Back

General assessment of genetically-encoded reporters in Yarrowia lipolytica

Zhang, H.; Khoury, L.; Xu, P.

2024-12-02 bioengineering
10.1101/2024.12.01.625949 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The development of genetically-encoded reporters is important to characterize gene expression dynamics and investigate cellular-level events. Unlike Bakers yeast, the thick cell wall and the high oil content in oleaginous yeast have restricted our ability to establish efficient fluorescence or enzyme-based reporters. In this book chapter, we detailed the protocol for how to clone and construct fluorescence reporters including hrGFP, TurboGFP, and mScarlet-I3, and the Nanoluc luciferase reporters. We quantified the fluorescence/luciferase reporter efficiency with 96-well microplate readers, flow cytometry, and confocal microscopy. Our results indicate that TurboGFP and hrGFP have a relatively low signal/noise ratio, and mScarlet-I3 yields a very high signal/noise ratio. Compared to fluorescence, luciferase Nanoluc exhibits the highest signal/noise ratio. The downside of using luciferase is the relatively laborious procedure and the related high cost. This chapter may guide us to establish an efficient and reliable reporter system to study gene expression or protein-labeling in nonconventional yeast.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
ACS Synthetic Biology
● 287 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
15.1%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
○ 53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
STAR Protocols
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
○ 98 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.2%
7
New Biotechnology
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
8
BMC Biotechnology
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
9
Journal of Visualized Experiments
● 34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
10
Journal of Biotechnology
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
11
Methods
○ 34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
12
Synthetic Biology
◐ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
13
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.7%
14
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.7%
15
Nature Protocols
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
Current Protocols
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
17
Metabolic Engineering Communications
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
BMC Methods
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
19
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
● 339 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
BioTechniques
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
21
Microbial Cell Factories
○ 27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
22
HardwareX
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
23
Protein Science
○ 246 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
SLAS Technology
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.