Genome-Reduced Pseudomonas putida Outcompetes the Wild-Type Strain Upon Oxygen Depletion

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

4 Downloads (Orbit)

Abstract

The broad adoption of the obligate aerobe Pseudomonas putida in industrial-scale production requires a good understanding of the effect of changing oxygen availability due to the dissolved oxygen (DO) gradients apparent at such a scale. To that end, both wild-type P. putida KT2440 and a genome-reduced derivative (strain SEM10) were subjected to different oxygen partial pressures (pO2) in the aeration gas to evaluate the effect of low oxygen availability on growth characteristics in batch mode. Strain SEM10 consistently achieved a 12.7% higher biomass yield on glucose than the wild-type strain during non-DO limited growth, suggesting that genome reduction had no adverse effects on the overall growth properties. Furthermore, when exposed to oxygen depletion in cultivations at low pO2 (0.0525 atm), strain SEM10 kept a similar biomass yield and maximum specific growth rate. In fact, the genome-reduced strain significantly outcompeted the wild-type strain under these conditions. SEM10 achieved 23.3% and 35.5% higher biomass yields on glucose and oxygen, respectively, compared to strain KT2440 at low pO2. These findings indicate that the genome-reduced strain, SEM10, could endure oxygen depletion during growth and even outcompete the wild-type strain under these conditions, highlighting the advantages of using streamlined strains as a platform for industrial bioprocesses.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere70046
JournalEngineering in Life Sciences
Volume25
Issue number10
Number of pages7
ISSN1618-2863
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2025

Keywords

  • DO limitation
  • Pseudomonas putida
  • Genome‐reduction
  • Growth characteristics
  • Microbial cultivation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Genome-Reduced Pseudomonas putida Outcompetes the Wild-Type Strain Upon Oxygen Depletion'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this