Team:DTU-Denmark/Results

During the project the whole RESHAPE team has been working hard in the lab and behind the computers to RESHAPE Aspergillus niger. We managed to make nine new morphology strains, a library of 11 signal peptide mutant strains and nine mycelium growth simulations based on real life data. Here you will find all our results, characterizations of our new morphology strains and the Mycemulator simulations. To find out more about the specific experiments please visit our Measurement page.

The reference strain

The ATCC 1015 strain of Aspergillus niger was used as our reference strain. It has no known mutations from the wild type A. niger.

ATCC 1015 and the nine A. niger mutant strains were inoculated and grown on four different growth media. The morphology of a fungus differs depending on the environmental conditions it is grown under, which is the reasoning behind choosing to grow the A. niger strains on four different media. We have described the four media types further in the Measurement page.

The strains were grown on Yeast Extract Peptone Dextrose (YPD), Transformation Media (TM), Creatine Sucrose Agar (CREA) and Czepek Yeast Extract Agar (CYA).


Microscope pictures and Simulation model

Left: Confocal microscope picture of ATCC 1015 at 10X magnification. Right: Growth simulation for 12h performed using the Mycemulator.


Microscopic images were analyzed by the image analysis tool extracting growth parameters which were then fed to the Mycemulator. A simulation of ATCC 1015 growing for 12 hours (using the experimental growth rate from our BioLector data) is seen above.

Parameters specific for simulating ATCC 1015:
  • Branching frequency: 0.0169257
  • Gamma distribution parameters used for curvature angles: (1.6114694, 2.0238222)
  • Beta distribution parameters used for branching angles: (4.2886834, 0.9839464)
  • Experimental growth rate: 0.2757333

The new morphology strains


We made nine new strains with the tools of synthetic biology. Here you will find the characterization of them.


Click on one to learn more!


Comparison

Simulations

As we see in the microscope the growth pattern of our strains are very different. This is also clear to see in our growth simulations from the Mycemultor. Take your time to enjoy these amazing simulations.

ATCC 1015


Δgul-1


ΔchsC_Δgul-1

ΔchsC


ΔracA


ΔchsC_ΔspaA

ΔspaA


ΔpkaR


ΔspaA_Δgul-1

Growth

The growth rates of all the mutants were determined from BioLector growth data. Seven of mutants were also run in 1L bioreactors and growth rates were determined from these as well. Unfortunately, we were not able to run the last two, ΔaplD and ΔpkaR, in the bioreactor due to time limitations.
Overall the growth rates obtained from the bioreactor runs were higher than the ones from the BioLector, with two exception ΔchsC and ΔspaA. The growth rates determined from the BioLector are for some of the mutants not comparable to the growth rates obtained from bioreactor runs. An example of this is ΔspaA which shows the highest value in the BioLector whereas its growth rate in the bioreactor is half of the one for the reference strain. These differences might be due to differences in fermentation conditions in the two setups. The bioreactor is in general better as it allows you to control more parameters including pH, agitation and oxygen level.
For growth rates obtained from the bioreactor, the duplicates show consistent results. All the mutants had similar growth rates to the reference strain with the exception of ΔchsC and ΔspaA.


Bar chart of the mean growth rate with their corresponding standard deviation for all the mutant strains compared to the reference strain (ATCC 1015) obtained from the BioLector.


Bar chart of the growth rate for both duplicates for seven of the mutant strains compared to the reference strain (ATCC 1015) obtained from the bioreactor. The black line represents the conditions for the first three strains separated from the others due to them being with overpressure. The strains are therefore only comparable within the first three and within the last six strains.

From the BioLector and bioreactor growth data, the length of the lag phases and exponential phases were determined. From the plot it can be observed that the replicates follow each other very closely. For all mutants it is seen that the lag phase is longer in the BioLector than in the bioreactors. This could be due to bioreactors having more optimal growth conditions compared with the BioLector, thereby resulting in a shorter adaptation phase.
From the bioreactor most strains show a similar lag phase to that of the reference strain. In industry a short lag phase would be favorable as it shorten the fermentation time without affecting the time of efficient production (in the exponential and stationary phases). In this sense, ΔchsC and ΔspaA show great promise as they have a significant shorter lag phases than the reference strain. So although they have a smaller growth rate, their total fermentation time is shorter than that of the reference strain (before entering stationary phase).
ΔchsC_Δgul-1 presents a slightly shorter lag phase and significantly shorter fermentation time (before entering stationary phase) due to its higer growth rate. This makes it a favorable strain.


Stacked bar chart of the duration in hours of lag and exponential phases with their corresponding standard deviation from all the mutant strains compared to the reference strain (ATCC 1015) obtained from the BioLector.


Stacked bar chart of the duration in hours of lag and exponential phases from all the mutant strains that were run in the bioreactor compared to the reference strain (ATCC 1015). The black line represents the conditions for the first three strains separated from the others due to them being run with overpressure. The strains are therefore only comparable within the first three and within the last six strains.



Protein secretion

From the figure below it is seen that protein secretion and glucoamylase activity varies significantly between the strains. The strains with a knock out in the gul-1 gene show significantly higher specific activity than the reference strain. Δgul-1 showed a 3-fold increase where ΔchsC_Δgul-1 and ΔspaA_Δgul-1 showed an approximately 2-fold increase indicating that they are significantly better protein producers.
In this project we have chosen to assess protein production as an indicator of succesful engineering. However in industry it depends on the product of choice. A high protein producing strain might not be the best for production of secondary metabolites.


Protein secretion and glucoamylase activity for all strains run in the bioreactor for the last time-point samples. Green: Glucoamylase activity in UA/mL. Blue: Specific activity in UA/mg calculated from the activity and the protein concentration. Purple: Protein concentration in mg/mL. The black line represents the conditions for the first three strains separated from the others due to them being with overpressure. The strains are therefore only comparable within the first three and within the last six strains.



Summary

All our new strains are summarized in the radar charts seen below. The strains are evaluated on six criteria, all normalized to the reference strain:
  • RESHAPE score: This is a subjective score given by the wetlab team. It is based on how the strain was to work with compared to the reference strain. Things taken into consideration were:
    • Sporulation, was it hard to make spore stocks?
    • How long did it take for it to grow on solid media?
    • How promising did we find it as a good cell factory for protein production?
  • Branching frequency: Value analyzed by the Morphologizer from the microscopic pictures. High branching frequency is linked to hyperbranching.
  • Space fillingness:
  • Value analyzed by the Morphologizer from the microscopic pictures. This value is an indicator of agglomeration in mycelium.
  • Growth rate (BioLector): Growth rates obtain from the BioLector.
  • Growth rate (Bioreactor): Growth rates obtain from the bioreactor.
  • Protein secretion (specific activity): Glucoamylase activity per mg secreted protein.


As seen from the radar charts all our strains behave differently due to their gene knock out. In this project we have seen the selected genes effect on morphology and how they affect A. niger performance as a cell factory. We have proven that the tools of synthetic biology can be a key player in controlling and improving the cell factories of the future.

Comparison of the nine radar charts from all the mutant strains normalized to the reference values from ATCC 1015 (shown in yellow). *Indicates that not all data was obtained to fill out the chart.

Signal Peptides

Eleven mutants with signal peptide glucoamylase insertions were constructed. Eight with natural signal peptides found in literature and three with synthetic signal peptides predicted by the SignalPrepper tool. To learn more about the way these strains were designed please see the Design page.We wanted to test the secretion levels for the different signal peptide strains through the glucoamylase assay. Unfortunately we did not reach this point due to time limitations. Here you see the eight of the native signal peptide strains plated on minimal media starch plates. Iodine was added to the plates to show were the starch was consumed. From these pictures it can not be concluded how well the different strains secret glucoamylase.