Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21901404›Full record

ReviewJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2011

Increasing recombinant protein production in Escherichia coli through metabolic and genetic engineering.

Hendrik Waegeman, Wim Soetaert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hendrik WaegemanCentre of Expertise-Industrial Biotechnology and Biocatalysis, Department of Biochemical and Microbial Technology, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Hendrik.Waegeman@UGent.be
Wim Soetaert
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different hosts have been used for recombinant protein production, ranging from simple bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis, to more advanced eukaryotes as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia pastoris, to very complex insect and animal cells. All have their advantages and drawbacks and not one seems to be the perfect host for all purposes. In this review we compare the characteristics of all hosts used in commercial applications of recombinant protein production, both in the area of biopharmaceuticals and industrial enzymes. Although the bacterium E. coli remains a very often used organism, several drawbacks limit its possibility to be the first-choice host. Furthermore, we show what E. coli strains are typically used in high cell density cultivations and compare their genetic and physiological differences. In addition, we summarize the research efforts that have been done to improve yields of heterologous protein in E. coli, to reduce acetate formation, to secrete the recombinant protein into the periplasm or extracellular milieu, and to perform post-translational modifications. We conclude that great progress has been made in the incorporation of eukaryotic features into E. coli, which might allow the bacterium to regain its first-choice status, on the condition that these research efforts continue to gain momentum.

Indexed as

BiotechnologyEscherichia coliGenetic EngineeringProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalRecombinant ProteinsRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21901404
OpenAlexW2012995109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.