Tools and systems for evolutionary engineering of biomolecules and microorganisms

  • Sungho Jang
  • Minsun Kim
  • Jaeseong Hwang
  • Gyoo Yeol JungEmail author
Metabolic Engineering and Synthetic Biology - Review


Evolutionary approaches have been providing solutions to various bioengineering challenges in an efficient manner. In addition to traditional adaptive laboratory evolution and directed evolution, recent advances in synthetic biology and fluidic systems have opened a new era of evolutionary engineering. Synthetic genetic circuits have been created to control mutagenesis and enable screening of various phenotypes, particularly metabolite production. Fluidic systems can be used for high-throughput screening and multiplexed continuous cultivation of microorganisms. Moreover, continuous directed evolution has been achieved by combining all the steps of evolutionary engineering. Overall, modern tools and systems for evolutionary engineering can be used to establish the artificial equivalent to natural evolution for various research applications.


Evolutionary engineering Mutagenesis High-throughput screening Selection Continuous evolution 



This work was supported by the C1 Gas Refinery Program [Grant Number NRF-2018M3D3A1A01055754] and the Global Research Laboratory Program [Grant Number NRF-2016K1A1A2912829] funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT of the Republic of Korea through the National Research Foundation of Korea and by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [Grant Number 20174030201600].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.


  1. 1.
    Arnold FH (2018) Directed evolution: bringing new chemistry to life. Angew Chem Int Ed 57:4143–4148Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Badran AH, Guzov VM, Huai Q et al (2016) Continuous evolution of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins overcomes insect resistance. Nature 533:58–63Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badran AH, Liu DR (2015) Development of potent in vivo mutagenesis plasmids with broad mutational spectra. Nat Commun 6:8425Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Badran AH, Liu DR (2015) In vivo continuous directed evolution. Curr Opin Chem Biol 24:1–10Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Betteridge AL, Sumby KM, Sundstrom JF et al (2018) Application of directed evolution to develop ethanol tolerant Oenococcus oeni for more efficient malolactic fermentation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:921–932Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjork SM, Joensson HN (2018) Microfluidics for cell factory and bioprocess development. Curr Opin Biotechnol 55:95–102Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boiteux S, Guillet M (2004) Abasic sites in DNA: repair and biological consequences in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA Repair 3:1–12Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bryson DI, Fan C, Guo L-T et al (2017) Continuous directed evolution of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Nat Chem Biol 13:1253–1260Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bull JJ, Sanjuán R, Wilke CO (2007) Theory of lethal mutagenesis for viruses. J Virol 81:2930–2939Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Camps M, Naukkarinen J, Johnson BP, Loeb LA (2003) Targeted gene evolution in Escherichia coli using a highly error-prone DNA polymerase I. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:9727–9732Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carter JLL, Bekhouche M, Noiriel A et al (2014) Directed evolution of a formate dehydrogenase for increased tolerance to ionic liquids reveals a new site for increasing the stability. ChemBioChem 15:2710–2718Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang AL, Wolf JJ, Smolke CD (2012) Synthetic RNA switches as a tool for temporal and spatial control over gene expression. Curr Opin Biotechnol 23:679–688Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chou HH, Keasling JD (2013) Programming adaptive control to evolve increased metabolite production. Nat Commun 4:2595Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cobb RE, Chao R, Zhao H (2013) Directed evolution: past, present and future. AIChE J 59:1432–1440Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crook N, Abatemarco J, Sun J et al (2016) In vivo continuous evolution of genes and pathways in yeast. Nat Commun 7:13051Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    d’Oelsnitz S, Ellington A (2018) Continuous directed evolution for strain and protein engineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol 53:158–163Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dar D, Shamir M, Mellin JR et al (2016) Term-seq reveals abundant ribo-regulation of antibiotics resistance in bacteria. Science 352:aad9822Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietrich JA, McKee AE, Keasling JD (2010) High-throughput metabolic engineering: advances in small-molecule screening and selection. Annu Rev Biochem 79:563–590Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dietrich JA, Shis DL, Alikhani A, Keasling JD (2013) Transcription factor-based screens and synthetic selections for microbial small-molecule biosynthesis. ACS Synth Biol 2:47–58Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dixon N, Duncan JN, Geerlings T et al (2010) Reengineering orthogonally selective riboswitches. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:2830–2835Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dougherty MJ, Arnold FH (2009) Directed evolution: new parts and optimized function. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:486–491Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dragosits M, Mattanovich D (2013) Adaptive laboratory evolution—principles and applications for biotechnology. Microb Cell Fact 12:64Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Esvelt KM, Carlson JC, Liu DR (2011) A system for the continuous directed evolution of biomolecules. Nature 472:499–503Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farmer WR, Liao JC (2000) Improving lycopene production in Escherichia coli by engineering metabolic control. Nat Biotechnol 18:533–537Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farzadfard F, Lu TK (2014) Genomically encoded analog memory with precise in vivo DNA writing in living cell populations. Science 346:1256272Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Finney-Manchester SP, Maheshri N (2013) Harnessing mutagenic homologous recombination for targeted mutagenesis in vivo by TaGTEAM. Nucl Acids Res 41:e99Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frommer WB, Davidson MW, Campbell RE (2009) Genetically encoded biosensors based on engineered fluorescent proteins. Chem Soc Rev 38:2833–2841Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Garst AD, Bassalo MC, Pines G et al (2017) Genome-wide mapping of mutations at single-nucleotide resolution for protein, metabolic and genome engineering. Nat Biotechnol 35:48–55Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glassner BJ, Rasmussen LJ, Najarian MT et al (1998) Generation of a strong mutator phenotype in yeast by imbalanced base excision repair. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:9997–10002Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greener A, Callahan M, Jerpseth B (1997) An efficient random mutagenesis technique using an E. coli mutator strain. Mol Biotechnol 7:189–195Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Halperin SO, Tou CJ, Wong EB et al (2018) CRISPR-guided DNA polymerases enable diversification of all nucleotides in a tunable window. Nature 560:248–252Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hu JH, Miller SM, Geurts MH et al (2018) Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature 556:57–63Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huang G, Zhong Z, Miersch S et al (2018) Construction of synthetic phage displayed Fab library with tailored diversity. J Vis Exp 135:e57357Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hubbard BP, Badran AH, Zuris JA et al (2015) Continuous directed evolution of DNA-binding proteins to improve TALEN specificity. Nat Methods 12:939–942Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jakočiūnas T, Pedersen LE, Lis AV et al (2018) CasPER, a method for directed evolution in genomic contexts using mutagenesis and CRISPR/Cas9. Metab Eng 48:288–296Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jang S, Jang S, Xiu Y et al (2017) Development of artificial riboswitches for monitoring of naringenin in vivo. ACS Synth Biol 6:2077–2085Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jang S, Jang S, Yang J et al (2018) RNA-based dynamic genetic controllers: development strategies and applications. Curr Opin Biotechnol 53:1–11Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jang S, Lee B, Jeong H-H et al (2016) On-chip analysis, indexing and screening for chemical producing bacteria in a microfluidic static droplet array. Lab Chip 16:1909–1916Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jang S, Yang J, Seo SW, Jung GY (2015) Riboselector: riboswitch-based synthetic selection device to expedite evolution of metabolite-producing microorganisms. Methods Enzymol 550:341–362Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jester BW, Tinberg CE, Rich MS et al (2018) Engineered biosensors from dimeric ligand-binding domains. ACS Synth Biol 7:2457–2467. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnson TJ, Halfmann C, Zahler JD et al (2016) Increasing the tolerance of filamentous cyanobacteria to next-generation biofuels via directed evolution. Algal Res 18:250–256Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ju M-S, Min S-W, Lee SM et al (2017) A synthetic library for rapid isolation of humanized single-domain antibodies. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 22:239–247Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kaminski TS, Scheler O, Garstecki P (2016) Droplet microfluidics for microbiology: techniques, applications and challenges. Lab Chip 16:2168–2187Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kan SBJ, Lewis RD, Chen K, Arnold FH (2016) Directed evolution of cytochrome c for carbon-silicon bond formation: bringing silicon to life. Science 354:1048–1051Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kellenberger CA, Sales-Lee J, Pan Y et al (2015) A minimalist biosensor: quantitation of cyclic di-GMP using the conformational change of a riboswitch aptamer. RNA Biol 12:1189–1197Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kingsbury DT, Helinski DR (1970) DNA polymerase as a requirement for the maintenance of the bacterial plasmid colicinogenic factor E1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 41:1538–1544Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Korman TP, Sahachartsiri B, Charbonneau DM et al (2013) Dieselzymes: development of a stable and methanol tolerant lipase for biodiesel production by directed evolution. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:70Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    LaCroix RA, Sandberg TE, O’Brien EJ et al (2015) Use of adaptive laboratory evolution to discover key mutations enabling rapid growth of Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655 on glucose minimal medium. Appl Environ Microbiol 81:17–30. Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee S-W, Oh M-K (2015) A synthetic suicide riboswitch for the high-throughput screening of metabolite production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab Eng 28:143–150Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Li S, Si T, Wang M, Zhao H (2015) Development of a synthetic malonyl-CoA sensor in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for intracellular metabolite monitoring and genetic screening. ACS Synth Biol 4:1308–1315Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lim HG, Jang S, Jang S et al (2018) Design and optimization of genetically encoded biosensors for high-throughput screening of chemicals. Curr Opin Biotechnol 54:18–25Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lin J-L, Wagner JM, Alper HS (2017) Enabling tools for high-throughput detection of metabolites: metabolic engineering and directed evolution applications. Biotechnol Adv 35:950–970Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liu J-W, Hadler KS, Schenk G, Ollis D (2007) Using directed evolution to improve the solubility of the C-terminal domain of Escherichia coli aminopeptidase P. Implications for metal binding and protein stability. FEBS J 274:4742–4751Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Liu Y, Li Q, Zheng P et al (2015) Developing a high-throughput screening method for threonine overproduction based on an artificial promoter. Microb Cell Fact 14:121Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Maas WK, Wang C, Lima T et al (1994) Multicopy single-stranded DNAs with mismatched base pairs are mutagenic in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 14:437–441Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Michener JK, Smolke CD (2012) High-throughput enzyme evolution in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using a synthetic RNA switch. Metab Eng 14:306–316Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Michener JK, Thodey K, Liang JC, Smolke CD (2012) Applications of genetically-encoded biosensors for the construction and control of biosynthetic pathways. Metab Eng 14:212–222Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moore CL, Papa LJ, Shoulders MD (2018) A processive protein chimera introduces mutations across defined DNA regions in vivo. J Am Chem Soc 140:11560–11564Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mundhada H, Seoane JM, Schneider K et al (2017) Increased production of l-serine in Escherichia coli through adaptive laboratory evolution. Metab Eng 39:141–150. Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nguyen NH, Kim J-R, Park S (2018) Application of transcription factor-based 3-hydroxypropionic acid biosensor. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 23:564–572Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nomura Y, Yokobayashi Y (2007) Reengineering a natural riboswitch by dual genetic selection. J Am Chem Soc 129:13814–13815Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    O’Brien EJ, Utrilla J, Palsson BO (2016) Quantification and classification of E. coli proteome utilization and unused protein costs across environments. PLoS Comput Biol 12:e1004998Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Packer MS, Liu DR (2015) Methods for the directed evolution of proteins. Nat Rev Genet 16:379–394Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Packer MS, Rees HA, Liu DR (2017) Phage-assisted continuous evolution of proteases with altered substrate specificity. Nat Commun 8:956Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pham HL, Wong A, Chua N et al (2017) Engineering a riboswitch-based genetic platform for the self-directed evolution of acid-tolerant phenotypes. Nat Commun 8:411Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Portnoy VA, Bezdan D, Zengler K (2011) Adaptive laboratory evolution—harnessing the power of biology for metabolic engineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol 22:590–594Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pu J, Zinkus-Boltz J, Dickinson BC (2017) Evolution of a split RNA polymerase as a versatile biosensor platform. Nat Chem Biol 13:432–438Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Raman S, Rogers JK, Taylor ND, Church GM (2014) Evolution-guided optimization of biosynthetic pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:17803–17808Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ravikumar A, Arrieta A, Liu CC (2014) An orthogonal DNA replication system in yeast. Nat Chem Biol 10:175–177Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ravikumar A, Arzumanyan GA, Obadi MKA et al (2018) Scalable, continuous evolution of genes at mutation rates above genomic error thresholds. Cell 175:1946–1957Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ravn U, Gueneau F, Baerlocher L et al (2010) By-passing in vitro screening—next generation sequencing technologies applied to antibody display and in silico candidate selection. Nucl Acids Res 38:e193Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rogers JK, Taylor ND, Church GM (2016) Biosensor-based engineering of biosynthetic pathways. Curr Opin Biotechnol 42:84–91Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Romero PA, Arnold FH (2009) Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10:866–876. Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ronda C, Pedersen LE, Sommer MOA, Nielsen AT (2016) CRMAGE: CRISPR optimized MAGE recombineering. Sci Rep 6:19452Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rong M, He B, McAllister WT, Durbin RK (1998) Promoter specificity determinants of T7 RNA polymerase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:515–519Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rouet P, Smih F, Jasin M (1994) Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol Cell Biol 14:8096–8106Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Scalcinati G, Partow S, Siewers V et al (2012) Combined metabolic engineering of precursor and co-factor supply to increase α-santalene production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microb Cell Fact 11:117Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Selifonova O, Valle F, Schellenberger V (2001) Rapid evolution of novel traits in microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:3645–3649Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Seo J-H, Min W-K, Lee S-G et al (2018) To the final goal: can we predict and suggest mutations for protein to develop desired phenotype? Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 23:134–143Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Seok JY, Yang J, Choi SJ et al (2018) Directed evolution of the 3-hydroxypropionic acid production pathway by engineering aldehyde dehydrogenase using a synthetic selection device. Metab Eng 47:113–120Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Simon AJ, Morrow BR, Ellington AD (2018) Retroelement-based genome editing and evolution. ACS Synth Biol 7:2600–2611Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Stemmer WPC (2002) Molecular breeding of genes, pathways and genomes by DNA shuffling. Sci World J 2:130–131Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Storici F, Durham CL, Gordenin DA, Resnick MA (2003) Chromosomal site-specific double-strand breaks are efficiently targeted for repair by oligonucleotides in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:14994–14999Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tapsin S, Sun M, Shen Y et al (2018) Genome-wide identification of natural RNA aptamers in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nat Commun 9:1289Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Taylor ND, Garruss AS, Moretti R et al (2016) Engineering an allosteric transcription factor to respond to new ligands. Nat Methods 13:177–183Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tizei PAG, Csibra E, Torres L, Pinheiro VB (2016) Selection platforms for directed evolution in synthetic biology. Biochem Soc Trans 44:1165–1175Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tokunaga M, Wada N, Hishinuma F (1987) Expression and identification of immunity determinants on linear DNA killer plasmids pGKLl and pGKL2 in Kluyveromyces lactis. Nucl Acids Res 15:1031–1046Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Topp S, Gallivan JP (2008) Random walks to synthetic riboswitches—a high-throughput selection based on cell motility. ChemBioChem 9:210–213Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Topp S, Gallivan JP (2010) Emerging applications of riboswitches in chemical biology. ACS Chem Biol 5:139–148Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Tyo KE, Alper HS, Stephanopoulos GN (2007) Expanding the metabolic engineering toolbox: more options to engineer cells. Trends Biotechnol 25:132–137Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Vaughan TJ, Williams AJ, Pritchard K et al (1996) Human antibodies with sub-nanomolar affinities isolated from a large non-immunized phage display library. Nat Biotechnol 14:309–314Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Wagner JM, Liu L, Yuan S-F et al (2018) A comparative analysis of single cell and droplet-based FACS for improving production phenotypes: riboflavin overproduction in Yarrowia lipolytica. Metab Eng 47:346–356Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wang T, Badran AH, Huang TP, Liu DR (2018) Continuous directed evolution of proteins with improved soluble expression. Nat Chem Biol 14:972–980Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wong BG, Mancuso CP, Kiriakov S et al (2018) Precise, automated control of conditions for high-throughput growth of yeast and bacteria with eVOLVER. Nat Biotechnol 36:614–623Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Wrenbeck EE, Faber MS, Whitehead TA (2017) Deep sequencing methods for protein engineering and design. Curr Opin Struct Biol 45:36–44Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Xiao W, Samson L (1993) In vivo evidence for endogenous DNA alkylation damage as a source of spontaneous mutation in eukaryotic cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:2117–2121Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Xiao Y, Bowen CH, Liu D, Zhang F (2016) Exploiting nongenetic cell-to-cell variation for enhanced biosynthesis. Nat Chem Biol 12:339–344Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Xu P, Li L, Zhang F et al (2014) Improving fatty acids production by engineering dynamic pathway regulation and metabolic control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:11299–11304Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Yang J, Seo SW, Jang S et al (2013) Synthetic RNA devices to expedite the evolution of metabolite-producing microbes. Nat Commun 4:1413Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Yang W, Lai L (2017) Computational design of ligand-binding proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 45:67–73Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Zhang F, Carothers JM, Keasling JD (2012) Design of a dynamic sensor-regulator system for production of chemicals and fuels derived from fatty acids. Nat Biotechnol 30:354–359Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zhao H, Arnold FH (1997) Combinatorial protein design: strategies for screening protein libraries. Curr Opin Struct Biol 7:480–485Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Zhao H, Arnold FH (1997) Optimization of DNA shuffling for high fidelity recombination. Nucl Acids Res 25:1307–1308Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zhao H, Giver L, Shao Z et al (1998) Molecular evolution by staggered extension process (StEP) in vitro recombination. Nat Biotechnol 16:258–261Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zheng X, Xing X-H, Zhang C (2017) Targeted mutagenesis: a sniper-like diversity generator in microbial engineering. Synth Syst Biotechnol 2:75–86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringPohang University of Science and TechnologyPohangKorea
  2. 2.School of Interdisciplinary Bioscience and BioengineeringPohang University of Science and TechnologyPohangKorea

Personalised recommendations