Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28338018›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Isolation and characterization of the E. coli membrane protein production strain Mutant56(DE3).

Thomas Baumgarten, Susan Schlegel, Samuel Wagner, Mirjam Löw, Jonas Eriksson, Ida Bonde, Markus J Herrgård, Hermann J Heipieper, Morten H H Nørholm, Dirk Jan Slotboom and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Membrane Protein Production in Escherichia coli: Protocols and Rules.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. New tools for recombinant protein production in Escherichia coli: A 5-year update.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2019
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Thomas BaumgartenCenter for Biomembrane Research, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91, Sweden.
Susan SchlegelCenter for Biomembrane Research, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91, Sweden.
Samuel WagnerCenter for Biomembrane Research, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91, Sweden.
Mirjam LöwCenter for Biomembrane Research, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91, Sweden.
Jonas ErikssonCenter for Biomembrane Research, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91, Sweden.
Ida BondeTechnical University of Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Kogle Alle 6, Hørsholm, 2970, Denmark.
Markus J HerrgårdTechnical University of Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Kogle Alle 6, Hørsholm, 2970, Denmark.
Hermann J HeipieperHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Department of Environmental Biotechnology, Permoserstrasse 15, Leipzig, 04318, Germany.
Morten H H NørholmTechnical University of Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Kogle Alle 6, Hørsholm, 2970, Denmark.
Dirk Jan SlotboomGroningen Biomolecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, Groningen, AG, 9747, The Netherlands.
Jan-Willem de GierCenter for Biomembrane Research, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91, Sweden.
Stockholm University · SETechnical University of Denmark · DKHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research · DENovo Nordisk Foundation · DKUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Membrane protein production is usually toxic to E. coli. However, using genetic screens strains can be isolated in which the toxicity of membrane protein production is reduced, thereby improving production yields. Best known examples are the C41(DE3) and C43(DE3) strains, which are both derived from the T7 RNA polymerase (P)-based BL21(DE3) protein production strain. In C41(DE3) and C43(DE3) mutations lowering t7rnap expression levels result in strongly reduced T7 RNAP accumulation levels. As a consequence membrane protein production stress is alleviated in the C41(DE3) and C43(DE3) strains, thereby increasing membrane protein yields. Here, we isolated Mutant56(DE3) from BL21(DE3) using a genetic screen designed to isolate BL21(DE3)-derived strains with mutations alleviating membrane protein production stress other than the ones in C41(DE3) and C43(DE3). The defining mutation of Mutant56(DE3) changes one amino acid in its T7 RNAP, which weakens the binding of the T7 RNAP to the T7 promoter governing target gene expression rather than lowering T7 RNAP levels. For most membrane proteins tested yields in Mutant56(DE3) were considerably higher than in C41(DE3) and C43(DE3). Thus, the isolation of Mutant56(DE3) shows that the evolution of BL21(DE3) can be promoted towards further enhanced membrane protein production.

Indexed as

MutationDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsMembrane ProteinsPromoter Regions, GeneticViral Proteinsbacteriophage T7 RNA polymeraseDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesEscherichia coli ProteinsMembrane ProteinsViral Proteins

Identifiers

PMID28338018
PMCPMC5364489
OpenAlexW2602892317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.