Engineering <i>Escherichia coli</i> to produce aromatic chemicals from ethylene glycol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microbial overproduction of aromatic chemicals has gained considerable industrial interest and various metabolic engineering approaches have been employed in recent years to address the associated challenges. So far, most studies have used sugars (mostly glucose) or glycerol as the primary carbon source. In this study, we used ethylene glycol (EG) as the main carbon substrate. EG could be obtained from the degradation of plastic and cellulosic wastes. As a proof of concept, Escherichia coli was engineered to transform EG into L-tyrosine, a valuable aromatic amino acid. Under the best fermentation condition, the strain produced 2 g/L L-tyrosine from 10 g/L EG at approximately 50% of the theoretical yield, outperforming glucose (the most common sugar feedstock) in the same experimental conditions. To prove the concept that EG can be converted into different aromatic chemicals, E. coli was further engineered with a similar approach to synthesize other valuable aromatic chemicals, L-phenylalanine and p -coumaric acid. Finally, waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles were degraded using acid hydrolysis and the resulting monomer EG was transformed into L-tyrosine using the engineered E. coli , yielding a comparable titer to that obtained using commercial EG. The strains developed in this study should be valuable to the community for producing valuable aromatics from EG.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".