“Survival of the Most Productive” Tactic Boosts Output of Engineered Bacteria
Source: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/survival-of-the-most-productive-tactic-boosts-output-of-engineered-bacteria/81250755/
Published: Dec 31, 2014
Summary
Scientists
at Wyss Institute are using negative selection to engineer bacteria to be more productive. They bred the bacteria to produce an
industrially-valued chemical output in quantities 22 to 36 times more than
previously possible. Billions of cells
were evaluated in order to identify the rare cells with the high production
phenotypes. Once they are selected, they
are forced to reproduce and the process starts again. Multiple rounds of evolution were run to enrich
the population of the most productive cells.
This results in the engineering of the cell’s central metabolic
pathways, allowing the microbes to have superior pathway designs. Chemical production and ability to evaluate
the cells allows the researchers to harness evolution. They hope to apply the methods used to
improve production of more useful compounds.
Relevance
This article
is relevant to what we are learning in Honors Biology by relating to 14.3
artificial selection, or selective breeding.
The scientists here are evaluating the bacteria and selectively breeding
the bacteria that have the desired traits.
They also remove “cheater cells (non-producers)” as they go along with
the breeding. By doing this over and
over again they are changing the gene pool in the bacteria population, leading
to the perfect bacterium that is desired by the creator which is similar to what
we are studying in class.
If they continue this process of breeding the most productive, will the chemical output continue to increase as rapidly? Or is there a limit to how "productive" the bacteria can be?
ReplyDeleteThe scientists expect to be able to optimize the production of compounds with each successive generation of bacteria with the use of evolution, but it is unknown, as of now, what the bacteria's limit is.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete