: (ΔA₃₇₅/min × Total assay volume × Dilution factor) / (44,000 × Volume of extract × Protein concentration).
  • Normalize the protein concentration in the extract using a standard assay (e.g., Bradford) [35].

Ribosomal Binding Sites (RBSs) and Terminators: Fine-Tuning at the Translational Level

While promoters control transcription, the efficiency of translation initiation is a critical, and often rate-limiting, step in protein synthesis. In bacteria, this is largely governed by the Ribosomal Binding Site (RBS).

RBS Engineering and Evaluation

The sequence surrounding the Shine-Dalgarno (SD) domain (GGAGG) profoundly influences translation efficiency in actinomycetes. Inappropriate RBSs can reduce protein yield to zero, highlighting the need for careful selection [37].

Key Findings:

• Context Matters: Nucleotides up to 10 bp upstream and 6 bp downstream of the SD sequence can dramatically alter translation efficiency. AT-rich regions around the SD tend to provide better translation levels [37].
• In vivo RBS-Selector: A genetic tool has been developed to select an optimal synthetic RBS for any gene of interest. This method involves creating a library of randomly synthesized RBSs fused to a reporter gene (e.g., gusA) and selecting clones based on the desired expression level [37].
• Prediction Limitations: Online tools like UTR Designer and RBS Calculator do not always accurately predict expression levels in actinomycetes, underscoring the importance of empirical testing [37].

Strong Intrinsic Terminators

Terminators are essential for insulating transcriptional units, preventing read-through, and ensuring efficient transcription termination. A library of strong intrinsic terminators for Streptomyces has been developed, leading to a 17–100-fold reduction in downstream expression. Using terminators with sufficient sequence diversity also minimizes homologous recombination, enhancing genetic stability in synthetic operons [37].

Inducible Systems and Dynamic Regulation

Beyond static control, advanced engineering strategies employ dynamic regulation that responds to metabolic states, allowing for autonomous balancing of cell growth and product synthesis.

Metabolite-Responsive Promoters

These are native promoters that are induced by specific metabolites, often intermediates or end-products of a biosynthetic pathway. For example, the actAB promoter in S. coelicolor is induced by actinorhodin and its intermediates, creating a positive feedback loop that synergistically regulates biosynthesis and export [32].

Biosensors for Natural Product-Specific Regulation

Biosensors are genetically encoded devices that detect intracellular metabolites and link this sensing to a genetic output. A notable example is the pamamycin biosensor:

• Components: The system is built from the pathway's cluster-situated regulator (CSR), PamR2 (a TetR-like repressor), and its associated promoter.
• Mechanism: In the absence of pamamycin, PamR2 represses the pamW promoter. When pamamycin binds to PamR2, it derepresses the promoter.
• Application: The pamW promoter was used to control a kanamycin resistance gene. After mutagenesis, selecting for resistance to high kanamycin concentrations successfully enriched for pamamycin overproducers, increasing titers from 15-16 mg/L to 30 mg/L [32].

Table 2: Comparison of Key Genetic Regulation Strategies

Strategy	Mechanism	Key Features	Example Application
Constitutive Promoters	Continuous transcriptional drive.	Simple, no inducer needed; strength must be matched to gene.	Driving entire refactored BGCs for compound production [35].
Metabolite-Responsive Promoters	Induced by pathway intermediates/products.	Autonomous, dynamic control; can create positive feedback.	Fine-tuning the oxytetracycline BGC in S. coelicolor [32].
TF-Based Biosensors	Repressor/Anti-repressor binds metabolite to control output.	Enables high-throughput screening of overproducing mutants.	Selection of pamamycin-overproducing Streptomyces strains [32].
Inducible Systems (tipA, nitA)	Induced by exogenous additives (thiostrepton, ε-caprolactam).	Tight regulation, high induction ratios; requires inducer cost.	Hyperinducible expression of recombinant proteins in S. lividans [11].

Experimental Workflow and Pathway Engineering Logic

The genetic tools described are integrated into a rational workflow for activating and optimizing natural product biosynthesis. The following diagram visualizes this multi-step engineering logic.

Diagram 1: Logical workflow for the activation and optimization of biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs), highlighting critical decision points and the integration of key genetic tools.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table catalogs crucial reagents and tools required for executing the genetic engineering strategies discussed in this guide.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Actinomycete Genetic Engineering

Reagent / Tool Name	Function	Specific Example / Note
Reporter Plasmids	Quantifying promoter/part activity.	pDR3 (for xylE assay) [35]; GusA-based vectors [36].
Integration Vectors	Stable chromosomal integration of constructs.	phiC31-based plasmids (e.g., pSET152) for site-specific integration [36].
Constitutive Promoter Library	Fine-tuned transcriptional control.	Library including stnYp, SP44, kasOp, ermEp for strength gradation [35].
Inducible Expression System	Tightly controlled, high-level protein expression.	Vectors with PnitA (induced by ε-caprolactam) [11] or PtipA (induced by thiostrepton) [11].
In vivo RBS-Selector Kit	Empirical identification of optimal RBS.	Tool for selecting best-performing RBS for any GOI from a random library [37].
Strong Terminator Library	Transcriptional insulation of genetic parts.	Library of diverse, strong intrinsic terminators to prevent read-through [37].
CRISPR-Cas9 Tools	Multiplex genome editing (deletions, insertions, point mutations).	Tools for gene knockout, promoter replacement, and activation of silent clusters [32].
2-Acridinecarboxylic acid	2-Acridinecarboxylic acid, CAS:54328-73-3, MF:C14H9NO2, MW:223.23 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
1,2,5-Trichloronaphthalene	1,2,5-Trichloronaphthalene (PCN-15)|CAS 55720-33-7

Concluding Remarks

The strategic selection and application of genetic parts—from strong constitutive promoters like stnYp to dynamic biosensors—are fundamental to unlocking the biosynthetic potential of actinomycetes. Quantitative comparisons reveal that while classic tools like ermEp* remain useful, newly characterized and engineered parts can offer significant performance enhancements. The experimental data and protocols consolidated in this guide provide a framework for researchers to make informed decisions in host selection and engineering. As synthetic biology matures, the expansion of these toolkits, integrated with advanced genome editing and systems-level analysis, will undoubtedly accelerate the discovery and scalable production of valuable natural products.

Biosynthetic Gene Cluster (BGC) Refactoring and Heterologous Expression

Microbial natural products (NPs) are of paramount importance in human medicine, animal health, and plant crop protection, serving as a key source for most antibacterial and anticancer drugs [38] [39]. Large-scale microbial genome and metagenomic mining has revealed tremendous biosynthetic potential to produce new NPs, yet a majority of NP biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) remain functionally inaccessible under standard laboratory conditions [38] [40]. BGC refactoring—the process of genetically reconstructing native gene clusters for optimized expression—combined with heterologous expression in surrogate microbial hosts provides a powerful synthetic biology approach to overcome these limitations, enabling NP discovery, yield optimization, and combinatorial biosynthesis studies [38] [40] [41]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of microbial host platforms, detailing their performance characteristics, experimental methodologies, and practical applications for researchers engaged in natural product synthesis.

Comparative Analysis of Heterologous Host Platforms

The selection of an appropriate heterologous host is critical for successful natural product biosynthesis. Different host organisms offer distinct advantages and limitations based on their genetic background, metabolic capacity, and compatibility with target BGCs.

Table 1: Comparison of Major Microbial Host Platforms for BGC Heterologous Expression

Host Organism	Optimal BGC Sources	Key Advantages	Documented Limitations	Notable Successes
Streptomyces spp. (e.g., S. coelicolor)	Actinobacteria, GC-rich clusters	High GC compatibility; innate metabolic capacity for secondary metabolism; sophisticated regulatory networks; well-established fermentation [42]	Relatively slow growth; complex genetic manipulation compared to simpler bacteria [42]	Production of oviedomycin at 670 mg/L after comprehensive engineering [41]
Escherichia coli	Simple bacterial clusters, Type I PKS	Rapid growth; extensive genetic tools; well-characterized metabolism; high transformation efficiency [39] [43]	Lack of essential precursors for complex natural products; poor compatibility with GC-rich DNA [42] [39]	Caffeic acid production (6.17 g/L); simple terpenoids and phenylpropanoids [43]
Streptococcus mutans UA159	Anaerobic bacteria, Firmicutes	Facultative anaerobe; natural competence for DNA uptake; suitable for oxygen-sensitive pathways [44]	Limited to phylogenetically related clusters; potentially pathogenic [44]	Discovery of mutanocyclin from oral bacteria BGCs [44]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Fungal clusters, eukaryotic pathways	Eukaryotic protein processing; organelle compartmentalization; strong tolerance to secondary metabolites [42] [43]	Difficulties with bacterial promoter recognition; codon usage differences; inefficient uptake of large DNA fragments [42]	Caffeic acid production; complex plant-derived metabolites [43]

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics of Host Systems in Natural Product Production

Host System	Max Reported BGC Size Expressed	Typical Titers Achievable	Time to Product Detection	Genetic Modification Efficiency
Streptomyces spp.	>200 kb [39]	Variable: 1-670 mg/L depending on optimization [41]	3-7 days [42] [41]	Moderate: requires specialized techniques [42] [41]
E. coli	~50 kb [39]	High for optimized pathways (g/L scale) [43]	1-3 days [39]	High: extensive toolbox available [39]
S. mutans UA159	73.7 kb (via multiple rounds) [44]	Not widely quantified	1-2 days [44]	Moderate: natural competence facilitates DNA uptake [44]
S. cerevisiae	~100 kb [39]	Variable: mg/L to g/L depending on pathway [43]	2-5 days [39]	Moderate-High: well-developed eukaryotic tools [39]

Among these platforms, Streptomyces species have emerged as the most widely used and versatile chassis for expressing complex BGCs from diverse microbial origins [42]. Analysis of over 450 peer-reviewed studies published between 2004 and 2024 reveals a clear preference for Streptomyces hosts, particularly for expressing BGCs from actinobacterial sources [42]. This preference stems from several intrinsic advantages: genomic compatibility (high GC content), proven metabolic capacity for complex polyketides and non-ribosomal peptides, advanced regulatory systems, tolerant physiology that withstands cytotoxic compounds, and established scalability for industrial fermentation [42].

Experimental Protocols for BGC Refactoring and Expression

Successful heterologous production of natural products involves a multi-stage workflow encompassing BGC isolation, genetic refactoring, host transformation, and metabolic engineering.

BGC Capture and Isolation Methods

Several molecular techniques have been developed for cloning large BGCs, each with distinct advantages and limitations:

Table 3: Comparison of BGC Cloning and Isolation Methods

Method	Principle	Maximum Insert Size	Efficiency	Key Applications
Cosmid/Fosmid Libraries	Sequence-independent whole genome cloning in E. coli	~40 kb [39]	Moderate: BGCs may be split across multiple clones [39]	Early-stage BGC cloning; metagenomic libraries [39]
BAC/PAC Libraries	Direct transfer of high molecular weight DNA to E. coli	>100 kb [39]	Technically challenging but stable for large inserts [39]	Large modular PKS/NRPS systems (e.g., quinolidomicin A1, 200 kb) [39]
Transformation-Associated Recombination (TAR)	Yeast homologous recombination of target regions with vector	~40 kb per round [39]	High fidelity; can be technically challenging [39]	Direct cloning from gDNA; refactoring during capture [40] [39]
Cas9-Assisted Targeting (CATCH)	CRISPR/Cas9-mediated in vitro excision of target regions	~100 kb [39]	Streamlined in vitro approach; requires careful gDNA preparation [39]	Targeted cloning from cultured organisms [39]
Natural competence-based cloning (NabLC)	Exploits natural DNA uptake machinery of host	~40 kb per round [44]	Highly efficient for compatible hosts; multiple rounds for larger clusters [44]	Cloning BGCs directly into Streptococcus hosts [44]

BGC Refactoring Methodologies

Refactoring involves rewriting genetic elements within a BGC to optimize expression and control in heterologous hosts. Key strategies include:

Promoter Engineering: Replacement of native promoters with well-characterized constitutive or inducible promoters to disrupt native regulatory networks and activate silent BGCs. Common promoter options include ermE*, kasOp, and synthetic variants with defined activity profiles [42] [40]. A recent study demonstrated the utility of completely randomized regulatory sequences (promoter and RBS regions) to generate highly orthogonal elements for multiplex promoter engineering [40].

CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Refactoring: The CRISPR/Cas9 system enables precise genome editing for BGC refactoring. Both in vivo and in vitro approaches have been successfully implemented:

In vitro CRISPR/Cas9 protocol for promoter replacement (as demonstrated for oviedomycin BGC) [41]:

• Design sgRNAs targeting native promoter regions of essential BGC genes
• Perform Cas9 cleavage of the BGC-containing vector in vitro
• Introduce donor DNA fragments containing strong synthetic promoters (e.g., ermE*)
• Assemble via Gibson assembly or similar methodology
• Verify promoter replacement by sequencing
• Transform refactored construct into heterologous host

This approach enabled a 10.2-fold increase in oviedomycin production by replacing the native ovm01 promoter with ermE* [41].

Advanced Refactoring Techniques: Recent innovations include:

• mCRISTAR (multiplexed CRISPR-based TAR): Simultaneous replacement of up to eight promoters with high efficiency [40]
• Orthogonal Regulatory Elements: Randomized sequences in both promoter and RBS regions to avoid homologous recombination [40]
• Metagenomic Mining of Promoters: Identification of natural 5' regulatory elements with universal host ranges [40]

Host Engineering Strategies

Optimizing heterologous hosts through metabolic engineering significantly enhances natural product production:

Precursor and Cofactor Enhancement: Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) can identify overexpression targets to enhance precursor supply. In the oviedomycin study, FSEOF (Flux Scanning based on Enforced Objective Flux) analysis identified three key overexpression targets: phosphoserine transaminase (PSERT), methylenetetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase (MTHFD), and acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCOAC), which increased malonyl-CoA and NADPH availability [41].

Implementation of Genetic Toolboxes: Successful heterologous expression requires well-characterized genetic control elements:

• Constitutive and Inducible Promoters: ermEp, kasOp, tetracycline-inducible systems [42]
• Ribosome Binding Sites (RBS): Modular RBS libraries for translation fine-tuning [42]
• Transcriptional Terminators: Well-defined terminators to prevent read-through [42]

The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow for BGC refactoring and heterologous expression:

Diagram 1: Complete workflow for BGC refactoring and heterologous expression, showing key decision points and methodological options at each stage.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of BGC refactoring and heterologous expression requires access to specialized genetic tools, vectors, and biological resources.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for BGC Heterologous Expression

Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application	Key Characteristics
Cloning Vectors	pSET152, pCAP-BAC, BAC/PAC vectors, fungal artificial chromosomes (FACs) [39] [41]	Stable maintenance of large DNA inserts in heterologous hosts	Low-copy number for stability; conjugation-compatible for Streptomyces [39] [41]
Refactoring Tools	CRISPR/Cas9 systems (in vivo and in vitro), Gibson assembly, yeast homologous recombination [40] [41]	Genetic manipulation of BGCs for optimized expression	Enable promoter replacement, multi-gene editing, and pathway optimization [40] [41]
Regulatory Elements	ermE*, kasOp, synthetic promoter libraries, RBS libraries, terminators [42] [40]	Control transcription and translation of refactored BGCs	Constitutive and inducible options; tunable strength; orthogonal function [42] [40]
Host Strains	S. coelicolor M1152, S. albus J1074, E. coli ET12567 (pUZ8002), S. mutans UA159 [42] [41] [44]	Surrogate platforms for BGC expression	Genetically tractable; precursor availability; compatibility with target BGCs [42] [41] [44]
Analytical Tools	HPLC-MS/MS, genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs), antiSMASH, PRISM [40] [41]	Product detection, pathway prediction, and metabolic flux analysis	Enable compound identification and pathway optimization [40] [41]
p-Ethoxyfluoroacetanilide	p-Ethoxyfluoroacetanilide	p-Ethoxyfluoroacetanilide is for research use only. It is a fluoro- and ethoxy-substituted acetanilide building block. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
O-Methylscopolamine	O-Methylscopolamine, MF:C18H23NO4, MW:317.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Case Study: Oviedomycin Overproduction in Streptomyces coelicolor

A comprehensive study demonstrating the integrated application of these methodologies achieved record-level production of oviedomycin, an angucycline polyketide with anticancer activity [41]. The approach combined multiple refactoring and engineering strategies:

• BGC Capture: The oviedomycin (ovm) BGC was captured from Streptomyces antibioticus using a novel low-copy plasmid pCBA (pCAP-BAC-Apr), specifically designed to stabilize large, GC-rich inserts in E. coli [41].

• Promoter Refactoring: Based on transcription analysis revealing low expression of ovm01, its native promoter was replaced with the strong ermE* promoter using in vitro CRISPR/Cas9, resulting in a 10.2-fold production increase (from 1.24 mg/L to 12.71 mg/L) [41].

• Additional Refactoring: Replacement of the native ovmF (phosphopantetheinyl transferase) promoter with kasO*p further doubled production to 24.96 mg/L, highlighting the importance of post-translational activation enzymes [41].

• Host Metabolic Engineering: Genome-scale metabolic modeling identified three key overexpression targets (PSERT, MTHFD, ACCOAC) to enhance malonyl-CoA and NADPH supply. Combined with promoter refactoring, this yielded 670 mg/L oviedomycin—the highest titer reported [41].

The following diagram illustrates the regulatory element engineering process central to BGC refactoring:

Diagram 2: Regulatory element engineering workflow for BGC refactoring, showing the process of identifying and replacing native genetic control elements with optimized synthetic parts.

The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that successful heterologous expression of BGCs depends on strategic pairing of refactoring methodologies with appropriate host platforms. Streptomyces species remain the preferred choice for complex bacterial natural products, particularly those from actinobacterial sources, while specialized hosts like S. mutans offer unique capabilities for anaerobic pathways [42] [44]. The remarkable success in oviedomycin overproduction—achieving 670 mg/L through combined refactoring and metabolic engineering—showcases the power of integrated approaches [41].

Future directions in the field will likely focus on developing more universal host systems with expanded biosynthetic capacity, improving DNA synthesis and assembly methods for larger gene clusters, and creating more sophisticated regulatory toolboxes for precise pathway control [40] [39]. As these technologies mature, heterologous expression will continue to unlock the vast hidden chemical diversity encoded in microbial genomes, fueling drug discovery and natural product development.

Central Metabolic Pathway Engineering to Enhance Precursor Supply

In the competitive landscape of microbial metabolic engineering for natural product synthesis, the efficient supply of central carbon metabolism (CCM)-derived precursors emerges as a pivotal bottleneck. CCM, encompassing glycolysis, the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, and the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP), serves as the fundamental metabolic infrastructure that supplies energy, reducing power, and precursor metabolites for all downstream biosynthesis [45]. The engineering of CCM represents a strategic approach to overcome intrinsic physiological constraints and enhance the production of high-value natural products, including pharmaceuticals, biofuels, and specialty chemicals.

Comparative analysis of microbial hosts reveals species-specific advantages and limitations in precursor supply capabilities. Escherichia coli offers rapid growth and well-established genetic tools, while yeast species such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae provide eukaryotic protein processing machinery and generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status. However, both often require extensive metabolic reprogramming to achieve industrially viable titers of target compounds. This guide provides an objective comparison of central metabolic pathway engineering strategies, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies, to inform host selection and optimization for natural product synthesis.

Comparative Analysis of Engineering Strategies and Host Performance

Engineering Phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) Supply in E. coli

The precursor PEP is crucial for the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and numerous natural products via the shikimic acid pathway. In one comprehensive study, engineers systematically modified an E. coli strain to enhance PEP availability for L-tryptophan production [46].

Key Genetic Modifications and Outcomes: The foundational TRP03 strain, capable of accumulating 35 g/L of tryptophan, underwent targeted optimization of PEP metabolism. Researchers deleted the genes pykA (pyruvate kinase I) and ppc (phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase) to minimize carbon diversion from PEP to pyruvate and oxaloacetate, respectively [46]. To further bolster PEP supply, they overexpressed pck (phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase) to enhance the conversion of oxaloacetic acid back to PEP. These modifications collectively redirected carbon flux toward the shikimic acid pathway.

To address the associated impairment in cell growth—a common challenge when weakening core metabolic pathways—the team upregulated the citric acid transport system and specific TCA cycle genes (acnBA-icD). This compensatory engineering maintained energy metabolism and redox balance. The resulting engineered strain, TRP07, achieved a tryptophan titer of 49 g/L with a yield of 0.186 g/g glucose, representing a 40% increase over the base strain. Key by-products like glutamate and acetic acid were significantly reduced to 0.8 g/L and 2.2 g/L, respectively [46].

Table 1: Performance Metrics of E. coli Strains in Tryptophan Fermentation

Strain	Key Modifications	Titer (g/L)	Yield (g/g glucose)	Key By-products (g/L)
TRP03	ΔtnaA, Δmtr, Ptrc-trpE, Ptrc-aroG	35	Data not provided	Data not provided
TRP07	TRP03 + ΔpykA, Δppc, Ppck-pck, PcitT-citT, Plac-acnBA-icD	49	0.186	Glutamate: 0.8, Acetic Acid: 2.2

Introducing Heterologous Pathways in Yeast

In eukaryotic hosts, particularly yeasts, the introduction of non-native CCM pathways has proven highly effective for precursor supply. The heterologous phosphoketolase (PHK) pathway is a prominent example, providing a more efficient route to generate acetyl-CoA, a central precursor for lipids, polyketides, and terpenes [45].

The PHK pathway, comprising phosphoketolase (PK) and phosphotransacetylase (PTA), directly converts fructose-6-phosphate from glycolysis or xylulose-5-phosphate from the PPP into acetyl-phosphate and subsequently to acetyl-CoA. This bypasses multiple steps in the native pathway that involve decarboxylation and loss of carbon, thereby increasing theoretical yield [45].

Comparative Performance in Various Yeast Strains:

• In Yarrowia lipolytica, blocking phosphofructokinase (PFK) and introducing the PHK pathway corrected a redox imbalance and increased total lipid production by 19% [45].
• In Pichia pastoris, expressing the PHK pathway alongside mouse-derived ATP:citrate lyase (ACL) and NADPH-generating enzymes enabled production of 23.4 g/L free fatty acids and 2.0 g/L fatty alcohols [45].
• For aromatic compound synthesis in S. cerevisiae, the PHK pathway reroutes flux from glycolysis to the PPP, enhancing the supply of erythrose-4-phosphate (E4P). This strategy yielded 12.5 g/L of p-hydroxycinnamic acid and a 135-fold increase in tyrosol production [45].

Other heterologous pathways have also shown success. The pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) pathway from E. coli, engineered for NADP+ dependence in S. cerevisiae, doubled the intracellular acetyl-CoA pool [45].

Table 2: Impact of Heterologous Pathways on Precursor Supply in Yeast

Host Organism	Heterologous Pathway	Target Precursor	Engineering Outcome	Target Product (Titer)
S. cerevisiae	PHK pathway	Acetyl-CoA	Increased acetyl-CoA supply and corrected redox	Fatty Acid Ethyl Esters (~5100 g/CDW)
Y. lipolytica	PHK pathway	Acetyl-CoA	Increased lipid synthesis flux	Total Lipids (+19%)
P. pastoris	PHK pathway + ACL	Acetyl-CoA	Enhanced acetyl-CoA and NADPH supply	Free Fatty Acids (23.4 g/L)
S. cerevisiae	PHK pathway	Erythrose-4-Phosphate (E4P)	Redirected glycolytic flux to PPP	p-Hydroxycinnamic Acid (12.5 g/L)
S. cerevisiae	E. coli PDH pathway	Acetyl-CoA	Bypassed native, ATP-consuming route	Intracellular Acetyl-CoA (2x increase)

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Protocol: Strain Development Using CRISPR-Cas9 in E. coli

This protocol outlines the construction of metabolic engineering strains, as exemplified in the E. coli tryptophan study [46].

Materials:

• Bacterial Strains: E. coli W3110 (wild-type) and derivative strains (TRP01-TRP07).
• Plasmids: pREDCas9 (expressing Cas9 and λ Red recombinase), pGRB (gRNA expression vector).
• Media: LB Lennox medium (10 g/L Tryptone, 5 g/L Yeast extract, 5 g/L NaCl) supplemented with appropriate antibiotics (Spectinomycin 50 µg/mL, Ampicillin 100 µg/mL).
• Buffers and Reagents: L-Arabinose (for induction of λ Red recombinase), oligonucleotides for homologous recombination, Primer STAR HS DNA Polymerase, ClonExpress II One Step Cloning Kit.

Procedure:

• gRNA Cloning: Design and synthesize oligonucleotide pairs encoding the target-specific gRNA. Anneal and ligate the duplex into the pGRB plasmid, linearized with a compatible restriction enzyme.
• Competent Cell Preparation: Transform the pREDCas9 plasmid into the host E. coli strain and grow at 30°C. Prepare electrocompetent cells from an exponentially growing culture induced with 0.2% L-arabinine.
• Electroporation: Co-electroporate the pGRB-gRNA plasmid and a linear dsDNA donor fragment (containing the desired mutation flanked by ~500 bp homology arms) into the competent cells.
• Screening and Curing: Plate cells on selective media and incubate at 30°C. Screen colonies by colony PCR and DNA sequencing. Subsequently, cure the pGRB and pREDCas9 plasmids by propagating colonies at 37°C without antibiotic selection.
• Fermentation Validation: Evaluate engineered strains in a 5 L bioreactor with defined mineral medium and controlled feeding of glucose. Monitor cell density (OD600), substrate consumption, and product formation via HPLC.

Protocol: Introducing the Heterologous PHK Pathway in S. cerevisiae

This method details the expression of the phosphoketolase pathway to enhance acetyl-CoA or E4P supply [45].

Materials:

• Yeast Strains: S. cerevisiae haploid laboratory strain (e.g., CEN.PK or BY).
• Expression Vectors: A yeast-integration (e.g., pRS400 series) or episomal (e.g., YEp series) plasmid containing codon-optimized xfpk (phosphoketolase) and pta (phosphotransacetylase) genes from a donor organism like Aspergillus nidulans.
• Media: YPD medium (10 g/L Yeast extract, 20 g/L Peptone, 20 g/L Dextrose) or synthetic complete (SC) drop-out medium for selection.
• Reagents: LiAc/SS Carrier DNA/PEG solution for chemical transformation, SC -Ura plates for auxotrophic selection.

Procedure:

• Plasmid Construction: Clone the codon-optimized xfpk and pta genes, each under the control of a strong, constitutive yeast promoter (e.g., TEF1 or ADH1), into the chosen expression vector.
• Yeast Transformation: Introduce the constructed plasmid into the S. cerevisiae host strain using the high-efficiency LiAc/SS Carrier DNA/PEG method. Plate the transformation mixture on SC -Ura plates and incubate at 30°C for 2-3 days.
• Pathway Validation: Pick successful transformants and cultivate them in shake flasks with selective medium. Verify gene expression via RT-qPCR and measure enzyme activity in cell lysates. Phosphoketolase activity can be assayed by monitoring the disappearance of fructose-6-phosphate or xylulose-5-phosphate and the formation of acetyl-phosphate.
• Metabolic Flux Analysis: Grow the engineered and control strains in minimal medium with 13C-labeled glucose. Analyze the labeling patterns in intracellular metabolites (e.g., sugar phosphates, organic acids) via GC-MS or LC-MS to quantify the redirection of carbon flux through the novel pathway.
• Bioreactor Cultivation: Perform fed-batch fermentations in a bioreactor to assess the impact of the PHK pathway on the target product titer, yield, and productivity under controlled conditions.

Pathway Diagrams and Engineering Workflows

The following diagrams, generated using Graphviz DOT language, illustrate key metabolic pathways and engineering strategies discussed in this guide.

Diagram 1: Central Metabolic Pathways and Key Engineering Targets for Precursor Supply. Strategies for enhancing PEP in E. coli (green) and the heterologous PHK pathway in yeast (blue) are highlighted.

Diagram 2: Generalized Workflow for Engineering Central Metabolic Pathways. The process spans from objective definition to bioreactor validation, incorporating multiple strategy options.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Tools for Metabolic Pathway Engineering

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Examples / Specifications
CRISPR-Cas9 System	Precision genome editing for gene knock-outs, knock-ins, and point mutations.	pREDCas9 plasmid (Cas9 + λ Red), pGRB gRNA vector [46].
Genome-Scale Metabolic Models (GEMs)	In silico prediction of metabolic fluxes, identification of engineering targets, and simulation of phenotypic outcomes.	Models for E. coli (iJO1366) and S. cerevisiae (Yeast8).
Stable Isotope Tracers	Experimental quantification of intracellular metabolic flux via 13C-Metabolic Flux Analysis (13C-MFA).	U-13C Glucose, 1-13C Glucose.
Analytical Chromatography	Quantification of metabolites, substrates, and products in fermentation broth.	HPLC with UV/PDA/RI detection for amino acids, organic acids; GC-MS for fatty acids.
Phosphoketolase (PK) Enzyme Assay Kit	Functional validation of heterologous PHK pathway expression and activity.	Measures conversion of F6P/X5P to Acetyl-P (e.g., via coupled enzyme assay).
Promoter & RBS Libraries	Fine-tuning of gene expression levels to balance metabolic pathways and reduce burden.	Constitutive (T7, TEF1) and inducible (pLac, pTet) promoters; synthetic RBS libraries [47].
Codon-Optimized Genes	Synthesis of heterologous genes for optimal expression in the chosen microbial host.	Commercial gene synthesis services.
12Z-heneicosenoic acid	12Z-heneicosenoic acid, MF:C21H40O2, MW:324.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-Hydroxyerlotinib	2-Hydroxyerlotinib	2-Hydroxyerlotinib is an active metabolite of Erlotinib. This product is For Research Use Only (RUO) and not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.

Discussion and Comparative Outlook

The comparative data reveals that both prokaryotic and eukaryotic hosts respond powerfully to CCM engineering, but the optimal strategy is highly context-dependent. E. coli excels in cases requiring precise redirection of well-understood precursors like PEP, leveraging its simple metabolism and extensive genetic toolbox for rapid iterative engineering. The 40% titer improvement in tryptophan production through targeted PEP node manipulation showcases this strength [46]. Conversely, yeast platforms are particularly amenable to the introduction of complex heterologous pathways like PHK, which can fundamentally reshape carbon distribution toward precursors like acetyl-CoA and E4P for more complex natural products, as evidenced by the 25-fold to 135-fold enhancements in certain compound classes [45].

A critical consideration is the physiological trade-off between precursor supply and cell growth. Successful engineering, as demonstrated in both hosts, often requires compensatory strategies to maintain metabolic balance. This includes upregulating energy-generating pathways like the TCA cycle or introducing non-native cofactor balancing systems. The future of CCM engineering lies in integrated, systems-level approaches. Combining the strategies outlined here with advanced computational modeling, machine learning for predicting enzyme variants, and dynamic regulation to decouple growth from production, will push the boundaries of microbial synthesis for drug development and industrial biotechnology [47] [45].

The pursuit of efficient microbial synthesis of natural products has progressively shifted from engineering single species to leveraging multi-species consortia. Two advanced approaches have become pivotal in this domain: the establishment of artificial co-culture systems and the application of Genome-Scale Metabolic Models (GEMs). Co-culture systems mimic natural symbiotic relationships, dividing complex biosynthetic tasks between specialized microbial partners [48] [49]. Concurrently, GEMs provide a computational framework to predict metabolic fluxes and interactions, offering a rational basis for designing and optimizing these microbial communities [50] [51]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these methodologies, detailing their operational protocols, performance, and synergistic application in developing superior microbial hosts for natural product synthesis.

Core Technology Comparison

The following table outlines the fundamental characteristics, capabilities, and outputs of co-culture systems and genome-scale metabolic modeling.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Core Technologies

Feature	Co-culture Systems	Genome-Scale Metabolic Modeling (GEMs)
Core Principle	Division of labor between two or more microbial strains to share metabolic burden and specialize tasks [48] [49].	Computational reconstruction of an organism's entire metabolic network from its genome annotation [50].
Primary Output	Tangible Products: Bio-fuels (Hâ‚‚, CHâ‚„), solvents (butanol), organic acids, and complex natural products [52] [53].	Predictive Simulations: Growth rates, essential genes, nutrient uptake, secretion products, and optimal genetic interventions [50] [54].
Key Performance Metrics	Product yield (titer, rate), substrate utilization efficiency, and consortium stability over time [49] [53].	Prediction accuracy (e.g., for gene essentiality or growth), model scope (number of genes/reactions), and computational speed [50] [55].
Typical Experimental Workflow	1. Strain selection & engineering2. Inoculation optimization3. Co-cultivation in bioreactor4. Product extraction and analysis [49] [56].	1. Genome annotation & network reconstruction2. Model curation & gap-filling3. Constraint-based simulation (e.g., FBA)4. Model-driven hypothesis and experimental validation [50] [54].
Data Integration	Primarily 'omics' data (transcriptomics, metabolomics) for post-hoc analysis of interactions [51].	Serves as a platform for the a priori integration and interpretation of multi-omics data [50].

Experimental Protocols for Key Applications

Protocol for Constructing a Stable Artificial Co-culture System

A primary challenge in co-culture engineering is maintaining population stability. The following workflow outlines a standard protocol for establishing a robust system [49].

Diagram 1: Co-culture Establishment Workflow

Step 1: Strain Selection and Engineering Select microbial chassis based on their native metabolic capabilities that align with the target biosynthetic pathway. For instance, Streptomyces albus is often chosen for heterologous production of antibiotics and flavonoids due to its efficient biosynthetic machinery [54]. Genetically engineer strains to knockout genes that lead to competitive resource consumption (e.g., knock out ptsG and manZ in E. coli to force xylose utilization, leaving glucose for a partner strain) [49].

Step 2: Establish Cross-Feeding Interactions Engineer mutualistic dependencies to enhance stability. This can be achieved by creating auxotrophs (e.g., a vitamin-deficient yeast) that rely on a partner strain (e.g., lactic acid bacteria secreting B-group vitamins) for essential nutrients [49]. This shifts the ecological relationship towards mutualism.

Step 3: Minimize Resource Competition Design the system to minimize head-to-head competition for nutrients. A key strategy is carbon source partitioning, where different members are engineered to utilize different primary carbon substrates (e.g., xylose vs. glucose) [49].

Step 4: Inoculation and Cultivation Determine the optimal initial inoculation ratio (e.g., 1:1, 1:10) through iterative experiments or model predictions. Cultivate the co-culture in an appropriate bioreactor setup, which can range from simple shake flasks to controlled, large-scale fermenters [53].

Step 5: Monitor and Validate System Stability Track population dynamics over time using techniques like flow cytometry or quantitative PCR. Validate the production of the target natural product and intermediate metabolites via HPLC or GC-MS to confirm the designed metabolic interaction is functioning as intended [49] [56].

Protocol for Simulating a Co-culture with GEMs

GEMs allow for in silico prediction of metabolic interactions before experimental work begins. The following workflow is used to simulate a binary co-culture system [52] [51].

Diagram 2: GEM Simulation Workflow

Step 1: Model Curation and Refinement Source high-quality, organism-specific GEMs from databases like AGORA or manually reconstruct them from annotated genomes [52] [50]. Refine the models to ensure they can accurately simulate known physiological behaviors, such as growth on specific carbon sources. This may involve gap-filling to complete metabolic pathways [54] [51].

Step 2: Define the Community Metabolic Model Combine the individual GEMs into a compartmentalized community model. This integrated model includes separate compartments for each species' metabolism and a shared extracellular compartment where metabolite exchange occurs [51].

Step 3: Set Environmental Constraints Define the simulated growth medium by constraining the uptake rates of available nutrients (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, phosphate) to reflect the intended experimental conditions [52] [51].

Step 4: Choose and Run a Simulation Algorithm Select an appropriate algorithm to predict community behavior:

• SteadyCom: Predicts a steady-state growth rate for the community and each member, along with metabolite exchange fluxes [51].
• Dynamic FBA (dFBA): Simulates time-dependent changes in biomass and metabolite concentrations [51].
• DynamiCom: An advanced dynamic approach that can predict the evolution of interspecies interactions over time [51].

Step 5: Analyze Predicted Interspecies Interactions Interpret the simulation output to identify cross-fed metabolites (e.g., organic acids, COâ‚‚, Oâ‚‚, vitamins) and classify the ecological relationship (e.g., commensalism, mutualism). Key outputs include growth rates, secretion profiles, and flux distributions for each organism [52] [51].

Performance and Experimental Data

Quantitative Performance of Co-culture Systems

Empirical data demonstrates the performance enhancements achievable with co-culture systems compared to monocultures.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Data of Co-culture Systems

Co-culture System	Target Product	Monoculture Yield	Co-culture Yield	Key Enhancement Factor
C. butyricum / R. sphaeroides [53]	Hydrogen (Hâ‚‚)	Baseline (C. butyricum)	160% increase vs. monoculture	Enhanced yield and production rate
E. coli / S. cerevisiae [56]	Naringenin (flavonoid)	Not specified	38.5 mg/L	Enabled production from D-xylose
Engineered E. coli Tri-culture [49]	Rosmarinic Acid	Baseline (parent strain)	172 mg/L (38-fold increase)	Division of long biosynthetic pathway
C. thermocellum / T. thermosaccharolyticum [53]	Hâ‚‚ & Ethanol	Incomplete substrate utilization	Efficient use of xylan hydrolysate	Synergistic substrate degradation

Benchmarking Data for GEM Simulation Tools

The choice of computational solver is critical for the practical application of GEMs. Performance benchmarks for different optimization solvers are shown in the table below [55].

Table 3: Benchmark of Optimization Solvers for GEMs

Solver	License Type	Relative Speed (LP Problems)	Relative Speed (MILP Problems)	Suitability for Large Communities
GUROBI	Commercial	Fastest	Fastest	Excellent
CPLEX	Commercial	Very Fast (but can slow for >4 species)	Very Fast	Good (with algorithm selection)
HiGHS	Open Source	Intermediate	Intermediate	Good
SCIP	Open Source	Slower for small models	Intermediate	Good
GLPK	Open Source	Intermediate	Slow (poor scalability)	Limited
COIN	Open Source	Slows with model size	Very Slow	Limited

LP: Linear Programming; MILP: Mixed-Integer Linear Programming

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of these advanced approaches requires a suite of computational and biological tools.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Tool / Reagent	Function / Application	Specific Examples
RAVEN Toolbox [54]	A MATLAB suite for GEM reconstruction, curation, and simulation.	Used to reconstruct the GEM for Streptomyces albus (Salb-GEM) from a template model.
COBRA Toolbox [51]	A MATLAB-based platform for constraint-based modeling and analysis of GEMs.	Standard toolkit for performing Flux Balance Analysis (FBA) on metabolic models.
sybil R Package [52]	An R software package for performing constraint-based analysis.	An alternative to the COBRA Toolbox, used for FBA simulations in the R environment.
GLPK & HiGHS Solvers [55]	Open-source optimization solvers for linear and mixed-integer programming.	Used as the computational engine for FBA and other COBRA methods when commercial solvers are unavailable.
Defined Minimal Media	To provide controlled nutrient conditions for both experimental co-cultures and in silico model constraints.	"Western diet" media was used as a proxy for food waste in simulations of gut microbe consortia [52].
Auxotrophic Microbial Strains	Genetically engineered strains that lack the ability to synthesize an essential metabolite, used to force cross-feeding.	Vitamin B-deficient S. cerevisiae engineered to depend on a lactic acid bacteria partner [49].
2-Bromolysergic Acid	2-Bromolysergic Acid, MF:C16H15BrN2O2, MW:347.21 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-Chloro-8-iodoquinoxaline	2-Chloro-8-iodoquinoxaline |RUO

Integrated Case Study: Synergy in Action

A prime example of the synergy between GEMs and co-cultures is the computational screening of gut microbiota for commodity chemical production. Researchers used 773 publicly available GEMs of human gut microbes to simulate all possible pairwise co-cultures (n=297,549) on a Western diet substrate [52]. The GEMs, analyzed using flux balance analysis, predicted that every organism could benefit from at least one partner, showing increased biomass flux in co-culture versus monoculture [52]. Furthermore, the simulations identified co-culture combinations that led to the emergent production of valuable chemicals like butanol, methane, and hydrogen, which were not produced by either microbe alone [52]. These overproducing pairs were computationally found to be enriched for mutualistic and commensal interactions, providing a rational, model-driven strategy for selecting strains for experimental co-culture assembly. This demonstrates how GEMs can efficiently navigate the vast combinatorial space of potential microbial consortia to identify high-performing candidates for natural product synthesis.

Overcoming Production Bottlenecks: From Low Titers to Toxic Intermediates

Addressing Metabolic Burden and Resource Allocation

In the pursuit of microbial synthesis of natural products, metabolic burden represents a fundamental bottleneck that compromises cellular viability and productivity. This burden occurs when engineered microbial hosts are tasked with heterologous pathway expression, leading to competition for limited cellular resources between native metabolic functions and production objectives [57] [58]. The consequences manifest as impaired growth, reduced product titers, and genetic instability, creating significant challenges for industrial-scale applications [58]. Understanding and managing this metabolic burden through strategic resource allocation is therefore essential for advancing microbial synthesis platforms from laboratory curiosities to commercially viable bioprocesses.

This comparative analysis examines how different microbial hosts manage metabolic constraints and evaluates engineering strategies that optimize resource allocation for enhanced production of valuable natural products. By examining current experimental data and emerging methodologies, we provide a framework for selecting and engineering microbial platforms based on their inherent capabilities and responsiveness to optimization techniques.

Comparative Performance of Microbial Hosts

Native Versatility and Inhibitor Resistance

Microbial hosts vary significantly in their native abilities to utilize diverse carbon sources and withstand inhibitors present in industrial feedstocks. These inherent characteristics directly influence their suitability for specific production environments and their susceptibility to metabolic burden.

Table 1: Carbon Source Utilization and Inhibitor Resistance of Industrial Microorganisms

Microbial Host	Monosaccharides Utilized	Furfural Inhibition Threshold (g/L)	HMF Inhibition Threshold (g/L)	Acetic Acid Tolerance	Low pH Sensitivity
Escherichia coli	Glucose, xylose, arabinose, galactose, mannose [59]	1-2 [59]	1-2 [59]	Moderate [59]	High (sensitive below pH 4) [59]
Corynebacterium glutamicum	Glucose, xylose (some strains) [59]	0.5-1 [59]	1-2 [59]	Moderate [59]	High (sensitive below pH 4) [59]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Glucose, galactose [59]	1-2 [59]	1-2 [59]	Moderate [59]	Low (tolerant at pH <4) [59]
Pichia stipitis	Glucose, xylose [59]	1-2 [59]	1-2 [59]	Moderate [59]	Low (tolerant at pH <4) [59]
Aspergillus niger	Glucose, xylose [59]	>2 [59]	>2 [59]	High [59]	Low (tolerant at pH <4) [59]
Trichoderma reesei	Glucose, xylose [59]	>2 [59]	>2 [59]	High [59]	Low (tolerant at pH <4) [59]

Growth Parameters and Production Performance

Quantitative growth metrics and production capabilities provide critical insights for host selection, particularly when assessing trade-offs between growth and production phases.

Table 2: Growth Parameters and Documented Production Performance

Microbial Host	Max Growth Rate on Glucose (h⁻¹)	Biomass Yield on Glucose (g/g)	Exemplary Product	Reported Titer	Production Scale
Escherichia coli	0.4-0.7 [59]	0.1-0.3 [59]	Sakuranetin [60]	79.0 mg/L [60]	Lab-scale bioreactor
Corynebacterium glutamicum	0.4-0.6 [59]	0.2-0.4 [59]	L-Tryptophan [58]	1.73 g/L [58]	Lab-scale
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	0.3-0.45 [59]	0.1-0.15 [59]	Amorphadiene [58]	1.6 g/L [58]	Lab-scale
Pichia stipitis	0.2-0.35 [59]	0.1-0.2 [59]	Ethanol [57]	Not quantified	Lab-scale
Aspergillus niger	0.1-0.25 [59]	0.2-0.3 [59]	Fumaric acid [57]	6.87 g/L [57]	Lab-scale
Trichoderma reesei	0.1-0.2 [59]	0.15-0.25 [59]	Isobutanol [57]	1.9 g/L [57]	Lab-scale

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Metabolic Burden

Protocol 1: Division of Labor via Modular Co-culture Engineering

The division of labor approach distributes metabolic tasks across specialized strains, directly addressing resource allocation conflicts. The following protocol is adapted from successful sakuranetin production in E. coli co-cultures [60]:

• Pathway Segmentation: Divide the target biosynthetic pathway into upstream (precursor production) and downstream (final conversion) modules. For sakuranetin, this involved separating p-coumaric acid production from conversion to sakuranetin [60].

• Strain Engineering:

  • Engineer upstream strain for intermediate production (e.g., p-coumaric acid)
  • Engineer downstream strain for final conversion (e.g., p-coumaric acid to sakuranetin)
  • Implement selective markers for each strain

• Inoculation Optimization: Systematically vary inoculation ratios (e.g., 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 upstream:downstream) to identify optimal population dynamics

• Co-culture Cultivation:

  • Use defined medium with carbon source (e.g., 5 g/L glucose)
  • Maintain conditions at 30-37°C with appropriate aeration
  • Monitor population dynamics via selective plating or fluorescent markers

• Fed-batch Scale-up: Implement controlled feeding strategy in bioreactor to maintain carbon source while avoiding catabolite repression

This approach yielded 79.0 mg/L sakuranetin in fed-batch bioreactor, significantly outperforming monoculture controls [60].

Protocol 2: Dynamic Metabolic Balancing via Biosensor-Mediated Regulation

Dynamic control systems automatically adjust metabolic fluxes in response to intracellular conditions, preventing toxic intermediate accumulation and optimizing resource allocation:

• Biosensor Selection: Identify or engineer transcription factors that respond to key pathway intermediates (e.g., FPP for isoprenoids) [58]

• Circuit Design: Construct genetic circuits where biosensors regulate expression of bottleneck enzymes or competing pathways

• Strain Transformation: Introduce biosensor systems into production hosts alongside production pathways

• Characterization: Validate sensor response curves to target metabolites across relevant concentration ranges

• Fermentation Validation: Compare performance against constitutive expression controls under scaled conditions

Application of this protocol for amorphadiene production resulted in a 2-fold increase in final titer (1.6 g/L) compared to static controls [58].

Protocol 3: Growth-Coupled Strain Design

Growth coupling strategies directly link product synthesis to biomass formation, ensuring stable production phenotypes:

• Essential Gene Identification: Select essential genes whose products can be replaced by pathway intermediates

• Gene Deletion: Knock out native pathways generating target essential metabolites

• Pathway Integration: Introduce heterologous pathways that generate essential metabolites as intermediates or byproducts

• Adaptive Evolution: Passage strains to select for improved growth and production characteristics

• Validation: Quantify production stability across multiple generations

Implementation for L-tryptophan production achieved 2.37-fold increase in titer (1.73 g/L) compared to non-coupled strains [58].

Conceptual Framework: Strategies for Managing Metabolic Burden

Experimental Workflow: From Host Selection to Optimized Production

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Their Applications in Metabolic Burden Studies

Reagent / Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in Metabolic Burden Research	Application Context
Biosensor Systems	FPP biosensors [58], Nutrient sensors [58]	Dynamic monitoring of metabolite levels and pathway activity	Real-time metabolic control
Genetic Stability Tools	Toxin-antitoxin systems [58], Auxotrophy complementation [58]	Plasmid maintenance without antibiotics	Long-term cultivation studies
Metabolic Analytes	Furfural, HMF, Organic acids [59]	Stressor compounds for tolerance assessment	Inhibitor resistance testing
Modeling Platforms	Dynamic FBA [61], deFBA [61]	Predictive analysis of metabolic network dynamics	In silico strain design
Co-culture Markers	Fluorescent proteins, Antibiotic resistance genes [60]	Population dynamics monitoring	Modular co-culture systems
Carbon Sources	Lignocellulosic hydrolysates [59], Crude glycerol [59]	Industrial-relevant feedstock simulation	Process economics assessment

Addressing metabolic burden requires a multifaceted approach that combines appropriate host selection with strategic pathway engineering. Microorganisms with native resilience to industrial conditions, such as Aspergillus niger and Trichoderma reesei, provide robust platforms for challenging feedstocks, while genetically tractable hosts like E. coli offer flexibility for engineering interventions [59]. The emerging paradigm favors modular approaches where metabolic tasks are distributed across specialized strains or dynamically regulated to prevent resource limitation [57] [60]. As synthetic biology tools advance, the integration of predictive modeling with high-throughput engineering will enable more precise resource allocation within microbial hosts, ultimately overcoming the fundamental challenges of metabolic burden in natural product synthesis [61] [62] [63].

Managing Host Toxicity and Self-Resistance Mechanisms

The engineering of microbial cell factories for the sustainable production of high-value plant natural products (PNPs) and pharmaceuticals represents a cornerstone of modern industrial biotechnology [64] [65]. These complex molecules, which include drugs, nutraceuticals, and fine chemicals, are often difficult to synthesize chemically or extract in sufficient quantities from their native plant sources [64]. While microbial synthesis offers a promising alternative, a significant challenge impedes its efficiency: host toxicity and the resultant need for robust self-resistance mechanisms [66].

Many natural products are inherently toxic to the microbial hosts engineered to produce them. This is because the bioactive compounds can interfere with essential cellular processes in the producer organism itself [66]. Consequently, for a microbial cell factory to be viable and achieve high yields, it must possess or be engineered with strategies to mitigate this self-toxicity. Understanding and managing these mechanisms is therefore not merely an optimization step but a fundamental prerequisite for successful industrial-scale production [64] [65]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of how different microbial hosts manage toxicity and express self-resistance, offering a framework for selecting the optimal chassis for specific natural product synthesis projects.

Comparative Analysis of Microbial Hosts

The choice of microbial host is critical, as different organisms possess inherent advantages and drawbacks in their capacity to tolerate toxic compounds and express heterologous resistance pathways. The table below provides a comparative analysis of the most commonly used hosts.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

Microbial Host	Toxicity Challenges	Native Resistance Strategies	Engineered Resistance Examples	Best-Suited Product Classes
Escherichia coli	Limited native tolerance; accumulation of hydrophobic compounds and intermediates [64]	Efflux pumps; stress response systems	Overexpression of efflux transporters; promoter engineering to decouple growth and production phases [64]	Flavonoids; simple terpenoids; recombinant proteins [64] [65]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	More resilient than E. coli but sensitive to alkaloids and some antibiotics; product sequestration in organelles [64]	Robust membrane structure; vacuolar sequestration; metabolic flexibility	Expression of plant-derived ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters; engineering of MVA pathway and down-regulating competitive pathways (e.g., ERG9) [64]	Alkaloids (e.g., opioids); complex terpenoids (e.g., artemisinic acid); fatty acid-derived products [64] [65]
Streptomyces spp.	Native producer of many antibiotics; possesses sophisticated intrinsic resistance mechanisms [66] [65]	Self-resistant protein variants (e.g., antibiotic target enzymes with amino acid substitutions); efflux pumps; antibiotic modification enzymes [66]	Amplification of native resistance genes; manipulation of regulatory networks controlling antibiotic biosynthesis clusters [66]	Macrolides; aminoglycosides; polyketides; non-ribosomal peptides [65]
Aspergillus spp.	Produces epipolythiodioxopiperazine (ETP) toxins like gliotoxin; requires tight regulation of biosynthesis [5]	Dedicated export systems; enzymatic detoxification (e.g., glutathione S-transferases in gliotoxin pathway) [5]	Heterologous expression of pathway-specific transporters; deletion of global regulators to hyper-activate resistance genes [5]	Fungal secondary metabolites (e.g., aspirochlorine, fumagillin); complex alkaloids [5]

Core Self-Resistance Mechanisms and Experimental Assessment

Microbes employ a diverse arsenal of mechanisms to achieve self-resistance. The following diagram illustrates the primary strategies and their functional relationships.

Figure 1: Core Self-Resistance Mechanisms in Microbial Hosts

Detailed Methodologies for Investigating Resistance

To objectively compare host performance, standardized experimental protocols are essential. Below are detailed methodologies for assessing the two primary resistance strategies.

Protocol 1: Assessing Efflux Pump Activity via Real-Time ATP Depletion

• Objective: To quantitatively measure the energy-dependent efflux of a toxic natural product, indicating transporter activity.
• Principle: Active efflux pumps consume ATP. The presence of a toxic compound induces pump activity, leading to a measurable decrease in intracellular ATP levels, which can be correlated with efflux efficiency.
• Materials:
  • Microbial cultures (e.g., E. coli, S. cerevisiae) with and without engineered transporters.
  • Target toxic natural product (e.g., a flavonoid or antibiotic).
  • ATP assay kit (bioluminescent).
  • Luminometer or plate reader.
  • Cell lysis reagent (e.g., trichloroacetic acid).
  • Microcentrifuge tubes and multi-well plates.
• Procedure:
  • Grow microbial cultures to mid-log phase (OD600 ~0.6).
  • Induce expression of the efflux transporter if under an inducible promoter.
  • Add a sub-lethal concentration of the toxic natural product to the culture.
  • At timed intervals (0, 15, 30, 60 minutes), take 1 mL aliquots.
  • Rapidly lyse cells and quantify ATP concentration using the assay kit according to the manufacturer's instructions.
  • Normalize ATP levels to cell density (OD600) or total protein content.
• Data Interpretation: A steeper decline in normalized ATP levels in the strain expressing the efflux transporter, compared to the control strain, indicates higher ATP consumption and thus greater efflux activity. This provides a quantitative measure of the resistance mechanism's energy cost and efficiency.

Protocol 2: Evaluating Target Alteration via Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Assays

• Objective: To determine if a host has developed self-resistance through modifications to the drug target.
• Principle: Self-resistant protein variants (e.g., a ribosomal protein with a single amino acid substitution) exhibit reduced binding to the antibiotic, resulting in a higher concentration of the drug required to inhibit growth [66].
• Materials:
  • Isogenic microbial strains: one wild-type and one expressing the putative resistant target variant.
  • Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (for bacteria) or appropriate defined medium.
  • 96-well microtiter plates.
  • Target antibiotic/natural product, serially diluted.
• Procedure:
  • Prepare a two-fold serial dilution of the toxic compound in the growth medium across the rows of a 96-well plate.
  • Standardize inoculum of each microbial strain to ~5 × 10^5 CFU/mL.
  • Inoculate each well of the dilution series with the standardized culture.
  • Incubate the plate at the optimal growth temperature for 16-24 hours.
  • Measure the optical density (OD600) of each well to determine growth.
• Data Interpretation: The MIC is defined as the lowest concentration of the compound that completely prevents visible growth. A significant increase (e.g., 4-fold or greater) in the MIC for the strain expressing the variant protein, compared to the wild-type control, provides direct evidence of successful target alteration as a resistance mechanism [66].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful investigation of host toxicity and self-resistance relies on a suite of specialized reagents and tools.

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for Resistance Mechanism Research

Research Reagent / Tool	Core Function	Specific Application Example
ATP Assay Kits	Quantifies intracellular ATP concentration	Measuring energy consumption by active efflux pumps in real-time (Protocol 1).
Heterologous Efflux Pumps	Cloned genes for transporters from native producers [64]	Engineering susceptibility in hosts like E. coli (e.g., plant ABC transporters).
Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kits	Introduces specific point mutations into target genes	Creating self-resistant protein variants of antibiotic targets (e.g., ribosomal proteins) [66].
Promoter Libraries	A set of genetic parts with varying transcription strengths	Fine-tuning the expression of resistance genes and biosynthetic pathways to balance flux and toxicity [64].
Fluorescent Dyes (e.g., Hoechst 33342)	Substrates for broad-specificity efflux pumps	Qualitatively assessing general efflux pump activity via fluorescence-based assays.
LC-MS/MS Systems	Identification and quantification of small molecules	Measuring intracellular vs. extracellular concentrations of natural products to confirm efflux.
Whole-Genome Sequencing	Comprehensive analysis of genetic changes	Identifying mutations in evolved strains that have developed enhanced tolerance.

Strategies for Overcoming Restriction-Modification Systems and Low Transformation Efficiency

In the pursuit of engineering microbial cell factories for natural product synthesis, low transformation efficiency remains a significant bottleneck. A primary barrier is the restriction-modification (R-M) system, a bacterial defense mechanism that cleaves foreign, unmethylated DNA, while protecting host DNA through specific methylation patterns. This comparative guide examines three core strategies to overcome R-M systems, detailing their experimental protocols, performance data, and ideal use cases to inform selection for genetic engineering projects.

Comparative Analysis of Anti-Restriction Strategies

The table below summarizes the core principles, key findings, and major considerations for the primary strategies used to overcome Restriction-Modification system barriers.

Strategy	Core Principle	Reported Efficiency Gain	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Pre-Modification of Plasmid DNA [67]	Mimicking host methylation patterns in vitro or in an engineered donor strain to evade REases.	~12 to 100-fold increase in transformation efficiency; up to ~10⁴ transformants/μg DNA in L. lactis [67].	Directly addresses the root cause (lack of methylation). High efficacy for known R-M systems.	Requires prior knowledge of the host's specific R-M systems and their recognition motifs.
Deletion of Restriction Endonucleases [68]	Genetically inactivating the gene(s) encoding the restriction enzyme in the host chassis.	Enabled transformation of unmethylated E. coli DNA into C. bescii, where it was previously an "absolute barrier" [68].	Permanent solution. Simplifies future genetic manipulations by removing the restriction barrier.	Involves complex genome engineering in the target host, which may be difficult in non-model organisms.
Recognition Site Avoidance [69]	Eliminating or reducing the number of R-M recognition sites in the foreign DNA to be transformed.	A significant under-representation of sites is observed in approximately one-fourth of prokaryotic virus genomes [69].	A proactive design strategy. Does not require manipulation of the host strain.	Limited to orthodox Type II R-M systems. Not all sequences can be altered without affecting gene function.

Experimental Protocols and Data

Pre-Modification Strategy (PMS)

The Pre-Modification Strategy involves identifying the specific methylation patterns of the target host and ensuring the transforming DNA possesses these patterns, thereby evading cleavage by restriction endonucleases.

• Experimental Workflow: The following diagram illustrates the multi-step process for implementing a Pre-Modification Strategy.

• Key Experimental Steps:

  • Identification of R-M Systems: The genome and methylome of the target host (e.g., Lactococcus lactis C20) are analyzed, for instance using SMRT (Single-Molecule, Real-Time) sequencing, to identify methylated motifs and their associated methyltransferases (MTases) [67].
  • Tool Development: Genes encoding the identified MTases are cloned into an E. coli donor strain. This creates a "PMS tool" where any plasmid propagated in this E. coli strain will carry the specific methylation pattern of the target host [67].
  • Transformation and Validation: Plasmids isolated from the engineered E. coli are transformed into the target host. Efficiency is quantified by counting transformants and compared to a non-modified plasmid control [67].

• Supporting Data: Application of this strategy in L. lactis C20, which possesses three specific MTases, showed dramatic improvements. Pre-modification with a single MTase (MTase1) increased transformation efficiency by 12 to 100-fold across different plasmids. Combining this with Rolling Circle Amplification further boosted efficiency to ~10⁴ transformants per microgram of DNA [67].

Construction of Restriction-Deficient Mutants

This strategy involves the direct deletion of genes encoding restriction endonucleases in the host organism, creating a chassis that is readily transformable with standard, unmethylated DNA.

• Experimental Workflow: The key steps for creating and validating a restriction-deficient mutant are outlined below.

• Key Experimental Steps:

  • Target Selection: A key restriction endonuclease gene (e.g., cbeI in Caldicellulosiruptor bescii) is identified as a major barrier to transformation [68].
  • Mutant Construction: A deletion construct is created, containing DNA sequences homologous to the regions flanking the target gene and a selectable marker. This construct is delivered into the host via a suitable transformation method.
  • Selection and Screening: Mutants where the restriction gene has been replaced via homologous recombination are selected and confirmed by PCR and sequencing [68].
  • Functional Validation: The resulting mutant strain (e.g., JWCB018 ΔcbeI) is tested for its ability to be transformed with unmethylated DNA isolated directly from E. coli [68].

• Supporting Data: In C. bescii, deletion of the cbeI restriction endonuclease gene removed an "absolute barrier" to transformation. The resulting mutant strain was readily transformed with DNA from E. coli without requiring any in vitro methylation, drastically simplifying the genetic manipulation workflow [68].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The table below lists key reagents and materials required to implement the strategies discussed in this guide.

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example Use Case
SMRT Sequencer	Identifies methylated motifs and characterizes R-M systems in the host genome.	Profiling the methylome of L. lactis C20 to discover 3 methylated motifs [67].
Engineered E. coli (PMS Tool)	Donor strain expressing heterologous methyltransferases; used for in vivo pre-methylation of plasmids.	Propagating shuttle plasmids to carry L. lactis C20 methylation patterns, evading its R-M systems [67].
Electroporation System	Method for delivering DNA constructs (e.g., for gene deletion) into microbial hosts.	Transforming C. bescii with a deletion construct to create a restriction-deficient mutant [68].
Plasmid Shuttle Vectors	Plasmids capable of replication in both the engineering host (e.g., E. coli) and the target microbial host.	pNZ8148 and pLEB124 used for testing transformation efficiency in L. lactis [67].

The choice of strategy for overcoming R-M systems depends on the specific research context. The pre-modification strategy offers a powerful and relatively rapid workaround for transforming wild-type or non-model industrial strains. In contrast, the construction of restriction-deficient mutants provides a permanent, foundational solution that is ideal for developing a universal chassis for metabolic engineering. For synthetic DNA constructs, recognition site avoidance serves as a complementary, proactive design principle. Understanding the mechanisms and applications of these strategies enables researchers to effectively expand the toolbox for engineering microbial cell factories, accelerating the production of valuable plant natural products and other biochemicals.

Dynamic Metabolic Regulation and AI-Driven Bioprocessing

The field of microbial biotechnology is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the convergence of advanced dynamic metabolic regulation and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven bioprocessing. Engineering microbes for bioproduct manufacturing represents an increasingly essential approach in biotechnology, promising sustainable alternatives to petroleum-derived resources [70]. This comparative guide examines the current landscape of microbial host engineering, focusing specifically on the integration of dynamic control systems and AI-enabled optimization for the production of valuable natural products and therapeutics. These innovations have facilitated significant breakthroughs in biofuel production, pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, and bioplastics synthesis and upcycling, yet industrial implementation still faces persistent hurdles including strain stability concerns, metabolic pathway efficiency bottlenecks, and scalability challenges [70]. The synergy between dynamic regulation—where microbes autonomously adjust their metabolic flux in response to environmental and internal stimuli—and AI's predictive capabilities creates a powerful framework for overcoming these limitations, ultimately accelerating the development of efficient microbial cell factories aligned with global sustainability objectives [70] [71].

Comparative Analysis of Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

Host Organism Selection Criteria

The choice of microbial host organism fundamentally influences the success of any metabolic engineering endeavor for natural product synthesis. Native producers often possess inherent biosynthetic capabilities but may present challenges in genetic tractability and cultivation. In contrast, heterologous hosts offer well-characterized genetic systems but may lack necessary precursors or cofactors. Actinobacteria, particularly Streptomyces species, have historically been the workhorses of natural product discovery, with approximately 90% of their biosynthetic capacity remaining untapped [34]. These native producers contain complex regulatory networks that can either enhance or hinder production, as evidenced by the fredericamycin case study where the native producer Streptomyces griseus achieved titers of ~1 g/L, while the heterologous host Streptomyces lividans initially produced only 0.5 mg/L of the same compound [34].

Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae have emerged as preferred heterologous hosts due to their rapid growth, well-characterized genetics, and extensive synthetic biology toolkits. E. coli quickly became the prevalent expression platform when the biopharmaceutical sector emerged and was followed by yeast S. cerevisiae [3]. These model systems are particularly valuable for expressing biosynthetic genes from organisms that are difficult to cultivate or engineer. However, the transfer of biosynthetic gene clusters from native producers to heterologous hosts often severs natural regulatory pathways, potentially leading to significantly reduced production or complete silencing of the pathway [34]. This knowledge gap highlights the critical importance of understanding host-specific regulatory networks when selecting a production chassis.

Performance Comparison of Microbial Host Systems

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

Host Organism	Natural Product Example	Titer Achieved	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Streptomyces griseus (Native)	Fredericamycin A	~1,000 mg/L [34]	Native regulatory networks; optimized enzyme compatibility	Genetic manipulation challenges; slower growth
Streptomyces albus (Heterologous)	Fredericamycin A	130 mg/L [34]	Improved genetic tractability; versatile secondary metabolism	Regulatory disruption; potential precursor limitations
Escherichia coli	Taxol precursor	1,000 mg/L [4]	Rapid growth; extensive genetic tools; well-characterized	Lack of native P450 systems; potential toxicity issues
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Artemisinin	High-level semi-synthetic production [4]	Eukaryotic protein processing; compartmentalization	Slower growth than bacteria; complex physiology

Regulatory Network Considerations Across Host Systems

The hierarchical nature of regulatory networks governing secondary metabolism introduces significant complexities when engineering microbial hosts. Native producers typically possess three types of regulators: (1) global regulators responsible for morphological differentiation and secondary metabolite production, (2) pleiotropic regulators controlling multiple downstream pathways, and (3) pathway-specific regulators governing production of particular compounds [34]. These intricate networks explain why simply transferring a biosynthetic gene cluster to a heterologous host often yields suboptimal results. For example, in the case of fredericamycin production, the pathway-specific positive regulator FdmR1 was essential for activating biosynthesis, but its overexpression resulted in dramatically different outcomes across host systems—a 6-fold titer improvement to ~1 g/L in the native producer versus minimal production (1.4 mg/L) in S. lividans even with strong promoter control [34]. Subsequent analysis revealed that a ketoreductase (fdmC) served as an unexpected bottleneck in the heterologous host, highlighting how critical pathway steps may be differentially regulated across organisms [34].

Dynamic Metabolic Regulation: Strategies and Implementation

Fundamental Principles of Dynamic Control

Dynamic metabolic engineering represents a paradigm shift from traditional static control approaches, employing genetically encoded systems that allow microbes to autonomously adjust metabolic flux in response to external and internal metabolic states [71]. This approach addresses fundamental challenges in metabolic engineering, including metabolic burden, cofactor imbalance, toxic intermediate accumulation, and population heterogeneity in large-scale bioreactors [71]. Inspired by natural metabolic control systems that maintain homeostasis and coordinate flux distribution, dynamic regulation enables more robust and efficient bioprocessing across varying fermentation conditions. The core components of any dynamic control system include sensors to detect relevant metabolic signals and actuators to implement appropriate metabolic adjustments, forming closed-loop systems that optimize metabolic function without external intervention [71].

Two-Stage Dynamic Control Systems

Two-stage metabolic switches represent a straightforward yet highly effective dynamic control strategy that decouples the competing tasks of biomass accumulation and product formation [71]. In this approach, the first stage prioritizes rapid cell growth with minimal product synthesis, while the second stage minimizes growth and redirects metabolic flux toward product formation. This contrasts with traditional one-stage processes where biomass accumulation and product formation occur concurrently, often creating metabolic trade-offs that limit overall productivity. Computational analyses have demonstrated that two-stage processes can improve product concentration by 30% compared to single-stage approaches maintaining constant flux, particularly for batch processes where nutrient availability becomes limited over time [71].

Table 2: Inducer Systems for Two-Stage Dynamic Regulation

Inducer Type	Example System	Mechanism of Action	Applications	Advantages	Disadvantages
Chemical	aTC/IPTG-inducible	Binds repressor proteins to activate transcription	Anthocyanin, isopropanol production in E. coli [72]	Precise temporal control; well-characterized	Cost at industrial scale; irreversibility
Physical (Temperature)	PR/PL promoter system	Thermosensitive regulator CI repressed at 30°C, activated at 37-42°C [72]	Ethanol, L-threonine production in E. coli [72]	Easy application/removal; non-chemical	Potential effects on other cellular processes
Physical (Light)	EL222 optogenetic system	Light-sensitive protein binds DNA under blue light [72]	Isobutanol production in S. cerevisiae [72]	High temporal precision; reversible	Limited penetration in dense cultures
Chemical (pH)	PYGP1, PGCW14 promoters	Activated under acidic conditions [72]	Lactic acid biosynthesis in S. cerevisiae [72]	Non-toxic; inexpensive	Interference with cellular pH homeostasis

Implementation of two-stage processes requires identification of appropriate "metabolic valves"—key reactions that can be controlled to switch between growth and production states. Computational algorithms have identified that a single switchable valve in central metabolism can enable decoupled production for 56 out of 87 organic products derived from E. coli metabolism, with particularly valuable valves located in glycolysis, TCA cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation [71].

Autonomous Dynamic Control Systems

Beyond two-stage systems, autonomous dynamic regulation enables continuous, self-adjusting metabolic control without external intervention. These systems employ intracellular metabolites as signals to trigger appropriate metabolic responses, mimicking the "just-in-time transcription" prevalent in natural metabolic networks [72]. Autonomous control strategies can be categorized based on their underlying logic:

Positive Feedback Control creates self-reinforcing circuits where metabolite production enhances further synthesis, effectively locking the pathway in a high-production state once activated. This approach is particularly valuable for overcoming metabolic bottlenecks and ensuring commitment to product formation once sufficient biomass has accumulated.

Oscillation-Based Regulation utilizes genetic circuits that periodically switch between metabolic states, preventing the accumulation of toxic intermediates and distributing metabolic burden over time. While more complex to implement, oscillatory systems can maintain culture viability for extended production periods by preventing metabolic exhaustion.

Multi-Functional Dynamic Control integrates multiple sensors and actuators to coordinate several metabolic processes simultaneously. For example, a system might simultaneously upregulate a heterologous pathway while downregulating competing native metabolism, optimizing flux distribution without creating metabolic imbalance [72].

AI-Driven Bioprocessing: Tools and Applications

Machine Learning in Strain Development and Optimization

Artificial intelligence and machine learning have emerged as transformative technologies in bioprocessing, enabling the analysis of large datasets, optimization of metabolic pathways, and development of predictive models that dramatically accelerate strain engineering cycles [73]. AI-based technologies are particularly valuable for developing efficient microbes that provide sustainable production of biotherapeutics, including those targeting drug-resistant pathogens [73]. The integration of AI tools addresses several persistent challenges in metabolic engineering, including the prediction of enzyme function, optimization of gene expression levels, and identification of non-obvious metabolic bottlenecks.

Machine learning approaches excel at finding patterns in complex biological data that are difficult for human researchers to discern. In biomanufacturing, AI can detect subtle correlations between process parameters and product yields, enabling data-driven optimization [74]. ML techniques are increasingly being applied for laboratory automation, efficient document processing, and process control, significantly improving daily operations in both research and manufacturing settings [74]. The technology is particularly powerful when combined with high-throughput experimental systems, where it can rapidly identify optimal combinations of genetic modifications from thousands of potential variants.

AI-Enabled Metabolic Modeling and Flux Prediction

Kinetic modeling of cellular metabolism represents a critical application of AI in bioprocessing, enabling prediction of how genetic modifications and environmental conditions influence metabolic behavior. Traditional modeling approaches like Flux Balance Analysis (FBA) provide static representations of metabolic networks but struggle with dynamic predictions [75]. AI-enhanced models overcome these limitations by incorporating regulatory constraints, enzyme kinetics, and multi-omics data to create more accurate predictive models.

Recent advances have seen the development of hybrid approaches that combine mechanistic models with artificial neural networks (ANNs), where experimental data is evaluated by ANNs using high-dimensional multivariate regression to determine relevant parameters for mechanistic models [74]. This integration enables significantly higher precision in predicting key parameters for cultivation and fermentation processes compared to traditional modeling techniques. For example, ANNs have been successfully used to predict solvation energies and entropies for distinct ion pairs in various solvents, providing deeper insights into underlying molecular mechanisms that inform bioprocess optimization [74].

AI in Process Control and Scale-Up

The application of AI extends beyond strain development to bioprocess monitoring and control, particularly as the industry evolves toward continuous manufacturing paradigms. AI systems can process data from multiple sources to contextualize information across batches, expediting manufacturing batch release [74]. For industrial-scale bioprocessing, where heterogeneity in large bioreactors presents significant challenges, AI-driven control systems can adjust process parameters in real-time to maintain optimal production conditions throughout the vessel.

Predictive maintenance represents another valuable application of AI in biomanufacturing infrastructure. By monitoring critical equipment for subtle changes in behavior, AI systems can schedule maintenance before failures occur, avoiding unscheduled downtime and product loss [74]. This capability is particularly valuable for continuous processing, where equipment reliability directly impacts process economics. As regulatory agencies like the FDA have begun embracing emerging technologies through programs focused on innovation, the adoption of AI-based process control is expected to accelerate [74].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for Implementing Two-Stage Dynamic Regulation

Objective: Establish a metabolically switched fermentation process that decouples growth and production phases to maximize product titer and yield.

Materials:

• Engineered microbial strain with inducible production pathway
• Appropriate growth medium with carbon source
• Induction agent (chemical inducer, or equipment for physical induction)
• Bioreactor with monitoring capabilities (pH, DO, temperature)
• Analytics for product quantification (HPLC, GC-MS, etc.)

Procedure:

• Inoculum Preparation: Inoculate single colony from fresh plate into 5-10 mL seed medium. Grow overnight at optimal growth temperature with shaking.
• Bioreactor Setup: Transfer seed culture to bioreactor containing production medium at appropriate dilution (typically 1-5% v/v inoculation).
• Growth Phase Monitoring: Monitor cell growth via OD600 or similar metric. Maintain optimal growth conditions (temperature, pH, aeration) to maximize biomass accumulation.
• Induction Trigger: When culture reaches target growth phase (typically mid-late exponential phase, OD600 ~5-10), apply induction signal:
  • For chemical inducers: Add sterile-filtered compound to predetermined concentration (e.g., 100 ng/mL aTC, 0.1-1 mM IPTG)
  • For temperature induction: Rapidly shift temperature (e.g., 30°C to 42°C for PR/PL system)
  • For optogenetic induction: Apply light of appropriate wavelength and intensity
• Production Phase: Maintain post-induction conditions optimal for product formation, which may differ from growth conditions.
• Process Monitoring: Sample regularly to monitor product accumulation, substrate consumption, and potential byproduct formation.
• Harvest: Terminate fermentation when product titer plateaus or productivity declines significantly.

Troubleshooting Notes: If growth is impaired pre-induction, verify that production pathway is adequately repressed during growth phase. If production is low post-induction, optimize induction timing and test multiple inducer concentrations. Monitor for genetic instability or strain degeneration over extended fermentations [72] [71].

Protocol for AI-Guided Metabolic Engineering

Objective: Employ machine learning to identify optimal genetic modifications for enhanced product synthesis.

Materials:

• Library of strain variants with characterized genotypes and phenotypes
• High-throughput screening system
• Computational resources for machine learning
• DNA assembly system for implementing predicted modifications

Procedure:

• Training Data Generation: Create diverse strain library through random mutagenesis or targeted engineering. For each variant, quantify key performance metrics (titer, rate, yield, growth characteristics).
• Feature Engineering: Encode genetic modifications as features (promoter strengths, enzyme variants, gene copy numbers, etc.).
• Model Selection: Choose appropriate ML algorithm based on dataset size and complexity:
  • Random Forest: Effective for smaller datasets with categorical features
  • Artificial Neural Networks: Suitable for large datasets with complex nonlinear relationships
  • Graph Neural Networks: Appropriate for metabolic network-based analyses
• Model Training: Split data into training and validation sets (typically 80:20). Train model to predict performance metrics from genetic features.
• Model Validation: Evaluate prediction accuracy on validation set not used during training.
• Design Prediction: Use trained model to predict performance of new genetic designs. Prioritize designs with highest predicted performance.
• Experimental Validation: Construct top predicted strains and characterize performance.
• Iterative Refinement: Incorporate new experimental data to retrain and improve model predictions.

Interpretation and Analysis: For improved interpretability, employ techniques like SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) to identify which genetic features most strongly influence performance predictions [76]. This approach reveals not only global important features but can also identify strain-specific optimization strategies.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Dynamic Regulation and AI-Driven Bioprocessing

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Considerations
Inducible Systems	aTC-, IPTG-, Arabinose-inducible systems	Two-stage dynamic regulation; precise temporal control	Varying basal expression; inducer cost at scale
Biosensors	Transcription factor-based biosensors	Autonomous dynamic regulation; metabolite-responsive control	Dynamic range; specificity; host compatibility
Optogenetic Tools	EL222, CcsA/CcsR, PhyB/PIF3 systems	Light-controlled gene expression; high temporal precision	Light penetration in dense cultures; hardware requirements
CRISPR Tools	CRISPRi, CRISPRa	Multiplexed gene regulation; pathway balancing	Off-target effects; delivery efficiency
Machine Learning Platforms	TensorFlow, PyTorch, Scikit-learn	Developing predictive models; data analysis	Computational resource requirements; data quality dependence
Process Analytical Technology	In-line sensors, RAMAN spectroscopy	Real-time process monitoring; AI data acquisition	Calibration requirements; integration complexity
Synthetic Biology Tools	Standardized genetic parts; DNA assembly systems	Pathway construction; rapid prototyping	Part compatibility; context dependence

Comparative Performance Data: Integrated Approaches Versus Conventional Methods

Case Studies in Natural Product Synthesis

The integration of dynamic regulation and AI-driven approaches has demonstrated significant advantages over conventional metabolic engineering strategies across multiple natural product classes. In anti-cancer drug production, dynamic regulation has enabled improved synthesis of complex compounds like vinblastine in yeast, where decoupling growth and production phases alleviated metabolic burden [72]. Similarly, two-stage dynamic control has shown remarkable success in biofuel and bulk chemical production, with temperature-triggered systems increasing ethanol productivity by 3.8-fold compared to unregulated strains [72].

For pharmaceutical compounds, light-inducible dynamic regulation improved isobutanol production in S. cerevisiae by 1.6-fold, while the FixJ/FixK2 optogenetic system enhanced mevalonate and isobutanol biosynthesis in E. coli by 24% and 27%, respectively [72]. These improvements stem from the ability of dynamic systems to resolve metabolic conflicts that static approaches cannot address effectively. AI-guided approaches further enhance these gains by identifying non-intuitive optimization targets, as demonstrated by algorithms that pinpoint optimal metabolic valves for two-stage processes or predict enzyme variants with improved activity [71].

Quantitative Comparison of Regulation Strategies

Table 4: Performance Comparison of Metabolic Regulation Strategies

Regulation Strategy	Typical Titer Improvement	Implementation Complexity	Robustness Across Scales	Key Applications
Constitutive Expression	Baseline	Low	Variable; scale-dependent	Simple pathway expression; laboratory studies
Static Optimization	2-5x	Medium	Moderate	Well-characterized pathways; model organisms
Two-Stage Dynamic Control	3-10x	Medium-High	Good with proper induction	Products toxic during growth; high-value compounds
Autonomous Dynamic Control	5-15x	High	Excellent	Toxic intermediates; complex pathway regulation
AI-Guided Dynamic Control	10-20x+	Very High	Predictive maintenance possible	All applications with sufficient data

The integration of dynamic metabolic regulation with AI-driven bioprocessing represents a transformative advance in microbial natural product synthesis. This comparative analysis demonstrates that while conventional approaches remain valuable for simpler applications, the combination of autonomous control systems and machine learning optimization delivers superior performance for complex pathway engineering. The future of microbial bioprocessing will increasingly leverage these integrated approaches, with research directions likely focusing on several key areas:

First, the development of more sophisticated biosensors with expanded ligand ranges and improved dynamic ranges will enable finer control over metabolic pathways. Second, AI models will evolve from predictive tools to generative design systems, proposing entirely novel regulatory strategies and host-pathway combinations. Third, the integration of multi-omics data into real-time control systems will create increasingly adaptive bioprocesses that respond to changing metabolic states at unprecedented resolution.

As these technologies mature, we anticipate a shift toward fully autonomous bioreactor systems that self-optimize based on real-time AI analysis, dramatically reducing development timelines and improving process robustness. The continued convergence of dynamic regulation and AI not only promises more efficient microbial cell factories but also opens possibilities for producing entirely new classes of natural products that are currently inaccessible through conventional approaches. By addressing the fundamental challenges of metabolic burden, regulatory complexity, and scale-up variability, these integrated approaches will play a pivotal role in establishing sustainable biomanufacturing platforms for the next generation of natural product-based medicines, chemicals, and materials.

Benchmarking Host Performance: Metrics, Case Studies, and Future Directions

In the development of microbial cell factories for natural product synthesis, the performance of a host organism is quantitatively benchmarked using three fundamental metrics: titer, yield, and productivity. These metrics collectively determine the economic viability and industrial scalability of a bioprocess, yet they often involve complex trade-offs that must be strategically managed. Titer, defined as the concentration of the target product per unit volume of fermentation broth (typically g/L), directly influences the size and cost of downstream purification equipment [77] [78]. Yield, expressed as the amount of product formed per unit of substrate consumed (g product/g substrate), reflects the metabolic efficiency of the conversion process and raw material costs [79]. Productivity, measured as the total product formed per unit volume per unit time (g/L/h), determines the production capacity and overall throughput of a manufacturing facility [78] [80].

Understanding the interrelationships and trade-offs among these metrics is essential for selecting appropriate microbial hosts and designing optimal bioprocess strategies. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these critical performance indicators across different microbial systems, supported by experimental data and methodologies relevant to natural product synthesis research.

Defining the Core Metrics and Their Interrelationships

Fundamental Definitions and Calculations

The three core metrics provide complementary information about bioprocess performance and are mathematically interrelated:

• Titer: The concentration of the target product at the end of a fermentation run, typically measured in grams per liter (g/L) [78]. For monoclonal antibodies produced in mammalian systems, commercial-scale titers have increased dramatically from <0.5 g/L in the 1980s to an industry average of 2.56 g/L by 2014, with clinical-scale processes reaching 3.21 g/L [77].
• Yield: In upstream processing, yield typically refers to the conversion efficiency of substrate to product. However, in downstream contexts, it can also describe the percentage of product recovered through purification steps [77]. The calculation differs between operational modes: in fed-batch systems, yield (g) = bioreactor volume (L) × titer (g/L); in perfusion systems, yield = total volume of media (L) × titer (g/L) [78].
• Productivity: Also termed volumetric productivity, this metric reflects the speed of production. A related metric, specific productivity (Qp), measures the protein produced per cell per day (pg/cell/day) or the amount of protein per viable cell (picograms per cell) [78] [81]. For mammalian cell cultures, specific productivities range from 1-4 pg/cell/day in transient transfection to 20-50 pg/cell/day in stable cell lines [81].

Metric Interdependencies and Trade-offs

The relationship between titer, yield, and productivity is often characterized by trade-offs that strain designers must navigate. Table 1 summarizes how changes in one metric typically affect the others.

Table 1: Interdependencies between key bioprocess metrics

Metric	Definition	Primary Influence	Typical Trade-offs
Titer	Final product concentration (g/L)	Capital investment, reactor size	High titers may reduce productivity; can cause product inhibition or aggregation
Yield	Substrate conversion efficiency (g product/g substrate)	Raw material costs, sustainability	Maximum yield often requires reduced growth rate, lowering productivity
Productivity	Production rate (g/L/h)	Manufacturing throughput, facility utilization	High productivity may compromise yield through inefficient substrate use

Research has demonstrated that it is difficult to maximize all three biomanufacturing metrics simultaneously due to fundamental trade-offs in carbon and energy metabolism and potential product inhibitions [82]. Maximum production rates in engineered E. coli systems often occur in the medium ranges of titer (6-10 g/L) and yield (0.45-0.75 g/g), rather than at their individual maximum values [82].

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual relationship and common trade-offs between these metrics in bioprocess optimization:

Figure 1: Interrelationships and trade-offs between titer, yield, and productivity in bioprocess design. Strain engineering, process optimization, and metabolic efficiency primarily influence one metric each, but all three metrics interact with and constrain each other.

Comparative Performance Across Microbial Hosts

Different microbial hosts exhibit distinct performance characteristics for natural product synthesis. Table 2 provides comparative experimental data for various host systems producing different compounds.

Table 2: Comparative performance metrics across microbial host systems

Host Organism	Product	Max Titer (g/L)	Yield (g/g)	Productivity (g/L/h)	Key Engineering Strategy	Reference
HEK293E cells	Monoclonal antibody	0.86-1.0	N/R	N/R	Multi-pathway modulation with p18, p21, aFGF, and valproic acid	[81]
E. coli	Succinate	N/R	>1.0	N/R	Carbon fixation pathways	[82]
E. coli	1,4-butanediol (BDO)	N/R	N/R	N/R	Heterologous pathway from Genomatica	[79]
Industry Average	MAb (commercial)	2.56	N/R	N/R	Serial incremental improvements	[77]
Industry Average	MAb (clinical)	3.21	N/R	N/R	Advanced expression systems	[77]

N/R: Not reported in the cited source

Mammalian expression systems, particularly CHO and HEK293 cells, dominate the production of complex therapeutic proteins and antibodies due to their superior capabilities for proper protein folding and post-translational modifications [77]. For these systems, titers have seen remarkable improvements over three decades, increasing from less than 0.5 g/L in the late 1980s to current commercial averages of 2.56 g/L, with clinical-scale processes reaching 3.21 g/L [77]. The highest-performing industrial processes now achieve titers exceeding 6 g/L for some newer products, with projections suggesting that products entering the market in coming years will approach 7 g/L [77].

Microbial systems such as E. coli and yeast strains generally offer advantages in productivity for simpler natural products and small molecules, with faster growth rates and higher metabolic fluxes. However, they may lack the cellular machinery for complex modifications required by some natural products. For instance, engineered E. coli strains have been developed for succinate production with yields exceeding 1 g/g substrate through carbon fixation pathways [82].

Methodologies for Metric Optimization

Computational Strain Design Strategies

Advanced computational frameworks have been developed to simultaneously address the optimization of titer, yield, and productivity:

• Dynamic Strain Scanning Optimization (DySScO): This strategy integrates dynamic flux balance analysis (dFBA) with existing strain design algorithms to balance yield, titer, and productivity [79]. The approach involves three phases: (1) scanning the production envelope to identify trade-offs between product flux and biomass flux, (2) designing strains using algorithms like OptKnock or GDLS within optimal growth rate ranges, and (3) selecting the best strain based on consolidated performance metrics [79].

• Machine Learning Frameworks: Hybrid approaches combining constraint-based metabolic modeling with machine learning algorithms (support vector machines, gradient boosted trees, neural networks) can predict microbial factory performance with Pearson correlation coefficients between 0.8-0.93 on new data [82]. These models incorporate features such as genetic modifications, bioprocess conditions, carbon sources, and product characteristics to forecast titer, rate, and yield trade-offs [82].

• Theoretical Productivity Optimization: Dynamic optimization methods using orthogonal collocation on finite elements calculate the maximum theoretical productivity of batch culture systems, revealing that near-optimal yields and productivities can often be achieved with just two discrete flux stages [80]. For succinate production in E. coli and Actinobacillus succinogenes, this approach demonstrated that productivities could be more than doubled under dynamic control regimes compared to static optimization [80].

Experimental Protocol: Multi-pathway Modulation in HEK293E Cells

The following detailed methodology demonstrates how simultaneous optimization of multiple cellular pathways can dramatically improve protein titers in mammalian systems:

Objective: Achieve high-titer (>1 g/L) recombinant protein production through transient transfection of HEK293E cells [81].

Key Reagents and Solutions:

• Expression Vectors: Optimized pXLGHEK vectors containing transgenes for IgG heavy chain, IgG light chain, cell cycle regulators p18 and p21, and acidic Fibroblast Growth Factor (aFGF) [81].
• Cell Line: Suspension-adapted HEK293E cells stably expressing Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen (EBNA1) [81].
• Transfection Reagent: 25-kDa linear polyethyleneimine (PEI), 1 mg/mL solution, pH 7.0 [81].
• Culture Media: FreeStyle 293 Expression Medium for transfection; Ex-Cell 293 CDM for production phase [81].
• Chemical Enhancers: Valproic acid (3.8 mmol/L final concentration) [81].

Procedure:

• Cell Preparation: Centrifuge exponentially growing HEK293E cells and resuspend at high density (20 × 10^6 cells/mL) in FreeStyle medium [81].
• Transfection Complex Formation: Add plasmid DNA mixture (50 μg/mL total DNA with heavy chain:light chain ratio of 1:1 w/w, plus 10% p18, 10% p21, and 5% aFGF encoding vectors) directly to cells, followed by PEI addition to 100 μg/mL [81].
• Post-transfection Processing: After 3 hours, dilute cells to 4 × 10^6 cells/mL with Ex-Cell medium supplemented with 4 mM glutamine [81].
• Production Phase: Add valproic acid to 3.8 mmol/L and maintain cultures for 10-14 days with orbital shaking at 110 rpm in 5% COâ‚‚ [81].
• Analytical Monitoring: Determine IgG concentration by sandwich ELISA using goat anti-human kappa light chain for capture and AP-conjugated goat anti-human gamma chain for detection [81].

Critical Parameters:

• The optimal plasmid ratio is crucial: 37.5% heavy chain, 37.5% light chain, 10% p18, 10% p21, and 5% aFGF [81].
• High cell density during transfection (20 × 10^6 cells/mL) followed by reduction to production density (4 × 10^6 cells/mL) is essential for high efficiency [81].
• Valproic acid, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, enhances recombinant protein expression by maintaining transcriptionally active chromatin [81].

The Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Solutions

Successful optimization of titer, yield, and productivity requires specialized reagents and tools. Table 3 catalogues essential research solutions for microbial strain engineering and bioprocess optimization.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and solutions for metric optimization

Reagent/Solution	Function	Application Examples
CRISPR-Cas Systems	Precision genome editing	Pathway optimization, gene knockouts in yeast and bacteria [83]
Polyethyleneimine (PEI)	Polymer-based transfection	High-efficiency DNA delivery in mammalian cells [81]
Valproic Acid	Histone deacetylase inhibitor	Epigenetic modulation to enhance recombinant protein expression [81]
Metabolic Modeling Software (COBRA)	Constraint-based metabolic analysis	Prediction of metabolic fluxes, strain design [79] [82]
Genome-scale Models (e.g., iML1515)	Metabolic network reconstruction	Simulation of metabolic capabilities under genetic modifications [82]
Elementary Flux Mode Analysis	Pathway analysis technique	Identification of optimal metabolic routes for product synthesis [80]

Scalability Considerations and Industrial Translation

The ultimate test of any microbial production system lies in its scalability from laboratory to industrial manufacturing. Scalability introduces additional considerations that interact with the three core metrics:

• Downstream Processing Limitations: As upstream titers have increased dramatically (from <0.5 g/L to >3 g/L for mammalian systems), downstream purification has become a significant bottleneck, with average yields of approximately 70% for products approved between 2010-2014 [77]. This imbalance creates inefficiencies where high-titer processes may be constrained by purification capacity.

• Facility Design Constraints: Many existing commercial-scale manufacturing facilities were designed for titers below 3 g/L and cannot efficiently handle higher concentrations without significant retrofitting [77]. This legacy infrastructure creates a practical upper limit on titer improvements for established products.

• Economic Trade-offs: The DySScO strategy incorporates economic analysis by evaluating how the price difference between product and feedstock affects the optimal balance of yield, titer, and productivity [79]. In some cases, moderate productivity with high yield may be more economically viable than maximum productivity with lower yield.

• Microbial Community Engineering: Emerging approaches using synthetic microbial communities rather than single strains offer potential solutions to scalability challenges through division of labor, potentially enhancing robustness and reducing metabolic burden on individual strains [84].

The following workflow illustrates an integrated approach to balancing these metrics while considering scalability:

Figure 2: Integrated workflow for developing scalable bioprocesses, incorporating strain engineering, lab-scale evaluation, process optimization, economic analysis, and industrial implementation.

The comparative analysis of titer, yield, and productivity reveals that successful bioprocess development requires careful balancing of these interdependent metrics rather than maximizing any single parameter. Microbial host selection must consider the complexity of the target natural product, with mammalian systems excelling for complex proteins despite generally lower productivity compared to microbial platforms. The most advanced strain design strategies, such as DySScO and machine learning frameworks, now explicitly address the trade-offs between these metrics while incorporating economic considerations. As synthetic biology tools continue to advance, enabling more sophisticated dynamic control of metabolic fluxes, the industry moves closer to achieving the theoretical limits of microbial production systems while maintaining scalability and economic viability. Future developments in synthetic ecology, multi-strain systems, and AI-driven bioprocessing will further enhance our ability to optimize these critical performance metrics for natural product synthesis.

Terpenoids represent a vast and highly diverse class of natural products with significant applications in the pharmaceutical, flavor, fragrance, and biofuel industries [85]. The historical challenges associated with extracting these compounds from native plant sources or through complex chemical synthesis have driven the development of microbial production platforms as sustainable alternatives [86] [87]. Among the various microbial hosts explored, Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae have emerged as the two most prominent and well-characterized chassis organisms for terpenoid biosynthesis [87] [85]. This case study provides a comparative analysis of these two microbial platforms, evaluating their respective metabolic pathways, engineering strategies, production capabilities, and suitability for different classes of terpenoids, with a particular focus on recent advances that enhance our understanding of their relative strengths and limitations.

The selection between E. coli and S. cerevisiae involves critical considerations of their native metabolic networks, genetic tractability, and physiological characteristics [87]. E. coli utilizes the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway for native isoprenoid precursor synthesis, while S. cerevisiae employs the mevalonate (MVA) pathway [85]. Both pathways present distinct engineering challenges and opportunities for optimizing flux toward terpenoid target molecules. Recent innovations, including the introduction of heterologous pathways and the development of non-natural synthetic routes like the isopentenol utilization (IU) pathway, have further expanded the capabilities of both platforms [88] [89]. This analysis synthesizes experimental data and engineering strategies to provide researchers with evidence-based guidance for host selection in terpenoid production projects.

Metabolic Pathway Foundations

The fundamental divergence between E. coli and S. cerevisiae as terpenoid production hosts stems from their distinct native pathways for generating the universal C5 terpenoid precursors, isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP). E. coli employs the MEP pathway, which begins with glycolytic intermediates pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, while S. cerevisiae utilizes the MVA pathway, starting from acetyl-CoA [85]. This foundational difference significantly influences carbon efficiency, cofactor requirements, and engineering strategies.

Stoichiometric analyses reveal that the MEP pathway theoretically offers higher carbon efficiency, consuming approximately 1.2 molecules of glucose per IPP with a carbon yield of 0.83 C-mol/C-mol, compared to the MVA pathway which requires 1.5 molecules of glucose per IPP with a lower carbon yield of 0.56 C-mol/C-mol [85]. However, these theoretical advantages are moderated by practical considerations of cofactor demand and pathway regulation. The MEP pathway requires 2 ATP and 2 NAD(P)H per IPP produced, while the MVA pathway generates 3 NAD(P)H during the same process [85]. This differential cofactor demand creates distinct metabolic burdens and necessitates host-specific engineering approaches to balance energy and redox requirements.

Figure 1: Comparative Overview of Native Terpenoid Biosynthesis Pathways in E. coli and S. cerevisiae

Recent metabolic engineering efforts have explored alternative pathways to overcome limitations of native routes. The isopentenol utilization (IU) pathway has emerged as a simplified two-step pathway that relies solely on ATP to convert isopentenol precursors (prenol or isoprenol) into IPP and DMAPP [88] [89]. This synthetic pathway bypasses the complexity of native routes and has been successfully implemented in both E. coli and S. cerevisiae, though with distinct host-specific challenges. In E. coli, the IU pathway has demonstrated remarkable success in producing diterpenoids like geranyllinalool at high titers [89], whereas in S. cerevisiae, isopentenol was found to inhibit energy metabolism, reducing pathway efficiency and requiring specialized engineering approaches [88].

Experimental Comparisons and Performance Data

In Silico Profiling and Theoretical Potential

Computational approaches provide valuable insights into the theoretical capabilities of both microbial hosts. Flux balance analysis of genome-scale metabolic models indicates that E. coli generally exhibits a higher maximum theoretical yield for terpenoid production from glucose compared to S. cerevisiae [16]. This advantage stems primarily from the superior carbon efficiency of the MEP pathway. However, the realized yield in both hosts is often constrained by imbalances in energy and redox cofactors, necessitating targeted engineering interventions [16].

In silico simulations have revealed that both microorganisms face challenges in supplying sufficient ATP and NADPH for optimal terpenoid production [16]. The study identified specific knockout strategies that could enforce growth-coupled terpenoid production, potentially achieving yields higher than those reported in published literature. Interestingly, non-fermentable carbon sources like ethanol or glycerol may offer yield advantages over glucose in both systems, though practical considerations of growth rate and final titer must be balanced against theoretical yield maxima [16].

Comparative Production Capabilities

Experimental data from recent studies demonstrate the progressive improvement in terpenoid production using both microbial platforms. The following table summarizes representative achievements in both hosts for various terpenoid compounds:

Table 1: Comparative Terpenoid Production in E. coli and S. cerevisiae

Terpenoid	Host	Titer	Key Engineering Strategy	Year	Citation
Geranyllinalool	E. coli	2.06 g/L	IU pathway implementation	2024	[89]
Functionalized terpenoids	E. coli	High titer (not specified)	Plant P450 expression	2007	[86]
Squalene	S. cerevisiae	152.95% increase	IU pathway replacement of MVA	2024	[88]
Lycopene	E. coli	9 mg/g DCW	MAGE engineering of DXP pathway	2019	[90]
Lycopene	E. coli	212.49 mg/L	IU pathway with promoter/RBS engineering	2024	[88]
Taxadiene	E. coli	1.25 g/L	Multivariate modular pathway engineering	2019	[90]
Geraniol	E. coli	13.19 g/L	Alcohol acyltransferase introduction	2019	[90]
Farnesene	S. cerevisiae	130 g/L	Central carbon metabolism redesign	2018	[90]

The data reveal several important patterns. E. coli has demonstrated remarkable success with the IU pathway for compounds like geranyllinalool, where systematic optimization of cultivation factors (carbon source, IPTG concentration, and prenol feeding) combined with pathway engineering enabled production at gram-scale in bioreactors [89]. Similarly, E. coli has achieved exceptional production of geraniol at 13.19 g/L through sophisticated engineering that included introducing an alcohol acyltransferase and esterase system [90].

S. cerevisiae excels in producing sesquiterpenes and triterpenes, with the platform achieving remarkable farnesene production at 130 g/L through central carbon metabolism redesign [90]. Recent work with the IU pathway in yeast revealed unique host-specific challenges, as isopentenol was found to inhibit the TCA cycle and cellular respiratory chain, leading to inadequate ATP supply [88]. This limitation was addressed by creating an IU pathway-dependent strain where growth was coupled to pathway function, compelling the yeast to enhance ATP production and resulting in a 152.95% increase in squalene accumulation [88].

Experimental Methodologies and Engineering Approaches

Pathway Engineering and Host Modification

Successful terpenoid production in both hosts requires sophisticated genetic manipulation and metabolic engineering strategies. The following experimental protocols represent common approaches used in the field:

Protocol 1: Implementation of the IU Pathway in E. coli

• Gene Selection and Optimization: Select appropriate kinases for the IU pathway (e.g., EcThiM from E. coli for first phosphorylation step, MthIPK from Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus for second step) [89].

• Vector Construction: Clone codon-optimized kinase genes into appropriate expression vectors (e.g., pCDFDuet-1) with strong inducible promoters [89].

• Host Strain Transformation: Introduce constructed plasmids into production host (e.g., E. coli BL21(DE3)) via heat shock or electroporation.

• Precursor Pathway Modulation: Knock out native competitive pathways or introduce heterologous prenyltransferases (e.g., TcGGPPS from Taxus canadensis for geranyllinalool production) [89].

• Fermentation Optimization: Optimize carbon source (typically glycerol for TB medium), induction parameters (IPTG concentration 0-1 mM, temperature 16-30°C), and prenol feeding strategy (typically 2.5 g/L initial concentration with replenishment) [89].

Protocol 2: MVA Pathway Replacement in S. cerevisiae

• Host Strain Preparation: Start with laboratory strain (e.g., BY4741) with clear genetic background [88].

• MVA Pathway Inactivation: Use CRISPR/Cas9 system to knockout ERG13 (encoding acetoacetyl-CoA thiolase), effectively blocking the native MVA pathway [88].

• IU Pathway Integration: Insert plant-derived AtIPK (from Arabidopsis thaliana) and yeast ScCKI1 (choline kinase) at the ERG13 locus [88].

• Adaptive Laboratory Evolution: Subject engineered strain to sequential subculturing with isopentenol as sole isoprenoid source to select for variants with improved IU pathway efficiency [88].

• High-Throughput Screening: Implement fluorescence-activated cell sorting or microtiter plate screening to identify clones with enhanced terpenoid production [88].

Advanced Engineering Strategies

More sophisticated engineering approaches have been employed to push the boundaries of terpenoid production in both hosts:

Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering (MAGE) in E. coli: This powerful technique enables simultaneous modification of multiple genes across the chromosome. In one notable example, researchers used MAGE to target twenty endogenous genes to increase flux through the DXP pathway, achieving lycopene production of 9 mg/g DCW [90].

Growth-Coupled Production in S. cerevisiae: The innovative approach of replacing the essential MVA pathway with the IU pathway creates a metabolic dependency that forces the yeast to optimize energy metabolism for terpenoid production. This growth-coupling strategy led to significant improvements in squalene accumulation [88].

Dynamic Pathway Regulation: Both hosts have been engineered with biosensor-regulated systems that dynamically control pathway flux in response to metabolic status, preventing toxic intermediate accumulation and optimizing resource allocation [85].

Figure 2: Comparative Engineering Workflows for E. coli and S. cerevisiae Terpenoid Platforms

Research Reagent Solutions

The development of efficient terpenoid production platforms relies on specialized reagents and genetic tools. The following table outlines essential research reagents and their applications in engineering both microbial hosts:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Microbial Terpenoid Production

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application	Host Compatibility
Pathway Enzymes	MthIPK, EcThiM, AtIPK	IU pathway implementation for precursor supply	Both hosts [88] [89]
Prenyltransferases	TcGGPPS, ScERG20	Chain elongation to GPP, FPP, GGPP	Both hosts [89]
Terpene Synthases	GLS, LSS, ABS	Formation of terpene skeletons from prenyl diphosphates	Both hosts [89]
Tailoring Enzymes	Cytochrome P450s, Glycosyltransferases	Functionalization of terpene skeletons	Preferentially S. cerevisiae [86] [85]
Genetic Tools	CRISPR/Cas9 systems, MAGE	Genome editing and multiplex engineering	Host-specific variants [88] [90]
Expression Vectors	pETDuet, pCDFDuet, pACYCDuet	Modular expression of pathway genes	Primarily E. coli [89]
Inducers	IPTG, Galactose	Controlled gene expression	Host-specific
Precursors	Prenol, Isoprenol, Mevalonate	Pathway supplementation	Both hosts [88] [89]

The selection of appropriate reagents is critical for success. For example, the choice between prenol and isoprenol as IU pathway substrates has significant implications, as S. cerevisiae exhibits preferential utilization of prenol, while E. coli can efficiently utilize both substrates [88] [89]. Similarly, the expression of cytochrome P450 enzymes for terpenoid functionalization favors S. cerevisiae due to its native eukaryotic protein folding and post-translational modification systems [86] [85].

The comparative analysis of E. coli and S. cerevisiae for terpenoid production reveals distinct and complementary strengths that can guide researchers in host selection for specific applications. E. coli generally offers advantages in maximum theoretical yield, particularly for simpler terpenoids, with demonstrated success in achieving high titers of monoterpenes, diterpenes, and carotenoids [16] [90] [89]. The well-characterized genetic tools, rapid growth kinetics, and simplified infrastructure requirements further position E. coli as an excellent platform for initial pathway prototyping and production of non-functionalized terpenoids.

Conversely, S. cerevisiae excels in producing more complex terpenoids that require extensive eukaryotic post-translational modifications, particularly those involving cytochrome P450 enzymes [86] [85]. The native high-flux MVA pathway, compartmentalized cellular structure, and tolerance to toxic compounds make yeast particularly suitable for sesquiterpenes, triterpenes, and oxygenated terpenoid derivatives. Recent innovations in growth-coupled production strategies and IU pathway implementation have further strengthened the yeast platform [88].

The emerging paradigm in microbial terpenoid production leverages the unique advantages of both hosts through specialized use cases. E. coli remains the platform of choice for rapid pathway prototyping and production of non-functionalized terpenoids at high titers, while S. cerevisiae offers superior capabilities for complex, highly functionalized terpenoids that require sophisticated eukaryotic enzymatic machinery. As synthetic biology tools continue to advance and our understanding of microbial metabolism deepens, both platforms are expected to see progressive improvements in yield, range, and economic viability, further solidifying microbial production as a sustainable source of valuable terpenoid compounds.

The genus Streptomyces, a group of Gram-positive bacteria with high GC content genomes, has long been recognized as a remarkable microbial host for the synthesis of complex natural products, particularly alkaloids and polyketides [20]. These soil-dwelling bacteria possess a versatile metabolic capacity for expressing diverse secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) and secretory enzymes, making them invaluable in biotechnology and pharmaceutical research [20]. Streptomyces species naturally produce a wide array of bioactive compounds with clinical, agricultural, and biotechnological applications, with approximately 36.5 BGCs predicted per genome on average [20] [91]. Their complex developmental cycle and ability to sporulate after mycelial growth contribute to their exceptional biosynthetic capabilities, evolved for survival in competitive nutrient-limited environments [20]. This case study provides a comparative analysis of Streptomyces performance against alternative microbial hosts for the synthesis of complex alkaloids and polyketides, examining key experimental data, methodologies, and technological advances that position Streptomyces as a premier chassis for natural product synthesis.

Comparative Host Performance Analysis

Quantitative Comparison of Microbial Hosts

Extensive research has compared Streptomyces with other common microbial hosts for heterologous production of natural products. The performance advantages and limitations become evident when examining key biochemical and production metrics across host systems.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

Host Organism	Optimal Product Classes	Key Advantages	Documented Limitations	Representative Titers
Streptomyces species	Polyketides, Alkaloids, Non-ribosomal peptides	Native precursor availability, functional biosynthetic enzyme expression, specialized secretion systems, natural product tolerance [20]	Complex genetic manipulation, slower growth compared to some hosts, complex cellular features [20]	Baiweimectin: 8.4 g/L in industrial fermentation [91]; Streptazolin: 10 mg/L in native strain [92]
Escherichia coli	Simple plant-derived flavonoids, short-chain polyketides	Rapid growth, extensive genetic tools, high productivity, well-characterized genetics [20] [93]	Reducing cytoplasm impedes disulfide bond formation, inefficient translation of GC-rich sequences, limited precursor availability [20]	N/A (Data not provided in search results)
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Alkaloids, Flavonoids, Terpenoids	Eukaryotic post-translational modifications, compartmentalization capabilities, recombinant DNA stability [20] [94]	Limited native precursor pools, potential incorrect folding of bacterial enzymes [20]	Flavan-3-ols: 40.7 mg/L in co-culture system [94]
Bacillus species	Industrial enzymes, Secreted proteins	Efficient protein secretion, GRAS status, extensive fermentation experience, high genetic tractability [95]	Limited secondary metabolite capability, high protease activity in some strains [95]	N/A (Data not provided in search results)

Streptomyces Chassis Strain Performance Comparison

Significant engineering efforts have produced specialized Streptomyces chassis strains with enhanced capabilities for heterologous expression of natural product BGCs. The performance variations among these specialized strains highlight the importance of host selection for specific applications.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Engineered Streptomyces Chassis Strains

Chassis Strain	Genetic Modifications	Target Products	Performance Highlights	Key Experimental Findings
Streptomyces sp. A4420 CH [92]	Deletion of 9 native polyketide BGCs	Type I and II polyketides	Successfully produced all 4 tested polyketide types; outperformed parental strain and other established hosts [92]	Capable of producing benzoisochromanequinone, glycosylated macrolide, glycosylated polyene macrolactam, and heterodimeric aromatic polyketides [92]
S. coelicolor M1152/M1154 [92]	Deletion of actinorhodin, prodiginine, coelimycin, and CDA pathways; rpoB and/or rpsL mutations	Diverse secondary metabolites	20-40 fold increases in natural product yields compared to wild-type [92]	Engineered for cleaner background and enhanced production through rifampicin/streptomycin resistance mutations [92]
S. lividans TK24 [92]	Removal of SLP2 and SLP3 plasmids	Antibiotics (daptomycin), anti-cancer compounds (mithramycin A)	Low protease activity; accepts methylated DNA [92]	ΔYA11 derivative (9 BGC knockouts) showed superior production for 3 metabolites vs. TK24 [92]
S. albus Del14 [92]	Deletion of 15 native secondary metabolite pathways	Diverse heterologous natural products	Minimized background interference for easier detection of heterologous products [92]	Additional attB integration sites provided only marginal production improvements [92]

Experimental Protocols for Streptomyces Engineering and Analysis

Chassis Strain Development Protocol

The development of engineered Streptomyces chassis involves systematic elimination of competing metabolic pathways and enhancement of desirable traits:

• Strain Identification and Sequencing: Identify potential host strains with desirable innate characteristics (rapid growth, high sporulation, metabolic capacity). Perform hybrid long-short read assembly of Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing data for comprehensive genomic analysis [92].

• BGC Identification and Analysis: Use AntiSMASH or similar bioinformatics tools to identify native biosynthetic gene clusters, particularly targeting those competing for desired precursors (e.g., polyketide BGCs for polyketide-focused chassis) [92].

• Targeted BGC Deletion: Employ PCR-targeting and homologous recombination techniques to systematically delete identified native BGCs. For polyketide-focused chassis, target Type I, II, and NRPS hybrid polyketide BGCs [92].

• Validation of Chassis Properties: Confirm that engineered strains maintain robust growth and sporulation capabilities post-modification. Verify metabolic simplification through metabolic profiling and comparison with parental strain [92].

• Heterologous Expression Testing: Test chassis performance using a panel of diverse BGCs (e.g., benzoisochromanequinone, glycosylated macrolide, glycosylated polyene macrolactam, and heterodimeric aromatic polyketide) under varying cultivation conditions [92].

Heterologous BGC Expression and Product Analysis

The protocol for evaluating heterologous expression in Streptomyces chassis involves multiple critical steps:

• BGC Assembly and Vector Construction: Clone target BGCs into appropriate integration vectors (e.g., BAC libraries, phiC31-integration vectors) ensuring inclusion of necessary regulatory elements [92].

• Conjugative Transfer: Introduce constructed vectors into Streptomyces chassis via intergeneric conjugation with E. coli donor strains, using appropriate selection markers and counter-selection [92].

• Fermentation Cultivation: Grow exconjugants in suitable liquid media (e.g., SFM, ISP2) with optimized carbon sources. For production enhancement, employ statistical experimental designs (Plackett-Burman, Box-Behnken, Taguchi) to optimize medium components and culture conditions [96].

• Metabolite Extraction and Analysis: Harvest cultures and extract metabolites using appropriate organic solvents. Analyze extracts via LC-MS/MS and comparative metabolomics against authentic standards when available [92].

• Titer Quantification: Employ HPLC with UV/Vis or MS detection for absolute quantification using calibration curves of purified standards. For novel compounds, use semi-quantification based on structurally similar compounds [92].

Visualization of Key Streptomyces Metabolic Engineering Concepts

SMARTS System for Metabolic Regulation

Streptomyces Chassis Development Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful engineering of Streptomyces for alkaloid and polyketide synthesis requires specialized reagents and tools developed specifically for this complex host system.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Streptomyces Metabolic Engineering

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
Expression Vectors	phiC31-integration vectors, BAC libraries	Heterologous BGC expression	Site-specific integration, stable maintenance, compatibility with Streptomyces [92]
Promoter Systems	SMARTS system, PermE*, PpstS, Pvsi	Transcriptional control of heterologous genes	Constitutive or inducible, varying strengths, cross-species compatibility [91] [95]
Engineering Tools	PCR-targeting systems, REDIRECT technology	Targeted genetic modifications	Efficient gene deletion/replacement, cassette integration [92]
Strain Engineering	S. coelicolor M1152, S. lividans TK24, S. albus Del14, Streptomyces sp. A4420 CH	Specialized chassis strains	Clean metabolic backgrounds, enhanced precursor supply, improved BGC expression [92]
Fermentation Optimization	Statistical designs (Plackett-Burman, Box-Behnken, Taguchi)	Process optimization	Identify critical factors, optimize multiple parameters simultaneously [96]

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The comparative analysis presented in this case study demonstrates that Streptomyces species offer distinct advantages for complex alkaloid and polyketide synthesis, particularly for molecules requiring intricate assembly lines, specialized tailoring modifications, and specific cellular environments for correct folding. The empirical data show that engineered Streptomyces chassis can achieve remarkable production titers, exemplified by the 8.4 g/L yield of baiweimectin in industrial-scale fermentation [91]. This performance superiority stems from their native physiological compatibility with secondary metabolite biosynthesis, including precursor availability, specialized protein folding systems, and self-resistance mechanisms [20].

Future directions in Streptomyces engineering will likely focus on further systematizing host development through approaches such as the Design-Build-Test-Learn (DBTL) cycle from synthetic biology [20]. The continued expansion of the heterologous host panel with specialized chassis like Streptomyces sp. A4420 CH addresses the current limitation where no single host can successfully express all diverse BGCs [92]. Advanced regulation systems like the SMARTS platform demonstrate how synthetic biology can create precision control over metabolic pathways, converting transient physiological signals into stable, tunable outputs for metabolic optimization [91]. As genomics and cloning strategies progress, the development of increasingly sophisticated Streptomyces chassis will undoubtedly accelerate the discovery and production of medically relevant natural products from this remarkable genus.

Emerging Hosts and the Impact of Novel BGC Discovery on Platform Selection

The discovery and sustainable production of natural products (NPs)—complex chemical compounds with therapeutic value—are pivotal to drug development. These molecules, which include antibiotics, immunosuppressants, and anticancer agents, have long been sourced from microbial producers [97]. A critical advancement in this field is the identification of biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs), which are sets of co-located genes that code for the machinery responsible for synthesizing a specific natural product. The ability to efficiently discover and express these BGCs in suitable microbial hosts directly dictates the success of natural product research and its translation into clinical applications. This guide provides a comparative analysis of emerging microbial hosts and the contemporary technological platforms that are reshaping this landscape, focusing on objective performance data to inform platform selection.

Comparison of Emerging Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

The choice of microbial host is fundamental, as it serves as the cellular factory for natural product synthesis. While traditional hosts like E. coli and S. cerevisiae remain widely used, new hosts are being developed to accommodate the vast diversity of BGCs. The table below summarizes the key characteristics of several emerging and established hosts.

Table 1: Comparison of Microbial Hosts for Natural Product Synthesis

Host Organism	Class	Key Advantages	Documented Natural Products/Pathways	Primary Industrial Applications
Pseudomonas putida	Bacterium	Robust metabolism, high tolerance to toxins and solvents, efficient precursor utilization [98]	Using genomic context to engineer synthetic biology chassis [98]	Environmental biotechnology, bioplastics, fine chemicals [98]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Yeast (Fungus)	Well-established genetic tools, eukaryotic protein processing, GRAS status	Probiotic development, bioactive metabolite production [99]	Therapeutics, food ingredients, biofuels
Bacillus subtilis	Bacterium	Efficient protein secretion, GRAS status, genetic tractability	Metabolism of black tea polyphenols (Theaflavin-3-gallate) [100]	Enzyme production, probiotic strains, biomaterials
Lacticaseibacillus casei	Bacterium	Probiotic origin, safe for human consumption	Metabolism of anthocyanins (e.g., Malvidin-3-glucoside) [100]	Food fermentation, nutraceuticals, live biotherapeutics
Eubacterium & Clostridium spp.	Bacterium	Specialized in anaerobic gut metabolism, key for biotransformation	Ginsenoside Rb1 conversion to bioactive Compound K [100]	Gut-brain axis research, metabolization of dietary compounds

The selection of a host is increasingly guided by the source of the BGC. For example, BGCs derived from the human gut microbiome may require anaerobic hosts like Eubacterium or Clostridium species to faithfully replicate the original biochemical environment and produce the desired bioactive compounds [100]. Conversely, for large-scale industrial production, robust and genetically tractable hosts like Pseudomonas putida or Bacillus subtilis are often preferred.

Impact of Novel BGC Discovery Technologies on Platform Selection

Modern platforms for BGC discovery extend far beyond traditional culture-based methods. The integration of multi-omics (genomics, metabolomics) and artificial intelligence (AI) has dramatically accelerated the identification of novel BGCs and the prediction of their chemical products. This evolution directly impacts which production platform is most suitable.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of BGC Discovery and Engineering Platforms

Platform/Technology	Core Methodology	Key Output	Impact on Host & Platform Selection	Reported Efficacy/Data
MATRIX Cultivation Profiling [97]	Miniaturized, parallel cultivation in 24-well micro-bioreactors with diverse media	Elicits silent BGCs; generates extensive data on metabolite production under varied conditions	Informs optimal growth conditions for native host; identifies candidates for heterologous expression	UPLC-DAD/QTOF-MS/MS analysis revealed distinct metabolite profiles across conditions [97]
AI-Driven Discovery (e.g., Insilico Medicine) [101] [102]	Generative AI and deep learning to analyze biological and chemical datasets	De novo design of small molecules with desired properties; novel target identification	Prioritizes BGCs with high drug potential; AI-designed molecules may require bespoke hosts	First AI-discovered drug (INS018_055) for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis entered Phase II trials [101]
Precision Genetic Editing (e.g., Light Horse Therapeutics) [101]	High-throughput gene editing to identify novel functional domains within targets	Identifies cryptic, chemically accessible functional domains on historically challenging targets	"Function-first" approach defines biological target before chemistry, guiding host selection for functionality	Platform led to a strategic collaboration with Novartis valued at up to $1 billion [101]
Structure-Based Machine Learning (e.g., OpenBench) [101]	Uses structure-based machine learning to discover small molecule inhibitors	Identifies potent and selective inhibitors for novel targets (e.g., PARG in DNA repair)	Collaboration with companies like 858 Therapeutics accelerates inhibitor discovery for oncology	858 Therapeutics' PARG inhibitor (ETX-19477) is in Phase 1 trials for solid tumors [101]

Experimental Protocol: MATRIX Cultivation Profiling for BGC Activation

The MATRIX protocol is a prime example of a modern experimental workflow that directly links BGC discovery to production conditions [97]. Its detailed methodology is as follows:

• Equipment Setup: The system uses an Applikon Biotechnology micro-bioreactor with deep 24-well plates. Each plate is sealed with a multilayered cover (Teflon, microfiber, soft silicone, and a perforated stainless-steel cover) to ensure sterility while permitting air exchange.
• Media Preparation and Cultivation:
  • Broth Media: Dispense 1.5 mL of sterile broth media per well. Inoculate with the target microbe(s). Add chemical elicitors or biosynthetic precursors if required. Seal the plate and incubate with shaking (e.g., 190 rpm) or under static conditions.
  • Solid-Phase Media: Dispense 2.5 mL of sterile agar media per well. Cool at a 40° angle to form slants. Inoculate on the surface of the slant. Seal and incubate statically.
  • Grain Media: Add ~1 g of grain and 1.5 mL of yeast extract peptone solution per well. Autoclave to sterilize, then inoculate.
• Incubation: Plates are incubated at a defined temperature (e.g., 27°C) for a period appropriate to the study, typically 10-14 days.
• Crude Extract Preparation: Following cultivation, perform in-situ extraction by adding an organic solvent (e.g., ethyl acetate) directly to each well.
• Chemical Analysis: Analyze the crude extracts using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Diode-Array Detection (UPLC-DAD) and UPLC-Quadrupole Time of Flight Tandem Mass Spectrometry (UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS).
• Data Analysis and Molecular Networking: Process the MS/MS data using the Global Natural Products Social Molecular Networking (GNPS) platform to visualize the chemical diversity induced by different cultivation conditions and identify novel metabolites.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the platforms and protocols described above relies on a suite of specialized reagents and tools. The following table details key solutions for researchers in this field.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for BGC Discovery and Engineering

Reagent/Material	Core Function	Example Application in Workflow
Applikon Micro-Bioreactor System [97]	Provides a miniaturized, parallel cultivation environment with controlled aeration.	Core hardware for the MATRIX protocol, enabling high-throughput cultivation profiling.
Specialized Cultivation Media	Elicits production of secondary metabolites from silent BGCs.	Used in MATRIX to create diverse nutritional conditions for activating cryptic BGCs in bacterial and fungal cultures [97].
UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS System	Provides high-resolution separation and accurate mass determination of metabolites.	Critical for analyzing crude extracts from MATRIX cultivations to characterize novel natural products [97].
GNPS Platform [97]	An online platform for crowd-sourced analysis of MS/MS data via molecular networking.	Used to visualize spectral relationships between metabolites, rapidly identifying novel compounds and their analogs.
CRISPR/Cas Systems [103]	Enables precise genome editing for deleting, inserting, or activating genes.	Used to knock out regulatory genes to activate silent BGCs or to integrate heterologous BGCs into a chosen microbial host.
Structure-Based Machine Learning Platform (e.g., OpenBench) [101]	Accelerates the discovery of small molecule inhibitors by predicting binding affinity.	Collaboratively used with companies like 858 Therapeutics to discover inhibitors for novel targets like PARG.

Visualizing a Common BGC Activation Pathway

A frequent goal in microbial natural product research is to activate silent BGCs. The following diagram illustrates a common signaling pathway and strategic approach to achieve this, integrating elements from the described toolkit.

The field of microbial natural product synthesis is being reshaped by two interconnected trends: the diversification of microbial hosts and the rise of sophisticated discovery platforms. The selection of a host—from robust environmental bacteria to specialized gut microbes—is no longer a one-size-fits-all decision but is critically informed by the origin and requirements of the BGC. Simultaneously, platforms like the MATRIX cultivation system, AI-driven discovery engines, and precision gene editing tools are systematically uncovering novel BGCs and their products, providing the data needed to make informed platform selections. This integrated, data-driven approach, supported by the essential tools in the modern scientist's toolkit, is accelerating the pipeline from gene cluster discovery to the production of valuable therapeutic compounds, ensuring that microbial hosts continue to be indispensable biofactories for drug development.

Conclusion

The optimal choice of a microbial host for natural product synthesis is not universal but is dictated by the specific pathway complexity, enzyme requirements, and target product. This analysis demonstrates that while native hosts like actinomycetes offer a pre-adapted cellular environment, heterologous hosts such as E. coli and S. cerevisiae provide unparalleled genetic tractability and growth speed. The integration of advanced genetic tools, systems biology, and AI-driven design is progressively overcoming historical challenges in yield and scalability. Future directions will be shaped by synthetic biology for de novo pathway design, genome-minimized chassis development, and the continuous discovery of unusual gene clusters from diverse ecosystems, ultimately forging more efficient and predictable microbial platforms for next-generation drug discovery and sustainable biomanufacturing.

References

• 1. Unlocking Nature 's Pharmacy [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-pharmaceuticals-chemistry-natural-products]
• 2. Engineering microbial hosts for production of bacterial natural products - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4963277/]
• 3. Frontiers | A Review of the Microbial Production of Bioactive Natural Products and Biologics [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01404/full]
• 4. Synthetic biology to access and expand nature's chemical diversity | Nature Reviews Microbiology [https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2015.24]
• 5. Dissecting Biosynthesis of Natural Products Toward Drug Discovery | SpringerLink [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-1714-3_6]
• 6. Research Progress of NMR in Natural Product Quantification [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/26/20/6308]
• 7. Unlocking Microbial Potential: Innovations In Natural ... Product [https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijf/article=2025/view=192189/]
• 8. Frontiers | Editorial: Actinomycete natural products: isolation, structure elucidation, biological activity, biosynthesis, and yield improvement [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2024.1471029/full]
• 9. Actinomycetes as nature’s pharmacists | Microbiology Society [https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/natural-products-and-drug-discovery/article/actinomycetes-as-natures-pharmacists.html]
• 10. Frontiers | Molecules to Ecosystems: Actinomycete Natural Products In situ [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2016.02149/full]
• 11. as Actinomycetes cells for production of recombinant proteins host [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2859-4-7]
• 12. Artificial chromosomes to explore and to exploit biosynthetic... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22919271/]
• 13. Engineered Biosynthesis of Natural Products in Heterologous Hosts - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4510016/]
• 14. [Gene networks that regulate secondary metabolism in...] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24791475/]
• 15. : Isolation, Cultivation and its Active Biomolecules Actinomycetes [https://microbiologyjournal.org/actinomycetes-isolation-cultivation-and-its-active-biomolecules/]
• 16. In silico profiling of Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae as terpenoid factories - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24059635/]
• 17. Engineering strategy of yeast metabolism for higher alcohol production - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21902829/]
• 18. Frontiers | A comprehensive review and comparison of L-tryptophan... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1261832/full]
• 19. Comparing the fermentation performance of Escherichia coli KO11, Saccharomyces cerevisiae 424A(LNH-ST) and Zymomonas mobilis AX101 for cellulosic ethanol production | Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts | Full Text [https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1754-6834-3-11]
• 20. Streptomyces as Microbial Chassis for Heterologous Protein Expression - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8724576/]
• 21. Metabolic engineering approaches for the biosynthesis of antibiotics | Microbial Cell Factories | Full Text [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-024-02628-2]
• 22. Frontiers | Streptomycetes: Attractive Hosts for Recombinant Protein Production [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01958/full]
• 23. In silico profiling of Escherichia and Saccharomyces coli ... cerevisiae [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2859-12-84]
• 24. Unlocking Streptomyces spp. for Use as Sustainable Industrial Production Platforms by Morphological Engineering - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1538695/]
• 25. Mycolic Acid-Containing Bacteria Induce Natural - Product Biosynthesis... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3020563/]
• 26. Engineering Biology to Construct Microbial Chassis for the Production of Difficult-to-Express Proteins - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7037952/]
• 27. Metabolic engineering of microbes for oligosaccharide and... [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2859-5-25]
• 28. Synthetic biology for evolutionary engineering: from perturbation of genotype to acquisition of desired phenotype | Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts | Full Text [https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-019-1460-5]
• 29. Where Biology Meets Engineering: Scaling Up Microbial Nutraceuticals to Bridge Nutrition, Therapeutics, and Global Impact [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/3/566]
• 30. Engineering Useful Microbial Species for Pharmaceutical Applications [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/3/599]
• 31. Protein engineering via sequence-performance mapping - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10527434/]
• 32. Frontiers | Recent Advances in Synthetic Biology Approaches to Optimize Production of Bioactive Natural Products in Actinobacteria [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02467/full]
• 33. An Update on Molecular Tools for Genetic Engineering of... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7460540/]
• 34. Challenges and Opportunities for Natural Product Discovery, Production, and Engineering in Native Producers versus Heterologous Hosts - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6405299/]
• 35. Identification and characterization of a strong constitutive promoter ... [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-023-02136-9]
• 36. Design, construction and characterisation of a synthetic promoter library for fine-tuned gene expression in actinomycetes - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096717613000700]
• 37. A set of synthetic versatile genetic control elements for the efficient expression of genes in Actinobacteria | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18846-1]
• 38. for Refactoring production... biosynthetic gene clusters heterologous [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33476936/]
• 39. Genetic platforms for heterologous expression of microbial natural products - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6750982/]
• 40. Refactoring biosynthetic gene clusters for heterologous production of microbial natural products - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8238852/]
• 41. overproduction of oviedomycin by Heterologous ... refactoring [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-023-02218-8]
• 42. Streptomyces as a versatile host platform for heterologous production ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/np/d5np00036j]
• 43. Frontiers | Heterologous production of caffeic acid in microbial ... hosts [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1570406/full]
• 44. An anaerobic bacterium host system for heterologous expression of natural product biosynthetic gene clusters | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11673-0]
• 45. Advances in the optimization of central carbon metabolism in... [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-023-02090-6]
• 46. modification to improve L-tryptophan... Central metabolic pathway [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6527064/]
• 47. Metabolic pathway engineering - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5884275/]
• 48. Recent advances in modular co - culture engineering for synthesis of... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31605875/]
• 49. Strategies and tools to construct stable and efficient artificial coculture systems as biosynthetic platforms for biomass conversion | Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts | Full Text [https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-024-02594-2]
• 50. Current status and applications of genome-scale metabolic models | Genome Biology | Full Text [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1730-3]
• 51. Probing interspecies metabolic interactions within a synthetic binary... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/mrr.2023.70]
• 52. Human gut microbe co - cultures have greater potential than... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6197241/]
• 53. Frontiers | Advances and Applications of Clostridium Co-culture Systems in Biotechnology [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.560223/full]
• 54. Reconstruction of a Genome - Scale of Streptomyces... Metabolic Model [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1989/11/5/304]
• 55. A benchmark of optimization solvers for genome-scale metabolic modeling of organisms and communities - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10878033/]
• 56. Advances in heterologous biosynthesis of plant and fungal natural ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10529-018-2619-z]
• 57. Engineering microbial consortia by division of labor - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6368712/]
• 58. Recent advances in improving metabolic robustness of microbial cell... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7744323/]
• 59. production Microbial selection for converting second-generation... host [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2859-8-64]
• 60. De novo biosynthesis of complex natural sakuranetin... | CoLab product [https://colab.ws/articles/10.1007%2Fs00253-020-10576-1]
• 61. Optimization of bioprocess productivity based on metabolic-genetic network models with bilevel dynamic programming - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29578608/]
• 62. Towards advanced bioprocess optimization: A multiscale modelling approach - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10371800/]
• 63. with systems biology tools to optimize... Metabolic engineering [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/np/c6np00019c]
• 64. Engineering microbial cell factories for the production of plant natural ... [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-017-0732-7]
• 65. A Review of the Microbial Production of Bioactive Natural Products and Biologics - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6596283/]
• 66. - Self of Resistance Producers: Past, Present, and... Natural Product [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29763292/]
• 67. Development of a Pre- Modification to Strategy ... Overcome [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11900431/]
• 68. Overcoming restriction as a barrier to DNA transformation in Caldicellulosiruptor species results in efficient marker replacement | Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts | Full Text [https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1754-6834-6-82]
• 69. Avoidance of recognition sites of restriction - modification is... systems [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-018-5324-3]
• 70. Frontiers | Engineering for Sustainable Bioproducts... Microbes [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/70265/engineering-microbes-for-sustainable-bioproducts-innovations-in-metabolic-engineering-and-ai-driven-optimization]
• 71. Dynamic control in metabolic engineering: Theories, tools, and applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8015268/]
• 72. Control: From the Perspective of Dynamic Logic Metabolic Regulation [https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/63]
• 73. and Machine Learning as Transformative BioTools AI [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/bioprocessing/ai-ineering-therapeutic-microbes/]
• 74. Stars in Alignment for Artificial Intelligence in Bioprocessing [https://www.genengnews.com/insights/stars-in-alignment-for-artificial-intelligence-in-bioprocessing/]
• 75. Current status and future perspectives of kinetic modeling for the cell metabolism with incorporation of the metabolic regulation mechanism | Bioresources and Bioprocessing | Full Text [https://bioresourcesbioprocessing.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40643-014-0031-7]
• 76. Technologies Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence for... Microbial [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11917392/]
• 77. 30 Years of Upstream Titer Improvements Productivity [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/expression-platforms/30-years-of-upstream-productivity-improvements]
• 78. Methods to Measure Protein Output: Why The Method Matters in... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/methods-measure-protein-output-why-method-matters-stacey-garcia]
• 79. Dynamic strain scanning optimization: an efficient strain design strategy... [https://bmcbiotechnol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6750-13-8]
• 80. Efficient estimation of the maximum metabolic productivity of batch systems - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282707/]
• 81. Rational vector design and multi-pathway modulation of HEK... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2528171/]
• 82. Machine learning framework for assessment of microbial factory performance | PLOS One [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210558]
• 83. Revolutionizing biotechnology advances natural products discovery and industrial processing - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11513857/]
• 84. Frontiers | Towards synthetic ecology: strategies for the optimization of microbial community functions [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/synthetic-biology/articles/10.3389/fsybi.2025.1532846/full]
• 85. Frontiers | Microbial Platform for Terpenoid : Production ... Escherichia [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02460/full]
• 86. Engineering Escherichia for coli of functionalized... production [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17438551/]
• 87. Identifying and engineering the ideal microbial terpenoid production host - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31129740/]
• 88. Yeast metabolism adaptation for efficient terpenoids synthesis via isopentenol utilization | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54298-8]
• 89. Engineering Escherichia via introduction of the isopentenol... coli [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-024-02563-2]
• 90. Biosynthesis of Edible Terpenoids: Hosts and Applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11854313/]
• 91. Scalable secondary metabolite production in Streptomyces using a plug-and-play system | Nature Biotechnology [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02762-1]
• 92. Discovery, characterization, and engineering of an advantageous... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11127301/]
• 93. Trends in microbial synthesis of natural products and biofuels - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18990830/]
• 94. Advances in engineering microbial biosynthesis of aromatic compounds and related compounds | Bioresources and Bioprocessing | Full Text [https://bioresourcesbioprocessing.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40643-021-00434-x]
• 95. Bacillus and Streptomyces spp. as hosts for production of industrially... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-023-12900-x]
• 96. Bioprocessing strategies for cost-effective large-scale biogenic synthesis of nano-MgO from endophytic Streptomyces coelicolor strain E72 as an anti-multidrug-resistant pathogens agent | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22134-x]
• 97. Frontiers | MATRIX: a platform for cultivation profiling and bioactive ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/natural-products/articles/10.3389/fntpr.2024.1532543/full]
• 98. Home page | Microbial Cell Factories [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/]
• 99. AdvMicro2025 [https://www.advmicro2025.pl/]
• 100. Role of gut microbiota metabolism and biotransformation on dietary natural products to human health implications with special reference to biochemoinformatics approach - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10037058/]
• 101. 9 small molecule drug discovery companies to look out for in 2025 [https://www.labiotech.eu/best-biotech/small-molecule-drug-discovery-companies/]
• 102. Top 10 AI Drug Discovery in Platforms ... - DevOpsSchool.com 2025 [https://www.devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-ai-drug-discovery-platforms-in-2025-features-pros-cons-comparison/]
• 103. Frontiers | Advancements in microbial engineering for natural ... product [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/66142/advancements-in-microbial-engineering-for-natural-product-synthesis]