FIGURE 4 Phylogenetic comparison of enzyme sequences to select diverse enzyme homologs for testing. Scale bars denote substitutions per site. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) represent the phylogenetic tree which was constructed based on HsRbk, EcRbk, HsPrs, PcPrs, HsNampt, and MrNampt, respectively. Zb, Zosterops borbonicus ; Ok, Oncorhynchus kisutch ;Ct ,Clostridium taeniosporum ; Th, Thermoflexus hugenholtzii JAD2 ; Oa, Ornatilinea apprima ; Ph,Photobacterium halotolerans ; Se, Superficieibacter electus ; Ra, Ralstonia sp. A12 ; Pb, Pogonomyrmex barbatus ; Pv, Pogona vitticeps ; Tt, Tepidiphilus thermophilus ; Tk, Thermococcus kodakarensis ; Mj,Methanocaldococcus jannaschii ; Lh, Limimonas halophila ; Ct, Clostridium thermobutyricum ; Lv, Lactobacillus vaccinostercus DSM 20634 ; Ap, Aptenodytes patagonicus ; Cg,Cottoperca gobio ; Mr , Meiothermus rufus ; Su,Sulfurovum sp. FS06-10 ; Cb, Comamonadaceae bacterium ; Rb,Rhodocyclaceae bacterium ; Tb, Thermomonas brevis ; Lp,Lysobacter prati . Visualizations of trees were generated using the Interactive Tree of Life tool (https://itol.embl.de/).
After obtaining the NMN biosynthetic pathway enzymes library, the most productive enzyme homolog for each step was rapidly identified by applying the normalized screening procedure in a step-by-step manner. At first, 10 candidate homologs of Nampt were evaluated using the normalized screening. The complementation GFP fluorescence showed that the expression of LpNampt, CgNampt, and ApNampt via CFPS was poor (Figure 5b). In our experience, the complementation fluorescence (∆F) value below 200 implied that the amount of corresponding protein expressed in CFPS was not able to activate pathway reaction successfully, so these homologs were ruled out from calculating RT/Fvalues. By comparing the RT/F values of the remaining seven homologs, it was found that the RT/F value of SuNampt was the highest. Next, the candidate homologs of Prs were characterized through the normalized screening procedure by assembling with SuNampt. MjPrs was picked out because it had the highest RT/F value (Figure 5c). At last, OkRbk was identified as the most productive Rbk homolog by combining with SuNampt and MjPrs in the normalized screening (Figure 5d). By using the normalized screening procedure, the best performing enzyme homolog of each step was identified from 10 different enzyme variants in 24 h (i.e., a 16-hour CFPS reaction step for expressing enzyme homologs and a 8-hour assay step for the determination of the expression level and activity of each homolog). However, it would take several weeks if 10 enzymes were tested in vivo due to the constraints of cell growth and laborious genetic manipulations (Nielsen & Keasling, 2016; Wu et al., 2016). In addition, Santos and colleagues recently reported the development of a method for screening of enzyme mutant libraries, which also utilized the split GFP system (Santos-Aberturas et al., 2015). However, the enzyme mutants were expressed using the cell-based approach in this method, which meant that the time-consuming cloning, cell culturing, and lysing processes were still needed, thus limiting the screening speed and throughput of this method. By contrast, our normalized screening procedure could be expanded easily into a high-speed and high-throughput format because the enzyme homologs could be readily obtained from the efficient CFPS reactions.