Abstract
Continuous contamination of the environment with xenobiotics and related recalcitrant compounds has emerged as a serious pollution threat. Bioremediation is the key to eliminating persistent contaminants from the environment. Traditional bioremediation processes show limitations, therefore it is necessary to discover new bioremediation technologies for better results. In this review we provide an outlook of alternative strategies for bioremediation via synthetic biology, including exploring the prerequisites for analysis of research data for developing synthetic biological models of microbial bioremediation. Moreover, cell coordination in synthetic microbial community, cell signaling, and quorum sensing as engineered for enhanced bioremediation strategies are described, along with promising gene editing tools for obtaining the host with target gene sequences responsible for the degradation of recalcitrant compounds. The synthetic genetic circuit and two-component regulatory system (TCRS)-based microbial biosensors for detection and bioremediation are also briefly explained. These developments are expected to increase the efficiency of bioremediation strategies for best results.
Introduction
The remediation processes aided by microorganisms present at the various contaminated scenarios constitute bioremediation (; Kumar et al., 2019). Microbial remediation uses multiple metabolic pathways responsible for enzyme production (Sharma B. et al., 2018; ). These enzymes mainly take part in the degradation pathways of xenobiotics (). There are different customary methods for bioremediation, primarily based on the site of bioremediation, in and ex situ (Tomei and Daugulis, 2013). In situ is applied to the site to minimize soil disturbance. This method is mostly adopted due to less expenditure from avoiding excavation and transport of contaminated soil (). According to less disruption in in situ bioremediation causes less dust dispersion and hence better degradation () of contaminant. Bioaugmentation, bioventing, biosparging, and engineered in situ bioremediation are main in situ bioremediation methods (). Ex situ bioremediation methods are solid phase system (composting, landfarming, and biopiling) and slurry phase system (bioreactors) (Kumar et al., 2011). Transportation of soil to accelerate microbial degradation are done by solid and slurry phase systems, whereby treatments of domestic, industrial, and organic waste are done by ex situ bioremediation (). These traditional bioremediation methods take time and consume much cost expenditure, giving less result output. Traditional bioremediation () processes showed the above limitations of extra time taking, less removal or dissimilation of pollutants, () disturbance to nature delicacy such as more land coverage for a long time, and a foul smell in the environment (; Kumar, 2019). Therefore, researchers are eager to discover new bioremediation technologies for best results. described bioremediation via synthetic biology for boosting bioremediation strategies. This approach can catch the catabolic () and metabolic complexities for reviewing the potential of the microbial population synthetically. The preliminary information for developing synthetic microbial models for bioremediation can be obtained by mining genes from the databases (). The computer logics involvement can determine the microbial cell interactions with recalcitrant compounds (Kim et al., 2015). These strategies can together grasp the natural metabolic potential of microorganisms to transform into novel biological entities of interest (). Furthermore, the regulation of metabolic pathways () in a controlled manner can also be achieved for bioremediation processes (Rochfort, 2005). This transition via synthetic biology application (Figure 1) for remediation purposes would improve the bioremediation processes via the involvement of potent (Zhu et al., 2017) dissimilating particular contaminants (Trigo et al., 2008). Synthetic biological systems mediate cellular modulations for efficient functioning and working of existing processes. They permit the modification of cellular processes viz. metabolic pathway acting for a particular chemical compound. The advancement of synthetic biology for bioremediation of various contaminants is attaining the focus of scientists and researchers. For instance, a sustainable synthetic microbial community’s establishment for bioremediation is being investigated. Microbial interactions and quorum sensing within communities are vastly studied for application in the area of bioremediation with synthetic biology applications. Achievement of the synthetic genetic circuit of Pseudomonas putida proved to be the golden gadget for degradation studies. Besides this, genome editing by CRISPR-Cas, TALEN, and ZFNs adds knowledge for reviewing the progression in bioremediation studies. Synthetic microbial biosensors and metabolic engineering of cellular processes for utilization and detection of contaminant residues will remediate the environment from persistent recalcitrant pollutants. This review is focused on the above mentioned strategies and their elements (Figure 2) applicable for bioremediation purposes and research.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
Metabolic Reconstruction for Designing Synthetic Models
A computational platform is utilized for the reconstruction of cellular metabolism () via metabolic pathway analysis (MPA) (). MPA mathematically represents the reactions of metabolism. This method is based on stoichiometric balance reactions so as to propose steady-state metabolic flux during cellular growth. The stoichiometry matrix imposes constraints of flux, making the consumption and production of the compound at a steady state (). The maximum and minimum flux of a reaction can also be determined by providing the topper and least bound. This helps to define the extent of permissible flux supply (Richelle et al., 2016; Rawls et al., 2019). The next step is defining the objective according to the biological problem to be studied. This objective mathematically represents the reactions responsible for the phenotype appearance. The mathematical reactions and phenotype are combined with linear equations and solved by computational algorithms such as COBRA Toolbox11 and Matlab toolbox (Orth et al., 2010; ). FBA is fundamentally simple, having immense applications in studying gaps, physiology, and genomes via systems biology approach (Kim et al., 2015; ). These gaps are missing metabolic reactions, making the genome partially known. FBA uses computational algorithms that can predict missing reactions viz. OptKnock and OptCom, which can knock out the genes responsible for producing the desired compound (). These approaches are beneficial for constructing microbial communities for bioremediation of particular contaminants (Khandelwal et al., 2013). However, MPA is the most challenging method when metabolic information is incomplete, making it difficult to obtain a real model (). But this method shows cellular functions in the dynamic community, and thus is very useful for the prediction and exchange of metabolic flux in communities of microorganisms (Khandelwal et al., 2013). Recently, a metabolic model has been constructed by using two Geobacter species with parameterized electron transfer and metabolic exchange to characterize syntrophic growth dynamics. Such a system may have useful applications in the field of bioremediation and degradation of particular contaminants (). A computational platform is also needed for better prediction of engineered genetic pathways for community dynamics. A graph-based tool Metabolic Tinker was developed by McClymont and Soyer to identify thermodynamically feasible biochemical routes for compounds deterioration (). This may be applied to identify the routes for degradation of recalcitrant compounds by microbial consortia. These computational tools are utilized along with omics (Kim et al., 2014; ) and biological data for desired output () and toxicity prediction (i.e., META-CASETOX System) (Peijnenburg and Damborský, 2012). These are also applied for functional gene identification and their profile analysis, PCR analysis and drug discovery, etc (). Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD) is used effectively with chemical and biological aspects, i.e., chemical structures accounting the biological role and its activity via ligand-based drug design, structure-based drug design, quantitative structure-property relationships, and quantitative structure-activity (). Furthermore, Table 1 depicts similar methodologies applicable to bioremediation studies. analyzed the multicellular feedback control strategy in a bacterial consortium () to define the robustness conceivable
TABLE 1
| S.no. | Purpose | Approach | Methodology | References |
| 1. | Degradation study | Functional gene identification for bioremediation | PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) product sequence analysis | |
| 2. | Cell behavior study | Whole-cell simulation | A computer model for bacterial cell in response to the contaminated environment | O’Brien et al., 2015; Panigrahi et al., 2019 |
| 3. | Toxicity of chemicals | Analysis of chemical and biological properties | In silico toxicology (IST) protocols for toxicity assessment; QSAR (Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship) model | Pavan and Worth, 2006; Myatt et al., 2018 |
| 4. | Identification of functional bioremediating microbe | Target identification | Protein structure prediction, Protein – protein interaction (PPIs) | Shukla, 2017 |
| 5. | Remediation of textile dyes | Interaction of protein-ligand | Molecular docking | Sridhar and Chandra, 2014; Kumar et al., 2016 |
| 6. | Bioremediation of toxic pollutants | Structure prediction | Biodegradability evaluation and simulation system |
The methodologies applied for bioremediation research.
under desired conditions. They utilized an ordinary differential equations (ODE)-based model and agent-based simulation on a consortium (; ) of interacting species population for increasing the efficacy of the proposed feedback control strategy. The application of bioinformatics () resources is a prerequisite dimension for obtaining the data to begin the microbial bioremediation studies of recalcitrant compounds (; Ofaim et al., 2019). This involves the information related to the degradation of xenobiotics by microbes and their pathways for dissimilation (; Salam and Ishaq, 2019; Thelusmond et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2019). The data related to end products and intermediate metabolites released throughout degradation pathways can also be retrieved (). An extended information source linked to degradation is MetaRouter, allowing data (Singh and Gothalwal, 2018) for life sciences laboratories to explore degradation possibilities of recalcitrant compounds (Mohanta et al., 2015). The information on oxygenic degradation of xenobiotics can be retrieved from OxDBase, a biodegradative oxygenase database (; Shah et al., 2018). Oxygenase is a class of enzyme which transfers the oxygen molecule for oxidizing the chemical compound. They play a role in the degradation of organic compounds by aromatic ring cleavage (). OxDBase is very particular in providing knowledge of oxygenases-catalyzed reactions, and is a powerful tool applicable to bioremediation studies (Singh, 2018). Bioconversion and biodegradation of persistent and toxic xenobiotics (; ) compounds catalyzed by oxygenases decrease the compound sustainability and toxicity in the environment (Kües, 2015; Kondo, 2017). Therefore, OxDBase is very helpful in acknowledging the degradation processes involved in bioremediation (Shah et al., 2012). The transcriptional characterization of genes responsible for the biodegradation and biodissimilation of a particular compound has great significance in proposing molecular methodologies. This can be done by the Bionemo (Biodegradation Network Molecular Biology) database (Libis et al., 2016a). Bionemo contains the entries for sequences of genes coding for biodegradation (). It also links the gene transcription and its regulation (Libis et al., 2016b). The data retrieved from Bionemo can be used for designing cloning experiments and primers (). used eMolecules and the EAWAG-BBD PPS database for the prediction of pathways involved in the biodegradation of 1-naphthyl-N-methyl carbamate. These above findings empower the researchers to analyze and establish what prerequisites must be fulfilled for developing synthetic bioremediation models.
Designing the Synthetic Microbial Communities
Recent advancements in the field of synthetic biology for environmental issues have shown a great impact. The use of GMOs in environmental biotechnology for remediation (Malla et al., 2018) of toxic compounds, xenobiotics, and pesticidal compounds are being done. To design a synthetic community, it is important to understand natural microbial communities (Schloss and Handelsman, 2008). In a natural community, it is difficult to find out which species are actually taking part in bioremediation (). Thus, a synthetic microbial community is a promising method for constructing an artificial microbial community with function-specific species for bioremediation purposes. These communities may act as a model system for the study of functional, ecological, and structural characteristics in a controlled manner. , defined synthetic community by the culturing of two microbial species under well-defined conditions on the basis of interaction and function (). These factors determine the dynamics and structure of the community. It is based upon the identification of processes and patterns engaged in by bacterial species. These microbial interaction patterns are metabolism-driven and responsible for community interaction (Wintermute and Silver, 2010). Social-based microbial interactions (i.e., mutualism, cooperation, and competition, etc.) and the total outcome of these interactions between two microbial populations can be +/+ and −/+ or +/−, respectively (). It is said that community structure and function majorly depends on cooperation. The effect of cooperation on community dynamics is determined by engineered cooperation resulting in the synthetic community. Engineered cooperation between two microbial strains (Singh et al., 2016) can be done by manipulation of environmental conditions, i.e., knocking the genes out and in Zuroff et al. (2013). Beyond this, other interaction patterns have been analyzed with engineered microbial species in the synthetic community. Such an application of engineered interaction is highly recognizable in bioremediation strategies (Sharma, 2012). Synthetic biology provides greater potential for the sustainable existence of microorganisms () acting together in a large population. Thus, synthetic microbial communities are proved as a key strategy for the bioremediation of contaminants, i.e., pesticides, petroleum (), oil spill, acid drainage (Serrano and Leiva, 2017), etc. For building the synthetic microbial communities, the engineered interspecies and intraspecies interactions can make cellular functions robust and enhance the capabilities of microbial consortia in various contaminated scenarios. Quorum sensing is a bacterial signaling mechanism, which is a density-dependent phenomenon via cell-cell communication and population level behavior. The signaling is done by the release and reception of chemical compounds by microbial candidates in a population. This leads to multicellular behavior (Obst, 2007), offering engineerable tasks to design function specific synthetic communities. These synthetic models can also be exploited to obtain a rational design that can lose the function when subjected to competition with other species in the natural environment. With the evolution of genomic constituents and gene transfer, the possibility of the gradual extinction of genetic circuits is present. Thus, strategies are required to maintain the robustness of the synthetic community, achieved via the synthetic models by the development of synergistic and cooperative properties that reduce instability and loss of function (). A recent study by suggests that competition among species is significant in determining the stability of communities, acting as a limiting factor in the stability of the synthetic community. Thus, these dynamics must be accelerated in order to design particular function specific synthetic communities for bioremediation purposes ().
Genetic and Metabolic Engineering
said that genome editing is an umbrella term that refers to “scientific technological advances that enable rational genetic engineering at a local (gene) or global (genome) level to facilitate precise insertion, removal, or substitution of fragments of Deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) molecules, comprising one or more nucleotides into the cell(s) of an organism’s genome.” Transcription-activators like effector nucleases (TALEN), clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR-Cas), and zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) are major gene editing tools used (Table 2). The most efficient and simple technique of gene editing has been described as CRISPR-Cas (). These tools can boost the process of bioremediation. TALEN has a DNA-binding modular which is sequence-specific for the host genome (Utturkar et al., 2013). TALEN binding to DNA creates a double stranded break (DSB) in the target sequence and leaves sticky ends for stability. Similarly, ZFNs is also a DNA-binding domain composed of 30 amino acids. It introduces DSB at the target site of the host genome by the Fok1 cleavage domain. A new sense of using hybrid nucleases containing TALENs and ZFNs nucleases came to act for solving the molecular complications. The CRISPR-Cas system, on the other hand, has unique action properties of high sequence specificity and multiplex gene editing. This unique property is derived from bacteria Streptococcus pyogenes as immunity against the virus. The CRISPR-Cas system consists of crisper derived RNA (crRNA) and trans acting antisense RNA (trcRNA) joined by guide RNA (gRNA). gRNA directs the Cas9 enzyme to introduce DSB in the target DNA sequence by recognizing it. These gene editing tools create the knock-in and knock-out and are under processing for implementation in bioremediation studies (Kumar V. et al., 2018). Recent reports indicate though that the CRISPR-Cas system is mostly adopted and performed by researchers in model organisms i.e., Pseudomonas (; Nogales et al., 2020) or Escherichia coli (; Marshall et al., 2018; Pontrelli et al., 2018). Nowadays, the new insights toward CRISPR tool kits and designing gRNA for expression of function-specific genes related to remediation in non-model organisms (i.e., Rhodococcus ruber TH, Comamonas testosteroni and Achromobacter sp. HZ01) are also suggested in the field of bioremediation (Mougiakos et al., 2016; ; ; Stein et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2020). For gene editing and metabolic engineering, the contaminant-inhabited bacteria are the most suitable candidates because they are used to survive and harbor in stress conditions of various toxic, recalcitrant and non-degradable xenobiotics, as discussed above. Moreover, understanding metabolic pathways seems to be important in studying the microbial bioremediation (Plewniak et al., 2018), i.e., bioremediation of toxic pollutants by the haloalkane dehalogenases production pathway and decontamination of pyrethroid from the soil via the biodegradation pathway of fenpropathrin studied in Bacillus sp. DG-02 (). Metabolic engineering leads to modification of the existing pathway for the betterment of the bioremediation process (Michel et al., 2007). This approach majorly covers the study of microbial enzymes, i.e., oxidases, esterases, monooxygenases, oxidoreductases, phenoloxidases involved at various degradation steps (Figure 3A; Mónica and Jaime, 2019; Mujawar et al., 2019). Enzyme-based bioremediation has many advantages because it is an eco-friendly process. The genetic approach increases the perspective of getting recombinant enzymes. There are research reports of extracellular enzymes having a role in enzymatic bioremediation. For instance, arsenic bioremediation (; ; ; ) (bioaccumulation and biotransformation) is achieved via arsenite oxidase coded by aioA gene of Klebsiella pneumonia (Mujawar et al., 2019); enzymes released by white rot fungi degrade PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) (Zhao and Poh, 2008; Košnár et al., 2019), dyes, TNT (2,4,6- Trinitrotoluene) and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) (; Kutateladze et al., 2018; Sadańoski et al., 2018). Esterase D enzyme acts on β-endosulfan (organochlorine pesticide), producing simpler compounds (Mehr et al., 2017; ). LiPs encoding hemoproteins from Phanerochaete chrysosporium degrade PAHs. However, incomplete or partial degradation of contaminants lead to simpler non-toxic degradable compounds which can be consumed by microbes (Kumavath and Satyanarayana, 2014) as intermediates in biological pathways or substrate, i.e., LiP (lignin peroxidase) dissimilate benzopyrene to three compounds of quinine, namely 1,6- quinone, 6,12- quinine and 3,6- quinine (). Furthermore, MnP (Manganese peroxidase) oxidizes organic compounds in the presence of Mn(II) (Xu et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2019). Laccase, MFO (mixed function oxidases), glutathione S transferase, cytochrome P450 also acts in biodegradation of recalcitrant compounds (Singh, 2019; ). Catechol 1,2-dioxygenase (intracellular enzyme) from Pseudomonas NP-6 dissimilate catechol to muconate compounds (). Also, enzyme immobilization (; Sharma B. et al., 2018) increases the half-life, stability, and enzyme activity at a notable level. The enzymatic bioremediation is an elementary, expeditious, and environmental friendly method for microbial removal and degradation of persistent xenobiotics compounds (Sharma B. et al., 2018). Isolation and characterization of microorganisms with enzymatic capabilities have been done with the limitation of less productivity (Rayu et al., 2012). Organophosphates (OP) and organochlorines (OC), major constituents of insecticides, accumulate in the agricultural soil (Panelli et al., 2017) and reach the water bodies via agricultural run-off. Effective bioremediation of γ-hexachlorocyclohexane (OC) and methyl parathion (OP) has been reported by genetically engineered microorganisms (). Moreover, bioremediation of organophosphates and pyrethroids has been experimented with using genetically modified P. putida KT2440 (Zuo et al., 2015). With the advent of metabolic engineering, the catabolism and degradation of various persistent compounds has been reported. The degradation pathways of methyl parathion and γ-hexachlorocyclohexane in Sphingobium japonicum and Pseudomonas sp. WBC-3 witnessed the bioremediation strategy (Liu et al., 2005; Miyazaki et al., 2006). Furthermore, 1, 2, 3-trichloropropane, a persistent constituent of fumigant, is dissimilated into the environment (Techtmann and Hazen, 2016) via heterologous catabolism by the assembly of three enzymes from two different microorganisms in E. coli (). A metabolic pathway () degrading organophosphorus and paraoxon is engineered by inserting the organophosphorus hydrolase gene (opd) and pnp operon encoding enzymes that convert p-nitrophenol into β-ketoadipate in P. putida (). A study showed pobA and chcpca gene clusters of Rhodococcus opacus R7 take part in the bioremediation of naphthenic acid; more specifically, expression aliA1 gene codes for fatty acid CoA ligase for degrading long chains of linear as well as alicyclic naphthenic acid (Zampolli et al., 2020). To minimize the accumulation, the above-mentioned strategy is attained using microbes for partial or complete mineralization of persistent compounds (Miyazaki et al., 2006).
TABLE 2
| Features | Gene editing tools | References | ||
| CRISPR | TALEN | ZFNs | ||
| System | Adaptive immune system | Pathogenic Xanthomonas | Gene expression system | Kumar N. M. et al., 2018 |
| Specificity | crRNA | TALE Domain | Zn finger Domain | |
| Cleavage | Cas9 | FokI nuclease | Nuclease | Kumar V. et al., 2018; |
| Nucleases per target per experiment | Single or more sgRNA; singleCas9 | Single TALEN pair | Single ZFN pair | |
| Activity | High | High | Moderate | Shanmugam et al., 2019 |
| Designing and screening | Easy | Difficult | Difficult | |
| Multiple gene editing | Suitable | Not suitable | Not suitable | Sinha et al., 2019 |
Comparative features of CRISPR, TALE, and ZFNs.
FIGURE 3
Synthetic Genetic Circuit and Microbial Biosensor
The synthetic genetic circuit requires chassis for implantation. The P. putida is a HVB (Host Vector Biosafety) strain recognized as safe by the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. It is also referred to as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) to release in the environment. It is ideal for the next generation of synthetic biology chassis panel because it can withstand high intolerant changing conditions including temperature, pH, solvents, toxins, osmotic, and oxidative stress. Also, P. putida has versatile metabolism and low nutrient requirements (Pabo and Nekludova, 2000). These qualities make this organism the best bacterial model for environmental bioremediation applications (Tanveer et al., 2018). Recently, the P. putida synthetic genetic circuit has been established for the designing of promoter genes and expression of the gene responsible for the degradation of persistent compounds (). An extension of synthetic biology is the integration of genome with reporter system, and synthetic promoters of P. putida may be developed for synthetic bioremediation pathways. Elmore et al. use serine integrases for synthetic genetic circuit development. Microbial cells have the advantage of a cellular system, which controls cell growth and response to external factors like temperature, light, pH, and oxygen (Tropel and Van Der Meer, 2004). The external environment of microbes inhabiting the contaminated site will respond to concentrations of various persistent compounds present (Ray et al., 2018; ). Whole cell biosensors for checking the presence, detection and biodegradation potential of xenobiotics compounds (pharmaceutical residues, pesticides, paraffin, PAHs and PCBs, etc.) present () in environmental samples are attaining attention (Wynn et al., 2017; ; Patel et al., 2019). The reporter proteins acting microbe makes a color signal at the detection of particular contaminants via transducer (Zhang and Liu, 2016). A biosensor aiming for detection and bioremediation purposes must have enhanced contact between microbe and contaminant (). This helps the bacterium to adjust their cellular pathways in response to external environmental conditions and encodes the genes for utilizing the recalcitrant compounds as substrate (; Skinder et al., 2020). Synthetic biology strategies are feasible for removing a particular toxic compound because the genetic circuits can be developed against the exogenous environmental toxin (; Tay et al., 2017). The synthetic genetic circuits are assembled via a two-component regulatory system (TCRS) in bacteria (; Uluşeker et al., 2017). This system acts upon environmental change, and thereby, cells respond to these changes. A prokaryotic TCRS has histidine kinase (HK) and response regulator (RR). The HK is a sensor domain with an extracellular loop present as an integral membrane protein. HK also has a transmitter domain in the last cytoplasmic transmembrane, which is a highly conserved domain. Histidine phosphotransfer (DHp) and catalytic ATP-binding domain (CA) acts for molecular recognition of RR and ATP hydrolysis. The transmitter domain transmits the signal from periplasm to cytoplasm via PAS (Periodic circadian proteins, Aryl hydrocarbon nuclear translocator proteins, and single minded proteins), HAMP (HKs, Adenyltatecyclases, Methyltransferases, and Phosphodiesterases) and GAF (cGMP-specific phosphodiesterases, adenylyl cyclases, and formate hydrogenases) (). Thus, HK senses the external environmental change and adds phosphate to conserved histidine. The HK also regulates RR by phosphorylating the aspartate residues. This promotes the promoter (Figure 3B) binding to activate the gene expression or vice-versa (Ravikumar et al., 2017). Therefore, TCRS-based synthetic biology application for biosensor development for cell-mediated detection and bioremediation can prove to be a new advancement.
Ecological Safety and Risk Assessment
The scientists and researchers are performing the experimental setup to study the bioremediation (Yergeau et al., 2012) potential against various pollutants like oil spill, plastics, synthetic dyes, organic hydrocarbons (Yadav et al., 2015), pesticides (), heavy metals (; Lebrazi and Fikri-Benbrahim, 2018), and other xenobiotics, etc (Rucká et al., 2017; Paniagua-Michel and Fathepure, 2018; Wu et al., 2020). Considering that bioremediation is performed in an open environment rather than in a closed fermentation tank, the ecological safety of bioremediation performing bacteria must be considered. Economic safety is justified by the metabolic aptness () of microorganisms as compared to other traditional physical and chemical bioremediation methods. Besides, regulation for using genetically and metabolically modified bacteria is released to evaluate the possible risks (Khudur et al., 2019). The risk assessment is mainly done by regulatory agencies, i.e., Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) at the application level for environmental safety (Russo et al., 2019; ; Pastor-Jáuregui et al., 2020). The possible risks are gene contamination in the native member of microbial consortium, leading to mislaying of the natural trait (Mills et al., 2019; Pineda et al., 2019; Rycroft et al., 2019). The competitiveness between natural and genetically modified species can give rise to selection pressure on non-target microflora (Kumar N. M. et al., 2018; Mohapatra et al., 2019). Moreover, environment and ecosystem risk assessments infer unpredictable and adverse effects, as discussed above (; van Dorst et al., 2020). Particularly, the ecological risk assessment behind addition of GEMs (Genetically Engineered Microorganisms) (; ) to the native environment rather than a laboratory () is done mainly because of unnecessary delivery of antibiotic resistance marker along with recombinant genome of interest (; Nora et al., 2019), and unintentional uptake or transfer of induced genes to other microorganisms (; ). This phenomenon is definately disturbing the microbial native genome entity (; Petsas and Vagi, 2019). Another aspect come into considerance, the change in microbial metabolism (Okino-Delgado et al., 2019), will release uncertain toxic compounds for the environment and health, indirectly acting as opposition microbial candidates in this context (Myhr and Traavik, 2002). Under the TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) (), the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs (Pietro-Souza et al., 2020) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Leong and Chang, 2020; Saxena et al., 2020) moniters the environmental and health risks and releases premanufacture legal notice for the accreditation of field research outlines and prototypes (McPartland and McKernan, 2017; ). A magnificant example is given by University of Tennessee. In 1995, they gave application and suggested the risk evaluation of microbial bioremediation agents (mainly Pseudomonas fluorescens HK44) on the environment and health (Sayler et al., 1999; Khan et al., 2016; Sharma J. K. et al., 2018; ). Most remarkable is that the literature survey points toward a biowar weapon for humanity (; Wang and Zhang, 2019), stating that gene editing tools left in bad hands could mislead ethical and moral duties (Khan, 2019; Thakur et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020).
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
The microbial bioremediation process for removal and detoxification of contaminants from the environment has now emerged as the best option. Synthetic biology is addressing the decontamination and remediation strategies for xenobiotics and related compounds from the environment. It has been observed that the requisite for understanding existing metabolic pathways is a must for developing synthetic models of bioremediation. Moreover, genomics reconstruction methods (Luo et al., 2014; Marco and Abram, 2019) and technologies made a solid platform for bioremediation studies. Satisfactory progress has been witnessed in the field of bioremediation among various contaminants with the role of specific genes and enzymes applicable via synthetic biology methodologies. Therefore, it is concluded that microbial synthetic biology remediation strategies not only increase the efficiency of microbial bioremediation processes for a particular contaminant, but also provide the best methodologies for researchers.
Statements
Author contributions
SJ contributed to this article under the guidance of PS. SJ acknowledges the support and guidance of PS in pursuing a doctorate under his guidance.
Funding
The author SJ acknowledges Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, India, for providing University Research Scholarship (URS). PS acknowledges the infrastructural support from Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, Government of India, through FIST grant (Grant No. 1196 SR/FST/LS-I/2017/4).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AdamsB. L. (2016). The next generation of synthetic biology chassis: moving synthetic biology from the laboratory to the field.ACS Synth Biol.51328–1330. 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00256
2
AdhikariB. R. (2019). “Advances in the oligonucleotide-based sensor technology for detection of pharmaceutical contaminants in the environment,” in Tools, Techniques and Protocols for Monitoring Environmental Contaminants, edsBrarS. K.HegdeK.PachapurV. L. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 125–146.
3
AgapakisC. M.BoyleP. M.SilverP. A. (2012). Natural strategies for the spatial optimization of metabolism in synthetic biology.Nat. Chem. Biol.8527–535. 10.1038/nchembio.975
4
AhankoubM.MardaniG.Ghasemi-DehkordiP.Mehri-GhahfarrokhiA.DoostiA.JamiM. S.et al (2020). Biodecomposition of phenanthrene and pyrene by a genetically engineered Escherichia coli.Recent Patents Biotechnol.10.2174/1872208314666200128103513 [Online ahead of print].
5
AkhterM.TasleemM.AlamM. M.AliS. (2017). In silico approach for bioremediation of arsenic by structure prediction and docking studies of arsenite oxidase from Pseudomonas stutzeri TS44.International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation12282–91.
6
AlamM. M.MuradM. W. (2020). The impacts of economic growth, trade openness and technological progress on renewable energy use in organization for economic co-operation and development countries.Renew. Energy145382–390.
7
AlvesL. D. F.WestmannC. A.LovateG. L.de SiqueiraG. M. V.BorelliT. C.GuazzaroniM. E. (2018). Metagenomic approaches for understanding new concepts in microbial science.Int. J. Genom.2018:2312987. 10.1155/2018/2312987
8
AndresJ.BertinP. N. (2016). The microbial genomics of arsenic.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.40299–322. 10.1093/femsre/fuv050
9
AntonacciA.ScognamiglioV. (2019). Biotechnological advances in the design of algae-based biosensors.Trends Biotechnol.38334–347. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.10.005
10
AroraP. K.BaeH. (2014). Integration of bioinformatics to biodegradation.Biol. Procedures Online16:8. 10.1186/1480-9222-16-8
11
AroraP. K.ShiW. (2010). Tools of bioinformatics in biodegradation.Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol.9211–213.
12
AtashgahiS.HornungB.WaalsM. J.RochaU. N.HugenholtzF.NijsseB.et al (2018). A benzene-degrading nitrate-reducing microbial consortium displays aerobic and anaerobic benzene degradation pathways.Sci. Rep.8:4490. 10.1038/s41598-018-22617-x
13
AzubuikeC. C.ChikereC. B.OkpokwasiliG. C. (2016). Bioremediation techniques–classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects.World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.32:180. 10.1007/s11274-016-2137-x
14
BanerjeeC.SinghP. K.ShuklaP. (2016). Microalgal bioengineering for sustainable energy development: recent transgenesis and metabolic engineering strategies.Biotechnol. J.11303–314. 10.1002/biot.201500284
15
BaoY. J.XuZ.LiY.YaoZ.SunJ.SongH. (2017). High-throughput metagenomic analysis of petroleum-contaminated soil microbiome reveals the versatility in xenobiotic aromatics metabolism.J. Environ. Sci.5625–35. 10.1016/j.jes.2016.08.022
16
BasuS.RabaraR. C.NegiS.ShuklaP. (2018). Engineering PGPMOs through gene editing and systems biology: a solution for phytoremediation?Trends Biotechnol.36499–510. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.01.011
17
BenjaminS. R.de LimaF.RathoureA. K. (2019). “Genetically engineered microorganisms for bioremediation processes: GEMs for bioremediaton,” in Biotechnology: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Ed.Information Resources Management Association (Pennsylvania: IGI Global), 1607–1634.
18
BergerB.PengJ.SinghM. (2013). Computational solutions for omics data.Nat. Rev. Genet.14:333. 10.1038/nrg3433
19
BertinP. N.Heinrich-SalmeronA.PelletierE.Goulhen-CholletF.Arsène-PloetzeF.GallienS.et al (2011). Metabolic diversity among main microorganisms inside an arsenic-rich ecosystem revealed by meta-and proteo-genomics.ISME J.5:1735. 10.1038/ismej.2011.51
20
BharagavaR. N.PurchaseD.SaxenaG.MullaS. I. (2019). “Applications of metagenomics in microbial bioremediation of pollutants: from genomics to environmental cleanup,” in Microbial Diversity in the Genomic Era, edsDasS.DashH. R. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 459–477.
21
BiggsM. B.MedlockG. L.KollingG. L.PapinJ. A. (2015). Metabolic network modeling of microbial communities.Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev.7317–334. 10.1002/wsbm.1308
22
BilalM.IqbalH. M. (2019). Microbial-derived biosensors for monitoring environmental contaminants: recent advances and future outlook.Process Saf. Environ. Protect.1248–17.
23
BiswasR.VivekanandV.SahaA.GhoshA.SarkarA. (2019). Arsenite oxidation by a facultative chemolithotrophic Delftia spp. BAs29 for its potential application in groundwater arsenic bioremediation.Int. Biodeteriorat. Biodegrad.13655–62.
24
BordbarA.MonkJ. M.KingZ. A.PalssonB. O. (2014). Constraint-based models predict metabolic and associated cellular functions.Nat. Rev. Genet.15:107. 10.1038/nrg3643
25
BordelS. (2014). “Genome-scale metabolic models of yeast, methods for their reconstruction, and other applications,” in Yeast Metabolic Engineering, ed.MapelliV. (New York, NY: Humana Press), 269–279. 10.1007/978-1-4939-0563-8_16
26
BoudhS.SinghJ. S.ChaturvediP. (2019). “Microbial resources mediated bioremediation of persistent organic pollutants,” in New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering, edsSinghJ. S.SinghD. P. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 283–294.
27
BruggemanF. J.WesterhoffH. V. (2007). The nature of systems biology.TRENDS Microbiol.1545–50.
28
BruneelO.VolantA.GallienS.ChaumandeB.CasiotC.CarapitoC.et al (2011). Characterization of the active bacterial community involved in natural attenuation processes in arsenic-rich creek sediments.Microb. Ecol.61793–810. 10.1007/s00248-011-9808-9
29
ButlerJ. E.YoungN. D.LovleyD. R. (2010). Evolution of electron transfer out of the cell: comparative genomics of six Geobacter genomes.BMC Genomics11:40. 10.1186/1471-2164-11-40
30
CarbajosaG.CasesI. (2010). “Transcriptional networks that regulate hydrocarbon biodegradation,” in Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology, edsTimmisK. N.McGenityT.van der MeerJ. R.de LorenzoV. (Berlin: Springer), 1399–1410.
31
CasinoP.RubioV.MarinaA. (2010). The mechanism of signal transduction by two-component systems.Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol20763–771. 10.1016/j.sbi.2010.09.010
32
CavalcaL.CorsiniA.ZaccheoP.AndreoniV.MuyzerG. (2013). Microbial transformations of arsenic: perspectives for biological removal of arsenic from water.Future Microbiol.8753–768. 10.2217/fmb.13.38
33
CervelliE.PindozziS.CapolupoA.OkelloC.RigilloM.BocciaL. (2016). Ecosystem services and bioremediation of polluted areas.Ecol. Eng.87139–149. 10.1016/j.copbio.2013.10.010
34
ChakrabortyJ.JanaT.SahaS.DuttaT. K. (2014). R ing-H ydroxylating O xygenase database: a database of bacterial aromatic ring-hydroxylating oxygenases in the management of bioremediation and biocatalysis of aromatic compounds.Environ. Microbiol. Rep.6519–523. 10.1111/1758-2229.12182
35
ChandraD.GeneralT.ChandraS. (2019). “Microorganisms: an asset for decontamination of soil,” in Smart Bioremediation Technologies, Ed.BhattP. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 319–345.
36
ChecaS. K.ZurbriggenM. D.SonciniF. C. (2012). Bacterial signaling systems as platforms for rational design of new generations of biosensors.Curr. Opin. Biotechnol23766–772. 10.1016/j.copbio.2012.05.003
37
ChenS.ChangC.DengY.AnS.DongY. H.ZhouJ.et al (2014). Fenpropathrin biodegradation pathway in Bacillus sp. DG-02 and its potential for bioremediation of pyrethroid-contaminated soils.J. Agricult. Food Chem.622147–2157. 10.1021/jf404908j
38
ChenW.ZhangY.ZhangY.PiY.GuT.SongL.et al (2018). CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and cytidine deaminase-mediated base editing in Pseudomonas species.IScience6222–231. 10.1016/j.isci.2018.07.024
39
ChoeS. I.SheppardD. C. (2016). “Bioremediation of arsenic using an aspergillus system,” in New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering, ed.GuptaV. K. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science), 267–274.
40
CovertM. W.SchillingC. H.FamiliI.EdwardsJ. S.GoryaninI. I.SelkovE.et al (2001). Metabolic modeling of microbial strains in silico.Trends Biochem. Sci.26179–186. 10.1016/s0968-0004(00)01754-0
41
CoyteK. Z.SchluterJ.FosterK. R. (2015). The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability.Science350663–666. 10.1126/science.aad2602
42
DangiA. K.SharmaB.HillR. T.ShuklaP. (2019). Bioremediation through microbes: systems biology and metabolic engineering approach.Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.3979–98. 10.1080/07388551.2018.1500997
43
DaoA. T.VonckJ.JanssensT. K.DangH. T.BrouwerA.de BoerT. E. (2019). Screening white-rot fungi for bioremediation potential of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.Indus. Crops Products128153–161.
44
DasS.DashH. R.ChakrabortyJ. (2016). Genetic basis and importance of metal resistant genes in bacteria for bioremediation of contaminated environments with toxic metal pollutants.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.1002967–2984. 10.1007/s00253-016-7364-4
45
DavisonJ. (2002). Towards safer vectors for the field release of recombinant bacteria.Environ. Biosaf. Res.19–18. 10.1051/ebr:2002001
46
De JongH. (2002). Modeling and simulation of genetic regulatory systems: a literature review.J. Comput. Biol.967–103. 10.1089/10665270252833208
47
de la Pena MattozziM.TeharaS. K.HongT.KeaslingJ. D. (2006). Mineralization of paraoxon and its use as a sole C and P source by a rationally designed catabolic pathway in Pseudomonas putida.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.726699–6706. 10.1128/AEM.00907-06
48
DellagnezzeB. M.de SousaG. V.MartinsL. L.DomingosD. F.LimacheE. E.de VasconcellosS. P.et al (2014). Bioremediation potential of microorganisms derived from petroleum reservoirs.Mar. Pollut. Bull.89191–200. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.003
49
DesaiC.PathakH.MadamwarD. (2010). Advances in molecular and “-omics” technologies to gauge microbial communities and bioremediation at xenobiotic/anthropogen contaminated sites.Bioresour. Technol.1011558–1569. 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.080
50
DharD.RoyS.NigamV. K. (2019). “Advances in protein/enzyme-based biosensors for the detection of pharmaceutical contaminants in the environment,” in Tools, Techniques and Protocols for Monitoring Environmental Contaminants, edsBrarS. K.HegdeK.PachapurV. L. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 207–229.
51
DuarteM.NielsenA.Camarinha-SilvaA.Vilchez-VargasR.BrulsT.Wos-OxleyM. L.et al (2017). Functional soil metagenomics: elucidation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon degradation potential following 12 years of in situ bioremediation.Environ. Microbiol.192992–3011. 10.1111/1462-2920.13756
52
DvorakP.BidmanovaS.DamborskyJ.ProkopZ. (2014). Immobilized synthetic pathway for biodegradation of toxic recalcitrant pollutant 1, 2, 3-trichloropropane.Environ. Sci. Technol.486859–6866. 10.1021/es500396r
53
DvořákP.NikelP. I.DamborskýJ.de LorenzoV. (2017). Bioremediation 3.0: engineering pollutant-removing bacteria in the times of systemic biology.Biotechnol. Adv.35845–866. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2017.08.001
54
El AmraniA.DumasA. S.WickL. Y.YergeauE.BerthomeR. (2015). Omics” insights into PAH degradation toward improved green remediation biotechnologies.Environ. Sci. Technol.4911281–11291. 10.1021/acs.est.5b01740
55
El ZanfalyH. T. (2019). Biotechnology Contributions in Sustainable Environmental Development.Cairo: National Research Center.
56
EnríquezP. (2016). Genome editing and the jurisprudence of scientific empiricism.Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L.19:603.
57
FajardoC.CostaG.NandeM.BotíasP.García-CantalejoJ.MartínM. (2019). Pb, Cd, and Zn soil contamination: monitoring functional and structural impacts on the microbiome.Appl. Soil Ecol.13556–64.
58
FernandezM.PaisioC. E.PerottiR.PereiraP. P.AgostiniE.GonzálezP. S. (2019). Laboratory and field microcosms as useful experimental systems to study the bioaugmentation treatment of tannery effluents.J. Environ. Manag.234503–511. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.019
59
FosterK. R.BellT. (2012). Competition, not cooperation, dominates interactions among culturable microbial species.Curr. Biol.221845–1850. 10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.005
60
FrenchK. E.ZhouZ.TerryN. (2019). Horizontal” gene drives” harness indigenous bacteria for bioremediation.bioRxiv [Preprint]10.1101/735886v2
61
FutagamiT.GotoM.FurukawaK. (2014). “Genetic system of organohalide-respiring bacteria,” in Biodegradative Bacteria, edsKamagataY.TsudaM.NojiriH. (Tokyo: Springer), 59–81.
62
GangarT.BhardwajK. K.GuptaR. (2019). “Microbes and processes in bioremediation of soil,” in Microbes and Enzymes in Soil Health and Bioremediation, edsKumarA.SharmaS. (Singapore: Springer), 11–37.
63
GardnerC. M.GunschC. K. (2020). “Environmental microbiome analysis and manipulation,” in Women in Water Quality, Ed.O’BannonD. J. (Cham: Springer), 113–133.
64
GargV.KhanS.DuttK. (2014). Systematic Analysis of Microbial Degradation Pathway of 1-Naphthyl-N-Methyl carbamate generated by EAWAG Biocatalysis/biodegradation database-pathway prediction System.Int. J. Appl. Sci. Res. Rev.1049–055.
65
GillanD. C.RoosaS.KunathB.BillonG.WattiezR. (2015). The long-term adaptation of bacterial communities in metal-contaminated sediments: a metaproteogenomic study.Environ. Microbiol.171991–2005. 10.1111/1462-2920.12627
66
Gómez-TatayL.Hernández-AndreuJ. M. (2019). Biosafety and biosecurity in synthetic biology: a review.Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.491587–1621.
67
GongJ.LiuX.CaoX.DiaoY.GaoD.LiH.et al (2012). PTID: an integrated web resource and computational tool for agrochemical discovery.Bioinformatics29292–294. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts651
68
GongT.LiuR.ZuoZ.CheY.YuH.SongC.et al (2016). Metabolic engineering of Pseudomonas putida KT2440 for complete mineralization of methyl parathion and γ-hexachlorocyclohexane.ACS Synthetic Biol.5434–442. 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00025
69
GroßkopfT.SoyerO. S. (2014). Synthetic microbial communities.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.1872–77. 10.1016/j.mib.2014.02.002
70
GuptaS.PathakB. (2020). “Mycoremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,” in Abatement of Environmental Pollutants, edsSinghP.KumarA.BorthakurA. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 127–149.
71
GupteA.TripathiA.PatelH.RudakiyaD.GupteS. (2016). Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs): a perspective.Open Biotechnol. J.10363–378. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.03.025
72
GuzikU.GreńI.Hupert-KocurekK.WojcieszyńskaD. (2011). Catechol 1, 2-dioxygenase from the new aromatic compounds–degrading Pseudomonas putida strain N6.Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad.65504–512.
73
HamiltonT. A.PellegrinoG. M.TherrienJ. A.HamD. T.BartlettP. C.KarasB. J.et al (2019). Efficient inter-species conjugative transfer of a CRISPR nuclease for targeted bacterial killing.Nat. Commun.101–9. 10.1038/s41467-019-12448-3
74
HawleyE. R.PiaoH.ScottN. M.MalfattiS.PaganiI.HuntemannM.et al (2014). Metagenomic analysis of microbial consortium from natural crude oil that seeps into the marine ecosystem offshore Southern California.Standards Genom. Sci.9:1259. 10.4056/sigs.5029016
75
HellwegerF. L.CleggR. J.ClarkJ. R.PluggeC. M.KreftJ. U. (2016). Advancing microbial sciences by individual-based modelling.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.14:461. 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.62
76
Hemmat-JouM. H.Safari-SineganiA. A.Mirzaie-AslA.TahmourespourA. (2018). Analysis of microbial communities in heavy metals-contaminated soils using the metagenomic approach.Ecotoxicology271281–1291. 10.1007/s10646-018-1981-x
77
HengL. Y.OoiL.MoriI. C.FutraD. (2018). “Environmental toxicity and evaluation,” in Environmental Risk Analysis for Asian-Oriented, Risk-Based Watershed Management, edsYonedaM.MokhtarM. (Singapore: Springer), 71–94.
78
HongY. H.YeC. C.ZhouQ. Z.WuX. Y.YuanJ. P.PengJ.et al (2017). Genome sequencing reveals the potential of Achromobacter sp. HZ01 for bioremediation.Front. Microbiol.8:1507. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01507
79
JacquiodS.DemanècheS.FranquevilleL.AusecL.XuZ.DelmontT. O.et al (2014). Characterization of new bacterial catabolic genes and mobile genetic elements by high throughput genetic screening of a soil metagenomic library.J. Biotechnol.19018–29. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.03.036
80
JadejaN. BMoreR. PPurohitH. JKapleyA. (2014). Metagenomic analysis of oxygenases from activated sludge.Bioresour. Technol.165250–256. 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.045
81
JagwaniJ.JohnsonJ.DattaM.LakshmiB. J. (2018). Bacterial community dynamics involved in Reactive Orange M2R dye degradation using a real time quantitative PCR and scale up studies using sequence batch reactor.Bioremed. J.2263–71.
82
JaiswalS.SharmaB.ShuklaP. (2019a). Integrated approaches in microbial degradation of plastics.Environ. Technol. & Innovat.17:100567.
83
JaiswalS.SinghD. K.ShuklaP. (2019b). Gene editing and systems biology tools for pesticide bioremediation: a review.Front. Microbiol.10:87. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00087
84
JanssenD. B.StuckiG. (2020). Perspectives of genetically engineered microbes for groundwater bioremediation.Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts22487–499. 10.1039/c9em00601j
85
JohnsN. I.BlazejewskiT.GomesA. L.WangH. H. (2016). Principles for designing synthetic microbial communities.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.31146–153. 10.1016/j.mib.2016.03.010
86
JoshiG.SchmidtR.ScowK. M.DenisonM. S.HristovaK. R. (2016). Effect of benzene and ethylbenzene on the transcription of methyl-tert-butyl ether degradation genes of Methylibium petroleiphilum PM1.Microbiology1621563–1571. 10.1099/mic.0.000338
87
JunghareM.SpitellerD.SchinkB. (2019). Anaerobic degradation of xenobiotic isophthalate by the fermenting bacterium Syntrophorhabdus aromaticivorans.ISME J.131252–1268. 10.1038/s41396-019-0348-5
88
JusiakB.CletoS.Perez-PińeraP.LuT. K. (2016). Engineering synthetic gene circuits in living cells with CRISPR technology.Trends Biotechnol.34535–547. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.12.014
89
JuwarkarA. A.SinghS. K.MudhooA. (2010). A comprehensive overview of elements in bioremediation.Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol.9215–288.
90
KachiengaL.JitendraK.MombaM. (2018). Metagenomic profiling for assessing microbial diversity and microbial adaptation to degradation of hydrocarbons in two South African petroleum-contaminated water aquifers.Sci. Rep.8:7564. 10.1038/s41598-018-25961-0
91
KanchiswamyC. N.MaffeiM.MalnoyM.VelascoR.KimJ. S. (2016). Fine-tuning next-generation genome editing tools.Trends Biotechnol.34562–574. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.03.007
92
KapetanovicI. M. (2008). Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD): in silico-chemico-biological approach.Chem. Biol. Interact171165–176. 10.1016/j.cbi.2006.12.006
93
KarimiB.HabibiM.EsvandM. (2015). Biodegradation of naphthalene using Pseudomonas aeruginosa by up flow anoxic–aerobic continuous flow combined bioreactor.J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng.1326. 10.1186/s40201-015-0175-1
94
KhanF. I.HusainT.HejaziR. (2004). An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies.J. Environ. Manag.7195–122. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.02.003
95
KhanS.NawabJ.WaqasM. (2020). “Constructed wetlands: a clean-green technology for degradation and detoxification of industrial wastewaters,” in Bioremediation of Industrial Waste for Environmental Safety, edsBharagavaR. N.SaxenaG. (Singapore: Springer), 127–163.
96
KhanS.UllahM. W.SiddiqueR.NabiG.MananS.YousafM.et al (2016). Role of recombinant DNA technology to improve life.Int. J. Genom.2016:2405954. 10.1155/2016/2405954
97
KhanS. H. (2019). Genome-editing technologies: concept, pros, and cons of various genome-editing techniques and bioethical concerns for clinical application.Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids16:326. 10.1016/j.omtn.2019.02.027
98
KhandelwalR. A.OlivierB. G.RölingW. F.TeusinkB.BruggemanF. J. (2013). Community flux balance analysis for microbial consortia at balanced growth.PLoS One8:e64567. 10.1371/journal.pone.0064567
99
KhudurL. S.ShahsavariE.WebsterG. T.NugegodaD.BallA. S. (2019). The impact of lead co-contamination on ecotoxicity and the bacterial community during the bioremediation of total petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soils.Environ. Pollut.253939–948. 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.107
100
KimB.KimW. J.KimD. I.LeeS. Y. (2015). Applications of genome-scale metabolic network model in metabolic engineering.J. Indus. Microbiol. Biotechnol.42339–348. 10.1007/s10295-014-1554-9
101
KimS. J.ParkS. J.ChaI. T.MinD.KimJ. S.ChungW. H.et al (2014). Metabolic versatility of toluene-degrading, iron-reducing bacteria in tidal flat sediment, characterized by stable isotope probing-based metagenomic analysis.Environ. Microbiol.16189–204. 10.1111/1462-2920.12277
102
KondoR. (2017). “Microbial degradation of endsulfan and endsulfan sulfate,” in Microbe-Induced Degradation of Pesticides, Ed.SinghS. N. (Cham: Springer), 151–166.
103
KošnárZ.ÈástkováT.WiesnerováL.PrausL.JablonskýI.KoudelaM.et al (2019). Comparing the removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil after different bioremediation approaches in relationto the extracellular enzyme activities.J. Environ. Sci.76249–258. 10.1016/j.jes.2018.05.007
104
KüesU. (2015). Fungal enzymes for environmental management.Curr. Opin. Biotechnol33268–278. 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.03.006
105
KumarA.BishtB. S.JoshiV. D.DhewaT. (2011). Review on bioremediation of polluted environment: a management tool.Int. J. Environ. Sci.1:1079.
106
KumarM.JaiswalS.SodhiK. K.ShreeP.SinghD. K.AgrawalP. K.et al (2019). Antibiotics bioremediation: perspectives on its ecotoxicity and resistance.Environ. Int.124448–461. 10.1016/j.envint.2018.12.065
107
KumarN. M.MuthukumaranC.SharmilaG.GurunathanB. (2018). “Genetically modified organisms and its impact on the enhancement of bioremediation,” in Bioremediation: Applications for Environmental Protection and Management, edsVarjaniS. J.AgarwalA. K.GnansounouE.GurunathanB. (Singapore: Springer), 53–76.
108
KumarV.DangiA. K.ShuklaP. (2018). Engineering thermostable microbial xylanases toward its industrial applications.Mol. Biotechnol.60226–235. 10.1007/s12033-018-0059-6
109
KumarP. S. (2019). “Soil bioremediation techniques,” in Advanced Treatment Techniques for Industrial Wastewater, edsAtharH.SirajuddinA. (IGI Global), 35–50.
110
KumarS. S.ShantkritiS.MuruganandhamT.MurugeshE.RaneN.GovindwarS. P. (2016). Bioinformatics aided microbial approach for bioremediation of wastewater containing textile dyes.Ecol. Inform.31112–121.
111
KumavathR. N.SatyanarayanaS. V. (2014). Preserving the earth’s microbes for drug discovery in the future.J. Mýcrobýol. Mýcrob. Res.21–7.
112
KutateladzeL.ZakariashviliN.KhokhashviliI.JobavaM.AlexidzeT.UrushadzeT.et al (2018). Fungal elimination of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) from the soils.Eurobiotech J.239–46.
113
LebraziS.Fikri-BenbrahimK. (2018). “Rhizobium-Legume Symbioses: heavy metal effects and principal approaches for bioremediation of contaminated soil,” in Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management, edsMeenaR. S.DasA.YadavG. S.LalR. (Singapore: Springer), 205–233.
114
LeongY. K.ChangJ. S. (2020). Bioremediation of heavy metals using microalgae: recent advances and mechanisms.Bioresour. Technol.303:122886. 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122886
115
LiangY.JiaoS.WangM.YuH.ShenZ. (2020). A CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing system for Rhodococcus ruber TH.Metab. Eng.5713–22. 10.1016/j.ymben.2019.10.003
116
LibisV.DelepineB.FaulonJ. L. (2016a). Expanding biosensing abilities through computer-aided design of metabolic pathways.ACS Synthet. Biol.51076–1085. 10.1021/acssynbio.5b00225
117
LibisV.DelépineB.FaulonJ. L. (2016b). Sensing new chemicals with bacterial transcription factors.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.33105–112. 10.1016/j.mib.2016.07.006
118
LiuH.ZhangJ. J.WangS. J.ZhangX. E.ZhouN. Y. (2005). Plasmid-borne catabolism of methyl parathion and p-nitrophenol in Pseudomonas sp. strain WBC-3.Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.3341107–1114. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.07.006
119
LuoJ.BaiY.LiangJ.QuJ. (2014). Metagenomic approach reveals variation of microbes with arsenic and antimony metabolism genes from highly contaminated soil.PLoS One9:e108185. 10.1371/journal.pone.0108185
120
MallaM. A.DubeyA.YadavS.KumarA.HashemA.Abd_AllahE. F. (2018). Understanding and designing the strategies for the microbe-mediated remediation of environmental contaminants using omics approaches.Front. Microbiol.9:1132. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01132
121
MarcoD. E.AbramF. (2019). Using genomics, metagenomics and other” omics” to assess valuable microbial ecosystem services and novel biotechnological applications.Front. Microbiol.10:151. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00151
122
MarshallR.MaxwellC. S.CollinsS. P.JacobsenT.LuoM. L.BegemannM. B.et al (2018). Rapid and scalable characterization of CRISPR technologies using an E. coli cell-free transcription-translation system.Mol. Cell69146–157. 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.12.007
123
McPartlandJ. M.McKernanK. J. (2017). “Contaminants of concern in cannabis: microbes, heavy metals and pesticides,” in Cannabis sativa L.-Botany and Biotechnology, edsChandraS.LataH.ElSohlyM. A. (Cham: Springer), 457–474.
124
MehrM. A.FarivarT. N.NajafipourR.PeymaniA.AlizadehS. A.JohariP. (2017). Biodegradation of endosulfan as an organochlorine pesticide with Pseudomonas plecoglocissida transfected by LinA gene.Biotechnol. Health Sci.5:e45306.
125
MichelC.JeanM.CoulonS.DictorM. C.DelormeF.MorinD.et al (2007). Biofilms of As (III)-oxidising bacteria: formation and activity studies for bioremediation process development.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.77457–467. 10.1007/s00253-007-1169-4
126
MillsM. G.RamsdenR.MaE. Y.CorralesJ.KristofcoL. A.SteeleW. B.et al (2019). CRISPR-generated Nrf2a loss-and gain-of-function mutants facilitate mechanistic analysis of chemical oxidative stress-mediated toxicity in zebrafish.Chem. Res. Toxicol.33426–435. 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00346
127
MiyazakiR.SatoY.ItoM.OhtsuboY.NagataY.TsudaM. (2006). Complete nucleotide sequence of an exogenously isolated plasmid, pLB1, involved in γ-hexachlorocyclohexane degradation.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.726923–6933. 10.1128/AEM.01531-06
128
MohantaT. K.MohantaY. K.MohantaN. (2015). “Role of biotechnology in bioremediation,” in Handbook of Research on Uncovering New Methods for Ecosystem Management Through Bioremediation, edsSinghS. O.SrivastavaK. (Pennsylvania: IGI Global), 399–432.
129
MohapatraB.KazyS. K.SarP. (2019). Comparative genome analysis of arsenic reducing, hydrocarbon metabolizing groundwater bacterium Achromobacter sp. KAs 3-5T explains its competitive edge for survival in aquifer environment.Genomics1111604–1619. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2018.11.004
130
MónicaM. G. A.JaimeM. Q. (2019). “Phenoloxidases of Fungi and Bioremediation,” Fungal Bioremediation: Fundamentals and Applications, edsCampocosioA. T.SantiestebanH. H. L. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 62–90.
131
MougiakosI.BosmaE. F.de VosW. M.van KranenburgR.van der OostJ. (2016). Next generation prokaryotic engineering: the CRISPR-Cas toolkit.Trends Biotechnol.34575–587. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.02.004
132
MujawarS. Y.ShamimK.VaigankarD. C.DubeyS. K. (2019). Arsenite biotransformation and bioaccumulation by Klebsiella pneumoniae strain SSSW7 possessing arsenite oxidase (aioA) gene.Biometals3265–76. 10.1007/s10534-018-0158-7
133
MyattG. J.AhlbergE.AkahoriY.AllenD.AmbergA.AngerL. T.et al (2018). In silico toxicology protocols.Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.961–17.
134
MyhrA. I.TraavikT. (2002). The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release.J. Agricult. Environ. Ethics1573–86.
135
NogalesJ.MuellerJ.GudmundssonS.CanalejoF. J.DuqueE.MonkJ. (2020). High-quality genome-scale metabolic modelling of Pseudomonas putida highlights its broad metabolic capabilities.Environ. Microbiol.255–269.
136
NoraL. C.WestmannC. A.Martins-SantanaL.AlvesL. D. F.MonteiroL. M. O.GuazzaroniM. E.et al (2019). The art of vector engineering: towards the construction of next-generation genetic tools.Microb. Biotechnol.12125–147. 10.1111/1751-7915.13318
137
O’BrienE. J.MonkJ. M.PalssonB. O. (2015). Using genome-scale models to predict biological capabilities.Cell161971–987. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.019
138
ObstU. (2007). Quorum sensing: bacterial chatting.Anal. Bioanal. Chem.387369–370.
139
OfaimS.ZareckiR.PorobS.GatD.LahavT.XuX.et al (2019). Genome-Scale reconstruction of Paenarthrobacter aurescens TC1 metabolic model towards the study of atrazine bioremediation.bioRxiv [Preprint]10.1101/536011
140
Okino-DelgadoC. H.Zanutto-ElguiM. R.do PradoD. Z.PereiraM. S.FleuriL. F. (2019). “Enzymatic bioremediation: current status, challenges of obtaining process, and applications,” in Microbial Metabolism of Xenobiotic Compounds, edsAroraP. K. (Singapore: Springer), 79–101.
141
OrthJ. D.ThieleI.PalssonB. Ø (2010). What is flux balance analysis?Nat. Biotechnol.28:245. 10.1038/nbt.1614
142
PaboC. O.NekludovaL. (2000). Geometric analysis and comparison of protein-DNA interfaces: why is there no simple code for recognition? 1.J. Mol. Biol.301597–624. 10.1006/jmbi.2000.3918
143
PanelliS.CapelliE.ComandatoreF.Landinez-TorresA.GranataM. U.TosiS.et al (2017). A metagenomic-based, cross-seasonal picture of fungal consortia associated with Italian soils subjected to different agricultural managements.Fungal Ecol.301–9.
144
Paniagua-MichelJ.FathepureB. Z. (2018). “Microbial consortia and biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine environments,” in Microbial Action on Hydrocarbons, edsKumarV.KumarM.PrasadR. (Singapore: Springer), 1–20.
145
PanigrahiS.VelrajP.RaoT. S. (2019). “Functional microbial diversity in contaminated environment and application in bioremediation,” in Microbial Diversity in the Genomic Era, edsDasS.DashH. R. (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 359–385.
146
Pastor-JáureguiR.Paniagua-LópezM.Martínez-GarzónJ.Martín-PeinadoF.Sierra-AragónM. (2020). Evolution of the residual pollution in soils after bioremediation treatments.Appl. Sci.10:1006.
147
PatelR.ZaveriP.MukherjeeA.AgarwalP. K.MoreP.MunshiN. S. (2019). Development of fluorescent protein-based biosensing strains: a new tool for the detection of aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in the environment.Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.182:109450. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109450
148
PavanM.WorthA. P. (2006). Review of QSAR Models for Ready Biodegradation.Brussels: European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Centre.
149
PeijnenburgW. J.DamborskýJ. (eds) (2012). Biodegradability Prediction, Vol. 23. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
150
PetsasA. S.VagiM. C. (2019). Trends in the bioremediation of pharmaceuticals and other organic contaminants using native or genetically modified microbial strains: a review.Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol20787–824. 10.2174/1389201020666190527113903
151
Pietro-SouzaW.de Campos PereiraF.MelloI. S.StachackF. F. F.TerezoA. J.da CunhaC. N.et al (2020). Mercury resistance and bioremediation mediated by endophytic fungi.Chemosphere240:124874. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124874
152
PinedaM.LearA.CollinsJ. P.KianiS. (2019). Safe CRISPR: challenges and possible solutions.Trends Biotechnol.37389–401. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.09.010
153
PlewniakF.CrognaleS.RossettiS.BertinP. N. (2018). A genomic outlook on bioremediation: the case of arsenic removal.Front. Microbiol.9:820. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00820
154
PontrelliS.ChiuT. Y.LanE. I.ChenF. Y. H.ChangP.LiaoJ. C. (2018). Escherichia coli as a host for metabolic engineering.Metab. Eng.5016–46. 10.1016/j.ymben.2018.04.008
155
RavikumarS.BaylonM. G.ParkS. J.ChoiJ. I. (2017). Engineered microbial biosensors based on bacterial two-component systems as synthetic biotechnology platforms in bioremediation and biorefinery.Microb. Cell Fact.16:62. 10.1186/s12934-017-0675-z
156
RawlsK. D.DoughertyB. V.BlaisE. M.StancliffeE.KollingG. L.VinnakotaK.et al (2019). A simplified metabolic network reconstruction to promote understanding and development of flux balance analysis tools.Comput. Biol. Med.10564–71. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.12.010
157
RayS.PanjikarS.AnandR. (2018). Design of protein-based biosensors for selective detection of benzene groups of pollutants.ACS Sens.31632–1638. 10.1021/acssensors.8b00190
158
RayuS.KarpouzasD. G.SinghB. K. (2012). Emerging technologies in bioremediation: constraints and opportunities.Biodegradation23917–926. 10.1007/s10532-012-9576-3
159
RichelleA.GziriK. M.BogaertsP. (2016). A methodology for building a macroscopic FBA-based dynamical simulator of cell cultures through flux variability analysis.Biochem. Eng. J.11450–64.
160
RochfortS. (2005). Metabolomics reviewed: a new “omics” platform technology for systems biology and implications for natural products research.J. Nat. Prod.681813–1820. 10.1021/np050255w
161
RuckáL.NešveraJ.PátekM. (2017). Biodegradation of phenol and its derivatives by engineered bacteria: current knowledge and perspectives.World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.33:174. 10.1007/s11274-017-2339-x
162
RussoF.CeciA.PinzariF.SicilianoA.GuidaM.MalusàE.et al (2019). Bioremediation of DDT-contaminated agricultural soils: the potential of two autochthonous saprotrophic fungal strains.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.85e01720–19. 10.1128/AEM.01720-19
163
RycroftT.HamiltonK.HaasC. N.LinkovI. (2019). A quantitative risk assessment method for synthetic biology products in the environment.Sci. Total Environ.696:133940. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133940
164
SadańoskiM. A.VelázquezJ. E.FonsecaM. I.ZapataP. D.LevinL. N.VillalbaL. L. (2018). Assessing the ability of white-rot fungi to tolerate polychlorinated biphenyls using predictive mycology.Mycology9239–249. 10.1080/21501203.2018.1481152
165
SalamL. B.IshaqA. (2019). Biostimulation potentials of corn steep liquor in enhanced hydrocarbon degradation in chronically polluted soil.3 Biotech9:46. 10.1007/s13205-019-1580-4
166
SaxenaG.PurchaseD.BharagavaR. N. (2020). “Environmental hazards and toxicity profile of organic and inorganic pollutants of tannery wastewater and bioremediation approaches,” in Bioremediation of Industrial Waste for Environmental Safety, edsBharagavaR. N.SaxenaG. (Singapore: Springer), 381–398. 10.1007/398_2015_5009
167
SaylerG. S.CoxC. D.BurlageR.RippS.NivensD. E.WernerC.et al (1999). “Field application of a genetically engineered microorganism for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon bioremediation process monitoring and control,” in Novel Approaches for Bioremediation of Organic Pollution, edsReuvenyS.FlashnerY.FassR. (Boston, MA: Springer), 241–254.
168
SchlossP. D.HandelsmanJ. (2008). A statistical toolbox for metagenomics: assessing functional diversity in microbial communities.BMC Bioinformatics9:34. 10.1186/1471-2105-9-34
169
SerranoJ.LeivaE. (2017). Removal of arsenic using acid/metal-tolerant sulfate reducing bacteria: a new approach for bioremediation of high-arsenic acid mine waters.Water9:994.
170
ShahS. B.AliF.HuangL.WangW.XuP.TangH. (2018). Complete genome sequence of Bacillus sp. HBCD-sjtu, an efficient HBCD-degrading bacterium.3 Biotech8:291. 10.1007/s13205-018-1326-8
171
ShahV.JainK.DesaiC.MadamwarD. (2012). “Molecular analyses of microbial activities involved in bioremediation,” in Microorganisms in Environmental Management, edsPrakashA.SatyanarayanaT. (Dordrecht: Springer), 221–247.
172
ShanmugamK.RamalingamS.VenkataramanG.HariharanG. N. (2019). The CRISPR/Cas9 system for targeted genome engineering in free-living fungi: advances and opportunities for lichenized fungi.Front. Microbiol.10:62. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00062
173
SharmaA.GuptaG.AhmadT.KrishanK.KaurB. (2020). “Next generation agents (synthetic agents): emerging threats and challenges in detection, protection, and decontamination,” in Handbook on Biological Warfare Preparedness, edsFloraS. J. S.PachauriV. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 217–256.
174
SharmaB.DangiA. K.ShuklaP. (2018). Contemporary enzyme based technologies for bioremediation: a review.J. Environ. Manag.21010–22. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.075
175
SharmaJ. K.GautamR. K.NanekarS. V.WeberR.SinghB. K.SinghS. K.et al (2018). Advances and perspective in bioremediation of polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated soils.Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.2516355–16375. 10.1007/s11356-017-8995-4
176
SharmaS. (2012). Bioremediation: features, strategies and applications.Asian J. Pharm. Life Sci.2202–213.
177
ShuklaN. (2017). Bioinformatics in environmental bioremediation-a review.Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol.3195–205.
178
SinghA.GothalwalR. (2018). A reappraisal on biodegradation of fluoride compounds: role of microbes.Water Environ. J.32481–487. 10.1111/wej.12322
179
SinghN.KumarA.SharmaB. (2019). “Role of fungal enzymes for bioremediation of hazardous chemicals,” in Recent Advancement in White Biotechnology Through Fungi, edsYadavA. N.MishraS.SinghS.GuptaA. (Cham: Springer), 237–256.
180
SinghN.SrivastavaS.RathaurS.SinghN. (2016). Assessing the bioremediation potential of arsenic tolerant bacterial strains in rice rhizosphere interface.J. Environ. Sci.48112–119. 10.1016/j.jes.2015.12.034
181
SinghS. B. (2018). “Enzyme Catalysis and Its Role in Food Processing Industries,” in Enzymes in Food Technology, Ed.LawB. A. (Singapore: Springer), 143–165.
182
SinghV. (2019). “Bioremediation: new prospects for environmental cleaning by enzymes,” in Biotechnology: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Ed.Information Resources Management Association (Pennsylvania: IGI Global),
183
SinhaR.SharmaB.DangiA. K.ShuklaP. (2019). Recent metabolomics and gene editing approaches for synthesis of microbial secondary metabolites for drug discovery and development.World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.35:166. 10.1007/s11274-019-2746-2
184
SkinderB. M.UqabB.GanaiB. A. (2020). “Bioremediation: a sustainable and emerging tool for restoration of polluted aquatic ecosystem,” in Fresh Water Pollution Dynamics and Remediation, edsQadriH.BhatR. A.MehmoodM. A.DarG. H. (Singapore: Springer), 143–165.
185
SridharS.ChandraJ. H. (2014). Involvement of Computational tools towards In Silico remediation-Synthetic textile dyes interacting with Azoreductase.Int. J. Chem. Technol. Res.64412–4416.
186
SteinH. P.Navajas-PérezR.ArandaE. (2018). “Potential for CRISPR genetic engineering to increase xenobiotic degradation capacities in model fungi,” in Approaches in Bioremediation, edsPrasadR.ArandaE. (Cham: Springer), 61–78.
187
TangQ.LuT.LiuS. J. (2018). Developing a synthetic biology toolkit for comamonas testosteroni, an emerging cellular chassis for bioremediation.ACS Synthetic Biol.71753–1762. 10.1021/acssynbio.7b00430
188
TanveerT.ShaheenK.ParveenS.MisbahZ. T.BabarM. M.GulA. (2018). “Omics-based bioengineering in environmental biotechnology,” in Omics Technologies and Bio-Engineering, edsBarhD.AzevedoV. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 353–364.
189
TayP. K. R.NguyenP. Q.JoshiN. S. (2017). A synthetic circuit for mercury bioremediation using self-assembling functional amyloids.ACS Synthetic Biol.61841–1850. 10.1021/acssynbio.7b00137
190
TechtmannS. M.HazenT. C. (2016). Metagenomic applications in environmental monitoring and bioremediation.J. Indus. Microbiol. Biotechnol.431345–1354. 10.1007/s10295-016-1809-8
191
ThakurM.MedintzI. L.WalperS. A. (2019). Enzymatic bioremediation of organophosphate compounds-progress and remaining challenges.Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.7:289. 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00289
192
ThelusmondJ. R.StrathmannT. J.CupplesA. M. (2019). Carbamazepine, triclocarban and triclosan biodegradation and the phylotypes and functional genes associated with xenobiotic degradation in four agricultural soils.Sci. Total Environ.6571138–1149. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.145
193
TomeiM. C.DaugulisA. J. (2013). Ex situ bioremediation of contaminated soils: an overview of conventional and innovative technologies.Crit. Revi. Environ. Sci. Technol.432107–2139.
194
TrigoA.ValenciaA.CasesI. (2008). Systemic approaches to biodegradation.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.3398–108.
195
TropelD.Van Der MeerJ. R. (2004). Bacterial transcriptional regulators for degradation pathways of aromatic compounds.Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.68474–500.
196
UluşekerC.TorresJ.GarcíaJ. L.HanczycM. M.NogalesJ.KahramanoğullarýO. (2017). “September. a dynamic model of the phosphate response system with synthetic promoters in Escherichia coli,” in Proceedings of the Artificial Life Conference, Vol. 14 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 412–419.
197
UtturkarS. M.BollmannA.BrzoskaR. M.KlingemanD. M.EpsteinS. E.PalumboA. V.et al (2013). Draft genome sequence for Ralstonia sp. strain OR214, a bacterium with potential for bioremediation.Genome Announc.1:e00321-13. 10.1128/genomeA.00321-13
198
van DorstJ.WilkinsD.KingC. K.SpeddingT.HinceG.ZhangE.et al (2020). Applying microbial indicators of hydrocarbon toxicity to contaminated sites undergoing bioremediation on subantarctic Macquarie Island.Environ. Pollut.259:113780. 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113780
199
WangF.ZhangW. (2019). Syntheticbiology: recent progress, biosafety and biosecurity concerns, and possible solutions.J. Biosaf. Biosecur.122–30.
200
WeiK.YinH.PengH.LuG.DangZ. (2019). Bioremediation of triphenyl phosphate in river water microcosms: proteome alteration of Brevibacillus brevis and cytotoxicity assessments.Sci. Total Environ.649563–570. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.342
201
WintermuteE. H.SilverP. A. (2010). Dynamics in the mixed microbial concourse.Genes Dev.242603–2614. 10.1101/gad.1985210
202
WuY.ChenY.WeiN. (2020). Biocatalytic properties of cell surface display laccase for degradation of emerging contaminant acetaminophen in water reclamation.Biotechnol. Bioeng.117342–353. 10.1002/bit.27214
203
WynnD.DeoS.DaunertS. (2017). “Engineering rugged field assays to detect hazardous chemicals using spore-based bacterial biosensors,” in Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 589edsAbelsonJ.SimonM.VerdineG.PyleA. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 51–85.
204
XuP.LaiC.ZengG.HuangD.ChenM.SongB.et al (2018). Enhanced bioremediation of 4-nonylphenol and cadmium co-contaminated sediment by composting with Phanerochaete chrysosporium inocula.Bioresour. Technol.250625–634. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.069
205
YadavT. C.PalR. R.ShastriS.JadejaN. B.KapleyA. (2015). Comparative metagenomics demonstrating different degradative capacity of activated biomass treating hydrocarbon contaminated wastewater.Bioresour. Technol.18824–32. 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.141
206
YergeauE.SanschagrinS.BeaumierD.GreerC. W. (2012). Metagenomic analysis of the bioremediation of diesel-contaminated Canadian high arctic soils.PLoS One7:e30058. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030058
207
ZampolliJ.Di CanitoA.CappellettiM.CollinaE.LasagniM.Di GennaroP. (2020). Biodegradation of naphthenic acids: identification of Rhodococcus opacus R7 genes as molecular markers for environmental monitoring and their application in slurry microcosms.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.1042675–2689. 10.1007/s00253-020-10378-5
208
ZhangD.LiuQ. (2016). Biosensors and bioelectronics on smartphone for portable biochemical detection.Biosens. Bioelectron.75273–284. 10.1016/j.bios.2015.08.037
209
ZhaoB.PohC. L. (2008). Insights into environmental bioremediation by microorganisms through functional genomics and proteomics.Proteomics8874–881. 10.1002/pmic.200701005
210
ZhuY. G.XueX. M.KapplerA.RosenB. P.MehargA. A. (2017). Linking genes to microbial biogeochemical cycling: lessons from arsenic.Environ. Sci. Technol.517326–7339. 10.1021/acs.est.7b00689
211
ZuoZ.GongT.CheY.LiuR.XuP.JiangH.et al (2015). Engineering Pseudomonas putida KT2440 for simultaneous degradation of organophosphates and pyrethroids and its application in bioremediation of soil.Biodegradation26223–233. 10.1007/s10532-015-9729-2
212
ZuroffT. R.XiquesS. B.CurtisW. R. (2013). Consortia-mediated bioprocessing of cellulose to ethanol with a symbiotic Clostridium phytofermentans/yeast co-culture.Biotechnol. Biofuels6:59. 10.1186/1754-6834-6-59
Summary
Keywords
synthetic biology, bioremediation, xenobiotics, genetic circuit, biosensor
Citation
Jaiswal S and Shukla P (2020) Alternative Strategies for Microbial Remediation of Pollutants via Synthetic Biology. Front. Microbiol. 11:808. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00808
Received
24 December 2019
Accepted
06 April 2020
Published
19 May 2020
Volume
11 - 2020
Edited by
Xing Huang, Nanjing Agricultural University, China
Reviewed by
Bin Liang, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences (CAS), China; Ji-Quan Sun, Inner Mongolia University, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Jaiswal and Shukla.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Pratyoosh Shukla, pratyoosh.shukla@gmail.com
†ORCID: Pratyoosh Shukla, orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-4126
This article was submitted to Microbiotechnology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.