Short Communication - Archives of Industrial Biotechnology (2022) Volume 6, Issue 6

Application of engineering science in industrial biotech.

Jens Otero^*

Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

*Corresponding Author:

Jens Otero
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
Sweden
E-mail: oteroj@chalmers.se

Received: 01-Dec-2022, Manuscript No. AAAIB-22-84454; Editor assigned:03-Dec-2022, PreQC No. AAAIB-22-84454(PQ); Reviewed:14-Dec-2022, QC No. AAAIB-22-84454; Revised:19-Dec-2022, Manuscript No. AAAIB-22-84454(R); Published: 26-Dec-2022, DOI: 10.35841/aaaib-6.6.129

Citation: Otero J. Application of engineering science in industrial biotech. Arch Ind Biot. 2022;6(5):129

Abstract

The way engineering biology is carried out in academia and industry on small and big sizes has evolved as a result of technological advancements mixed with novel methodologies. Before beginning a project, a number of questions must be answered, including which host should be used to create the desired product and the circumstances and scale of production that will make it commercially viable. In order to develop microbes more effectively and predictably for use in industrial bioprocesses, this article describes how these difficulties can be overcome. Though it is not without difficulties, engineering biology is now universally acknowledged as a very effective strategy for locating sustainable alternatives to constrained resources. Finding suitable engineered microbes and bioprocesses for effective and scalable production frequently requires investing a lot of time, money, and effort. However, giving these project elements significant thought before beginning any experimental work can help to resolve any problems before they arise.

Introduction

A very effective strategy for identifying sustainable substitutes for limiting resources is engineering biology. But creating the ideal microbes and bioprocesses for productive and scalable production takes a lot of time, money, and effort [1]. Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae have traditionally been used by scientists for drug research. They are not necessarily the ideal option for every job because of this. Projects should be designed to incorporate a variety of hosts, such as E. coli and various yeasts and bacteria. Microorganisms change with time, and as a result, they occasionally behave differently in a bioprocess. But if you have the right information and the right tools, you can handle this. Some factors to take into account include how the host will handle producing the product and whether it already produces anything comparable. The large yields needed for industrial biotechnology frequently have deleterious effects [2]. In this case, the host will discover ways to eject or loop out the inserted DNA, providing that cell a selection advantage and ultimately causing it to take control of the culture as a non-producer. Regularly keeping an eye out for this effect in potential hosts is crucial, as is having a firm grasp on the tolerance levels for each target substance. Instead of telling a cell to manufacture something it has never seen before, it may be preferable to use a host that already produces something analogous to the desired result because the host is more likely to be tolerant of it. A variety of project-specific genetic alterations, such as gene deletion, gene upregulation, recombinant gene addition, and post-translational modification modification, can be made to bacteria. Once these have been established, the appropriate host must be modified. Since each technology and technique needs to be adjusted based on the host, experience and knowledge are essential [3]. The genome of Bacillus subtilis and E. coli, for instance, cannot be modified in the same way since each organism has different requirements. Even a simple process like delivering DNA into the cell needs to be carefully thought out. The underlying technologies are accessible and can be used to treat each germ efficiently and effectively with the correct knowledge [4]. Traditional industrial biotechnology techniques typically involved treating hosts with UV radiation or chemicals to cause the DNA inside the cell to mutate and rearrange, a strategy that is non-targeted and thus unpredictable. The option was to introduce specific alterations, like gene insertions or deletions, but this process required traditional procedures and was slow and iterative. Rather than creating one customised microbe, evaluating it, and repeating the process, modern engineering biology now creates 100 or more custom microorganisms at once, and laboratory automation has further enhanced this method. How to screen for the desired product is one of the key queries. The screening procedure must not only be precise but also have a throughput sufficient for the project's requirements. This will enable quick sorting of the altered cells to determine the top hits before moving on to the next step. The ideal situation would be to develop and use custom, high throughput screening methods based on knowledge of molecular biology, biochemistry, and synthetic chemistry [5].

Conclusion

Engineering biology has made great strides in recent years, providing a constantly improving method for identifying sustainable alternatives to constrained resources. Even though success depends on a variety of circumstances, thorough thought about the issues raised above will help identify the best raw materials and manufacturing techniques quickly and affordably for successful and scalable production.

References

1. Straathof AJ, Wahl SA, Benjamin KR, et al. Grand research challenges for sustainable industrial biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2019;37(10):1042-50.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

2. Tang WL, Zhao H. Industrial biotechnology: tools and applications. Biotechnol J: Healthcare Nutri Technol. 2009;4(12):1725-39.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

3. Lee S, Mattanovich D, Villaverde A. Systems metabolic engineering, industrial biotechnology and microbial cell factories Microb Cell Fact. 2012;11(1):1-3.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

4. Soetaert W, Vandamme E.Biomass resources and their bioenergy potential estimation: A review. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:S21-30.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

5. Nielsen J, Fussenegger M, Keasling J, et al. Engineering synergy in biotechnology Nat Chem Biol. 2014;10(5):319-22.

Indexed at, Cross Ref