Making Evolution Make Microbes Make Products

By selecting for bacteria that can survive only if they make a particular product of interest over multiple iterations, researchers vastly improved yields and decreased production times. Cynthia Graber reports

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Genetically engineered bacteria already produce some products of commercial interest or biomedical importance, such as insulin. And coaxing the organisms to do so can be done with a cleaner setup and produce fewer environmentally problematic byproducts than other production methods. But the bacterial approach has stayed limited to just a few products, due to inefficiencies.

Now a research team at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering says they’ve developed a system to get microbes to produce chemicals dramatically faster and more efficiently. The technique uses Darwinian principles over multiple iterations, what they call rounds of evolution. The study is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Srivatsan Raman et al, Evolution-guided optimization of biosynthetic pathways]

The researchers induced mutations in specific genes related to the expression of the desired molecule. They then tweaked the bacteria so that genes for antibiotic resistance only become active when the cells make some of the sought-after product. With antibiotics present, cells die that do not produce enough of the product. Because those cells also do not have the life-saving resistance to the antibiotics. The surviving cells, however, show promise.

The system takes the cells through this evolutionary cycle repeatedly, eliminating unproductive bacteria each time.

The end result: microbes that synthesize the chemical of interest with 30 times the output of current bacterial compounds production systems, and up to a thousand times faster.

The researchers say their program could work to efficiently produce for a wide variety of useful compounds. Which might make vats of modified bacteria tomorrow’s leaders of commercial chemical manufacturing.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

Cynthia Graber is a print and radio journalist who covers science, technology, agriculture, and any other stories in the U.S. or abroad that catch her fancy. She's won a number of national awards for her radio documentaries, including the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award, and is the co-host of the food science podcast Gastropod. She was a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT.

More by Cynthia Graber

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe