↓ Skip to main content

Carbon partitioning to the terpenoid biosynthetic pathway enables heterologous β-phellandrene production in Escherichia coli cultures

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Microbiology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Carbon partitioning to the terpenoid biosynthetic pathway enables heterologous β-phellandrene production in Escherichia coli cultures
Published in
Archives of Microbiology, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00203-014-1024-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cinzia Formighieri, Anastasios Melis

Abstract

Escherichia coli was used as a microbial system for the heterologous synthesis of β-phellandrene, a monoterpene of plant origin with several potential commercial applications. Expression of Lavandula angustifolia β-phellandrene synthase (PHLS), alone or in combination with Picea abies geranyl-diphosphate synthase in E. coli, resulted in no β-phellandrene accumulation, in sharp contrast to observations with PHLS-transformed cyanobacteria. Lack of β-phellandrene biosynthesis in E. coli was attributed to the limited endogenous carbon partitioning through the native 2-C-methylerythritol-4-phosphate (MEP) pathway. Heterologous co-expression of the mevalonic acid pathway, enhancing cellular carbon partitioning and flux toward the universal isoprenoid precursors, isopentenyl-diphosphate and dimethylallyl-diphosphate, was required to confer β-phellandrene production. Differences in endogenous carbon flux toward the synthesis of isoprenoids between photosynthetic (Synechocystis) and non-photosynthetic bacteria (E. coli) are discussed in terms of differences in the regulation of carbon partitioning through the MEP biosynthetic pathway in the two systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 23%
Engineering 3 7%
Chemistry 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,376,056
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Microbiology
#2,124
of 2,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,820
of 231,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Microbiology
#14
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,766 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.