Recombineering and MAGE (original) (raw)

References

1. Simon, R., Priefer, U. & Pühler, A. A broad host range mobilization system for in vivo genetic engineering: transposon mutagenesis in gram negative bacteria. Nat. Biotechnol. 1, 784–791 (1983).
   Google Scholar
2. Ye, B. et al. Unmarked genetic manipulation in Bacillus subtilis by natural co-transformation. J. Biotechnol. 284, 57–62 (2018).
   Google Scholar
3. Chandrasegaran, S. & Carroll, D. Origins of programmable nucleases for genome engineering. J. Mol. Biol. 428, 963–989 (2016).
   Google Scholar
4. Doudna, J. A. & Charpentier, E. Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR–Cas9. Science 346, 1258096 (2014).
   Google Scholar
5. Gersbach, C. A. Genome engineering: the next genomic revolution. Nat. Methods 11, 1009–1011 (2014).
   Google Scholar
6. Gaj, T., Gersbach, C. A. & Barbas, C. F. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 31, 397–405 (2013).
   Google Scholar
7. Kim, H. & Kim, J.-S. A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 321–334 (2014).
   Google Scholar
8. Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
   ADS Google Scholar
9. Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
   ADS Google Scholar
10. Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).
    ADS Google Scholar
11. Jakočiūnas, T. et al. Multiplex metabolic pathway engineering using CRISPR/Cas9 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab. Eng. 28, 213–222 (2015).
    Google Scholar
12. Fu, Y. et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR–Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 822–826 (2013).
    Google Scholar
13. Inui, M. et al. Rapid generation of mouse models with defined point mutations by the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci. Rep. 4, 5396 (2014).
    Google Scholar
14. Paquet, D. et al. Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9. Nature 533, 125–129 (2016).
    ADS Google Scholar
15. Maruyama, T. et al. Increasing the efficiency of precise genome editing with CRISPR–Cas9 by inhibition of nonhomologous end joining. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 538–542 (2015).
    Google Scholar
16. Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A•T to G•C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471 (2017).
    ADS Google Scholar
17. Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).
    ADS Google Scholar
18. Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).
    ADS Google Scholar
19. Smith, C. J. et al. Enabling large-scale genome editing at repetitive elements by reducing DNA nicking. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 5183–5195 (2020).
    Google Scholar
20. Reis, A. C. et al. Simultaneous repression of multiple bacterial genes using nonrepetitive extra-long sgRNA arrays. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1294–1301 (2019).
    Google Scholar
21. Zeng, Y. et al. Correction of the Marfan syndrome pathogenic FBN1 mutation by base editing in human cells and heterozygous embryos. Mol. Ther. 26, 2631–2637 (2018).
    Google Scholar
22. Zeng, J. et al. Therapeutic base editing of human hematopoietic stem cells. Nat. Med. 26, 535–541 (2020).
    Google Scholar
23. Ellis, H. M., Yu, D., DiTizio, T. & Court, D. L. High efficiency mutagenesis, repair, and engineering of chromosomal DNA using single-stranded oligonucleotides. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 6742–6746 (2001). This article was the first to thoroughly examine the possibility of recombineering with ssDNA as a template.
    ADS Google Scholar
24. Yu, D. et al. An efficient recombination system for chromosome engineering in Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5978–5983 (2000).
    ADS Google Scholar
25. Mosberg, J. A., Lajoie, M. J. & Church, G. M. λ red recombineering in Escherichia coli occurs through a fully single-stranded intermediate. Genetics 186, 791–799 (2010).
    Google Scholar
26. Murphy, K. C. Use of bacteriophage λ recombination functions to promote gene replacement in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 180, 2063–2071 (1998).
    Google Scholar
27. Zhang, Y., Buchholz, F., Muyrers, J. P. & Stewart, A. F. A new logic for DNA engineering using recombination in Escherichia coli. Nat. Genet. 20, 123–128 (1998).
    Google Scholar
28. Little, J. W. An exonuclease induced by bacteriophage λ. II. Nature of the enzymatic reaction. J. Biol. Chem. 242, 679–686 (1967).
    Google Scholar
29. Caldwell, B. J. et al. Crystal structure of the Redβ C-terminal domain in complex with λ exonuclease reveals an unexpected homology with λ Orf and an interaction with Escherichia coli single stranded DNA binding protein. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 1950–1963 (2019).
    Google Scholar
30. Li, Z., Karakousis, G., Chiu, S. K., Reddy, G. & Radding, C. M. The β protein of phage λ promotes strand exchange. J. Mol. Biol. 276, 733–744 (1998).
    Google Scholar
31. Murphy, K. C. λ Gam protein inhibits the helicase and chi-stimulated recombination activities of Escherichia coli RecBCD enzyme. J. Bacteriol. 173, 5808–5821 (1991).
    Google Scholar
32. Barbieri, E. M., Muir, P., Akhuetie-Oni, B. O., Yellman, C. M. & Isaacs, F. J. Precise editing at DNA replication forks enables multiplex genome engineering in eukaryotes. Cell 171, 1453–1467.e13 (2017). This article describes eMAGE, the first instance of MAGE in a eukaryotic cell, leveraging co-selection to improve the ARF.
    Google Scholar
33. Wang, H. H. et al. Programming cells by multiplex genome engineering and accelerated evolution. Nature 460, 894–898 (2009). This is the original article describing MAGE as a method for multiplex genome editing.
    ADS Google Scholar
34. Isaacs, F. J. et al. Precise manipulation of chromosomes in vivo enables genome-wide codon replacement. Science 333, 348–353 (2011).
    ADS Google Scholar
35. Carr, P. A. et al. Enhanced multiplex genome engineering through co-operative oligonucleotide co-selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e132 (2012).
    Google Scholar
36. Nyerges, Á. et al. A highly precise and portable genome engineering method allows comparison of mutational effects across bacterial species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2502–2507 (2016). This work first describes the transient suppression of MMR by expression of a dominant negative MutL.
    ADS Google Scholar
37. Amiram, M. et al. Evolution of translation machinery in recoded bacteria enables multi-site incorporation of nonstandard amino acids. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1272–1279 (2015).
    Google Scholar
38. Lajoie, M. J. et al. Genomically recoded organisms expand biological functions. Science 342, 357–360 (2013). This landmark article is the first to report a fully recoded organism, in this case an E. coli strain with 321 TAG stop codon reassignments, produced with MAGE.
    ADS Google Scholar
39. Napolitano, M. G. et al. Emergent rules for codon choice elucidated by editing rare arginine codons in Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E5588–5597 (2016).
    Google Scholar
40. Swaminathan, S. et al. Rapid engineering of bacterial artificial chromosomes using oligonucleotides. Genesis 29, 14–21 (2001).
    Google Scholar
41. Thomason, L. C., Costantino, N., Shaw, D. V. & Court, D. L. Multicopy plasmid modification with phage λ Red recombineering. Plasmid 58, 148–158 (2007).
    Google Scholar
42. Oppenheim, A. B., Rattray, A. J., Bubunenko, M., Thomason, L. C. & Court, D. L. In vivo recombineering of bacteriophage λ by PCR fragments and single-strand oligonucleotides. Virology 319, 185–189 (2004).
    Google Scholar
43. Hueso-Gil, A., Nyerges, Á., Pál, C., Calles, B. & de Lorenzo, V. Multiple-site diversification of regulatory sequences enables interspecies operability of genetic devices. ACS Synth. Biol. 9, 104–114 (2020).
    Google Scholar
44. Court, D. L., Sawitzke, J. A. & Thomason, L. C. Genetic engineering using homologous recombination. Annu. Rev. Genet. 36, 361–388 (2002).
    Google Scholar
45. Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).
    Google Scholar
46. Costantino, N. & Court, D. L. Enhanced levels of λ Red-mediated recombinants in mismatch repair mutants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 15748–15753 (2003). This is the first article to describe evasion of mismatch repair as an effective strategy to improve the ARF.
    ADS Google Scholar
47. Au, K. G., Welsh, K. & Modrich, P. Initiation of methyl-directed mismatch repair. J. Biol. Chem. 267, 12142–12148 (1992).
    Google Scholar
48. Burdett, V., Baitinger, C., Viswanathan, M., Lovett, S. T. & Modrich, P. In vivo requirement for RecJ, ExoVII, ExoI, and ExoX in methyl-directed mismatch repair. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 6765–6770 (2001).
    ADS Google Scholar
49. Schaaper, R. M. & Dunn, R. L. Spectra of spontaneous mutations in Escherichia coli strains defective in mismatch correction: the nature of in vivo DNA replication errors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 84, 6220–6224 (1987).
    ADS Google Scholar
50. Iyer, R. R., Pluciennik, A., Burdett, V. & Modrich, P. L. DNA mismatch repair: functions and mechanisms. Chem. Rev. 106, 302–323 (2006).
    Google Scholar
51. Wang, H. H., Xu, G., Vonner, A. J. & Church, G. Modified bases enable high-efficiency oligonucleotide-mediated allelic replacement via mismatch repair evasion. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 7336–7347 (2011).
    Google Scholar
52. Modrich, P. Mechanisms and biological effects of mismatch repair. Annu. Rev. Genet. 25, 229–253 (1991).
    Google Scholar
53. Sawitzke, J. A. et al. Probing cellular processes with oligo-mediated recombination and using the knowledge gained to optimize recombineering. J. Mol. Biol. 407, 45–59 (2011).
    Google Scholar
54. van Pijkeren, J.-P. & Britton, R. A. High efficiency recombineering in lactic acid bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e76 (2012). This work is one of the first and best instances of the screening of a small group of SSAPs to permit high-frequency MAGE in a non- E. coli bacterium, here L. lactis and Lactobacillus reuteri.
    Google Scholar
55. Binder, S., Siedler, S., Marienhagen, J., Bott, M. & Eggeling, L. Recombineering in Corynebacterium glutamicum combined with optical nanosensors: a general strategy for fast producer strain generation. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 6360–6369 (2013).
    Google Scholar
56. Penewit, K. et al. Efficient and scalable precision genome editing in Staphylococcus aureus through conditional recombineering and CRISPR/Cas9-mediated counterselection. mBio 9, e00067 (2018).
    Google Scholar
57. van Ravesteyn, T. W. et al. LNA modification of single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides allows subtle gene modification in mismatch-repair-proficient cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4122–4127 (2016).
    ADS Google Scholar
58. Matic, I., Babic, A. & Radman, M. 2-Aminopurine allows interspecies recombination by a reversible inactivation of the Escherichia coli mismatch repair system. J. Bacteriol. 185, 1459–1461 (2003).
    Google Scholar
59. Pitsikas, P., Patapas, J. M. & Cupples, C. G. Mechanism of 2-aminopurine-stimulated mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. Mutat. Res. 550, 25–32 (2004).
    Google Scholar
60. Ang, J. et al. Mutagen synergy: hypermutability generated by specific pairs of base analogs. J. Bacteriol. 198, 2776–2783 (2016).
    Google Scholar
61. Nyerges, Á. et al. Conditional DNA repair mutants enable highly precise genome engineering. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, e62 (2014).
    Google Scholar
62. Hong, E. S., Yeung, A., Funchain, P., Slupska, M. M. & Miller, J. H. Mutants with temperature-sensitive defects in the Escherichia coli mismatch repair system: sensitivity to mispairs generated in vivo. J. Bacteriol. 187, 840–846 (2005).
    Google Scholar
63. Lennen, R. M. et al. Transient overexpression of DNA adenine methylase enables efficient and mobile genome engineering with reduced off-target effects. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, e36 (2016).
    Google Scholar
64. Yang, H., Wolff, E., Kim, M., Diep, A. & Miller, J. H. Identification of mutator genes and mutational pathways in Escherichia coli using a multicopy cloning approach. Mol. Microbiol. 53, 283–295 (2004).
    Google Scholar
65. Aronshtam, A. & Marinus, M. G. Dominant negative mutator mutations in the mutL gene of Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 2498–2504 (1996).
    Google Scholar
66. Ricaurte, D. E. et al. A standardized workflow for surveying recombinases expands bacterial genome-editing capabilities. Microb. Biotechnol. 11, 176–188 (2018).
    Google Scholar
67. Wannier, T. M. et al. Improved bacterial recombineering by parallelized protein discovery. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 13689–13698 (2020). This work describes SEER, a method for adapting MAGE to new bacterial species, and the improvement of ARF to ultra-high frequency in E. coli and C. freundii.
    Google Scholar
68. Filsinger, G. et al. Characterizing the portability of RecT-mediated oligonucleotide recombination. Nat. Chem. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-020-00710-5 (2021). This work describes a molecular basis for the host tropism displayed by SSAPs, namely their interaction with the host SSB.
    Article Google Scholar
69. Aparicio, T., Nyerges, A., Martínez-García, E. & de Lorenzo, V. High-efficiency multi-site genomic editing of Pseudomonas putida through thermoinducible ssDNA recombineering. iScience 23, 100946 (2020).
    ADS Google Scholar
70. Storici, F., Lewis, L. K. & Resnick, M. A. In vivo site-directed mutagenesis using oligonucleotides. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 773–776 (2001).
    Google Scholar
71. DiCarlo, J. E. et al. Yeast oligo-mediated genome engineering (YOGE). ACS Synth. Biol. 2, 741–749 (2013). This article is the first to explore recombineering in eukaryotes, focusing on Rad51 expression and MMR avoidance.
    Google Scholar
72. Wang, H. H. et al. Genome-scale promoter engineering by co-selection MAGE. Nat. Methods 9, 591–593 (2012).
    Google Scholar
73. Lee, M. et al. Rad52/Rad59-dependent recombination as a means to rectify faulty Okazaki fragment processing. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 15064–15079 (2014).
    Google Scholar
74. Arbel, M., Bronstein, A., Sau, S., Liefshitz, B. & Kupiec, M. Access to PCNA by Srs2 and Elg1 controls the choice between alternative repair pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. mBio 11, e00705–e00720 (2020).
    Google Scholar
75. Liang, Z., Metzner, E. & Isaacs, F. J. Advanced eMAGE for highly efficient combinatorial editing of a stable genome. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.30.256743 (2020).
    Article Google Scholar
76. Iyer, L. M., Koonin, E. V. & Aravind, L. Classification and evolutionary history of the single-strand annealing proteins, RecT, Redβ, ERF and RAD52. BMC Genom. 3, 8 (2002).
    Google Scholar
77. van Kessel, J. C. & Hatfull, G. F. Recombineering in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat. Methods 4, 147–152 (2007).
    Google Scholar
78. Aparicio, T., Jensen, S. I., Nielsen, A. T., de Lorenzo, V. & Martínez-García, E. The Ssr protein (T1E_1405) from Pseudomonas putida DOT-T1E enables oligonucleotide-based recombineering in platform strain P. putida EM42. Biotechnol. J. 11, 1309–1319 (2016).
    Google Scholar
79. Lee, H. H., Ostrov, N., Gold, M. A. & Church, G. M. Recombineering in Vibrio natriegens. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/130088 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
80. Wu, D. Y., Ugozzoli, L., Pal, B. K. & Wallace, R. B. Allele-specific enzymatic amplification of β-globin genomic DNA for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2757–2760 (1989).
    ADS Google Scholar
81. Johnson, K. A. The kinetic and chemical mechanism of high-fidelity DNA polymerases. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1804, 1041–1048 (2010).
    Google Scholar
82. Lefever, S. et al. Cost-effective and robust genotyping using double-mismatch allele-specific quantitative PCR. Sci. Rep. 9, 2150 (2019).
    ADS Google Scholar
83. Imyanitov, E. N. et al. Improved reliability of allele-specific PCR. BioTechniques 33, 484–490 (2002).
    Google Scholar
84. Słomka, M., Sobalska-Kwapis, M., Wachulec, M., Bartosz, G. & Strapagiel, D. High resolution melting (HRM) for high-throughput genotyping-limitations and caveats in practical case studies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18, 2316 (2017).
    Google Scholar
85. Murphy, K. C. et al. ORBIT: a new paradigm for genetic engineering of mycobacterial chromosomes. mBio 9, e01467-18 (2018). This inventive article describes the pairing of recombineering with site-specific recombinases to ease genomic deletions and fusions in mycobacteria.
    Google Scholar
86. Nyerges, Á. et al. Directed evolution of multiple genomic loci allows the prediction of antibiotic resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E5726–E5735 (2018). This article describes DIvERGE, an important technique for diversification of targeted genomic loci.
    Google Scholar
87. Bonde, M. T. et al. Direct mutagenesis of thousands of genomic targets using microarray-derived oligonucleotides. ACS Synth. Biol. 4, 17–22 (2015).
    Google Scholar
88. Wang, H. H. & Church, G. M. Multiplexed genome engineering and genotyping methods applications for synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. Meth. Enzymol. 498, 409–426 (2011).
    Google Scholar
89. Mandell, D. J. et al. Biocontainment of genetically modified organisms by synthetic protein design. Nature 518, 55–60 (2015).
    ADS Google Scholar
90. Rovner, A. J. et al. Recoded organisms engineered to depend on synthetic amino acids. Nature 518, 89–93 (2015).
    ADS Google Scholar
91. Sandberg, T. E. et al. Evolution of Escherichia coli to 42 °C and subsequent genetic engineering reveals adaptive mechanisms and novel mutations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 2647–2662 (2014).
    Google Scholar
92. Wannier, T. M. et al. Adaptive evolution of genomically recoded Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3090–3095 (2018).
    Google Scholar
93. Pattanayak, V., Guilinger, J. P. & Liu, D. R. Determining the specificities of TALENs, Cas9, and other genome-editing enzymes. Meth. Enzymol. 546, 47–78 (2014).
    Google Scholar
94. Rees, H. A. & Liu, D. R. Publisher correction: base editing: precision chemistry on the genome and transcriptome of living cells. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 801 (2018).
    Google Scholar
95. Mougiakos, I., Bosma, E. F., de Vos, W. M., van Kranenburg, R. & van der Oost, J. Next generation prokaryotic engineering: the CRISPR–Cas toolkit. Trends Biotechnol. 34, 575–587 (2016).
    Google Scholar
96. Jiang, W., Bikard, D., Cox, D., Zhang, F. & Marraffini, L. A. RNA-guided editing of bacterial genomes using CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 233–239 (2013).
    Google Scholar
97. Oh, J.-H. & van Pijkeren, J.-P. CRISPR–Cas9-assisted recombineering in Lactobacillus reuteri. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, e131 (2014).
    Google Scholar
98. Higgins, S. A., Ounkap, S. & Savage, D. F. Rapid and programmable protein mutagenesis using plasmid recombineering. ACS Synth. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.7b00112 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
99. Ronda, C., Pedersen, L. E., Sommer, M. O. A. & Nielsen, A. T. CRMAGE: CRISPR optimized MAGE recombineering. Sci. Rep. 6, 19452 (2016).
    ADS Google Scholar
100. Oesterle, S., Gerngross, D., Schmitt, S., Roberts, T. M. & Panke, S. Efficient engineering of chromosomal ribosome binding site libraries in mismatch repair proficient Escherichia coli. Sci. Rep. 7, 12327 (2017).
     ADS Google Scholar
101. Umenhoffer, K. et al. Genome-wide abolishment of mobile genetic elements using genome shuffling and CRISPR/Cas-assisted MAGE allows the efficient stabilization of a bacterial chassis. ACS Synth. Biol. 6, 1471–1483 (2017).
     Google Scholar
102. Ding, T. et al. Reversed paired-gRNA plasmid cloning strategy for efficient genome editing in Escherichia coli. Microb. Cell Fact. 19, 63 (2020).
     Google Scholar
103. Farasat, I. et al. Efficient search, mapping, and optimization of multi-protein genetic systems in diverse bacteria. Mol. Syst. Biol. 10, 731 (2014).
     Google Scholar
104. Kunjapur, A. M., Tarasova, Y. & Prather, K. L. J. Synthesis and accumulation of aromatic aldehydes in an engineered strain of Escherichia coli. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 11644–11654 (2014).
     Google Scholar
105. Pósfai, G. et al. Emergent properties of reduced-genome Escherichia coli. Science 312, 1044–1046 (2006).
     ADS Google Scholar
106. Grodberg, J. & Dunn, J. J. ompT encodes the Escherichia coli outer membrane protease that cleaves T7 RNA polymerase during purification. J. Bacteriol. 170, 1245–1253 (1988).
     Google Scholar
107. Studier, F. W., Daegelen, P., Lenski, R. E., Maslov, S. & Kim, J. F. Understanding the differences between genome sequences of Escherichia coli B strains REL606 and BL21(DE3) and comparison of the E. coli B and K-12 genomes. J. Mol. Biol. 394, 653–680 (2009).
     Google Scholar
108. Borja, G. M. et al. Engineering Escherichia coli to increase plasmid DNA production in high cell-density cultivations in batch mode. Microb. Cell Fact. 11, 132 (2012).
     Google Scholar
109. Derman, A. I., Prinz, W. A., Belin, D. & Beckwith, J. Mutations that allow disulfide bond formation in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli. Science 262, 1744–1747 (1993).
     ADS Google Scholar
110. Bessette, P. H., Aslund, F., Beckwith, J. & Georgiou, G. Efficient folding of proteins with multiple disulfide bonds in the Escherichia coli cytoplasm. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 13703–13708 (1999).
     ADS Google Scholar
111. Lobstein, J. et al. SHuffle, a novel Escherichia coli protein expression strain capable of correctly folding disulfide bonded proteins in its cytoplasm. Microb. Cell Fact. 11, 56 (2012).
     Google Scholar
112. Yates, L. E. et al. Glyco-recoded Escherichia coli: recombineering-based genome editing of native polysaccharide biosynthesis gene clusters. Metab. Eng. 53, 59–68 (2019).
     Google Scholar
113. Kelsic, E. D. et al. RNA structural determinants of optimal codons revealed by MAGE-Seq. Cell Syst. 3, 563–571.e6 (2016).
     Google Scholar
114. Scangarella-Oman, N. E. et al. In vitro activity and microbiological efficacy of gepotidacin from a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, dose-ranging study in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 64, e01302–e01319 (2020).
     Google Scholar
115. Garst, A. D. et al. Genome-wide mapping of mutations at single-nucleotide resolution for protein, metabolic and genome engineering. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 48–55 (2017).
     Google Scholar
116. Halperin, S. O. et al. CRISPR-guided DNA polymerases enable diversification of all nucleotides in a tunable window. Nature 560, 248–252 (2018).
     ADS Google Scholar
117. Wang, H. H. et al. Multiplexed in vivo His-tagging of enzyme pathways for in vitro single-pot multienzyme catalysis. ACS Synth. Biol. 1, 43–52 (2012).
     Google Scholar
118. Brockman, I. M. & Prather, K. L. J. Dynamic knockdown of E. coli central metabolism for redirecting fluxes of primary metabolites. Metab. Eng. 28, 104–113 (2015).
     Google Scholar
119. Durante-Rodríguez, G., de Lorenzo, V. & Nikel, P. I. A post-translational metabolic switch enables complete decoupling of bacterial growth from biopolymer production in engineered Escherichia coli. ACS Synth. Biol. 7, 2686–2697 (2018).
     Google Scholar
120. Pines, G., Freed, E. F., Winkler, J. D. & Gill, R. T. Bacterial recombineering: genome engineering via phage-based homologous recombination. ACS Synth. Biol. 4, 1176–1185 (2015).
     Google Scholar
121. Choudhury, A. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 recombineering-mediated deep mutational scanning of essential genes in Escherichia coli. Mol. Syst. Biol. 16, e9265 (2020).
     Google Scholar
122. Bao, Z., Cobb, R. E. & Zhao, H. Accelerated genome engineering through multiplexing. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 8, 5–21 (2016).
     Google Scholar
123. Fredens, J. et al. Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome. Nature 569, 514–518 (2019).
     ADS Google Scholar
124. Ostrov, N. et al. Design, synthesis, and testing toward a 57-codon genome. Science 353, 819–822 (2016).
     ADS Google Scholar
125. Jiang, Y. et al. Multigene editing in the Escherichia coli genome via the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 2506–2514 (2015).
     Google Scholar
126. Piñero Lambea, C. et al. Mycoplasma pneumoniae genome editing based on oligo recombineering and Cas9-mediated counterselection. ACS Synth. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.0c00022 (2020).
     Article Google Scholar
127. Cui, L. & Bikard, D. Consequences of Cas9 cleavage in the chromosome of Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 4243–4251 (2016).
     Google Scholar
128. Pyne, M. E., Moo-Young, M., Chung, D. A. & Chou, C. P. Coupling the CRISPR/Cas9 system with λ Red recombineering enables simplified chromosomal gene replacement in Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 5103–5114 (2015).
     Google Scholar
129. Li, Y. et al. Metabolic engineering of Escherichia coli using CRISPR–Cas9 meditated genome editing. Metab. Eng. 31, 13–21 (2015).
     Google Scholar
130. van Kessel, J. C. & Hatfull, G. F. Efficient point mutagenesis in mycobacteria using single-stranded DNA recombineering: characterization of antimycobacterial drug targets. Mol. Microbiol. 67, 1094–1107 (2008).
     Google Scholar
131. Aldovini, A., Husson, R. N. & Young, R. A. The uraA locus and homologous recombination in Mycobacterium bovis BCG. J. Bacteriol. 175, 7282–7289 (1993).
     Google Scholar
132. Kalpana, G. V., Bloom, B. R. & Jacobs, W. R. Insertional mutagenesis and illegitimate recombination in mycobacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 5433–5437 (1991).
     ADS Google Scholar
133. Wang, K. et al. Defining synonymous codon compression schemes by genome recoding. Nature 539, 59–64 (2016).
     ADS Google Scholar
134. Chin, J. W. Reprogramming the genetic code. Science 336, 428–429 (2012).
     ADS Google Scholar
135. Lampson, B. C., Inouye, M. & Inouye, S. Retrons, msDNA, and the bacterial genome. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110, 491–499 (2005).
     Google Scholar
136. Simon, A. J., Ellington, A. D. & Finkelstein, I. J. Retrons and their applications in genome engineering. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 11007–11019 (2019).
     Google Scholar
137. Yee, T., Furuichi, T., Inouye, S. & Inouye, M. Multicopy single-stranded DNA isolated from a gram-negative bacterium, Myxococcus xanthus. Cell 38, 203–209 (1984).
     Google Scholar
138. Millman, A. et al. Bacterial retrons function in anti-phage defense. Cell https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.065 (2020).
     Article Google Scholar
139. Farzadfard, F. & Lu, T. K. Genomically encoded analog memory with precise in vivo DNA writing in living cell populations. Science 346, 1256272 (2014).
     Google Scholar
140. Simon, A. J., Morrow, B. R. & Ellington, A. D. Retroelement-based genome editing and evolution. ACS Synth. Biol. 7, 2600–2611 (2018).
     Google Scholar
141. Farzadfard, F., Gharaei, N., Citorik, R. J. & Lu, T. K. Efficient retroelement-mediated DNA writing in bacteria. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.21.958983 (2020).
     Article Google Scholar
142. Schubert, M. G. et al. High throughput functional variant screens via in-vivo production of single-stranded DNA. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.05.975441 (2020).
     Article Google Scholar
143. Gallagher, R. R., Li, Z., Lewis, A. O. & Isaacs, F. J. Rapid editing and evolution of bacterial genomes using libraries of synthetic DNA. Nat. Protoc. 9, 2301–2316 (2014).
     Google Scholar
144. Sharan, S. K., Thomason, L. C., Kuznetsov, S. G. & Court, D. L. Recombineering: a homologous recombination-based method of genetic engineering. Nat. Protoc. 4, 206–223 (2009).
     Google Scholar
145. Holo, H. & Nes, I. F. High-frequency transformation, by electroporation, of Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris grown with glycine in osmotically stabilized media. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55, 3119–3123 (1989).
     Google Scholar
146. Shepard, B. D. & Gilmore, M. S. Electroporation and efficient transformation of Enterococcus faecalis grown in high concentrations of glycine. Methods Mol. Biol. 47, 217–226 (1995).
     Google Scholar
147. Dower, W. J., Miller, J. F. & Ragsdale, C. W. High efficiency transformation of E. coli by high voltage electroporation. Nucleic Acids Res. 16, 6127–6145 (1988).
     Google Scholar
148. Okamoto, A., Kosugi, A., Koizumi, Y., Yanagida, F. & Udaka, S. High efficiency transformation of Bacillus brevis by electroporation. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 61, 202–203 (1997).
     Google Scholar
149. Wards, B. J. & Collins, D. M. Electroporation at elevated temperatures substantially improves transformation efficiency of slow-growing mycobacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 145, 101–105 (1996).
     Google Scholar
150. Tu, Q. et al. Room temperature electrocompetent bacterial cells improve DNA transformation and recombineering efficiency. Sci. Rep. 6, 24648 (2016).
     ADS Google Scholar
151. McIntyre, D. A. & Harlander, S. K. Genetic transformation of intact Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis by high-voltage electroporation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55, 604–610 (1989).
     Google Scholar
152. Salis, H. M. The ribosome binding site calculator. Meth. Enzymol. 498, 19–42 (2011).
     Google Scholar
153. Liu, J. et al. Genome-scale sequence disruption following biolistic transformation in rice and maize. Plant Cell 31, 368–383 (2019).
     Google Scholar
154. Miller, D. L., Pislaru, S. V. & Greenleaf, J. E. Sonoporation: mechanical DNA delivery by ultrasonic cavitation. Somat. Cell Mol. Genet. 27, 115–134 (2002).
     Google Scholar
155. Gao, F. & Zhang, C.-T. Ori-Finder: a web-based system for finding oriCs in unannotated bacterial genomes. BMC Bioinform. 9, 79 (2008).
     Google Scholar
156. Sernova, N. V. & Gelfand, M. S. Identification of replication origins in prokaryotic genomes. Brief. Bioinform. 9, 376–391 (2008).
     Google Scholar
157. Bonde, M. T. et al. MODEST: a web-based design tool for oligonucleotide-mediated genome engineering and recombineering. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, W408–W415 (2014).
     Google Scholar
158. Quintin, M. et al. Merlin: computer-aided oligonucleotide design for large scale genome engineering with MAGE. ACS Synth. Biol. 5, 452–458 (2016).
     Google Scholar
159. Hecker, K. H. & Rill, R. L. Error analysis of chemically synthesized polynucleotides. Biotechniques 24, 256–260 (1998).
     Google Scholar
160. Temsamani, J., Kubert, M. & Agrawal, S. Sequence identity of the n-1 product of a synthetic oligonucleotide. Nucleic Acids Res. 23, 1841–1844 (1995).
     Google Scholar
161. Schmidt, T. L. et al. Scalable amplification of strand subsets from chip-synthesized oligonucleotide libraries. Nat. Commun. 6, 8634 (2015).
     ADS Google Scholar
162. Nordström, K. & Dasgupta, S. Copy-number control of the Escherichia coli chromosome: a plasmidologist’s view. EMBO Rep. 7, 484–489 (2006).
     Google Scholar
163. Reynolds, T. S. & Gill, R. T. Quantifying impact of chromosome copy number on recombination in Escherichia coli. ACS Synth. Biol. 4, 776–780 (2015).
     Google Scholar
164. Boyle, N. R., Reynolds, T. S., Evans, R., Lynch, M. & Gill, R. T. Recombineering to homogeneity: extension of multiplex recombineering to large-scale genome editing. Biotechnol. J. 8, 515–522 (2013).
     Google Scholar
165. Parekh-Olmedo, H., Drury, M. & Kmiec, E. B. Targeted nucleotide exchange in Saccharomyces cerevisiae directed by short oligonucleotides containing locked nucleic acids. Chem. Biol. 9, 1073–1084 (2002).
     Google Scholar
166. Moore, J. A. et al. Automated electrotransformation of Escherichia coli on a digital microfluidic platform using bioactivated magnetic beads. Biomicrofluidics 11, 014110 (2017).
     Google Scholar
167. Madison, A. C. et al. Scalable device for automated microbial electroporation in a digital microfluidic platform. ACS Synth. Biol. 6, 1701–1709 (2017).
     Google Scholar
168. Datsenko, K. A. & Wanner, B. L. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 6640–6645 (2000).
     ADS Google Scholar
169. Jasin, M. & Schimmel, P. Deletion of an essential gene in Escherichia coli by site-specific recombination with linear DNA fragments. J. Bacteriol. 159, 783–786 (1984).
     Google Scholar
170. Liang, L. et al. CRISPR EnAbled Trackable genome Engineering for isopropanol production in Escherichia coli. Metab. Eng. 41, 1–10 (2017).
     Google Scholar
171. Szili, P. et al. Rapid evolution of reduced susceptibility against a balanced dual-targeting antibiotic through stepping-stone mutations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 63, e00207-19 (2019).
     Google Scholar
172. Zhang, J., Jensen, M. K. & Keasling, J. D. Development of biosensors and their application in metabolic engineering. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 28, 1–8 (2015).
     Google Scholar
173. Glasgow, A. A. et al. Computational design of a modular protein sense-response system. Science 366, 1024–1028 (2019).
     ADS Google Scholar
174. Hoffmann, S. A., Wohltat, C., Müller, K. M. & Arndt, K. M. A user-friendly, low-cost turbidostat with versatile growth rate estimation based on an extended Kalman filter. PLoS ONE 12, e0181923 (2017).
     Google Scholar
175. Wong, B. G., Mancuso, C. P., Kiriakov, S., Bashor, C. J. & Khalil, A. S. Precise, automated control of conditions for high-throughput growth of yeast and bacteria with eVOLVER. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 614–623 (2018).
     Google Scholar
176. Yang, K. K., Wu, Z. & Arnold, F. H. Machine-learning-guided directed evolution for protein engineering. Nat. Methods 16, 687–694 (2019).
     Google Scholar
177. Biswas, S., Khimulya, G., Alley, E. C., Esvelt, K. M. & Church, G. M. Low-N protein engineering with data-efficient deep learning. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.23.917682 (2020).
     Article Google Scholar
178. Beckman, R. A., Mildvan, A. S. & Loeb, L. A. On the fidelity of DNA replication: manganese mutagenesis in vitro. Biochemistry 24, 5810–5817 (1985).
     Google Scholar
179. Skandalis, A., Encell, L. P. & Loeb, L. A. Creating novel enzymes by applied molecular evolution. Chem. Biol. 4, 889–898 (1997).
     Google Scholar
180. Badran, A. H. et al. Continuous evolution of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins overcomes insect resistance. Nature 533, 58–63 (2016).
     ADS Google Scholar
181. Hu, J. H. et al. Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature 556, 57–63 (2018).
     ADS Google Scholar
182. Reetz, M. T., Prasad, S., Carballeira, J. D., Gumulya, Y. & Bocola, M. Iterative saturation mutagenesis accelerates laboratory evolution of enzyme stereoselectivity: rigorous comparison with traditional methods. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 9144–9152 (2010).
     Google Scholar
183. Martínez-García, E., Aparicio, T., Goñi-Moreno, A., Fraile, S. & de Lorenzo, V. SEVA 2.0: an update of the Standard European Vector Architecture for de-/re-construction of bacterial functionalities. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D1183–D1189 (2015).
     Google Scholar
184. van Pijkeren, J.-P., Neoh, K. M., Sirias, D., Findley, A. S. & Britton, R. A. Exploring optimization parameters to increase ssDNA recombineering in Lactococcus lactis and Lactobacillus reuteri. Bioengineered 3, 209–217 (2012).
     Google Scholar
185. Chang, Y., Wang, Q., Su, T. & Qi, Q. The efficiency for recombineering is dependent on the source of the phage recombinase function unit. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/745448 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
186. Aparicio, T. et al. Mismatch repair hierarchy of Pseudomonas putida revealed by mutagenic ssDNA recombineering of the pyrF gene. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 45–58 (2020).
     Google Scholar
187. Corts, A. D., Thomason, L. C., Gill, R. T. & Gralnick, J. A. A new recombineering system for precise genome-editing in Shewanella oneidensis strain MR-1 using single-stranded oligonucleotides. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).
     Google Scholar
188. Bryan, A. & Swanson, M. S. Oligonucleotides stimulate genomic alterations of Legionella pneumophila. Mol. Microbiol. 80, 231–247 (2011).
     Google Scholar
189. Swingle, B., Bao, Z., Markel, E., Chambers, A. & Cartinhour, S. Recombineering using RecTE from Pseudomonas syringae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 4960–4968 (2010).
     Google Scholar
190. Tucker, A. T. et al. Defining gene–phenotype relationships in Acinetobacter baumannii through one-step chromosomal gene inactivation. mBio 5, e01313–01314 (2014).
     Google Scholar
191. Sun, Z. et al. A high-efficiency recombineering system with PCR-based ssDNA in Bacillus subtilis mediated by the native phage recombinase GP35. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99, 5151–5162 (2015).
     Google Scholar
192. Wang, X. et al. Discovery of recombinases enables genome mining of cryptic biosynthetic gene clusters in Burkholderiales species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E4255–E4263 (2018).
     Google Scholar
193. Dong, H., Tao, W., Gong, F., Li, Y. & Zhang, Y. A functional recT gene for recombineering of Clostridium. J. Biotechnol. 173, 65–67 (2014).
     Google Scholar
194. Huang, H., Song, X. & Yang, S. Development of a RecE/T-assisted CRISPR–Cas9 toolbox for Lactobacillus. Biotechnol. J. 14, e1800690 (2019).
     Google Scholar
195. Xin, Y., Guo, T., Mu, Y. & Kong, J. Identification and functional analysis of potential prophage-derived recombinases for genome editing in Lactobacillus casei. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 364, fnx243 (2017).
     Google Scholar
196. Yang, P., Wang, J. & Qi, Q. Prophage recombinases-mediated genome engineering in Lactobacillus plantarum. Microb. Cell Fact. 14, 154 (2015).
     Google Scholar
197. Yin, J. et al. A new recombineering system for Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e36 (2015).
     Google Scholar
198. Wu, Y. et al. RecET recombination system driving chromosomal target gene replacement in Z_ymomonas mobilis_. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 30, 118–124 (2017).
     Google Scholar

Download references