Open Access

Artificially designed pathogens – a diagnostic option for future military deployments

  • Andreas E. Zautner1Email author,
  • Wycliffe O. Masanta1,
  • Rebecca Hinz2,
  • Ralf Matthias Hagen2 and
  • Hagen Frickmann2, 3
Military Medical Research20152:17

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-015-0045-2

Received: 18 February 2015

Accepted: 24 June 2015

Published: 9 July 2015

Abstract

Diagnostic microbial isolates of bio-safety levels 3 and 4 are difficult to handle in medical field camps under military deployment settings. International transport of such isolates is challenging due to restrictions by the International Air Transport Association. An alternative option might be inactivation and sequencing of the pathogen at the deployment site with subsequent sequence-based revitalization in well-equipped laboratories in the home country for further scientific assessment.

A literature review was written based on a PubMed search.

First described for poliovirus in 2002, de novo synthesis of pathogens based on their sequence information has become a well-established procedure in science. Successful syntheses have been demonstrated for both viruses and prokaryotes. However, the technology is not yet available for routine diagnostic purposes.

Due to the potential utility of diagnostic sequencing and sequence-based de novo synthesis of pathogens, it seems worthwhile to establish the technology for diagnostic purposes over the intermediate term. This is particularly true for resource-restricted deployment settings, where safe handling of harmful pathogens cannot always be guaranteed.

Keywords

Deployment Sequencing Next generation sequencing DNA shuffling Synthesis Diagnosis Synthetic biology

Introduction

During military deployment, close proximity of individuals within field camps, restricted hygiene options during more robust military operations, new environments and interactions between people and animals on site can lead to contagion with an infectious disease followed by an outbreak in the camp [18]. This pattern has been observed in a number of military situations as demonstrated by the following examples: an outbreak of hookworm infection during military operations in Grenada (1), an outbreak of malaria in US Marines serving in Somalia (2), an outbreak of Norwalk-like virus (NLV) in US ground troops deployed to Iraq in 1991 (3) and an outbreak of influenza virus in camps during World War I that killed approximately 100,000 troops (4). In addition, gastrointestinal outbreaks caused by Norovirus, parasites and bacteria among military officers boarding navy ships have been widely reported (5).

To date, these outbreaks have been managed and controlled in a timely manner. However, outbreaks of microbial toxins or bio-safety level (BSL) 3 and 4 pathogens, such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Ebola, etc. or with not-yet-characterized newly emerging pathogens of unknown risk classification, will require transportation of samples to established laboratories for identification. However, strict regulations put in place by the International Air Transport Association (IATA, www.iata.org) make the international transport of biological specimens and isolates challenging. Nevertheless, transfers to laboratories in the home country may be desirable, in particular, if new pathogens of as yet unknown pathogenic potential are detected.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) is one of the most promising diagnostic approaches, which allows for rapid sequencing and assembly of whole pathogen genomes [9, 10] and for the non-targeted detection of pathogens directly from primary sample material [11]. NGS-based ultra-deep sequencing from biological samples or cultured strains is sufficiently deep as to allow for the reconstruction of the whole pathogen genomes. In addition, upon successful sequence analysis at the deployment site, sequences are more easily transferred to the home country through the internet than as physical microbial isolates. Scientists in the receiving laboratory are able to analyze the raw sequence data and identify the pathogen under investigation.

In this review article, we discuss the importance of applying NGS and synthetic biology during military deployments.

Review

Next-Generation DNA sequencing

Since the heyday of Sanger sequencing, sequencing technologies have undergone considerable progress, thus currently allowing for the affordable sequencing of whole pathogen genomes [12, 13]. Although Sanger sequencing, based on slab gel electrophoresis and automatic multicapillary electrophoresis systems, is still used for the analysis of the human genome [14], new approaches allow for analysis of whole genomes within hours to few days [14, 15]. Such NGS technologies include cyclic array, hybridization-based, nanopore and single molecule sequencing [14] and have been commercialized by companies such as 454 Life Sciences, Applied Biosystems, Danaher Motion Co., Helicos Biosciences, Illumina, Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Pacific Biosciences.

The technological principles of the different NGS approaches have been detailed elsewhere. In short, cyclic-array sequencing is based on library preparation by random DNA fragmentation, ligation of common adaptor sequences, spatial gathering of clonally clustered amplicons on planar substrates or on microbeads, emulsion amplification, and enzyme catalyzed elongation followed by spectral imaging based on sequencing-by-synthesis technology [16]. So-called 454 sequencing [17] combines PCR-based cloning and pyrosequencing [18]. Bridge PCR-based sequencing is based on the preparation of clonal libraries, immobilization of forward and reverse primers onto solid planar substrates using flexible linkers and cyclic single base extension with subsequent interrogation of the results [19]. The sequencing-by-hybridization approach begins with clonal sequencing in emulsion PCR, followed by differential hybridization of labeled nucleic acid fragments to an array of oligonucleotide probes [20]. Hybridized-primer/template pairs for single molecule sequencing are produced by the preparation of large quantities of poly (dA), possessing single stranded DNA templates, with subsequent hybridization to tethered poly (dT) primers on glass substrates [21]. Last but not least, the nanopore approach allows for massively parallel, high throughput sequencing of label-free single molecules by direct electrical identification of DNA bases [22]. Ongoing automation has led to further dramatic decreases in sequencing costs from approximately 100,000 € per human genome to as low as 1000 € [14].

Obtaining high-quality sequences by NGS – a pre-requisite for subsequent pathogen design

If sufficient sequencing depth can be guaranteed, NGS allows for a non-specific screening for infectious agents in biological samples without the need for an initial suspicion of a certain infection. In the past, associations of microbial pathogens with diseases of unknown etiology could be demonstrated [11]. Likewise, NGS technology might be used for the detection of completely unknown pathogens within samples. Particularly in times of rapidly decreasing sequencing costs, the use of laser-printer sized bench-top NGS devices at deployment sites might be a realistic goal over the intermediate term. However, sequence quality is not identical for all NGS approaches described above. Recently, other authors have compared the bench-top device 454 GS Junior (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), MiSeq (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) and Ion Torrent PGM (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY, USA) [23]. The MiSeq (Illumina) system showed the best results regarding throughput per run and error rates, whereas both the 454 GS Junior (Roche) and the Ion Torrent PGM (Life Technologies) systems had limitations due to homopolymer-associated indel errors [23]. Technological development is still ongoing in this field.

Sophisticated down-stream data analysis is at present a further limitation of broad applications of NGS technology in the routine diagnostic setting. Data analysis is still relatively challenging, not user-friendly, and requires large teams of skilled scientists, bioinformaticians, and technical assistants [24]. Over the intermediate term, ongoing automation might allow NGS to become user-friendlier and thus useful for routine diagnostic situations.

Reconstruction of pathogen genomes

Based on the transmitted sequences, circular DNAs (cDNAs) can be synthesized de novo by assembling oligonucleotides of plus and minus strand polarity in the home country. The underlying technology, called “DNA shuffling”, was described as early as 1995. In short, 40-base-pair oligonucleotides with overlapping ends are chemically synthesized; this method is comparable to primer synthesis for PCR. Thermal cycling and polymerase are subsequently used to link the oligonucleotides. If the resulting sequence is designed with flanked ends that match a plasmid palindrome sequence, they can be inserted into a plasmid, which is then inserted into cells for further replication [25]. If the inserted sequence codes for a virus, it can be assembled within the cell as shown for the examples described below.

Using transformation, genetic elements can be incorporated into a variety of different cells that serve as expression vectors. For example, bacteria have acquired the ability to express foreign DNA naturally since the origins of life more than three billion years ago and incorporation of transposable genetic elements into yeast cells is a well-established procedure in biotechnology [26, 27].

Successfully revitalized pathogens

In 2002, replicative infectious polioviruses were artificially created in a cell-free in vitro environment based solely on synthetic poliovirus cDNA molecules, a milestone in medical science. This was the first demonstration of the synthesis of an infectious agent using in vitro biochemical means to follow a written sequence. Currently, complete synthetic design of a virus can be performed within 8 weeks [28, 29].

In addition to whole pathogen genomes, it is also possible to clone single genes in bacterial vectors, allowing for the design of reassortant strains using reverse genetics methods. Such cloning is particularly suitable for pathogens with segmented genomes, e.g., influenza viruses [30]. Such new designs are usually of use as vaccine candidates. Similarly, virus-like particles (VLP) containing triple hemagglutinin for influenza vaccination were derived from recombinant baculovirus [31].

As an example of the revitalization of pathogens for pathogenicity research, the 1918 influenza virus, the causative agent of the so-called “Spanish flu”, was synthesized by DNA shuffling [32, 33]. Sequence information of high pathogenicity linked to 3 loci of the viral genome was preserved in permafrost soil for more than 90 years [32]. The experiments impressively demonstrated that no virus is truly extinct as long as its genetic information is still available.

Much attention was paid to the introduction of synthetic pathogens with artificially altered pathogenicity. In 2001, a recombinant ectromelia virus expressing mouse interleukin 4 was introduced. Co-infection with IL-4-expressing ectromelia virus and mousepox virus leads to suppression of cytolytic lymphocyte responses and consecutive breakdown of resistance to mousepox in laboratory animals [34, 35]. The experiments resulted in public fear of the dual-use potential of genetically modified organisms (GMO) [36].

In contrast, modified viruses can also have beneficial effects that can be used for therapeutic strategies over the intermediate or long term, e.g., modified oncolytic herpes simplex virus in combination with interleukin-12 led to lysis of glioblastoma cells [37] and a modified adenovirus was shown to influence tumor cell growth [38].

Coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3) M2 is an example of an RNA-virus that was sequenced and translated into cDNA. For revitalization, the pCVB3-M2 plasmid can be easily transfected into HeLa cells [39]. Use of plasmid-generated viruses allows the easy construction of chimeric viruses [40], which can be used to determine replication patterns [40] and cell tropism [41].

The de novo in vitro synthesis of bacterial pathogens based on their sequence information has been demonstrated in other experiments [4244]. For example, synthetic bacterial design by mega-cloning is based on amplification of circular genomes in yeast cells [45].

Synthetic biology – a tool for the future

The underlying up-to-date options available for synthetic biology have recently been extensively reviewed [46]. These options comprise techniques of whole genome assembly, which is usually performed in yeast cells [47], and activation of artificially designed genomes [44]. De novo genome synthesis, which has been used to design a 583-kb-genome of Mycoplasma genitalum [42] and a 1.1 Mb-genome of Mycoplasma mycoides [48], requires a variety of synthesis and assembly steps, which have been detailed elsewhere [42, 4853]. However, if the desired sequences exist in nature, or are available as templates, amplification of the required sequences for the assembly process is more convenient and cost-effective than de novo design [46].

Although in vitro assembly of large-sized genetic elements, e.g., by Gibson Assembly with amplification by PCR or rolling-circle amplification approaches, is possible in principle, it is prone to a higher mutation frequency than cloning in yeast cells. In vivo genome assembly in yeast cells has therefore been chosen for the de novo synthesis of the bacterial genomes described above [42, 48]. Factors that affect the cloning capacity of whole genomes in yeast cells include the absence of toxic expression, genome size and GC content [46].

After the design and assembly of a genome, its activation requires a suitable environment, which is usually provided by implantation into appropriate enucleated target cells. If the environment is not suitable, activation fails and the recipient cell is not transformed. Factors that can affect genome activation include the presence or absence of nuclease activity, the presence of a cell wall, genome size, and similarity between donor and recipient species [46]. Cell-free genome activation will be the goal of future research but has not yet been achieved for complex bacterial genomes [5456].

Although the approaches taken by synthetic biologists ultimately target design and modification of new organisms [46], such highly ambitious goals are unnecessary for diagnostic microbiology in the military deployment setting.

Discussion

Several scientific milestones were necessary to come to the current point of synthetic design of microbial pathogens, beginning with the understanding of bacterial and viral gene transfer [14]. Milestones for the deciphering of the principles of gene transfer include description of the transforming principle by Frederick Griffith in 1928, identification of DNA as the carrier of genetic information by Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty in 1944, identification of transduction as a mechanism of genetic transfer by Lederberg in 1952, description of the double-helix structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953, identification of inherited genetic mutation as a result of viral infection in 1961 by Temin, the first documented heritable gene transfer in mammalian cell lines in 1962 by Szybalski, demonstration of virus-mediated gene transfer by Rogers & Pfuderer in 1968, the first gene transfer into humans in 1989 by Rosenberg, the first approved gene-therapy-based product for clinical use in China in 2003, and a first successful clinical phase III gene therapy trial in the European Union in 2009 [14]. Following from this research, introduction of extraneous nucleic acid sequences into cells became possible, culminating in de novo design of viruses based on their nucleic acid sequence [17].

Revitalization of microorganisms based on their sequence information is of importance for diagnostic purposes if the pathogenic potential of an isolated strain is to be assessed under in vitro conditions. In a military deployment setting, a newly isolated strain from a deployment site can be inactivated to be of no more harm for medical laboratory scientists who have to handle it under restricted deployment conditions. After sequencing and transferring the sequence data to the home country, the strain can be revitalized under BSL-3 or BSL-4 laboratory conditions using de novo synthesized DNA molecules. Inactivation at the site of isolation with subsequent revitalization at a site that is safe for further investigation will considerably reduce the risk of nosocomial laboratory infections on deployment.

To the authors’ best knowledge, at present, no military medical service uses technologies to inactivate a pathogen, to analyze it using NGS to synthesize cDNAs, and to revitalize it at another place under safe laboratory conditions. Such technological approaches are currently considered scientific top-end and are very expensive. Nevertheless, evaluation of such technologies for diagnostic purposes by the armed medical services seems desirable. Standardization is also widely missing. Accordingly, any future diagnostic use of technologies described herein will require considerable evaluation and standardization work and will have to account for sequencing errors [12], as detailed above, due to insufficiencies in the existing technology.

Conclusions

A structured evaluation and standardization of diagnostic in vitro revitalization of inactivated pathogens by the armed medical services will require a joint multi-national approach to be cost-effective. The potentials of such an approach for international diagnostic and scientific cooperation, in the case of the appearance of a harmful new pathogen, might be worth the effort. Over the long term, microbiological strain collections could be completely replaced by sequence databases, and international strain exchanges could be realized by a simple mouse click.

Availability of supporting data

All relevant data for the assessment are presented in the paper.

Abbreviations

BSL: 

Bio-safety level

cDNA: 

Circular deoxyribonucleic acid

DNA: 

Deoxyribonucleic acid

GMO: 

Genetically modified organism

IATA: 

International Air Transport Association

NGS: 

Next generation sequencing

PCR: 

Polymerase chain reaction

VLP: 

Virus-like particles

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen
(2)
Fachbereich Tropenmedizin am Bernhard-Nocht Institut, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Hamburg
(3)
Institut für Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Hygiene, Universitätsmedizin Rostock

References

  1. Kelley PW, Takafuji ET, Wiener H, Milhous W, Miller R, Thompson NJ, et al. An outbreak of hookworm infection associated with military operations in Grenada. Mil Med. 1989;154:55–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Newton Jr JA, Schnepf GA, Wallace MR, Lobel HO, Kennedy CA, Oldfield 3rd EC. Malaria in US Marines returning from Somalia. JAMA. 1994;272:397–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. McCarthy M, Estes MK, Hyams KC. Norwalk-like virus infection in military forces: epidemic potential, sporadic disease, and the future direction of prevention and control efforts. J Infect Dis. 2000;181:S387–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Ho ZJM, Hwang YFJ, Lee JMV. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: challenges and opportunities for militaries. Mil Med Res. 2014;1:21.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Wever PC, van Bergen L. Death from 1918 pandemic influenza during the First World War: a perspective from personal and anecdotal evidence. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2014;8:538–46.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Lawrence DN. Outbreaks of Gastrointestinal Diseases on Cruise Ships: Lessons from Three Decades of Progress. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2004;6:115–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Dill CE, Favata MA. Novel influenza A (H1N1) outbreak on board a US navy vessel. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009;3:S117–20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC). Gastrointestinal infections, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2002–2012. MSMR. 2013;20:7–11.Google Scholar
  9. Mellmann A, Harmsen D, Cummings CA, Zentz EB, Leopold SR, Rico A, et al. Prospective genomic characterization of the German enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O104:H4 outbreak by rapid next generation sequencing technology. PLoS One. 2011;6:e22751.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohl TA, Diel R, Harmsen D, Rothgänger J, Walter KM, Merker M, et al. Whole-Genome-Based Mycobacterium tuberculosis Surveillance: a Standardized, Portable, and Expandable Approach. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52:2479–86.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhatt AS, Freeman SS, Herrera AF, Pedamallu CS, Gevers D, Duke F, et al. Sequence-based discovery of Bradyrhizobium enterica in cord colitis syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:517–28.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilbert W, Maxam A. The nucleotide sequence of the lac operator. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973;70:3581–4.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Sanger F. The Croonian Lecture, 1975. Nucleotide sequences in DNA. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1975;191:317–33.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Karger BL, Guttman A. DNA sequencing by capillary electrophoresis. Electrophoresis. 2009;30:S196–202.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Koboldt DC, Steinberg KM, Larson DE, Wilson RK, Mardis E. The next generation sequencing revolution and its impact on genomics. Cell. 2013;155:27–38.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Shendure J, Porreca GJ, Reppas NB, Lin X, McCutcheon JP, Rosenbaum AM, et al. Accurate multiplex polony sequencing of an evolved bacterial genome. Science. 2005;309:1728–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, Attiya S, Bader JS, Bemben LA, et al. Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature. 2005;437:376–80.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ronaghi M, Pettersson B, Uhlén M, Nyrén P. PCR-introduced loop structure as primer in DNA sequencing. Biotechniques. 1998;25:876–8. 880–2, 884.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Turcatti G, Romieu A, Fedurco M, Tairi AP. A new class of cleavable fluorescent nucleotides: synthesis and optimization as reversible terminators for DNA sequencing by synthesis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:e25.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Drmanac S, Kita D, Labat I, Hauser B, Schmidt C, Burczak JD, et al. Accurate sequencing by hybridization for DNA diagnostics and individual genomics. Nat Biotechnol. 1998;16:54–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris TD, Buzby PR, Babcock H, Beer E, Bowers J, Braslavsky I, et al. Single-molecule DNA sequencing of a viral genome. Science. 2008;320:106–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Branton D, Deamer DW, Marziali A, Bayley H, Benner SA, Butler T, et al. The potential and challenges of nanopore sequencing. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:1146–53.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Loman NJ, Misra RV, Dallman TJ, Constantinidou C, Gharbia SE, Wain J, et al. Performance comparison of benchtop high-throughput sequencing platforms. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:434–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Sherry NL, Porter JL, Seemann T, Watkins A, Stinear TP, Howden BP. Outbreak investigation using high-throughput genome sequencing within a diagnostic microbiology laboratory. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51:1396–401.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Stemmer WPC, Crameri A, Ha KD, Brennan TM, Heyneker HL. Single-step assembly of a gene and entire plasmid from large numbers of oligodeoxyribonucleotides. Gene. 1995;104:49–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Heim J, Ostergaard Tange T, Klein J. Bäckerhefe Saccharomyces cerevisiae als universelle chemische Mikrofabrik. Biospektrum. 2014;20:456 [Article in German].View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar A, Snyder M. Emerging technologies in yeast genomics. Nature Rev Genet. 2001;2:203.Google Scholar
  28. Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science. 2002;297:1016–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Wimmer E. The test-tube synthesis of a chemical called poliovirus: The simple synthesis of a virus has far-reaching societal implications. Embo Rep. 2006;7:S3–9.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sedova ES, Shcherbinin DN, Migunov AI, Smirnov IA, Diu L, Shmarov MM, et al. Recombinant influenza vaccines. Acta Naturae. 2012;4:17–27.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pushko P, Pumpens P, Grens E. Development of virus-like particle technology from small highly symmetric to large complex virus-like particle structures. Intervirology. 2013;56:141–56.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamb RA, Jackson D. Extinct 1918 virus comes alive. Nature Med. 2005;11:1155.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Wimmer E, Mueller S, Tumpey TM, Taubenberger JK. Synthetic viruses: a new opportunity to understand and prevent viral disease. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:1163–72.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson RJ, Ramsay AJ, Christensen CD, Beaton S, Hall DF, Ramshaw IA. Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus surpresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. J Virol. 2001;75:1205–10.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Müllbacher A, Lobigs M. Creation of killer poxvirus could have been predicted. J Virol. 2001;75:8353–5.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Finkel E. Engineered mouse virus spurs bioweapon fears. Science. 2001;291:585.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Cheema TA, Fecci PE, Ning J, Rabkin SD. Immunovirotherapy for the treatment of glioblastoma. Oncoimmunology. 2014;3:e27218.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Wirth T, Parker N, Ylä-Herttuala S. History of gene therapy. Gene. 2013;525:162–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindberg AM, Crowell RL, Zell R, Kandolf R, Pettersson U. Mapping of the RD phenotype of the Nancy strain of coxsack- ievirus B3. Virus Res. 1992;24:187–96.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidtke M, Selinka HC, Heim A, Jahn B, Tonew M, Kandolf R, et al. Attachment of coxsackievirus B3 variants to various cell lines: mapping of phenotypic differences to capsid protein VP1. Virology. 2000;275:77–88.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Zautner AE, Körner U, Henke A, Badorff C, Schmidtke M. Heparan sulfates and coxsackievirus-adenovirus receptor: each one mediates coxsackievirus B3 PD infection. J Virol. 2003;77:10071–7.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Gibson DG, Benders GA, Andrews-Pfannkoch C, Denisova EA, Baden-Tillson H, Zaveri J, et al. Complete chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Science. 2008;319:1215–20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Gibson DG, Benders GA, Axelrod KC, Zaveri J, Algire MA, Moodie M, et al. One-step assembly in yeast of 25 overlapping DNA fragments to form a complete synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:20404–9.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Lartigue C, Vashee S, Algire MA, Chuang RY, Benders GA, Ma L, et al. Creating bacterial strains from genomes that have been cloned and engineered in yeast. Science. 2009;325:1693–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Goltermann L, Bentin T. Mega-cloning and the advent of synthetic genomes. Artif DNA PNA XNA. 2010;1:54–7.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Gibson DG. Programming biological operating systems: genome design, assembly and activation. Nat Methods. 2014;11:521–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Benders GA, Noskov VN, Denisova EA, Lartigue C, Gibson DG, Assad-Garcia N, et al. Cloning whole bacterial genomes in yeast. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:2558–69.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C, Noskov VN, Chuang RY, Algire MA, et al. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science. 2010;329:52–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Gibson DG. Enzymatic assembly of overlapping DNA fragments. Methods Enzymol. 2011;498:349–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Gibson DG. Gene and genome construction in yeast. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2011;Chapter 3:Unit3.22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142727.mb0322s94.
  51. Gibson DG, Benders GA, Axelrod KC, Zaveri J, Algire MA, Moodie M, et al. One-step assembly in yeast of 25 overlapping DNA fragments to form a complete synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(23):20404–9.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Gibson DG, Smith HO, Hutchison 3rd CA, Venter JC, Merryman C. Chemical synthesis of the mouse mitochondrial genome. Nat Methods. 2010;7:901–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Gibson DG, Young L, Chuang RY, Venter JC, Hutchison 3rd CA, Smith HO. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat Methods. 2009;6:343–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Forster AC, Church GM. Towards synthesis of a minimal cell. Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2:45.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Forster AC, Church GM. Synthetic biology projects in vitro. Genome Res. 2007;17:1–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Jewett MC, Forster AC. Update on designing and building minimal cells. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2010;21:697–703.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zautner et al. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement