Divergent Strategies in Terpene Biosynthesis: From Natural Pathways to Engineered Cell Factories

Abstract

This article synthesizes current knowledge on the divergent strategies underpinning terpene biosynthesis, the largest class of natural products. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational biology of the mevalonate (MVA) and methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathways, the enzymatic gatekeepers responsible for structural diversity, and the evolutionary drivers of this complexity. The review further delves into methodological advances in metabolic engineering and synthetic biology that harness these strategies for industrial and pharmaceutical applications. It addresses key challenges in pathway optimization and scaling, provides a comparative analysis of biosynthetic efficiency across biological systems, and concludes with future directions for leveraging these divergent strategies in sustainable drug discovery and bio-production.

The Evolutionary and Biochemical Roots of Terpene Diversity

Terpenoids, constituting the largest class of natural products with over 95,000 identified structures, perform essential functions across all life domains, ranging from primary metabolism to specialized ecological interactions [1] [2] [3]. Despite their remarkable structural diversity, all terpenoids originate from two universal five-carbon building blocks: isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP) and its isomer dimethylallyl pyrophosphate (DMAPP) [4] [5] [6]. The fundamental paradigm in terpenoid biosynthesis revolves around two evolutionarily distinct pathways that generate these precursors: the mevalonate (MVA) pathway and the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway [5] [6].

The evolutionary distribution of these pathways reveals a fascinating divergence in metabolic strategy. The MVA pathway is predominantly found in archaea, fungi, animals, and the cytosol of plants, while the MEP pathway operates in most bacteria, cyanobacteria, and plant plastids [7] [5] [6]. This compartmentalization is particularly sophisticated in plants, which have retained both pathways, enabling precise spatial and temporal control over terpenoid production [4] [6]. The existence of these parallel biosynthetic routes represents nature's solution to producing essential compounds under varying physiological conditions and environmental challenges.

Understanding the intricate relationship between these pathways—their distinct biochemical features, regulatory mechanisms, and metabolic cross-talk—provides critical insights for drug discovery, metabolic engineering, and unraveling the evolutionary adaptations that have shaped terpenoid diversity.

Core Pathway Biochemistry and Compartmentalization

The Mevalonate (MVA) Pathway

The MVA pathway represents a specialized metabolic network primarily localized to the cytoplasm and endoplasmic reticulum in eukaryotic cells, with potential contributions from peroxisomes [4]. This pathway orchestrates IPP biosynthesis through a six-enzyme cascade that consumes three acetyl-CoA molecules, three ATP equivalents, and two NADPH molecules per IPP molecule produced [4].

Key Enzymatic Steps:

• Initial Condensation: Two acetyl-CoA molecules condense to form acetoacetyl-CoA, catalyzed by acetoacetyl-CoA thiolase (AACT).
• HMG-CoA Formation: A third acetyl-CoA is added by 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA synthase (HMGS) to form 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA).
• Rate-Limiting Reduction: HMG-CoA is reduced to mevalonate by HMG-CoA reductase (HMGR), consuming two NADPH molecules. This committed step serves as the pathway's primary regulatory node [4] [8].
• Phosphorylation and Decarboxylation: Mevalonate undergoes two consecutive phosphorylations catalyzed by mevalonate kinase (MVK) and phosphomevalonate kinase (PMK), followed by an ATP-dependent decarboxylation by mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase (MPD) to yield IPP [9] [5].
• Isomerization: IPP is reversibly isomerized to DMAPP by IPP isomerase (IDI) [4].

The MVA pathway primarily supplies precursors for cytosolic terpenoid biosynthesis, including sesquiterpenes (C15), triterpenes (C30), and sterols like cholesterol [6] [8].

The Methylerythritol Phosphate (MEP) Pathway

The MEP pathway operates exclusively within plastids in plants and is widespread among eubacteria [4] [7]. This pathway converts pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (GAP) into IPP and DMAPP through seven enzymatic reactions, consuming three ATP and three NADPH molecules [4] [7].

Key Enzymatic Steps:

• Initial Condensation: 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS) catalyzes the TPP-dependent condensation of pyruvate and GAP to form 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate (DXP). This represents a key flux-controlling step [4] [5] [8].
• Reductoisomerization: DXP reductoisomerase (DXR/IspC) converts DXP to MEP, the pathway's namesake intermediate.
• Nucleotide Attachment and Cyclization: Subsequent steps involving IspD, IspE, and IspF enzymes add a cytidine moiety, phosphorylate the intermediate, and catalyze cyclization to form 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol-2,4-cyclodiphosphate (MEcPP) [1] [5].
• Fe-S Cluster-Mediated Steps: IspG and IspH, both iron-sulfur (Fe-S) cluster enzymes, catalyze the reductive dehydration of MEcPP to HMBPP and its subsequent conversion to a mixture of IPP and DMAPP, respectively [7] [5]. The oxygen sensitivity of these Fe-S cluster enzymes positions the MEP pathway as an oxidative stress sensor [7].

The MEP pathway provides precursors for plastidial terpenoids, including monoterpenes (C10), diterpenes (C20), carotenoids (C40), and the side chains of chlorophylls and plastoquinones [4] [6].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of MVA and MEP Pathways

Feature	Mevalonate (MVA) Pathway	Methylerythritol Phosphate (MEP) Pathway
Localization	Cytosol, ER, peroxisomes [4]	Plastids (plants), bacterial cytosol [4] [7]
Initial Substrates	Acetyl-CoA (3 molecules) [4] [9]	Pyruvate + Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate [4] [7]
Key Intermediates	HMG-CoA, Mevalonate [4] [5]	DXP, MEP, MEcPP [1] [5]
Energy Cofactors	3 ATP, 2 NADPH per IPP [4]	3 ATP, 3 NADPH per IPP/DMAPP [4] [7]
Metal Cofactors	Not typically required	Fe-S clusters (IspG, IspH); Mn²⁺/Mg²⁺ (DXR) [7]
Signature Enzymes	HMGR (rate-limiting) [4] [8]	DXS (flux-controlling), IspG, IspH (Fe-S cluster) [4] [7]
Primary Products	IPP (converted to DMAPP via IDI) [5]	IPP and DMAPP directly [5]
Pathway Essentiality	Essential in fungi, animals [5]	Essential in most bacteria, apicomplexan parasites [7] [5]

Compartmentalization and Metabolic Cross-Talk

Plants exemplify the sophisticated compartmentalization of terpenoid biosynthesis, with the MVA and MEP pathways operating independently in distinct subcellular locations [6]. This spatial separation allows for independent regulation and facilitates the production of different terpenoid classes from distinct precursor pools [4] [6].

Despite this compartmentalization, substantial evidence indicates metabolic cross-talk between the pathways. Mutant analyses, chemical inhibitor studies, and isotopic labeling experiments have demonstrated the exchange of intermediates between plastids and the cytoplasm [4] [6]. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and mass spectrometry studies have confirmed the formation of terpenoid compounds with mixed MVA/MEP origins, indicating limited but regulated metabolic flux between these compartments [4] [6]. The transporter facilitating IPP/DMAPP exchange across the plastid envelope, however, remains unidentified and represents a significant gap in our understanding [6] [8].

Figure 1: Compartmentalization of Terpenoid Biosynthesis in Plants. The MVA pathway in the cytosol and the MEP pathway in the plastid generate separate IPP/DMAPP pools for different classes of terpenoids. Dashed arrows indicate hypothesized cross-talk via unidentified transporters.

Regulatory Mechanisms and Environmental Interactions

Multi-Layered Pathway Regulation

The MVA and MEP pathways are subject to complex, multi-layered regulation that balances carbon allocation, energy consumption, and end-product synthesis [6]. Feedback inhibition serves as a critical regulatory mechanism, particularly in the MVA pathway where sterols inhibit HMGR activity, the pathway's rate-limiting enzyme [6] [8]. In the MEP pathway, the iron-sulfur cluster enzymes IspG and IspH are not only sensitive to oxygen but also position the pathway as an oxidative stress sensor and response system [7].

Hormonal and Environmental Regulation: Plant hormones, particularly jasmonates, activate terpenoid biosynthetic genes, enhancing the production of specialized metabolites for defense [8]. Light conditions profoundly influence pathway activity; the MEP pathway shows heightened activity under light, supporting photosynthesis-related isoprenoid synthesis, while the MVA pathway becomes more active in darkness, promoting phytosterol biosynthesis [4].

Epigenetic and Post-Translational Control: DNA methylation and histone modifications can silence or activate terpenoid biosynthetic gene clusters [8]. Additionally, post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation regulate enzyme activity, as demonstrated by the blue-light receptor AaCRY1 phosphorylating and activating AaDXS in Artemisia annua, thereby enhancing artemisinin precursor synthesis [8].

The MEP Pathway as an Oxidative Stress Sensor

The MEP pathway plays a nuanced role in oxidative stress responses beyond its metabolic function [7]. The terminal enzymes IspG and IspH contain oxygen-sensitive 4Fe-4S clusters that can be damaged under oxidative conditions, leading to the accumulation of the intermediate MEcPP [1] [7]. MEcPP functions as a retrograde signaling molecule in plastids, communicating the organellar status to the nucleus and activating stress-responsive genes [7]. This dual function of the MEP pathway—both producing essential isoprenoid antioxidants and directly participating in stress signaling—exemplifies the metabolic integration of biosynthesis and stress response [7].

Experimental Methodologies for Pathway Analysis

Genetic and Molecular Techniques

Gene Knockout and Functional Analysis: Essentiality of the MEP and MVA pathways can be determined through systematic gene knockouts. In Mycobacterium marinum, for instance, CRISPR-based tools or ORBIT (Operator-Based Repression with Induction and Titration) enable precise gene replacement and repression to demonstrate that the MEP pathway is essential while the MEV pathway is dispensable in culture but provides metabolic flexibility under stress [1].

Heterologous Expression and Pathway Reconstitution: Expressing putative terpene biosynthetic genes in model microorganisms like Escherichia coli or Saccharomyces cerevisiae allows for functional characterization of enzymes and reconstruction of entire pathways [9] [10] [3]. This approach is fundamental for verifying gene function and engineering production platforms.

Gene Expression Profiling: Quantitative PCR (qPCR) and RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) are used to analyze transcript levels of MVA and MEP pathway genes under different conditions, such as stress treatments, developmental stages, or in response to hormone elicitors like jasmonate [8].

Metabolic Profiling and Flux Analysis

Metabolite Profiling: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) enable quantification of pathway intermediates and end products. In M. marinum, metabolite profiling revealed that modulation of the MEV pathway causes compensatory changes in the concentration of MEP intermediates DOXP and CDP-ME, indicating functional interaction between the pathways [1].

Isotopic Labeling: Feeding experiments with ¹³C- or ²H-labeled precursors (e.g., ¹³C-glucose, ²H-deoxyxylulose) allow researchers to track carbon flux through the MVA and MEP pathways and quantify cross-talk between compartments [4] [6]. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy can identify the position of incorporated labels in final terpenoid products, confirming their biosynthetic origin [4].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Terpenoid Pathway Analysis

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Key Function
Chemical Inhibitors	Fosmidomycin (DXR inhibitor) [5], Mevinolin (Lovastatin, HMGR inhibitor) [8]	Pathway blockade studies	Inhibit specific enzymatic steps to probe pathway function and cross-talk
Isotopic Tracers	[1-¹³C]-Glucose, [U-¹³C]-Pyruvate, ²H-labeled DXP [4] [6]	Metabolic flux analysis	Track carbon flow through MVA/MEP pathways and quantify intermediate exchange
Analytical Standards	IPP, DMAPP, Mevalonic acid, MEP, HMBPP [1] [5]	Metabolite profiling (LC-MS/GC-MS)	Identify and quantify pathway intermediates and end products
Molecular Cloning Tools	CRISPR-Cas9 systems [8], ORBIT [1], Gateway-compatible vectors	Genetic manipulation	Create gene knockouts, knockdowns, and overexpression strains
Heterologous Hosts	Escherichia coli [9] [10], Saccharomyces cerevisiae [9] [10], Nicotiana benthamiana [8]	Pathway reconstitution & engineering	Express heterologous genes to characterize function and produce terpenoids
Enzyme Assay Kits	HMG-CoA reductase assay kit, IPP isomerase activity assay	In vitro enzyme kinetics	Measure catalytic activity and characterize enzyme properties

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Terpenoid Pathway Analysis. Integrated approaches combining genetic manipulation, environmental/chemical treatments, and multi-faceted analysis are used to dissect the MVA and MEP pathways and their regulation.

Applications in Drug Discovery and Biotechnology

The MEP Pathway as a Antimicrobial Target

The MEP pathway is absent in humans but essential for the survival of many human bacterial pathogens and apicomplexan parasites, making it an attractive target for developing novel antimicrobials and herbicides [7] [5]. Enzymes such as DXR (target of fosmidomycin) and the Fe-S cluster enzymes IspG and IspH are particularly promising for drug development [5]. The unique metallochemistry and mechanisms of these enzymes offer opportunities for selective inhibition with minimal off-target effects in human hosts [7] [5].

Metabolic Engineering for Terpenoid Production

Metabolic engineering leverages the MVA and MEP pathways for sustainable terpenoid production in heterologous hosts, overcoming limitations of plant extraction and chemical synthesis [9] [10] [8].

Microbial Engineering: The MEP pathway in E. coli offers a higher theoretical carbon yield from glucose (30.2%) compared to the MVA pathway (25.2%) [7]. However, its complex regulation and oxygen sensitivity present challenges [7]. Consequently, many engineering efforts introduce the more tractable eukaryotic MVA pathway into E. coli or enhance the native MVA pathway in S. cerevisiae [9] [10]. Strategies include:

• Enhancing precursor supply by overexpressing rate-limiting enzymes (DXS, HMGR) [10] [8]
• Downregulating competing pathways [10]
• Engineering enzyme variants with improved activity and specificity [10]
• Utilizing fusion proteins to channel intermediates and prevent toxicity [10]

These approaches have successfully achieved high-titer production of valuable terpenoids, including β-farnesene (1.3 g/L in E. coli) and the antimalarial precursor artemisinic acid [9] [10].

Plant Metabolic Engineering: In native medicinal plants, metabolic engineering strategies focus on:

• Transcription factor overexpression to coordinately upregulate entire pathways [8]
• CRISPR-Cas9-mediated knockout of competing pathways to redirect flux [8]
• Multigene stacking to reconstruct complex pathways in heterologous plant hosts like Nicotiana benthamiana [8]

These interventions have led to substantial yield improvements, such as a 22.5-38.9% increase in artemisinin through HMGR overexpression and remarkable 25-fold enhancement of paclitaxel production via strategic co-expression approaches [8].

The two-pathway paradigm of terpenoid biosynthesis—compartmentalized synthesis via MVA and MEP—represents a fundamental evolutionary strategy for generating chemical diversity while maintaining regulatory flexibility. The distinct biochemistry, localization, and regulation of these pathways enable organisms to fine-tune terpenoid production in response to developmental needs and environmental challenges. From a biotechnology perspective, understanding and manipulating these pathways is critical for sustainable production of high-value terpenoids. The MEP pathway's role as an oxidative stress sensor further expands its significance beyond metabolism into cellular signaling [7]. Future research will continue to elucidate the complex regulatory networks and transport mechanisms governing these pathways, enabling more precise metabolic engineering strategies. As synthetic biology tools advance, the intelligent integration of MVA and MEP pathway modules in customized chassis systems will unlock new possibilities for terpenoid biomanufacturing, reinforcing the importance of this two-pathway paradigm in both basic research and industrial applications.

Terpene Synthases as Metabolic Gatekeepers in Scaffold Generation

Terpene synthases (TPSs) represent a pivotal enzyme family responsible for generating the foundational chemical scaffolds of over 80,000 terpenoid natural products. This review delineates the core mechanistic principles and evolutionary drivers that underpin the functional diversity of TPSs, framing their role within divergent strategies for expanding terpenoid chemodiversity. We examine how these metabolic gatekeepers transform a limited pool of linear prenyl diphosphate precursors into an immense array of cyclic and acyclic hydrocarbon skeletons, which serve as central intermediates for downstream modification. The discussion is situated within a broader thesis on terpene biosynthesis research, highlighting how lineage-specific expansion and functional diversification of TPS families enable plants to adapt to specialized ecological niches. This synthesis integrates current biochemical knowledge with emerging biotechnological applications, providing a foundational reference for researchers exploring terpenoid-based drug discovery and metabolic engineering.

Terpenoids, also known as isoprenoids, constitute the largest and most chemically diverse class of natural products, with over 80,000 identified structures [11] [2]. These compounds are ubiquitous across all domains of life and perform essential functions in plant development, defense, chemical ecology, and adaptation [11] [4]. In plants, the vast majority of terpenoids function as specialized metabolites that mediate critical ecological interactions, including defense against herbivores and pathogens, attraction of pollinators, and facilitation of plant-to-plant communication [11] [4] [9]. The profound structural diversity of terpenoids directly underpins their wide-ranging bioactivities and economic applications, which span pharmaceuticals, fragrances, flavors, nutraceuticals, and biofuels [11] [4] [2].

The biosynthesis of terpenoid skeletons centers on the catalytic activity of terpene synthase (TPS) enzymes, which function as metabolic gatekeepers by converting a limited set of acyclic prenyl diphosphate substrates into a vast chemical library of hydrocarbon and, in some cases, oxygenated terpene scaffolds [11]. This scaffold-forming step represents the committed entry point into specialized terpenoid metabolism and serves as a fundamental control point for chemodiversity generation. Following TPS catalysis, the resulting scaffolds typically undergo extensive functionalization, primarily through cytochrome P450 monooxygenase-mediated oxygenation, followed by various secondary modifications that further enhance structural and functional diversity [11] [4].

This review explores the molecular mechanisms and evolutionary processes that enable TPS enzymes to generate remarkable terpenoid structural diversity, positioning TPS activity within a broader conceptual framework of divergent strategies in terpenoid biosynthesis research. We provide a comprehensive analysis of TPS biochemistry, structural biology, and genomic organization, supplemented with experimental methodologies and emerging biotechnological applications relevant to drug discovery and metabolic engineering.

Terpenoid Backbone Biosynthesis: Precursor Supply Pathways

The biosynthesis of all terpenoids originates from two universal 5-carbon building blocks, isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and its isomer dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP) [4] [2]. These activated isoprene units are synthesized through two distinct, compartmentalized metabolic pathways in plants:

• The Mevalonate (MVA) Pathway: Primarily cytosolic, this pathway converts three molecules of acetyl-CoA into IPP through a series of six enzymatic steps [4] [9]. A key regulatory enzyme is HMG-CoA reductase (HMGR), which catalyzes the NADPH-dependent reduction of HMG-CoA to mevalonate, representing a major flux-control point [4]. The MVA pathway predominantly supplies precursors for sesquiterpenes (C15), triterpenes (C30), and polyterpenes [11].
• The Methylerythritol Phosphate (MEP) Pathway: Located in the plastids, this pathway condenses pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (GAP) to form IPP and DMAPP via seven enzymatic steps [4] [2]. The first committed step is catalyzed by 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS), which significantly influences overall pathway flux [4]. The MEP pathway provides precursors for hemiterpenes (C5), monoterpenes (C10), diterpenes (C20), and tetraterpenes (carotenoids, C40) [11].

Although these pathways operate independently in different subcellular compartments, evidence indicates limited cross-talk between them, enabling some exchange of intermediates [4].

Table 1: Enzymes of the Prenyl Diphosphate Precursor Supply Pathways

Pathway	Enzyme	EC Number	Reaction Catalyzed	Key Features
MVA Pathway	Acetoacetyl-CoA thiolase (AACT)	2.3.1.9	Condenses two acetyl-CoA to acetoacetyl-CoA	First committed step; cytosolic
	HMG-CoA synthase (HMGS)	2.3.3.10	Adds acetyl-CoA to acetoacetyl-CoA to form HMG-CoA	-
	HMG-CoA reductase (HMGR)	1.1.1.34	Reduces HMG-CoA to mevalonate (MVA)	Key regulatory step; consumes 2 NADPH; ER membrane-associated
	Mevalonate kinase (MVK)	2.7.1.36	Phosphorylates MVA to mevalonate-5-phosphate	ATP-dependent
	Phosphomevalonate kinase (PMK)	2.7.4.2	Phosphorylates to mevalonate-5-diphosphate	ATP-dependent
	Mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase (MVD)	4.1.1.33	Decarboxylates to form IPP	-
MEP Pathway	DXS	2.2.1.7	Condenses pyruvate & GAP to DXP	Key regulatory step; plastid-localized
	DXR	1.1.1.267	Rearranges & reduces DXP to MEP	NADPH-dependent
	ISPG/HDR	1.17.7.1/1.17.7.4	Converts HMBPP to IPP & DMAPP	Final step; produces both IPP & DMAPP
Isomerization	IPP isomerase (IDI)	5.3.3.2	Interconverts IPP and DMAPP	Essential for balancing precursor pool

Following their formation, IPP and DMAPP undergo chain elongation by isoprenyl diphosphate synthase (IDS) enzymes to produce the direct substrates for TPSs [4]. These head-to-tail condensations yield:

• Geranyl diphosphate (GPP, C10) - precursor to monoterpenoids
• Farnesyl diphosphate (FPP, C15) - precursor to sesquiterpenoids
• Geranylgeranyl diphosphate (GGPP, C20) - precursor to diterpenoids

Terpene Synthases: Molecular Mechanisms of Scaffold Generation

Terpene synthases catalyze the most complex step in terpenoid formation, transforming linear, achiral prenyl diphosphates into a stunning array of stereo-chemically defined cyclic and acyclic hydrocarbons. A single TPS enzyme often produces multiple terpene products from a single substrate [11].

Universal Catalytic Mechanism

The TPS catalytic mechanism generally follows a conserved sequence of carbocation-driven steps [11]:

• Substrate Binding and Activation: The prenyl diphosphate substrate (GPP, FPP, or GGPP) binds within a metal-dependent active site, typically coordinated by Mg²⁺ or Mn²⁺ ions.
• Ionization-Initiation: The enzyme facilitates the ionization of the diphosphate group (PPi), generating a highly reactive allylic carbocation.
• Cyclization and Rearrangement: This initial carbocation undergoes a series of cyclizations, hydride shifts, and Wagner-Meerwein rearrangements, guided by the enzyme's active site contour and specific amino acid residues.
• Reaction Termination: The carbocation cascade is terminated, most commonly by deprotonation (yielding olefins) or nucleophile capture (often by water, yielding oxygenated terpenes).

The product outcome is exquisitely sensitive to the active site geometry, which positions the carbocation intermediates to dictate the specific cyclization and rearrangement pathways.

Table 2: Representative Terpene Synthase Products and Their Origins

TPS Class	Primary Substrate	Representative Products	Biosynthetic Origin
Monoterpene Synthases	Geranyl Diphosphate (GPP)	Limonene, Pinene, Myrcene, Linalool	MEP Pathway; Plastids
Sesquiterpene Synthases	Farnesyl Diphosphate (FPP)	Bisabolene, Caryophyllene, Farnesene	MVA Pathway; Cytosol
Diterpene Synthases	Geranylgeranyl Diphosphate (GGPP)	Taxadiene, Copalyl Diphosphate, Sclareol	MEP Pathway; Plastids

Structural Features and Domain Architecture

Most plant TPSs are characterized by a core α-helical structure, often described as a 'butterfly-fold' due to its topology [4]. The catalytic machinery relies on two key motifs for substrate binding and activation:

• DDxxD Motif: A conserved aspartate-rich region that coordinates the essential divalent metal ions (Mg²⁺/Mn²⁺) which, in turn, bind the substrate's diphosphate group.
• NSE/DTE Motif: (Asn-Ser-Glu/Asp-Thr-Glu) An equally conserved motif that further stabilizes the metal ion complex.

The plant TPS family is divided into seven phylogenetically distinct clades (TPS-a to TPS-h), which evolved from ancestral triterpene synthase- and prenyl transferase–type enzymes through repeated gene duplication events [11]. This lineage-specific expansion has resulted in TPS families ranging from a single gene to over 100 members in a given species, directly correlating with the terpenoid chemodiversity observed in nature [11].

Experimental Protocols for TPS Functional Characterization

Characterizing the function of a novel TPS enzyme involves a multi-step process to identify its substrates, products, and catalytic mechanism. Below is a generalized workflow and key methodological details.

Heterologous Expression and Protein Purification

Objective: To produce a functional, purified TPS protein for biochemical assays.

Detailed Protocol:

• Gene Isolation and Vector Construction: Amplify the TPS coding sequence (excluding predicted transit peptides for plastid-targeted enzymes) from cDNA. Clone the sequence into a suitable prokaryotic (e.g., pET, pGEX) or eukaryotic (e.g., pYES2, pPICZ) expression vector, incorporating an affinity tag (e.g., His₆-tag, GST-tag) for purification.
• Transformation and Expression:
  • For E. coli (e.g., BL21-DE3): Transform the construct. Grow cultures in LB medium at 37°C to an OD₆₀₀ of 0.6-0.8. Induce protein expression with isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG, typically 0.1-1.0 mM) and incubate at reduced temperature (16-22°C) for 16-20 hours to improve soluble protein yield.
  • For S. cerevisiae: Transform using standard methods. Induce expression in selective medium with galactose.
• Cell Lysis and Purification: Pellet cells via centrifugation. Resuspend in lysis buffer (e.g., 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM PMSF) supplemented with lysozyme (for E. coli) and protease inhibitors. Lyse cells by sonication or French press. Clarify the lysate by high-speed centrifugation.
  • Perform affinity chromatography using Ni-NTA (for His-tagged proteins) or Glutathione Sepharose (for GST-tagged proteins) according to the manufacturer's protocol.
  • Desalt the purified protein into an assay-compatible storage buffer (e.g., 25 mM HEPES pH 7.2, 10% glycerol) using size-exclusion chromatography. Determine protein concentration and aliquot for storage at -80°C.

In Vitro Enzyme Assay and Product Analysis

Objective: To determine the catalytic activity of the purified TPS using specific prenyl diphosphate substrates and to characterize the volatile terpene products.

Detailed Protocol:

• Reaction Setup: In a glass vial, assemble a reaction mixture containing:
  • Assay Buffer: 25 mM HEPES or MOPS (pH 7.0-7.5)
  • Divalent Cations: 10 mM MgClâ‚‚ and/or 1 mM MnClâ‚‚
  • Substrate: 50-100 µM of GPP, FPP, or GGPP
  • Enzyme: 10-100 µg of purified TPS
  • Final volume: 500 µL - 1 mL
• Incubation and Extraction:
  • Overlay the aqueous reaction mix with 300-500 µL of a pentane:diethyl ether (1:1) or pure hexane solvent to trap volatile products.
  • Seal the vial and incubate at 30°C for 30-120 minutes with gentle agitation.
  • After incubation, vortex thoroughly and centrifuge to separate phases. Carefully collect the organic (upper) layer containing the terpene products.
  • Concentrate the extract under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas if necessary.
• Product Identification:
  • Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): This is the primary tool for product identification. Inject 1-2 µL of the organic extract onto a non-polar or semi-polar GC column (e.g., DB-5ms). Use a temperature ramp program (e.g., 40°C for 2 min, then 10°C/min to 280°C).
  • Data Analysis: Compare the mass spectra and retention times of the reaction products to those of authentic standards and mass spectral libraries (e.g., NIST, Adams Essential Oils). For novel compounds, NMR spectroscopy may be required for full structural elucidation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for TPS Research and Functional Analysis

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Key Features & Considerations
Prenyl Diphosphate Substrates (GPP, FPP, GGPP)	Natural substrates for in vitro TPS enzyme assays.	Commercially available but costly. Stability can be an issue; store at -80°C.
Affinity Purification Resins (Ni-NTA Agarose, Glutathione Sepharose)	Purification of recombinant His-tagged or GST-tagged TPS proteins.	Enables rapid, one-step purification. Imidazole (for His-tags) or glutathione (for GST-tags) used for elution.
Heterologous Host Systems (E. coli, S. cerevisiae)	Expression platforms for recombinant TPS production.	E. coli: Fast, high yield, but may lack post-translational modifications. S. cerevisiae: Eukaryotic folding machinery, suitable for larger/more complex TPSs.
GC-MS System with Non-Polar Column (e.g., DB-5)	Gold-standard for separation and identification of volatile terpene products.	Provides retention time and mass spectral data for comparison with libraries and standards.
Terpene Analytical Standards (e.g., Limonene, Pinene, Caryophyllene)	Reference compounds for definitive product identification via GC co-injection and MS comparison.	Critical for validating the identity of TPS products, especially in complex mixtures.
1-Boc-azetidine-3-yl-methanol	1-Boc-azetidine-3-yl-methanol, CAS:142253-56-3, MF:C9H17NO3, MW:187.24 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
MDCC	MDCC, CAS:156571-46-9, MF:C20H21N3O5, MW:383.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Evolutionary Diversification and Emerging Biotechnological Applications

The profound functional plasticity of the TPS family is a direct result of evolutionary processes. Gene duplication is the primary driver, providing the genetic raw material for functional divergence [11]. Following duplication, TPS genes accumulate mutations that can lead to:

• Neofunctionalization: The evolution of novel catalytic functions, often through minor alterations in the active site that dramatically alter product specificity [11].
• Subfunctionalization: Partitioning of ancestral functions among duplicate genes.
• Loss of function: Pseudogenization.

This evolutionary trajectory has enabled plants to rapidly adapt their terpenoid blends to specific ecological pressures with minimal investment in evolving entirely new enzymes [11].

The strategic role of TPSs as metabolic gatekeepers makes them prime targets for metabolic engineering and synthetic biology. Advanced strategies now focus on:

• Heterologous Production: Reconstructing entire terpenoid pathways in microbial hosts like E. coli and S. cerevisiae for sustainable production [9] [10]. Success stories include the antimalarial drug artemisinin and the biofuels precursor β-farnesene [9] [10].
• Pathway Optimization: Enhancing precursor supply (MVA/MEP pathways), engineering TPSs for improved activity or altered product profile, and down-regulating competitive pathways [10].
• Precision Genome Editing: Using CRISPR/Cas systems to engineer TPS genes directly in plant genomes or to optimize microbial chassis [10].

Terpene synthases stand as quintessential metabolic gatekeepers, whose evolutionary history and catalytic prowess directly shape the vast chemical landscape of plant terpenoids. Their ability to generate a staggering array of scaffolds from a limited precursor pool exemplifies nature's efficiency in solving the problem of chemical diversity generation. The molecular and functional understanding of TPSs, as reviewed herein, provides a critical foundation for ongoing research within the divergent strategies framework of terpene biosynthesis. For drug development professionals and researchers, the continued elucidation of TPS mechanisms and evolution promises not only to unlock new bioactive terpenoid structures but also to provide the engineering blueprints for their sustainable and scalable production. Future research will undoubtedly delve deeper into the structure-function relationships of atypical TPSs, the regulatory networks controlling their expression, and their integration within modular metabolic pathways, further solidifying their central role in both natural chemical ecology and applied biotechnology.

The screening hypothesis posits that enzyme promiscuity—the ability of enzymes to catalyze reactions other than their primary function—serves as a fundamental engine for evolutionary innovation in chemical space. This review examines the mechanistic basis of catalytic promiscuity and its pivotal role in generating chemical diversity, with a specific focus on terpene biosynthesis as a model system. We present quantitative analyses of promiscuous enzyme families, detailed experimental methodologies for detecting and characterizing promiscuous activities, and computational frameworks for exploiting these properties in biocatalyst design. Within the context of divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research, we demonstrate how promiscuity-driven innovation provides organisms with adaptive advantages and offers researchers powerful tools for accessing novel chemical scaffolds with pharmaceutical relevance.

Enzyme promiscuity is defined as the capability of an enzyme to catalyze a reaction other than the reaction for which it has been specialized [12]. This phenomenon, alternatively termed "substrate ambiguity" or "catalytic cross-reactivity," provides the raw material for evolutionary innovation by enabling the emergence of novel metabolic functions without requiring de novo enzyme evolution [13]. The current evolutionary model holds that enzyme families expand through gene duplication events followed by acquisition of advantageous new functions, with the backbone folds and catalytic scaffolds being inherited alongside intrinsic catalytic capabilities [13].

The screening hypothesis formalizes this concept by proposing that natural selection screens the latent promiscuous activities of enzymes, favoring those secondary functions that provide selective advantages under changing environmental conditions or metabolic demands. This process enables rapid adaptation and metabolic expansion, particularly in specialized metabolism pathways such as those producing terpenoid compounds. In terpenoid biosynthesis, promiscuous enzymes serve as evolutionary starting points for generating the remarkable chemical diversity observed across plant lineages, with profound implications for drug discovery and metabolic engineering [14] [15].

Mechanistic Bases of Enzyme Promiscuity

Structural and Chemical Principles

The structural basis of enzyme promiscuity resides in three fundamental mechanistic categories that enable enzymes to accommodate alternative substrates and catalyze distinct reactions (Table 1).

Table 1: Mechanisms Underlying Enzyme Promiscuity

Mechanism	Structural Basis	Representative Examples	Impact on Catalytic Range
Active Site Plasticity	Conformational flexibility of active site residues and loops enables accommodation of diverse substrates	β-lactamase, sulfo-transferase, isopropylmalate isomerase [12]	Altered substrate specificity and reaction hydrolysis patterns
Substrate Ambiguity	Versatile active site architecture permits binding of structurally distinct substrates through multiple interaction modes	Cytochromes P450 (CYP3A4), salicylic acid binding protein [12]	Extreme promiscuity in substrate specificity and cooperative binding
Cofactor Ambiguity	Ability to utilize different metal cofactors or organic cofactors, altering reaction specificity	Farnesyl diphosphate synthase, NDM-1 metallo-β-lactamase [12]	Metal-dependent switching between metabolic pathways (e.g., FPP vs. GPP production)

Active site plasticity enables conformational diversity that permits alternative substrate binding and catalysis. For instance, in serum paraoxonase, native lactonase and promiscuous phosphotriesterase activities are mediated by different residue sets within the same active site groove [12]. Similarly, enzymes in the haloalkanoate dehalogenase (HAD) superfamily possess architectures that support both specificity and ambiguity, with structural features that enable functional divergence among phylogenetically related members [13].

Quantitative Assessment of Promiscuity

Substrate specificity profiling using structurally diverse chemical libraries enables quantitative assessment of enzyme promiscuity. Genome-wide studies of Escherichia coli HAD superfamily members demonstrate that these phosphatases can hydrolyze a wide range of phosphorylated compounds, including sugars, nucleotides, organic acids, coenzymes, and small phosphodonors [13]. The substrate ranges, while broad, typically show preference for metabolites downstream in their respective pathways, preventing depletion of upstream intermediates—an elegant evolutionary compromise between versatility and metabolic efficiency.

Table 2: Quantitative Analysis of Promiscuous Enzyme Families

Enzyme Family	Representative Member	Substrate Range	Catalytic Efficiency Range (kcat/Km, M⁻¹s⁻¹)	Biological Functions Enabled
HAD Superfamily	cN-IIIB (human)	CMP, UMP, GMP, AMP, m7GMP [13]	6.5×10⁴ - 8.7×10⁴	Nucleotide metabolism, antimetabolite removal
Thioesterases (Hotdog Fold)	EntH (E. coli)	Aromatic hydroxylated benzoyl-CoAs, hydroxylated phenylacetyl-CoA [13]	>1×10⁴ - 1.5×10⁵	Proofreading in enterobactin biosynthesis
Cytochrome P450	CYP3A4 (human)	Extreme substrate diversity	Variable	Drug metabolism, natural product diversification
Terpene Synthases	Tomato TPS family	34 distinct activities [15]	Variable	Diversification of specialized metabolism

The impact of substrate ambiguity at the cellular level is substantial, with genome-scale metabolic network modeling suggesting that approximately 37% of metabolic enzymes in E. coli exhibit some degree of promiscuity, collectively catalyzing at least 65% of metabolic reactions [13].

Terpene Biosynthesis: A Paradigm for Promiscuity-Driven Innovation

Architectural Foundations of Terpene Diversity

Terpene biosynthesis represents a premier model system for studying promiscuity-driven chemical innovation. The terpene synthase (TPS) family exemplifies how enzyme promiscuity generates structural diversity from a limited set of precursor molecules. In tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), the complete functional characterization of 34 TPS genes revealed one isoprene synthase, 10 monoterpene synthases, 17 sesquiterpene synthases, and six diterpene synthases, with varying specificity for trans- and cis-prenyl diphosphate substrates [15]. This functional diversity arises from a combination of active site plasticity and substrate ambiguity, enabling a single enzyme scaffold to generate multiple products.

The functional characterization of the tomato TPS family provides unprecedented insight into the quantitative landscape of terpene structural diversity. Among the 34 functional TPS enzymes identified, subcellular localization varies considerably, with six monoterpene synthases being plastidic, four cytosolic, sesquiterpene synthases predominantly cytosolic (with one mitochondrial exception), and diterpene synthases distributed between plastids, cytosol, and mitochondria [15]. This compartmentalization, coupled with promiscuous prenyl diphosphate utilization, enables the generation of remarkable chemical diversity from conserved precursor pools.

Cytochrome P450s: Multifunctional Oxidations in Terpene Diversification

Cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (CYPs) further expand terpene structural diversity through promiscuous oxidation reactions. Recent research in Aconitum species has identified 14 divergent P450s involved in diterpenoid biosynthesis, with eight demonstrating multifunctional capabilities by catalyzing oxidation at seven different positions on ent-atiserene and ent-kaurene scaffolds [16]. This remarkable plasticity in selective diterpene oxidation enables the combinatorial biosynthesis of bioactive compounds such as tripterifordin and guan-fu diterpenoid A, along with 14 novel atiserenoids, some exhibiting allelopathic activity [16].

The functional promiscuity of these P450s exemplifies the screening hypothesis in action, whereby ancestral enzymes with broad substrate specificities undergo gene duplication and functional divergence to generate new metabolic capabilities. Protein analysis and mutagenesis experiments have identified key residues that tune P450 activity and product profiles, revealing the structural basis for their functional divergence [16].

Experimental Approaches for Characterizing Promiscuous Activities

In Vitro Specificity Profiling

Comprehensive characterization of enzyme promiscuity requires systematic screening against diverse substrate libraries. For phosphatases of the HAD superfamily, specificity profiling against 80 representative phosphorylated metabolites has proven effective in mapping functional space [13]. Similarly, for thioesterases, screening against a broad range of acyl-CoA substrates enables determination of substrate preferences and identification of potential proofreading functions [13].

Protocol: High-Throughput Enzyme Specificity Screening

• Library Design: Assemble a structurally diverse compound library representing potential physiological and non-physiological substrates. For terpene synthases, include both trans- and cis-prenyl diphosphates of varying chain lengths (C10-C25) [15].

• Enzyme Production: Clone and express target enzymes in suitable heterologous systems (e.g., E. coli). For membrane-associated enzymes like P450s, employ co-expression with appropriate redox partners.

• Activity Assays: Conduct kinetic assays under standardized conditions (pH, temperature, cofactors). For terpene synthases, employ GC-MS analysis of volatile products; for P450s, utilize LC-MS for oxidized products.

• Data Analysis: Calculate kinetic parameters (kcat, Km, kcat/Km) and generate substrate specificity profiles. Identify catalytic efficiency thresholds (typically kcat/Km ~10³-10⁴ M⁻¹s⁻¹ for promiscuous activities) [13].

• Functional Validation: For identified activities, validate physiological relevance through genetic approaches (knockout/complementation) and metabolic profiling.

In Vivo Functional Screening

In vivo screening provides complementary information about promiscuous activities under physiological conditions. For example, screening 62 putative thioesterases through fatty acid titer analysis in E. coli revealed substrate ambiguity with preferential activity toward downstream acyl-CoAs in metabolic pathways [13]. This approach captures the influence of cellular context, including substrate availability, compartmentalization, and potential regulatory interactions.

Protocol: In Vivo Functional Screening in Microbial Systems

• Strain Engineering: Construct microbial hosts (e.g., E. coli, S. cerevisiae) with engineered precursor supply and simplified metabolic backgrounds to enhance detection sensitivity.

• Pathway Reconstitution: Express candidate enzymes in appropriate combinatorial assemblies. For diterpene biosynthesis, co-express upstream pathway enzymes (DXS, GGPPS) with TPS and P450 candidates [16].

• Metabolite Profiling: Employ untargeted metabolomics to detect novel products resulting from promiscuous activities. Use stable isotope labeling to trace metabolic flux through alternative pathways.

• Product Identification: Combine chromatographic separation with high-resolution mass spectrometry and NMR spectroscopy for structural elucidation of novel compounds.

• Functional Correlation: Correlate enzyme expression levels with product profiles across different genetic backgrounds and growth conditions.

Research Reagent Solutions for Terpene Biosynthesis Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Investigating Enzyme Promiscuity in Terpene Biosynthesis

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Technical Considerations
Prenyl Diphosphate Substrates	GPP, NPP, FPP, GGPP	Substrates for terpene synthase activity assays	Use both trans and cis isomers; assess stability in assay conditions [15]
Heterologous Expression Systems	E. coli, Nicotiana benthamiana, S. cerevisiae	Recombinant enzyme production for in vitro studies	Co-express redox partners for P450s; optimize codon usage [16]
Pathway Engineering Tools	pEAQ-HT vectors, MEP pathway enzymes (DXS, GGPPS)	Boost precursor supply for in vivo screening	Modular vector systems enable combinatorial assembly [16]
Analytical Standards	Authentic terpene standards, stable isotope-labeled precursors	Metabolite identification and quantification	Include both free and glycosidically-bound forms for complete profiling [17]
Chemical Libraries	Phosphorylated metabolites, acyl-CoA derivatives, diversified terpene scaffolds	Specificity profiling and promiscuity mapping	Structural diversity more important than library size [13]
Cofactor Systems	NADPH regeneration systems, metal cofactors (Mg²⁺, Mn²⁺)	Support for oxidative and metal-dependent enzymes	Test multiple divalent cations for cofactor ambiguity studies [12]

The screening hypothesis provides a powerful framework for understanding how enzyme promiscuity drives chemical innovation in natural systems and offers strategic guidance for engineering novel biocatalytic functions. In terpene biosynthesis, the functional characterization of complete enzyme families—from the 34 TPS genes in tomato to the multifunctional P450s in Aconitum—reveals how promiscuity enables rapid diversification of chemical structures from conserved genetic and metabolic platforms [15] [16].

Future research directions should focus on elucidating the structural determinants of promiscuity through combined computational and experimental approaches, developing predictive models for enzyme evolvability, and engineering promiscuous enzyme families for applications in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. The integration of functional genomics, structural biology, and computational modeling will further illuminate how nature screens promiscuous activities to generate chemical novelty, providing both fundamental insights into evolutionary mechanisms and practical tools for accessing bioactive compounds with pharmaceutical potential.

Terpenoids, also known as isoprenoids, represent the largest and most structurally diverse class of natural products with over 80,000 identified compounds, playing crucial roles in both primary and secondary metabolism across living organisms [2]. These compounds are constructed from repeating five-carbon isoprene units (C5H8) and are classified based on the number of these units in their core structure: hemiterpenoids (C5), monoterpenoids (C10), sesquiterpenoids (C15), diterpenoids (C20), sesterterpenoids (C25), triterpenoids (C30), and tetraterpenoids (C40) [10] [18] [2]. The fundamental carbon skeletons of terpenoids range from simple acyclic chains to complex polycyclic systems with multiple rings and stereocenters, with this structural diversity arising from complex biosynthetic mechanisms that modify and cyclize the basic isoprenoid precursors [19].

This structural classification is particularly relevant within the context of divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research, where minimal modifications to biosynthetic pathways or enzyme engineering can lead to significant diversification of terpene skeletons. Understanding the spectrum from acyclic to polycyclic terpene structures provides the foundation for developing these strategies to access novel compounds with potential applications in pharmaceuticals, fragrances, flavors, and biofuels [20] [21]. The structural complexity in terpenes, leading to the formation of such diverse structures, is justified by an understanding of terpenoid biosynthesis, particularly the enzymatic cyclization reactions that transform acyclic precursors into complex cyclic and polycyclic systems [2].

Fundamental Terpenoid Classification Systems

Carbon Skeleton Classification

The classification of terpenoids begins with the number of isoprene units, which determines the basic carbon framework and properties of the compound. The table below summarizes the major terpenoid classes based on carbon count:

Table 1: Terpenoid Classification by Carbon Skeleton

Terpenoid Class	Carbon Atoms	Isoprene Units	Representative Examples	Biological Functions & Applications
Hemiterpenoids	5	1	Isoprene, Isoamyl alcohol	Basic building blocks; emitted by plants [18]
Monoterpenoids	10	2	Limonene, Geraniol, Linalool	Floral and citrus aromas; antimicrobial properties [10] [22]
Sesquiterpenoids	15	3	Farnesene, Patchoulol, Caryophyllene	Plant defense compounds; anticancer and neuroprotective activities [10] [23]
Diterpenoids	20	4	Taxol, Gibberellin, Crinipellins	Plant hormones (gibberellins); pharmaceuticals (anticancer Taxol) [24] [20]
Sesterterpenoids	25	5	Geranylfarnesol	Rare class; various biological activities [25]
Triterpenoids	30	6	Squalene, Cycloartenol	Membrane components; precursors to steroids [25] [22]
Tetraterpenoids	40	8	Carotenoids (β-carotene)	Photosynthetic pigments; antioxidants [2]

Structural Complexity: From Acyclic to Polycyclic

Beyond carbon count, terpenoids are classified based on their structural complexity, particularly the presence and arrangement of ring systems:

• Acyclic Terpenoids: These possess open-chain structures without ring systems. Examples include geraniol (monoterpene), farnesol (sesquiterpene), and geranylgeraniol (diterpene). Their flexibility allows for various conformations but generally less structural complexity than their cyclic counterparts [2].

• Monocyclic Terpenoids: Contain a single ring system. Limonene, a common monoterpene found in citrus fruits, features a single six-membered ring and exemplifies this class [10] [23].

• Bicyclic Terpenoids: Feature two fused ring systems. α-Pinene (monoterpene) and caryophyllene (sesquiterpene) are prominent examples, often contributing to the characteristic scents of pine and cannabis, respectively [22].

• Polycyclic Terpenoids: Contain three or more fused ring systems, representing the pinnacle of structural complexity in terpenoid biosynthesis. Examples include the tetracyclic diterpene taxol, the pentacyclic triterpene cycloartenol, and the tetraquinane diterpenes like crinipellins and tetraisoquinene, which possess a dense 5/5/5/5-fused tetracyclic skeleton [24] [20] [22].

This progression from acyclic to polycyclic structures is governed by specialized enzymes called terpene synthases or cyclases, which catalyze the cyclization and rearrangement reactions that create this remarkable diversity [25].

Biosynthetic Mechanisms Generating Skeletal Diversity

The transformation of acyclic prenyl diphosphate precursors into diverse terpenoid skeletons is catalyzed by terpene cyclases (TCs), also known as terpene synthases (TPSs). These enzymes chaperone carbocation-driven cyclization cascades, with the class of TC determining the initial activation mechanism [25].

Diagram 1: Terpene Cyclization Mechanism

Class I and Class II Terpene Cyclases

Terpene cyclases are divided into two primary classes based on their reaction mechanisms:

• Class I TCs initiate cyclization by abstracting the diphosphate group from the acyclic prenyl diphosphate substrate (GPP, FPP, or GGPP) using a trinuclear divalent metal ion cluster, typically Mg²⁺. This abstraction generates an initial carbocation that triggers the cyclization cascade. Class I TCs are characterized by conserved metal-binding motifs, primarily the DDxxD and NSE/DTE motifs [25].

• Class II TCs instead initiate cyclization by protonating a terminal double bond or epoxide of the substrate, leaving any diphosphate group intact. This protonation is typically mediated by a central acidic aspartate residue, often found within a DxDD motif. Class II TCs often act as the first step in the biosynthesis of complex terpenoids, including the gibberellin family of phytohormones and various fungal meroterpenoids [25].

Following the initial cation formation, both classes of enzymes guide the substrate through a series of cyclization and rearrangement steps, stabilized by aromatic residues within the active site, before the final carbocation is quenched by deprotonation or water attack [25].

Structural Features of Terpene Cyclases

The three-dimensional architecture of terpene cyclases is crucial for their function. Most canonical TCs feature all α-helical folds and are composed of α, β, and γ domains in various combinations. The catalytic domain of class I TCs is primarily the α-domain, which houses the metal-binding motifs. In contrast, class II TCs typically position the substrate in the cleft between the β and γ domains, with the functional β domain containing the catalytic DxDD motif. Some TCs contain all three domains and can be monofunctional or bifunctional, possessing both class I and class II activities [25]. The active site cavity size and shape are key determinants of the product profile, with enzymes producing larger terpenes generally possessing more expansive cavities [25].

Experimental Approaches for Terpenoid Research

Genome Mining and Heterologous Expression

Modern discovery of novel terpene skeletons relies heavily on genome mining to identify putative terpene synthase genes from diverse organisms. This approach has revealed a vast, untapped reservoir of bacterial TSs, with over 5,000 putative proteins identified in the UniProt database belonging to just one terpene cyclase subfamily [20]. A 2025 study screened 334 uncharacterized bacterial TSs from 8 phyla and found 125 (37%) were active as diterpene synthases, leading to the discovery of three previously unreported diterpene skeletons [20].

Heterologous expression in model systems like E. coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae is then used to characterize the function of these putative TSs. An engineered E. coli strain that overproduces geranylgeranyl diphosphate (GGPP) is particularly valuable for studying diterpene synthases [20]. For plant TPSs, transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana is a powerful alternative, often co-infiltrated with genes for rate-limiting enzymes in precursor pathways (e.g., HMGR, DXS) to boost metabolic flux toward the terpenoid of interest [22].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for Terpenoid Biosynthesis Studies

Reagent/Solution	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Prenyl Diphosphates (GPP, FPP, GGPP)	Substrates for in vitro terpene synthase assays	Enzyme characterization and kinetic studies [22]
Codon-Optimized Synthetic Genes	Heterologous expression of terpene synthases in microbial hosts	Functional characterization of putative TSs from diverse sources [20]
HMGR/DXS Expression Constructs	Enhance flux through MVA or MEP pathways in host systems	Boost precursor supply for terpene production in N. benthamiana or yeast [22]
Squalene, Oxidosqualene	Substrates for triterpene cyclases (TTCs)	Study of triterpene biosynthesis (e.g., cycloartenol formation) [22]
Authentic Terpenoid Standards	Reference compounds for GC-MS and LC-MS analysis	Identification and quantification of terpene products [22]

Analytical and Structural Elucidation Techniques

The complex structures of terpenoids, particularly novel polycyclic skeletons, require sophisticated analytical techniques for elucidation.

• Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): This is the workhorse for analyzing volatile terpenes (e.g., mono- and sesquiterpenes). It separates compounds and provides mass spectral data for initial identification [23] [22].
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy: Essential for determining the planar structure and relative configuration of terpenoids. 1D (¹H, ¹³C) and 2D (COSY, HSQC, HMBC, NOESY) NMR experiments provide detailed information about carbon connectivity and spatial relationships between atoms [20].
• Vibrational Circular Dichroism (VCD): A powerful technique for determining the absolute configuration of chiral terpenes in solution without the need for crystallization or chemical derivatization. This method was crucial for establishing the absolute stereochemistry of novel diterpenes like tetraisoquinene and salbirenol [20].

Diagram 2: Terpenoid Discovery Workflow

Case Studies in Skeletal Diversity

Discovery of Novel Bacterial Diterpene Skeletons

Recent genome mining efforts have dramatically expanded the known chemical space of bacterial diterpenes. A landmark 2025 study characterized 31 bacterial diterpene synthases, leading to the isolation and structural elucidation of 28 diterpenes. These compounds showcased the remarkable diversity of bacterial terpenoid metabolism, falling into several categories [20]:

• Previously Unreported Skeletons: The study identified three completely new diterpene skeletons: Tetraisoquinene (1) from Melittangium boletus, featuring a 5/5/5/5-fused angular tetraquinane system; Salbirenol (2) from Streptomyces albireticuli, with a 7/5/6-tricyclic skeleton; and Chitino-2,5(6),9(10)-triene (3) from Chitinophaga japonensis, possessing a novel 5/11-bicyclic skeleton [20].
• Skeletons Known in Other Organisms: Several diterpenes were identified that were known from plants or fungi but had not been previously reported from bacteria, highlighting the convergent evolution of terpenoid biosynthesis across kingdoms.
• New Isomers of Known Skeletons: The research also uncovered new structural and stereochemical isomers of previously known diterpene skeletons, demonstrating how minor sequence variations in TSs can lead to significant structural diversification [20].

Tissue-Specific Terpene Synthase Expression in Plants

Transcriptomic analysis of Convallaria keiskei (Lily of the Valley) revealed how structural diversity is generated within a single organism. This study identified fifteen putative terpene synthase (TPS) genes with distinct tissue-specific expression patterns [18]:

• Flower TPSs: Were associated with the synthesis of a diverse array of compounds including geraniol, germacrene, linalool, nerolidol, trans-ocimene, and valencene, contributing to the characteristic floral scent.
• Leaf TPSs: Were primarily linked to the biosynthesis of kaurene (a diterpene precursor to gibberellins) and trans-ocimene.
• Root TPSs: Expressed genes for synthesizing kaurene, trans-ocimene, and valencene.

This tissue-specific specialization demonstrates how plants differentially employ terpene skeletal diversity for specific ecological functions, such as pollinator attraction in flowers and defense in roots and leaves [18].

The structural classification of terpenoids from acyclic to polycyclic skeletons provides a fundamental framework for understanding their biosynthesis, function, and potential applications. The recent expansion of known terpene skeletons, particularly from under-explored sources like bacteria and non-model plants, underscores the vast untapped chemical space that remains to be discovered [20] [22].

Within the context of divergent biosynthesis strategies, this structural knowledge is paramount. Understanding the precise mechanisms by which terpene cyclases generate skeletal diversity—how single amino acid changes can alter product profiles, or how nature repurposes basic catalytic folds to create new skeletons—provides the blueprint for engineering efforts [25]. The future of terpenoid research lies in leveraging this understanding to develop robust platforms for the sustainable production of existing high-value terpenoids and the deliberate creation of novel ones through synthetic biology [10] [21]. This will involve advanced protein engineering of terpene synthases, combinatorial biosynthesis, and optimization of microbial and plant-based production systems to fully realize the potential of terpenoid structural diversity for drug development, green chemistry, and renewable energy [2] [21].

Harnessing Biosynthetic Logic for Engineering and Drug Discovery

Metabolic engineering utilizes microbial hosts as programmable cell factories for the sustainable production of high-value terpenoids, a class of natural products with extensive applications in pharmaceuticals, fragrances, and fuels [10] [26]. This field has evolved from imitating natural biosynthetic pathways toward engineering an expanded "terpenome" with desirable properties not found in nature [26]. The structural diversity of over 80,000 identified terpenoids stems from a conserved biosynthetic logic that is uniquely amenable to engineering approaches [27] [26].

Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae have emerged as predominant chassis organisms, each offering distinct advantages for terpenoid biosynthesis [10]. Their selection represents a fundamental strategic divergence in terpene biosynthesis research, balancing the rapid growth and well-characterized genetics of prokaryotic systems against the eukaryotic compartmentalization and post-translational modification capabilities of yeast [28] [29]. This technical guide examines the core principles, experimental methodologies, and emerging frontiers in metabolic engineering of these microbial hosts within the broader context of terpenoid research.

Fundamental Pathways and Strategic Host Selection

Native Terpenoid Biosynthetic Pathways from an Engineering Perspective

All terpenoid biosynthesis originates from two universal C5 precursors, isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP), produced through one of two evolutionarily distinct metabolic routes [26].

The Mevalonate (MVA) Pathway: Native to yeast and the cytosol of plants, this pathway begins with acetyl-CoA and proceeds through six enzymatic steps to produce IPP [26] [9]. From an engineering perspective, a significant bottleneck occurs at 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGR), which is tightly regulated and consumes two NADPH molecules per IPP produced [26] [29]. Engineering strategies often employ truncated, deregulated HMGR variants to overcome this limitation [26].

The Methylerythritol Phosphate (MEP) Pathway: Predominant in E. coli and plant plastids, this pathway initiates with pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (G3P) [26] [9]. The MEP pathway offers higher theoretical carbon yield and lower ATP consumption compared to the MVA pathway [26]. The first committed step catalyzed by 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS) represents a primary engineering constraint due to its low catalytic efficiency [26].

Following precursor synthesis, prenyltransferases catalyze the condensation of IPP and DMAPP to generate linear isoprenoid precursors of various chain lengths (C10, C15, C20), serving as critical regulatory nodes for directing metabolic flux toward specific terpenoid classes [10] [26].

Comparative Host Analysis

Table 1: Strategic Comparison of E. coli and S. cerevisiae as Terpenoid Cell Factories

Aspect	E. coli (Prokaryotic)	S. cerevisiae (Eukaryotic)
Native Pathway	MEP pathway	MVA pathway
Genetic Manipulation	Easy, rapid cycling, extensive toolkit	Sophisticated tools, but more complex
Growth Rate	Very fast, high cell densities	Moderate
Post-Translational Modifications	Limited, unsuitable for complex eukaryotic enzymes	Endorsed, capable of functional P450 expression
Precursor Supply	Enhanced via MVA pathway introduction	Enhanced via MVA pathway optimization
Compartmentalization	Absent	Present (organelles enable pathway segregation)
Toxicity Tolerance	Variable, requires management	Generally robust, tolerates diverse compounds
Ideal Terpenoid Targets	Volatile mono/sesquiterpenes, non-natural derivatives	Complex oxygenated terpenes, triterpene scaffolds
Maximum Achieved Titers	β-Farnesene: 1.3 g/L [9]; Amorpha-4,11-diene: 8.32 g/L [26]	Artemisinic acid: 25 g/L [26] [29]; Bisabolene: 18.6 g/L [26]

Core Metabolic Engineering Strategies

Precursor Supply and Flux Enhancement

A foundational strategy in both hosts involves enhancing the supply of universal terpenoid precursors IPP and DMAPP. In S. cerevisiae, this typically involves overexpression of rate-limiting enzymes in the native MVA pathway, particularly tHMGR (truncated HMG-CoA reductase), to alleviate natural feedback inhibition [26] [29]. Additional approaches include balancing the expression of upstream enzymes such as ERG10, ERG13, and ERG12 to create a coordinated flux push toward IPP/DMAPP [10].

For E. coli, which natively employs the MEP pathway, two strategic approaches have emerged: optimization of the endogenous pathway through DXS overexpression and modulation of other MEP enzymes, or introduction of the complete heterologous MVA pathway to bypass native regulation [26]. The latter approach has demonstrated superior flux capabilities when properly optimized [26].

Table 2: Representative Terpenoid Production Achievements in Engineered Microbial Hosts

Product	Host	Pathway	Key Engineering Strategy	Maximum Titer	Reference
β-Farnesene	E. coli	MEP	Enhanced precursor supply (IPP/DMAPP)	1.3 g/L	[9]
Amorpha-4,11-diene	E. coli	MEP	Semi-continuous biomanufacturing	8.32 g/L	[26]
Artemisinic acid	S. cerevisiae	MVA	Plant dehydrogenase introduction; additional cytochrome P450	25 g/L	[26] [29]
Bisabolene	S. cerevisiae	MVA	MVA pathway enhancement; temperature-sensitive regulation	18.6 g/L	[26]
β-Farnesene	Y. lipolytica	MVA	Acetyl-CoA boosting; large-scale optimization	35.2 g/L	[26]
Sclareol	Y. lipolytica	MVA	Enzyme engineering; increasing GGPPS supply	12.9 g/L	[26]
Protopanaxadiol	S. cerevisiae	MVA	Full pathway reconstruction with P450s	11 g/L	[29]
Taxadiene	E. coli	MEP	MVA pathway introduction; metabolic balancing	>1 g/L	[29]

Pathway Regulation and Competing Flux Manipulation

Competing metabolic pathways represent significant drains on terpenoid precursor availability. In S. cerevisiae, ERG9 (squalene synthase) diverts farnesyl diphosphate (FPP) toward sterol biosynthesis, substantially reducing sesquiterpene yields when unregulated [26]. Successful engineering approaches have employed promoter replacement to downregulate ERG9 expression or CRISPR-based editing to dynamically control this metabolic competitor [26].

In E. coli, CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) has emerged as a powerful tool for repressing competing pathways and redirecting flux toward target products [30]. This approach enables fine-tuning of central carbon metabolism without complete gene knockout, maintaining host viability while enhancing precursor availability for heterologous pathways.

Enzyme Engineering and Heterologous Expression

The functional expression of plant-derived terpene synthases and cytochrome P450 enzymes presents distinct challenges in microbial hosts. In E. coli, solubility and proper folding of eukaryotic enzymes often require codon optimization, fusion tags, and co-expression with chaperones [27]. S. cerevisiae inherently provides a more favorable environment for eukaryotic enzyme functionality, particularly for membrane-associated P450s that require endoplasmic reticulum docking [28] [9].

Advanced enzyme engineering approaches include:

• Directed Evolution: Creating mutant libraries and screening for improved activity, stability, or substrate specificity [10]
• Rational Design: Using structural information to make targeted mutations that enhance catalytic efficiency [10]
• Fusion Protein Strategies: Linking terpene synthases with prenyltransferases to promote substrate channeling and reduce byproduct formation [26]

Figure 1: Integrated Metabolic Engineering Workflow for Terpenoid Production in Microbial Hosts

Experimental Methodologies and Protocols

Standard Protocol for Terpenoid Pathway Assembly

Materials and Strains:

• E. coli DH5α: Cloning strain for plasmid construction [30]
• E. coli BW25113: Production host with clean genetic background [30]
• S. cerevisiae CEN.PK2: Preferred laboratory strain with well-characterized metabolism
• Vectors: pYB1a, pSB1c (expression vectors), dCas9 (CRISPRi system) [30]

Gibson Assembly for Pathway Construction:

• Design primers with 20-40 bp overlaps for adjacent DNA fragments
• Amplify gene fragments and vector backbone via PCR
• Treat vector backbone with DpnI to remove methylated template DNA
• Combine DNA fragments with Gibson Assembly Master Mix (NEB)
• Incubate at 50°C for 15-60 minutes
• Transform into competent E. coli DH5α via heat shock (42°C, 30 seconds) [30]
• Plate on selective media and verify colonies by colony PCR and sequencing

Induction and Cultivation:

• Inoculate single colonies into 5 mL LB (E. coli) or YPD (yeast) with appropriate antibiotics
• Grow overnight at 37°C (E. coli) or 30°C (yeast) with shaking at 220 rpm
• Transfer 1 mL overnight culture to 100 mL ZYM-5052 autoinduction medium (E. coli) or appropriate induction medium for yeast [30]
• For CRISPRi strains, add IPTG to final concentration of 1 mM to induce dCas9 expression [30]
• Cultivate at 30°C with shaking at 220 rpm for 12-48 hours, monitoring growth by OD600

Analytical Methods for Terpenoid Quantification

Sample Preparation:

• Harvest cells by centrifugation (4,200 rpm, 10 minutes)
• For intracellular terpenoids, resuspend cell pellet in phosphate buffer and disrupt by sonication
• Extract terpenoids with organic solvents (ethyl acetate or hexane)
• Concentrate extracts under nitrogen gas for GC-MS analysis

GC-MS Analysis:

• Instrument: Agilent 7890B GC coupled to 5977A MSD
• Column: HP-5MS UI (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm)
• Temperature program: 60°C (hold 2 min), ramp to 300°C at 10°C/min, hold 5 min
• Injection volume: 1 μL in split mode (split ratio 10:1)
• Quantification using calibration curves of authentic standards

Advanced Engineering Toolkits

Genome Editing Technologies

CRISPR-Cas Systems:

• CRISPR-Cas9: Enables precise gene knockouts, particularly effective for eliminating competing pathways in both E. coli and yeast [29]
• CRISPRi: Allows tunable repression of target genes without DNA cleavage, ideal for balancing essential metabolic pathways [30]
• Base Editing: Achiezes point mutations without double-strand breaks, useful for enzyme engineering and creating regulatory mutants [10]

Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering (MAGE):

• Particularly effective in E. coli for simultaneous modification of multiple genomic loci
• Enables rapid optimization of enzyme expression levels and regulatory elements
• Can be combined with CRISPR systems for enhanced efficiency

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Metabolic Engineering of Terpenoid Pathways

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Host Compatibility
Expression Vectors	pYB1a, pSB1c, dCas9	Heterologous gene expression and regulation	E. coli [30]
Pathway Enzymes	HMAS homologs, Terpene synthases, P450s	Catalyze specific steps in terpenoid biosynthesis	Both [10] [30]
Genome Editing Tools	CRISPR-Cas9, CRISPRi, Base editors	Targeted genetic modifications	Both [10] [29]
Promoter Systems	Constitutive (PGPD, PTEF); Inducible (PAOX1, PTET)	Transcriptional control of pathway genes	Both (yeast-specific examples) [28]
Selection Markers	Antibiotic resistance (AmpR, KanR); Auxotrophic markers (URA3, LEU2)	Selective pressure for plasmid/maintenance	Both
Fermentation Media	ZYM-5052 autoinduction medium; Defined mineral media	Support high-cell-density cultivation	Both [30]
Analytical Standards	Limonene, geraniol, farnesene, artemisinic acid	Quantification and method validation	Both [10]
ImmTher	ImmTher, CAS:130114-83-9, MF:C65H116N6O21, MW:1317.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Methyl 3-hydroxydodecanoate	Methyl 3-hydroxydodecanoate, CAS:72864-23-4, MF:C13H26O3, MW:230.34 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Figure 2: Terpenoid Biosynthetic Pathways and Key Engineering Nodes in Microbial Hosts

Emerging Frontiers and Industrial Translation

Non-Natural Terpenoid Biosynthesis

A transformative frontier involves expanding beyond nature's biosynthetic capabilities through the integration of artificial metalloenzymes and abiotic catalysis into engineered living systems [26]. Engineered cytochrome P450 variants capable of catalyzing non-natural carbene transfer reactions (e.g., cyclopropanation) enable the functionalization of terpene scaffolds with chemical groups not found in natural products [26]. This hybrid biosynthetic-chemical approach dramatically expands the accessible chemical space of terpenoids, potentially yielding compounds with improved bioactivity, metabolic stability, or novel functions [26].

Scale-Up and Bioprocess Engineering

Successful laboratory-scale terpenoid production must be translated to industrially viable processes through optimized fermentation strategies:

High-Cell-Density Cultivation (HCDC):

• Employed in scalable bioreactor systems (5L to industrial scale)
• Enables precise control of dissolved oxygen, pH, and nutrient feeding
• Achieved MA titer of 9.58 g/L in engineered E. coli [30]

Two-Phase Extraction Systems:

• Addition of organic overlay (e.g., dodecane) for in situ product removal
• Mitigates terpenoid toxicity and potential feedback inhibition
• Enables continuous fermentation processes

The strategic selection and engineering of microbial hosts represents a cornerstone of modern terpenoid biosynthesis research. The divergent approaches of utilizing E. coli versus S. cerevisiae reflect complementary philosophies in metabolic engineering: the optimization of prokaryotic efficiency versus the harnessing of eukaryotic complexity. As synthetic biology tools advance, the distinction between these platforms continues to blur, with researchers increasingly creating hybrid solutions that incorporate the strengths of both systems.

The integration of systems biology, computational design, and synthetic chemistry is pushing the field toward programmable biosynthesis of both natural and non-natural terpenoids. This evolution from imitation of nature to its strategic enhancement underscores the transformative potential of microbial cell factories in creating a sustainable, scalable supply of valuable terpenoid compounds for pharmaceutical, fragrance, and industrial applications. Future progress will likely depend on intelligent integration of multi-omics data, machine learning-guided design, and innovative bioprocessing strategies that collectively address the persistent challenges of metabolic balance, cytotoxicity, and economic viability at industrial scales.

Protein Engineering of Terpene Synthases and Cytochrome P450s

Terpenoids represent the most diverse class of natural products, with over 100,000 structures identified to date, exhibiting tremendous value as pharmaceuticals, flavors, fragrances, and fuels [31]. The biosynthesis of these complex molecules relies on two key enzyme families: terpene synthases (TPSs), which construct the carbon skeletons, and cytochrome P450s (CYPs), which introduce functional groups that enhance bioactivity and properties [32] [9]. Protein engineering has emerged as a pivotal strategy to overcome the inherent limitations of wild-type enzymes, such as low catalytic efficiency, poor stability, and restricted substrate specificity [32] [33]. This technical guide examines contemporary engineering strategies for both enzyme classes, framing them within the divergent evolutionary paradigms that characterize terpene biosynthesis research—from the exploration of fundamental cyclization mechanisms to the repurposing of enzymatic functions for synthetic biology applications.

Terpene Synthase Engineering

Structural and Mechanistic Foundations

Terpene synthases catalyze some of the most complex carbon-carbon bond-forming reactions in nature, converting linear isoprenoid precursors into intricate cyclic or polycyclic skeletons with remarkable regio- and stereochemical precision [34]. These enzymes are classified into two distinct structural folds: Class I TPSs, characterized by a conserved α-fold and DDXXD metal-binding motif that coordinates a trinuclear metal cluster (Mg²⁺₃ or Mn²⁺₃) for substrate activation; and Class II TPSs, which employ protonation-initiated cyclization mechanisms [31]. The evolutionary history of TPSs began with an ancient four-helix bundle containing a single DDXXD motif, which underwent gene duplication and fusion to yield modern prenyltransferases and cyclases [31].

Recent discoveries have expanded this classification, with giant virus terpene synthases representing a potential third class. These enzymes, such as giantene synthase (GiaTPS), form a 7-helix bundle thought to be embedded in membranes and employ a unique metal-binding architecture despite maintaining the fundamental mechanistic strategy of activating the substrate diphosphate group through coordination to three metal ions and hydrogen bonding with basic residues [31].

Engineering Strategies and Methodologies

Table 1: Engineering Strategies for Terpene Synthases

Engineering Approach	Key Methodologies	Target Properties	Case Study
Semi-Rational Design	Mutability landscape-guided engineering, active site plasticity analysis, structure-function correlations	Catalytic activity, product specificity, thermostability	Amorpha-4,11-diene synthase engineering for improved artemisinin precursor production [32]
Computational Design	Statistical Computational Assisted Design Strategy (SCADS), molecular dynamics simulations, environmental energy scoring	Thermostability, solubility, expression yield	Tobacco 5-epi-aristolochene synthase (TEAS) mutant with 2× higher denaturation temperature [34]
Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction	Phylogenetic analysis, ancestral gene resurrection, comparative biochemistry	Catalytic promiscuity, structural stability, altered product spectrum	Glycosyltransferase engineering for ginsenoside Rh1 synthesis [32]
Mechanism-Based Engineering	Molecular dynamics trajectories, intermediate analog design, active site remodeling	Product profile, catalytic efficiency, release kinetics	CotB2 engineering based on product release dynamics [35]

Experimental Protocol: Computational Thermostability Engineering

The following protocol outlines the SCADS approach for enhancing terpene synthase thermostability, as demonstrated for tobacco 5-epi-aristolochene synthase (TEAS) [34]:

• Target Identification: Calculate environmental energy scores for each residue using the SCADS algorithm. Select 12-15 residues with the highest energy scores located >12 Ã… from the substrate to minimize impact on catalytic activity.

• Mutation Design: Program suggested mutations (e.g., hydrophobic to hydrophilic surface residues, introduction of surface salt bridges, replacement of buried hydrophilic residues with hydrophobic ones) via oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis.

• Phage Display Selection:

  • Display mutant libraries on phage surfaces with N-terminal epitope tags (e.g., c-myc).
  • Subject phage pools to proteolytic digestion (e.g., chymotrypsin) at elevated temperatures (37°C).
  • Capture intact proteins via immobilized anti-tag antibodies.
  • Repeat selection rounds (typically 4 cycles) with progressive temperature increases.

• Validation:

  • Express and purify enriched variants.
  • Analyze secondary structure by circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy.
  • Determine melting points (Tm) via thermal denaturation monitored at 222 nm.
  • Assess enzymatic activity at elevated temperatures (up to 65°C) using GC-MS.

This approach yielded a TEAS variant with approximately double the thermal denaturation temperature of wild-type enzyme (80°C vs 40°C) while retaining catalytic activity [34].

Advanced Applications and Case Studies

Molecular dynamics simulations of the bacterial diterpene cyclase CotB2 have revealed crucial insights into product release dynamics—a previously elusive step in terpene biosynthesis. Simulations demonstrate that product release initiates with dislocation of the diphosphate group, which triggers active site opening via coordinated C-terminal motions [35]. Critically, protonation of the diphosphate moiety weakens its interactions with active site residues, enabling product dissociation. These findings provide atomistic guidance for engineering product release rates and altering product profiles.

Diagram 1: Molecular Dynamics Workflow for Product Release Analysis. This workflow illustrates the systematic approach to studying terpene synthase product release mechanisms using CotB2 as a model system [35].

Cytochrome P450 Engineering

Functional Roles and Catalytic Diversity

Cytochrome P450 enzymes constitute a superfamily of heme-containing monooxygenases that catalyze regio- and stereoselective oxidation reactions in terpenoid biosynthesis, including hydroxylation, epoxidation, decarboxylation, and C-C bond cleavage [33]. These functionalizations dramatically enhance molecular complexity and bioactivity, enabling the production of high-value compounds such as taxanes, artemisinin, and ginsenosides [36] [32]. In the context of terpenoid biosynthesis, CYPs typically act downstream of terpene synthases, installing oxygen-containing functional groups that determine pharmacological properties, bioavailability, and commercial value.

Engineering Frameworks and Implementation

Table 2: Engineering Strategies for Cytochrome P450 Enzymes

Engineering Approach	Key Techniques	Application Examples	Performance Metrics
Rational Design	Structure-guided mutagenesis, active site remodeling, proton relay network engineering	CYP154C2 for steroid 2α-hydroxylation (46.5× efficiency increase) [33]	46.5-fold increase in androstenedione conversion
Semi-Rational Design	SCHEMA recombination, consensus sequence analysis, iterative saturation mutagenesis	GcoA enhancement for lignin valoration (improved vanillin conversion) [33]	Enhanced substrate binding and catalytic efficiency
Directed Evolution	Error-prone PCR, DNA shuffling, high-throughput screening	CYP105AS1 for pravastatin biosynthesis (>99% stereoselectivity) [33]	>99% stereoselective hydroxylation
Computational Design	Molecular docking, MD simulations, Rosetta protocols, UniDesign framework	CYP102A1 for omeprazole metabolism (improved stereoselectivity) [33]	Enhanced binding stability and regioselectivity

Experimental Protocol: Structure-Guided Rational Design

This protocol outlines the structure-guided approach for engineering CYP154C2 to enhance 2α-hydroxylation efficiency of steroids [33]:

• Structural Analysis:

  • Obtain crystal structure of testosterone-bound CYP154C2 (PDB accession)
  • Identify key active site residues through structural alignment and computational analysis
  • Map substrate-enzyme interactions using molecular visualization software

• Mutation Design:

  • Target residues lining the substrate access channel and active site (L88, M191, V285)
  • Design mutations to enhance substrate binding affinity and positioning (L88F, M191F, V285L)
  • Prioritize combinations that optimize active site volume and interaction networks

• Library Construction:

  • Generate single, double, and triple mutants via site-directed mutagenesis
  • Clone variants into appropriate expression vectors (e.g., pET systems)
  • Transform into compatible expression hosts (E. coli or Pseudomonas putida)

• Screening and Characterization:

  • Express variants and purify proteins via affinity chromatography
  • Assess catalytic activity using HPLC/GC-MS analysis of steroid conversions
  • Determine kinetic parameters (kcat, KM, kcat/KM) for androstenedione and related steroids
  • Validate regio- and stereoselectivity by NMR of reaction products

The engineered L88F/M191F and M191F/V285L variants demonstrated up to 46.5-fold improvement in androstenedione conversion while maintaining high regio- and stereoselectivity [33].

Integrated Applications in Terpenoid Biosynthesis

P450 engineering has enabled significant advances in the biosynthesis of complex terpenoid pharmaceuticals. For instance, the engineering of CYP76AH15 significantly improved activity and specificity toward forskolin biosynthesis in yeast [32]. Similarly, the optimization of CYP DoxA enhanced hydroxylation activity at the C-14 position of daunorubicin, a critical step in doxorubicin biosynthesis, with the DoxA (P88Y) mutant showing a 56% increase in catalytic efficiency due to enhanced hydrophobic interactions [33].

Diagram 2: Integrated P450 Engineering Framework. This diagram illustrates the convergent engineering strategies for optimizing cytochrome P450 enzymes, highlighting the complementary nature of rational, computational, and directed evolution approaches [33].

Host Systems and Metabolic Integration

Table 3: Host Systems for Terpenoid Pathway Engineering

Host System	Advantages	Terpenoid Applications	Production Metrics
Escherichia coli	Rapid growth, well-characterized genetics, high transformation efficiency	β-Farnesene (1.3 g/L), amorpha-4,11-diene (artemisinin precursor) [9]	High-tier production through MEP pathway engineering
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Endogenous MVA pathway, eukaryotic protein processing, P450 compatibility	Ginsenosides, tanshinones, nootkatone, steroids [32] [9]	Efficient functionalization of terpene skeletons
Plant Cell Cultures	Native enzyme compatibility, metabolic compartmentalization, low toxicity	Paclitaxel (Taxol), ginsenosides, cardenolides [9]	Preservation of complex biosynthetic pathways
Pseudomonas putida	Solvent tolerance, flexible metabolism, industrial robustness	Lignin-derived compounds, oxidized terpenoids [33]	Bioremediation and valorization applications

The successful implementation of engineered terpene synthases and P450s requires integration into appropriate host systems. Prokaryotic hosts like Escherichia coli offer rapid proliferation and well-established genetic tools, achieving high-level production of compounds like β-farnesene (1.3 g/L) through enhancement of isoprenoid precursor supply [9]. Eukaryotic hosts, particularly Saccharomyces cerevisiae, provide distinct advantages for terpenoid biosynthesis due to their native mevalonate pathway and capacity for proper folding of plant-derived cytochrome P450s and other transmembrane proteins [9]. This has enabled the successful heterologous production of complex molecules such as ginsenosides and tanshinones.

Advanced metabolic engineering strategies focus on dynamic pathway regulation, compartmentalization of toxic intermediates, and cofactor balancing. For instance, the construction of chimeric enzyme complexes that colocalize terpene synthases with modifying P450s has significantly improved flux through complex biosynthetic pathways while minimizing intermediate toxicity and diffusion [32].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Enzyme Engineering Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Applications	Functional Role
Expression Systems	pET vectors, yeast episomal plasmids, Pseudomonas broad-host-range vectors	Heterologous protein production, library construction	Enable high-level expression and purification of engineered variants
Chromatography Media	Ni-NTA agarose, glutathione sepharose, ion-exchange resins	Protein purification, tag-based capture	Facilitate rapid purification of recombinant enzymes
Analytical Standards	Isoprenoid diphosphates (GPP, FPP, GGPP), terpene analogs, steroid substrates	Enzyme activity assays, product quantification	Enable accurate quantification of catalytic performance
Cofactor Systems	NADPH regeneration systems, cytochrome P450 reductase, redox partners	In vitro activity assays, biotransformations	Support electron transfer and catalytic cycling
Molecular Biology Kits	Site-directed mutagenesis kits, Gibson assembly master mixes, phage display systems	Library construction, variant generation	Enable rapid prototyping of engineered enzymes
1,3,4-Thiadiazole-2,5-dithiol	2,5-Dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole (DMTD) Research Chemical	High-purity 2,5-Dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole for industrial and materials science research. Key applications in flotation, batteries, and corrosion inhibition. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
N-Boc-4-hydroxypiperidine	N-Boc-4-hydroxypiperidine, CAS:109384-19-2, MF:C10H19NO3, MW:201.26 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Protein engineering of terpene synthases and cytochrome P450s embodies the divergent yet complementary strategies that characterize modern terpenoid biosynthesis research. Where terpene synthase engineering often focuses on fundamental reaction mechanisms and carbon skeleton construction, P450 engineering targets selective functionalization and diversification of these scaffolds. The integration of computational design with high-throughput experimental validation has dramatically accelerated the development of both enzyme classes, enabling the production of terpenoid compounds with industrial and pharmaceutical relevance.

Future directions will likely focus on the development of integrated engineering frameworks that simultaneously optimize terpene synthases and modifying enzymes within unified biosynthetic pathways. Advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence promise to enhance the predictive accuracy of computational design tools, while novel high-throughput screening methodologies will expand the accessible sequence space for engineering. Furthermore, the continued discovery of novel terpene synthases from unexplored biological sources, including giant viruses and marine microorganisms, will provide new structural templates and catalytic mechanisms for engineering. As these technologies mature, the systematic engineering of terpene synthases and cytochrome P450s will undoubtedly unlock new dimensions of chemical space, enabling the sustainable production of complex terpenoids with tailored structures and functions.

High-Throughput Screening Methods for Enzyme and Strain Improvement

High-throughput screening (HTS) has emerged as a transformative approach in enzyme discovery and strain improvement, enabling researchers to rapidly evaluate thousands of biological variants for desired properties. In the context of terpene biosynthesis—a field renowned for producing structurally diverse and bioactive molecules—HTS technologies have become indispensable for identifying and optimizing biocatalysts. The divergent strategies employed in terpene research rely heavily on the ability to screen vast libraries of enzyme variants and microbial strains to access novel chemical space and improve production metrics. Modern HTS platforms combine robotic automation, microfluidic systems, and high-sensitivity detection technologies to accelerate the development of biocatalysts tailored for specific industrial applications, thereby supporting the transition toward a sustainable bioeconomy [37].

The implementation of HTS is particularly valuable for overcoming the inherent limitations of natural enzymes, which have evolved over millions of years to meet biological needs rather than industrial requirements. Natural enzymes often lack the necessary activity, stability, or substrate scope for synthetic applications, making engineering through directed evolution and rational design essential [37]. For terpene biosynthesis, where structural complexity poses significant synthetic challenges, HTS enables researchers to rapidly identify enzyme variants capable of producing valuable diterpenoids with pharmaceutical relevance, such as the anti-HIV potential compound tripterifordin and other bioactive natural products [16].

Fundamental HTS Methodologies and Workflows

Library Generation Strategies

The foundation of any HTS campaign lies in the creation of diverse variant libraries. For enzyme improvement, two primary approaches dominate the field: genome mining of natural diversity and experimental gene diversification.

Table 1: Gene Diversification Methods for Library Generation

Method	Mechanism	Mutation Rate	Advantages	Limitations
Error-prone PCR (epPCR)	Low-fidelity DNA polymerization	Up to 8×10⁻³ per nucleotide	No structural information needed; rapid engineering	Taq polymerase bias; certain mutations favored
Mutazyme-based epPCR	Biased polymerase counteraction	Similar to epPCR	Reduces Taq polymerase bias	Still introduces transition/transversion bias
Mutagenic nucleotide analogues	Alternate base pairing properties	Up to 10⁻¹ per nucleotide	High mutation rates; highly diversified libraries	Potential for non-functional variants

Genome and metagenome mining represents a powerful starting point for biocatalyst discovery, leveraging nature's evolutionary optimization to identify enzymes with desirable properties. This approach bypasses traditional cultivation methods by directly analyzing microbial genetic data, unlocking a treasure trove of enzymes from hitherto unculturable microbes. Bioinformatics tools such as antiSMASH for biosynthetic gene cluster prediction and BLAST for sequence comparison facilitate the navigation of these vast datasets [37]. The recent integration of AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 has further revolutionized this space by enabling accurate protein structure prediction from amino acid sequences alone, with AlphaFold3 additionally predicting protein-ligand interactions crucial for understanding enzyme-substrate relationships in terpene biosynthesis [37].

For experimental gene diversification, random mutagenesis methods like error-prone PCR (epPCR) enable sparse sampling of sequence space to identify functional hotspots without requiring detailed structural information. By adjusting experimental conditions—such as elevating magnesium levels, adding manganese, or using imbalanced dNTP concentrations—researchers can significantly enhance mutation frequencies [37]. The incorporation of mutagenic nucleotide analogues with alternate base pairing properties can increase mutation rates to as high as 10⁻¹ per nucleotide, yielding highly diversified variant libraries suitable for HTS campaigns [37].

Screening Platforms and Detection Methods

Advanced detection systems form the backbone of effective HTS implementation, with several technological approaches enabling rapid assessment of enzyme performance:

Flow cytometry provides a powerful platform for high-throughput compound screening in cellular systems, allowing multiparametric analysis of individual cells within heterogeneous populations. This approach is particularly valuable for screening intracellular enzymes or complete biosynthetic pathways in microbial strains, as it enables detection of enzyme activity via fluorescent reporters or product-specific probes [38]. The methodology typically involves cell preparation in multi-well plates, treatment with test compounds, staining with fluorescent markers, and subsequent analysis using flow cytometers capable of processing thousands of events per second.

Microfluidic systems have emerged as particularly valuable tools for HTS, enabling ultra-high-throughput screening while minimizing reagent consumption. These platforms compartmentalize individual enzyme variants or microbial cells into picoliter- to nanoliter-sized droplets, creating isolated bioreactors where enzymatic reactions can occur and be monitored via fluorescent signals [37]. This approach is especially beneficial for terpene biosynthesis applications, where substrate costs may be prohibitive at larger scales.

Chromatographic and spectrometric techniques, including high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and mass spectrometry, provide direct chemical analysis of reaction products. While traditionally lower in throughput, recent innovations have enabled these label-free methods to be applied in HTS formats, offering unambiguous product identification and quantification—a particular advantage for terpene pathways where structural analogs may be produced by divergent enzyme variants [16].

Experimental Design and Protocol Implementation

Quantitative HTS (qHTS) Assay Development

Quantitative HTS represents a significant advancement over traditional single-concentration screening by generating full concentration-response relationships for thousands of compounds simultaneously. In qHTS, large chemical libraries are screened across multiple concentrations in low-volume cellular systems (e.g., <10 μl per well in 1536-well plates) using high-sensitivity detectors [39]. This approach offers the prospect of lower false-positive and false-negative rates compared to traditional HTS methods.

A critical consideration in qHTS implementation is the statistical modeling of concentration-response data. The Hill equation (HEQN) remains the most widely used model for describing qHTS response profiles:

Where Rᵢ represents the measured response at concentration Cᵢ, E₀ is the baseline response, E_∞ is the maximal response, AC₅₀ is the concentration for half-maximal response, and h is the shape parameter [39]. However, parameter estimation with this nonlinear model presents significant statistical challenges, as estimates can be highly variable when concentration ranges fail to establish both asymptotes, responses are heteroscedastic, or concentration spacing is suboptimal.

Table 2: Impact of Experimental Design on Parameter Estimation in Simulated qHTS Data

True AC₅₀ (μM)	True E_max (%)	Sample Size (n)	Mean AC₅₀ Estimate [95% CI]	Mean E_max Estimate [95% CI]
0.001	25	1	7.92e⁻⁰⁵ [4.26e⁻¹³, 1.47e⁺⁰⁴]	1.51e⁺⁰³ [−2.85e⁺⁰³, 3.1e⁺⁰³]
0.001	25	5	7.24e⁻⁰⁵ [1.13e⁻⁰⁹, 4.63]	26.08 [−16.82, 68.98]
0.001	50	1	6.18e⁻⁰⁵ [4.69e⁻¹⁰, 8.14]	50.21 [45.77, 54.74]
0.001	50	5	2.91e⁻⁰⁴ [5.84e⁻⁰⁷, 0.15]	50.05 [47.54, 52.57]
0.1	25	1	0.09 [1.82e⁻⁰⁵, 418.28]	97.14 [−157.31, 223.48]
0.1	25	5	0.10 [0.05, 0.20]	24.78 [−4.71, 54.26]
0.1	50	1	0.10 [0.04, 0.23]	50.64 [12.29, 88.99]
0.1	50	5	0.10 [0.06, 0.16]	50.07 [46.44, 53.71]

The data in Table 2 illustrates several critical considerations for qHTS experimental design. First, parameter estimates are substantially more reliable when the concentration range establishes both upper and lower asymptotes (as seen with AC₅₀ = 0.1 μM compared to 0.001 μM). Second, increasing sample size (experimental replicates) noticeably improves estimation precision for both AC₅₀ and Emax parameters. Third, higher efficacy (Emax) values generally yield more reliable parameter estimates, highlighting the importance of signal-to-noise ratio in assay development [39].

Computational-Experimental Screening Integration

The integration of computational prescreening with experimental validation represents a powerful strategy for enhancing HTS efficiency. A notable example comes from bimetallic catalyst discovery, where researchers developed a high-throughput screening protocol using electronic density of states (DOS) similarity as a key descriptor [40]. This approach successfully identified Pd-free Ni61Pt39 as a high-performing catalyst with a 9.5-fold enhancement in cost-normalized productivity compared to prototypical Pd catalysts [40].

The screening protocol employed first-principles calculations to evaluate 4350 bimetallic alloy structures, followed by experimental validation of the most promising candidates. The DOS similarity between candidate alloys and a reference catalyst (Pd) was quantified using the following metric:

Where g(E;σ) represents a Gaussian distribution function that emphasizes comparison near the Fermi energy [40]. This computational prescreening enabled researchers to focus experimental efforts on the most promising candidates, dramatically increasing screening efficiency.

Application in Terpene Biosynthesis Research

Case Study: Divergent P450 Engineering in Aconitum Species

The power of HTS in terpene biosynthesis is exemplified by recent work on cytochrome P450 monooxygenases in Aconitum species, which produce pharmaceutically valuable diterpene alkaloids [16]. Researchers employed transcriptome mining of Aconitum carmichaelii and Aconitum coreanum followed by functional characterization to discover 14 divergent P450s, eight of which were multifunctional and capable of oxidizing diterpene scaffolds at seven different positions [16].

The experimental workflow encompassed several key stages:

• Transcriptome Sequencing and Assembly: RNA-seq was performed across multiple tissue types of both Aconitum species, followed by de novo assembly of transcriptomics data.

• TPS and P450 Identification: Hidden Markov model-based searches identified 26 full-length terpene synthases (TPSs), which were phylogenetically analyzed and classified into TPS-b, c, e/f, and g subfamilies.

• Functional Validation: Candidate TPSs and P450s were cloned into pEAQ-HT expression vectors for transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana. To enhance diterpene production, researchers co-expressed upstream pathway genes including 1-deoxy-D-xylose-5-phosphate synthase (CfDXS) and geranylgeranyl diphosphate synthase (AtGGPPS) [16].

This comprehensive approach enabled the discovery of P450s with remarkable catalytic plasticity, including enzymes capable of performing multiple oxidations on ent-atiserene and ent-kaurene scaffolds. The identified enzyme toolkit facilitated combinatorial biosynthesis of tripterifordin (with anti-HIV potential) and 14 novel atiserenoids, some exhibiting allelopathic activity [16].

Research Reagent Solutions for Terpene HTS

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Terpene Biosynthesis HTS

Reagent/Category	Function in HTS	Specific Examples
Vector Systems	Heterologous expression of enzyme variants	pEAQ-HT expression vector system [16]
Host Organisms	In vivo screening platform	Nicotiana benthamiana for plant terpene pathways [16]
Pathway Enzymes	Enhancing precursor supply	CfDXS (1-deoxy-D-xylose-5-phosphate synthase), AtGGPPS (geranylgeranyl diphosphate synthase) [16]
Detection Reagents	Product quantification and visualization	Fluorescent probes, substrate analogs with detectable properties
Bioinformatics Tools	In silico screening and library design	antiSMASH for gene cluster prediction, BLAST for sequence analysis [37]
Structure Prediction	Computational enzyme design	AlphaFold2/3 for protein structure and ligand interaction prediction [37]

Data Analysis and Hit Validation Strategies

Statistical Considerations for HTS Data

The analysis of HTS data requires careful statistical handling to minimize both false positives and false negatives. In quantitative HTS, several factors contribute to parameter estimate variability:

• Asymptote Establishment: Parameter estimates are most reliable when the concentration range defines both upper and lower asymptotes of the response curve [39].
• Response Variability: Heteroscedastic responses (uneven variance across concentrations) can significantly impact parameter estimation reliability.
• Sample Size: Increasing experimental replicates improves parameter estimation precision, though practical constraints often limit replication in HTS formats [39].

For terpene biosynthesis applications where product profiles may be complex (e.g., multiple oxidized products from a single enzyme), analytical methods must be capable of resolving and quantifying each product. High-resolution mass spectrometry and advanced chromatographic separation techniques are therefore often employed in hit validation stages.

Machine Learning Integration

The integration of machine learning with HTS data represents a cutting-edge approach for enhancing screening efficiency. By training models on initial screening results, researchers can predict the performance of unscreened variants, effectively expanding the accessible sequence space without additional experimentation [37]. This approach is particularly valuable for terpene biosynthesis engineering, where the combination of P450 plasticity and the structural complexity of diterpene scaffolds creates a vast screening landscape.

Machine learning models can identify non-obvious sequence-function relationships and guide focused library design for subsequent screening iterations. This iterative process of experimental screening and computational modeling accelerates the optimization of enzyme performance for specific terpene biosynthetic applications.

High-throughput screening methodologies have revolutionized enzyme discovery and strain improvement for terpene biosynthesis, enabling researchers to implement divergent strategies for accessing structural and functional diversity. By combining advanced library generation techniques, sophisticated screening platforms, and computational approaches, scientists can rapidly identify and optimize biocatalysts for specific industrial applications. The integration of qHTS with machine learning and structural prediction tools like AlphaFold represents the cutting edge of this field, offering unprecedented capabilities for tailoring enzyme function. As these technologies continue to mature, HTS will play an increasingly vital role in unlocking the full potential of terpene biosynthetic pathways for pharmaceutical and industrial applications.

The quest for sustainable and robust production of high-value terpenoid pharmaceuticals has catalyzed a paradigm shift in metabolic engineering. This whitepaper examines the divergent strategic approaches employed in the biosynthesis of two cornerstone therapeutics: artemisinin, an antimalarial sesquiterpene, and Taxol, an anticancer diterpene. While artemisinin production has been optimized through microbial cell factories and native host engineering, Taxol biosynthesis has remained a formidable challenge until recent breakthroughs in single-nuclei transcriptomics and pathway elucidation. We present a comparative analysis of engineering platforms, quantitative production metrics, and detailed experimental protocols that have enabled the de novo reconstruction of these complex pathways. The integration of multi-omics technologies, CRISPR-based genome editing, and heterologous expression systems has successfully bridged the gap between pathway discovery and biomanufacturing implementation, establishing a blueprint for the industrial translation of complex plant-derived terpenoids.

Plant-derived terpenoids represent a pharmaceutically vital class of natural products, yet their sustainable production is challenged by low natural abundance, environmental variability, and ecological concerns from over-harvesting [29]. The structural complexity of compounds like artemisinin and Taxol renders chemical synthesis economically nonviable, necessitating innovative biotechnological solutions [41] [42]. Contemporary research has embraced divergent yet complementary strategic paradigms to address these production bottlenecks.

For artemisinin, a sesquiterpene with a relatively simpler structure, engineering efforts have focused on incremental optimization of known pathway components across multiple platforms. Success has been achieved through enhancing precursor flux in Artemisia annua, reconstructing pathways in microbial chassis, and applying synthetic biology tools for yield improvement [41] [43]. In contrast, Taxol's intricate diterpene skeleton with extensive oxidative modifications necessitated a discovery-first approach focused on elucidating the complete biosynthetic pathway, a half-century endeavor only recently accomplished through advanced omics technologies [42] [44].

This dichotomy in strategic emphasis—pathway optimization versus pathway discovery—exemplifies the multifaceted nature of terpene engineering research. Despite these divergent approaches, both fields converge on the ultimate goal of establishing economically viable heterologous production systems that circumvent agricultural and chemical synthesis limitations. The following case studies dissect the specific methodological frameworks and engineering breakthroughs that have propelled these compounds toward sustainable biomanufacturing.

Artemisinin Case Study: Multi-Platfom Optimization

Biosynthetic Pathway and Regulatory Control

Artemisinin biosynthesis occurs primarily in the glandular secretory trichomes (GSTs) of Artemisia annua leaves through both the cytosolic mevalonate (MVA) and plastidial methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathways, which converge to form the universal C5 precursors isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl pyrophosphate (DMAPP) [41] [45]. The pathway proceeds through a series of well-characterized enzymatic steps: Farnesyl pyrophosphate (FPP) undergoes cyclization via amorpha-4,11-diene synthase (ADS) to form amorpha-4,11-diene, which is subsequently oxidized by cytochrome P450 monooxygenase (CYP71AV1) to artemisinic alcohol [41]. Further oxidation by alcohol dehydrogenase 1 (ADH1) and aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) yields artemisinic acid, while the branch pathway involving artemisinic aldehyde Δ11(13) reductase 2 (DBR2) and ALDH1 produces dihydroartemisinic acid (DHAA) [41] [45]. The final conversion from DHAA to artemisinin occurs predominantly through non-enzymatic photooxidation [45].

Recent single-nuclei RNA sequencing studies have revolutionized our understanding of artemisinin compartmentalization, revealing that six specific secretory cells within the 10-cell GST structure serve as the primary production sites [45]. This spatial refinement has critical implications for engineering strategies, suggesting that trichome-specific targeting may enhance metabolic flux without imposing cytotoxic burdens on other leaf tissues.

Table 1: Key Enzymes in the Artemisinin Biosynthetic Pathway

Enzyme	Gene	Function	Cellular Localization
Amorpha-4,11-diene synthase	ADS	Cyclizes FPP to amorpha-4,11-diene	Cytosol
Cytochrome P450 monooxygenase	CYP71AV1	Oxidizes amorpha-4,11-diene to artemisinic alcohol	Endoplasmic reticulum
Alcohol dehydrogenase 1	ADH1	Oxidizes artemisinic alcohol to artemisinic aldehyde	Cytosol
Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1	ALDH1	Oxidizes artemisinic aldehyde to artemisinic acid	Cytosol
Dihydroartemisinic aldehyde reductase	DBR2	Reduces artemisinic aldehyde to dihydroartemisinic aldehyde	Cytosol
Dihydroartemisinic acid dehydrogenase	DHAADH	Bidirectional conversion between artemisinic acid and DHAA	Cytosol

Metabolic Engineering Strategies and Quantitative Outcomes

Engineering efforts for artemisinin production have pursued three primary platforms: native plant optimization, microbial chassis engineering, and heterologous plant systems. Each approach has demonstrated distinct advantages and achieved varying levels of production success.

Native Plant Engineering in Artemisia annua: Metabolic engineering in the native host has focused on enhancing flux through the artemisinin biosynthetic pathway via multigene overexpression, transcription factor manipulation, and blocking competitive pathways. Co-expression of key biosynthetic genes (ADS, CYP71AV1, CPR, DBR2) under trichome-specific promoters has yielded artemisinin contents up to 3.6 mg/g dry weight in engineered lines [41] [45]. Transcription factors such as AaMYB17 and AaGSW1 have been identified as positive regulators of trichome development and artemisinin biosynthesis, with their overexpression increasing artemisinin accumulation by up to 38% [41] [29]. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated knockout of negative regulators TLR1 and TLR2 has further enhanced trichome density and artemisinin yield [41].

Microbial Chassis Engineering: The thermotolerant yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus has emerged as a promising host for artemisinin precursor production. Engineering efforts have focused on optimizing the mevalonate pathway and heterologously expressing ADS. Through CRISPR-Cas9-mediated integration of pathway genes and RAD52 overexpression to enhance homologous recombination efficiency, researchers achieved a 113-fold increase in amorpha-4,11-diene production compared to wild-type strains, reaching titers of 66.78 mg/L [43]. Saccharomyces cerevisiae engineering has yielded even higher production, with artemisinic acid titers exceeding 25 g/L in industrial-scale bioreactors [29].

Table 2: Artemisinin Production Across Engineering Platforms

Production Platform	Engineering Strategy	Maximum Yield	Technology Readiness Level
Native Artemisia annua	Transcription factor overexpression, trichome density optimization	3.6 mg/g DW (0.36%)	Medium (Agricultural scale)
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	MVA pathway enhancement, CYP71AV1 expression	>25 g/L artemisinic acid	High (Industrial fermentation)
Kluyveromyces marxianus	CRISPR-Cas9, RAD52 enhancement, ADS expression	66.78 mg/L amorpha-4,11-diene	Medium (Lab-scale optimization)
Nicotiana benthamiana	Transient expression of pathway genes	Not quantified for artemisinin	Low (Proof-of-concept)

Experimental Protocol: GST snRNA-seq for Biosynthetic Hub Identification

Objective: To characterize the developmental dynamics and identify key regulatory genes in artemisinin biosynthesis within Artemisia annua glandular secretory trichomes using single-nuclei RNA sequencing [45].

Methodology:

• Sample Preparation: Harvest A. annua leaves at S1 (curled, immature) and S2 (partially expanded) developmental stages. Gently mechanically isolate GSTs from >400 leaves using fine forceps under stereomicroscope guidance.
• Nuclear Extraction: Homogenize GST-enriched samples in nuclei isolation buffer (20 mM MOPS, 40 mM NaCl, 90 mM KCl, 2 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM EGTA, 0.5 mM spermine, 0.2 mM PMSF, pH 7.0). Filter through 40-μm cell strainers and purify nuclei via fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS).
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Utilize droplet-based snRNA-seq (10x Genomics Chromium platform). Load quality-controlled nuclei onto the Chromium Controller to generate single-nuclei gel beads-in-emulsion (GEMs). Perform reverse transcription, cDNA amplification, and library construction following manufacturer protocols. Sequence on Illumina platform to obtain ~688 million reads.
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process raw sequencing data with Cell Ranger pipeline. Perform alignment to A. annua reference genome. Conduct unsupervised clustering using UMAP visualization. Identify GST-specific clusters and perform differential expression analysis to pinpoint hub genes regulating trichome development and artemisinin biosynthesis.

Key Outputs: Identification of 1,341 differentially expressed genes between GST and whole-leaf samples, including 685 upregulated genes enriched in terpenoid and lipid biosynthesis pathways [45].

Taxol Case Study: Pathway Elucidation Enabled Reconstruction

Historical Challenges and Recent Breakthroughs

Paclitaxel (Taxol) represents one of the most complex diterpenoid natural products, characterized by its highly functionalized tetracyclic core and oxetane ring. Despite its clinical importance as a chemotherapeutic agent, the complete biosynthetic pathway remained elusive for decades due to exceptional challenges: extreme structural complexity requiring numerous oxidative modifications, the presence of hundreds of similar taxanes in yew species creating identification noise, and low native pathway gene expression in most cell types [42] [44].

The critical breakthrough emerged through the development of multiplexed perturbation × single nuclei (mpXsn) transcriptomics, a novel approach that dramatically enhanced co-expression analysis resolution [42]. This methodology enabled researchers to profile 17,143 nuclear transcriptomes across 272 distinct perturbation conditions (hormone treatments, microorganism elicitations, developmental stages), effectively capturing rare biosynthetic cell states that conventional bulk RNA-seq could not resolve [42] [44].

This comprehensive analysis identified three taxol biosynthetic modules and resolved eight previously unknown genes, including two hydroxylases (taxane 9α-hydroxylase and taxane 1β-hydroxylase), one oxidase (taxane C-9-oxidase), a β-phenylalanine-CoA ligase (PCL), protective acetyltransferases and deacetylases, and most remarkably, FoTO1—a nuclear transport factor 2-like protein that facilitates the notoriously inefficient first oxidation step [42]. The discovery of FoTO1 resolved a decades-long bottleneck in heterologous reconstitution, where the first Taxol oxidase (T5αH) predominantly produced off-pathway byproducts rather than the desired taxadien-5α-ol [42] [44].

Heterologous Reconstruction and Production Metrics

The complete elucidation of the baccatin III pathway (the core Taxol precursor) enabled its full heterologous reconstruction in Nicotiana benthamiana. By co-expressing 19 genes—11 previously known and 8 newly discovered—including the scaffolding protein FoTO1, researchers achieved de novo production of baccatin III at levels comparable to natural abundance in yew needles (0.001-0.050% dry weight) without further optimization [42]. This represented a monumental advance over previous engineering attempts, which struggled with incomplete pathways and inefficient conversions.

Table 3: Comparative Production Metrics for Taxol Precursors

Production System	Target Compound	Yield	Key Innovations
Native Taxus species	Paclitaxel	0.001-0.05% DW (bark)	Natural biosynthesis
Plant cell culture	Baccatin III	~0.02% DW	Elicitor optimization
E. coli	Taxadiene	>1 g/L	MVA pathway engineering
N. benthamiana (transient)	Baccatin III	Comparable to native Taxus	Full pathway + FoTO1 reconstitution
S. cerevisiae	Taxadiene	Not reported	Initial pathway attempts

Microbial production of earlier taxane intermediates has seen notable success. In Escherichia coli, taxadiene production has exceeded 1 g/L through mevalonate pathway engineering and geranylgeranyl diphosphate synthase optimization [29]. However, progression to more oxidized intermediates has proven challenging due to the requirement for multiple plant-specific cytochrome P450 enzymes and their corresponding redox partners.

Experimental Protocol: mpXsn Transcriptomics for Pathway Elucidation

Objective: To identify missing genes in the Taxol biosynthetic pathway through enhanced co-expression analysis of Taxus transcriptomes [42].

Methodology:

• Multiplexed Perturbation Design: Subject young and mature Taxus media needles to a panel of 17 distinct elicitors (hormones, microorganisms, abiotic stresses) across 4 time points (1-4 days). Include untreated controls for baseline comparison.
• Single-Nuclei RNA Sequencing: Pool all 272 perturbed samples. Isolate nuclei via homogenization and density gradient centrifugation. Perform snRNA-seq library preparation using 10x Genomics platform. Sequence to sufficient depth to capture low-abundance transcripts.
• Computational Analysis and Module Identification: Process sequencing data through standard snRNA-seq pipeline. Generate a gene-by-cell expression matrix. Perform consensus nonnegative matrix factorization to identify co-expression modules. Correlate modules with known Taxol pathway genes.
• Candidate Gene Prioritization and Validation: Select candidate genes from Taxol-enriched modules based on co-expression strength with characterized pathway genes. Clone candidates for functional validation in N. benthamiana transient expression system coupled with LC-MS analysis of taxane intermediates.

Key Outputs: Identification of 3 distinct Taxol biosynthetic modules containing 8 previously unknown genes. Functional characterization of these genes enabled reconstruction of the complete baccatin III pathway [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Platforms for Terpene Pathway Engineering

Reagent/Platform	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Heterologous Host Systems	Nicotiana benthamiana, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Escherichia coli, Kluyveromyces marxianus	Chassis for pathway reconstruction and production optimization
Genome Editing Tools	CRISPR-Cas9, CRISPRi/dCas9, TALENs, ZFNs	Targeted gene knockout, regulation, and integration
Omics Technologies	snRNA-seq, spatial transcriptomics, metabolomics, proteomics	Pathway elucidation and regulatory network identification
Expression Vectors	pEAQ-HT, pXCG, yeast episomal plasmids	Heterologous gene expression in plant and microbial systems
Key Enzymes	Cytochrome P450s (CYP71AV1, CYP725As), terpene synthases (ADS, TDS), acyltransferases	Catalyzing specific biosynthetic transformations
Analytical Instruments	LC-MS/MS, GC-MS, NMR	Metabolite quantification and structural elucidation
4-Methylumbelliferyl elaidate	4-Methylumbelliferyl elaidate, CAS:69003-01-6, MF:C28H40O4, MW:440.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Methyl nonadecanoate	Methyl nonadecanoate, CAS:1731-94-8, MF:C20H40O2, MW:312.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Pathway Visualization and Engineering Workflows

Artemisinin Biosynthesis and Engineering

Artemisinin Biosynthesis and Engineering

Taxol Pathway Elucidation Strategy

Taxol Pathway Elucidation Strategy

The case studies of artemisinin and Taxol biosynthesis engineering exemplify how divergent research strategies effectively address distinct challenges in terpenoid pathway optimization and elucidation. Artemisinin production has benefited from multi-platform optimization and incremental enhancement of known pathway components, resulting in commercially viable production systems. In contrast, Taxol biosynthesis required fundamental pathway discovery through cutting-edge omics technologies before heterologous reconstruction could be attempted.

The remarkable recent success in baccatin III production highlights the transformative potential of single-cell transcriptomics and multiplexed perturbation strategies for resolving complex metabolic pathways. The discovery of scaffolding proteins like FoTO1 suggests that protein-protein interactions and metabolic channeling may represent a common, yet previously overlooked, regulatory layer in specialized metabolism.

Future research directions will likely focus on integrating these divergent approaches through machine learning-guided pathway prediction, enzyme engineering to enhance catalytic efficiency, and dynamic regulation systems to balance metabolic flux. The continued development of photoautotrophic chassis and scale-up optimization will be crucial for industrial translation. These advances will collectively establish a new paradigm for accessing complex plant-derived terpenoids, ultimately accelerating drug development and ensuring sustainable supply of these pharmaceutically essential compounds.

Overcoming Bottlenecks in Pathway Efficiency and Industrial Scaling

Addressing Pathway Promiscuity and Unwanted Byproduct Formation

Terpenoids represent the largest and most structurally diverse class of natural products, with over 80,000 identified compounds possessing remarkable biological activities and extensive applications in pharmaceuticals, flavors, fragrances, and biofuels [27] [46] [26]. The biosynthetic logic of terpene formation differs fundamentally from other natural product classes like polyketides and nonribosomal peptides, which employ modular assembly lines where each module contributes a distinct fragment to the final core structure [27]. In contrast, terpene biosynthesis utilizes a single terpene cyclase enzyme to convert linear polyene precursors into complex hydrocarbon scaffolds through a series of carbocation-driven cyclizations and rearrangements [27]. This biosynthetic strategy creates enormous structural diversity from a limited set of precursors but comes with a significant challenge: inherent pathway promiscuity that leads to unwanted byproduct formation.

This promiscuity stems from the repetitive electrophilic and nucleophilic functionalities in each oligomeric substrate, coupled with conformational flexibility for enzyme-mediated juxtaposition of complementary functionality pairs [27]. Rather than representing "sloppiness" in the biosynthetic machinery, this promiscuity appears to be an evolutionarily conserved feature that provides a significant advantage by enabling organisms to generate and screen chemical diversity at low metabolic cost [27]. According to the "screening hypothesis" (also called the "diversity-based hypothesis"), potent biological activity is a rare molecular property, and organisms that can efficiently generate structural diversity are more likely to produce metabolites meeting new selective needs [27]. The gibberellins exemplify this extreme promiscuity, with more than 130 different family members reported, produced through convergent evolution in plants, fungi, and bacteria [27].

For metabolic engineers and synthetic biologists aiming to develop microbial cell factories for terpenoid production, this native promiscuity presents a substantial obstacle to achieving high titers, yields, and product purity. This technical guide examines the molecular basis of terpene pathway promiscuity and provides detailed experimental strategies to address unwanted byproduct formation within the broader context of divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research.

Molecular Mechanisms of Promiscuity in Terpene Biosynthesis

Terpene Synthase Catalytic Flexibility

The remarkable promiscuity of terpene biosynthetic pathways originates primarily from the catalytic mechanisms of terpene synthases (TPSs). These enzymes catalyze the most complex chemical reactions in biology, generating diverse hydrocarbon scaffolds from linear, achiral prenyl diphosphate precursors through carbocation-driven cyclizations and rearrangements [47]. Two key forms of promiscuity dominate TPS function:

• Substrate promiscuity: The ability of a single TPS to accept prenyl diphosphate substrates of different lengths (C10, C15, C20, C25). An extreme example is CcTPS1 from Colquhounia coccinea var. mollis, which accepts C25, C20, C15, and C10 substrates to generate sester-, di-, sesqui-, and monoterpenoids respectively [47].
• Catalytic promiscuity: The capacity of a single TPS to convert one substrate into multiple terpene skeletons with different ring systems and architectures. For instance, levopimaradiene synthase (LPS) produces not only levopimaradiene but also isomeric side products including abietadiene, sandaracopimaradiene, and neoabietadiene from a single GGPP substrate [48].

The spatial dimensions of the TPS active site pocket primarily govern substrate promiscuity, while catalytic promiscuity depends on conformational flexibility of the active center and how substrate and carbocationic intermediates are stabilized within active sites [47]. This flexibility allows a single terpene cyclase to produce dozens of hydrocarbon scaffolds that can differ significantly from each other [27].

Tailoring Enzyme Promiscuity

Downstream of scaffold formation, tailoring enzymes—particularly cytochrome P450s—further contribute to product diversity through their substrate promiscuity. These decorating enzymes often exhibit broad substrate tolerance and catalyze multiple, sequential tailoring reactions on terpene scaffolds [27] [26]. For example, in the chemoenzymatic synthesis of complex diterpenes, a single engineered P450 variant could decorate multiple non-canonical C16 terpene scaffolds to produce oxygenated compounds [49]. This functional promiscuity in both scaffold-forming and tailoring enzymes creates complex metabolic networks where controlling product profiles becomes exceptionally challenging for metabolic engineers.

Engineering Strategies to Control Promiscuity and Reduce Byproducts

Protein Engineering of Terpene Synthases

Rational protein engineering provides powerful tools to constrain or redirect the inherent promiscuity of terpene synthases. The table below summarizes key engineering approaches with demonstrated efficacy in reducing unwanted byproducts:

Table 1: Protein Engineering Strategies for Terpene Synthase Optimization

Engineering Approach	Key Mechanism	Representative Example	Outcome
Structure-Guided Active Site Engineering	Altering active site volume and topology to control substrate access and product distribution	Mutation of L89 in Fusarium oxysporum fusoxyphene synthase (FoFS) [50]	Reprogrammed cyclization pattern, producing three new sesterterpenes while reducing native byproducts
Plasticity Residue Manipulation	Modifying residues that control conformational flexibility of catalytic pocket	Combinatorial mutation of levopimaradiene synthase [48]	2600-fold increase in LP specificity, with production reaching ~700 mg/L in bioreactors
Carbocation Transport Control	Engineering residues that guide carbocation intermediates through specific rearrangement pathways	Reconstruction of hydrogen-bond network around second-shell residues to control W69 orientation [50]	Altered carbocation transport, leading to diversified ring system skeletons
N-Terminal Signal Peptide Engineering	Modifying subcellular localization to control substrate access	Removal of plastid signal peptide in cytosolic TPS-b subfamily enzymes [47]	Broadened substrate spectrum while maintaining product specificity

Experimental protocols for TPS engineering typically employ iterative structure-function analysis:

• Homology Modeling and Active Site Mapping: Generate 3D structural models using AlphaFold2 or similar prediction tools to identify active site residues, carbocation stabilization motifs, and potential plasticity residues [51].
• Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Analyze conformational flexibility, substrate binding orientations, and carbocation migration pathways to identify key residues controlling product specificity [50].
• Site-Saturation Mutagenesis: Target identified residues for comprehensive mutagenesis, focusing on positions controlling active site volume, hydrogen-bond networks, or carbocation stabilization.
• High-Throughput Screening: Implement colorimetric, cytotoxicity-based, or analytical (GC-MS/LC-MS) screening to identify variants with improved specificity and reduced byproduct formation [48].

Figure 1: Protein Engineering Workflow for Terpene Synthase Optimization. This diagram illustrates the systematic approach to addressing terpene synthase promiscuity through multiple engineering strategies.

Metabolic Flux Control and Pathway Compartmentalization

Beyond direct enzyme engineering, controlling metabolic flux through competitive pathways represents a powerful strategy to minimize unwanted byproducts. The following approaches have demonstrated significant success:

• Dynamic Regulation of Competing Pathways: Implement glucose-sensitive promoters (e.g., PHXT1) to regulate key metabolic nodes like ERG20 (FPP synthase) and ERG9 (squalene synthase), redirecting flux toward target terpenoids while reducing sterol byproducts [46]. For example, dynamic downregulation of ERG9 combined with FPP pathway enhancement increased nerolidol production to 4-5.5 g/L while minimizing squalene accumulation [46].

• Subcellular Compartmentalization: Target entire biosynthetic pathways to specific organelles to isolate them from competing reactions. Targeting the FPP pathway together with amorpha-4,11-diene synthase to mitochondria increased production to 427 mg/L by reducing competitive cytosolic metabolism [46]. Similarly, targeting the geraniol biosynthetic pathway to mitochondria enabled production of 227 mg/L of 8-hydroxygeraniol [46].

• Modular Pathway Engineering: Divide complex pathways into modules expressed in separate microbial strains in co-culture systems. An E. coli-S. cerevisiae co-culture dividing the oxygenated taxane pathway into two modules achieved 33 mg/L of acetylated diol paclitaxel precursor by reducing metabolic burden and intermediate degradation [46].

Table 2: Metabolic Flux Control Strategies and Performance Outcomes

Control Strategy	Implementation Method	Target Pathway	Byproduct Reduction	Titer Improvement
Promoter Engineering	Glucose-sensitive PHXT1 promoter regulating ERG20 [46]	Limonene biosynthesis	Reduced FPP diversion to sterols	917.7 mg/L limonene (6-fold increase)
Chromosomal Integration	CRISPR-mediated repression of MVA pathway genes [46]	Lycopene biosynthesis	Reduced intermediate accumulation	71.4 mg/L lycopene in E. coli
Co-culture Systems	E. coli-S. cerevisiae modular division [46]	Oxygenated taxanes	Reduced metabolic burden	33 mg/L acetylated taxane precursor
Organelle Targeting	Mitochondrial localization signals [46]	Amorpha-4,11-diene	Reduced cytosolic competition	427 mg/L in shake flasks

Hybrid Chemoenzymatic and Non-Canonical Approaches

Moving beyond native biosynthesis, hybrid approaches that combine biological and chemical methods offer innovative solutions to promiscuity challenges:

• Hybrid Oxidative Functionalization: Combine selective biocatalytic hydroxylations with guided chemical C-H oxidation methods to access specific oxidation patterns while minimizing side reactions. This approach enabled the synthesis of nine complex diterpene natural products in ten steps or less from ent-steviol by strategically applying enzymatic hydroxylations at inaccessible positions followed by chemical functionalization [52].

• Non-Canonical Building Block Synthesis: Engineer pathways for non-natural terpene precursors to create orthogonal biosynthetic systems that avoid native promiscuity. By introducing the methyltransferase SpSodMT into yeast, researchers established robust production of presodorifenyl diphosphate (PSPP), a C16 building block, which was then converted to 28 different non-canonical terpenes with minimal competition from endogenous pathways [49].

• Artificial Metalloenzyme Catalysis: Incorporate engineered cytochrome P450 variants that catalyze non-natural carbene transfer reactions (e.g., cyclopropanation) to create terpenoid structures not accessible through native biosynthesis, thereby bypassing promiscuous native enzymes [26] [51].

Figure 2: Hybrid Chemoenzymatic Approach to Bypass Terpene Synthase Promiscuity. This workflow demonstrates how combining selective enzymatic steps with targeted chemical transformations can achieve specific products while avoiding native promiscuity.

Experimental Protocols for Addressing Promiscuity Challenges

High-Throughput Screening for Improved Terpene Synthase Variants

Objective: Identify terpene synthase mutants with reduced promiscuity and enhanced product specificity from large variant libraries.

Materials and Reagents:

• Error-prone PCR kit for random mutagenesis
• Site-directed mutagenesis kit for targeted approaches
• E. coli BL21(DE3) or S. cerevisiae as expression host
• Substrate: relevant prenyl diphosphate (GPP, FPP, GGPP)
• Extraction solvent: ethyl acetate or hexane for volatile terpenes
• GC-MS system with non-polar capillary column
• Lycopene colorimetric assay components [48]

Protocol:

• Generate TPS variant library using error-prone PCR or saturation mutagenesis of identified plasticity residues.
• Clone variants into appropriate expression vector and transform into microbial host.
• For intracellular screening, grow transformations in 96-well deep-well plates with appropriate induction.
• Add substrate directly to culture medium or use in vivo precursor supply.
• Incubate with shaking for 24-48 hours to allow terpene production.
• Extract terpenoids with equal volume of organic solvent (ethyl acetate or hexane).
• Analyze organic phase using GC-MS with the following method:
  • Injector temperature: 250°C
  • Oven program: 50°C for 2 min, ramp to 280°C at 15°C/min, hold for 5 min
  • Mass spectrometer: scan mode m/z 40-500
• Compare chromatograms to identify variants with simplified product profiles and enhanced target compound production.
• Validate hits in small-scale fermentations for quantitative analysis.

Troubleshooting:

• Low terpene production may indicate poor enzyme expression; optimize induction conditions.
• Multiple products may persist; consider additional rounds of mutagenesis.
• Use DMAPP toxicity screening as alternative high-throughput method for ISPS variants [48].

Dynamic Pathway Regulation Using Metabolite-Responsive Promoters

Objective: Implement feedback-regulated control of metabolic flux to minimize diversion to byproducts.

Materials and Reagents:

• IPP/FPP-responsive promoter constructs [46]
• CRISPRi system for transcriptional interference
• Modular vector system for pathway balancing
• HPLC system for intermediate analysis
• S. cerevisiae or E. coli chassis with high precursor flux

Protocol:

• Clone terpene biosynthetic pathway into modular vectors with different copy numbers.
• Integrate key pathway genes under control of IPP/FPP-responsive promoters.
• Implement CRISPRi repression of competing pathway genes (e.g., ERG9 for squalene synthase).
• Transform constructs into appropriate microbial chassis.
• Screen transformants in small-scale cultures with monitoring of growth and product formation.
• Analyze intermediate accumulation and byproduct formation using HPLC or GC-MS.
• Optimize induction timing and culture conditions to maximize target compound production.
• Scale promising strains to bioreactor cultivation with controlled feeding strategy.

Validation:

• Monitor mRNA levels of pathway genes using RT-qPCR to confirm dynamic regulation.
• Measure intracellular IPP/FPP levels using LC-MS to correlate with promoter activity.
• Quantify byproduct reduction compared to constitutive expression controls.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Addressing Terpene Pathway Promiscuity

Reagent/ Tool	Function	Example Application	Key Features
P450BM3 Variants	Engineered cytochrome P450 for selective oxidation [52]	A-ring oxidation of decalin-containing terpenes	Exceptional substrate promiscuity and evolvability
SpSodMT Methyltransferase	FPP methylation to create C16 building blocks [49]	Non-canonical terpene biosynthesis	Orthogonal substrate specificity reduces native competition
CcTPS1 Promiscuous Synthase	Benchmark enzyme accepting C25/C20/C15/C10 substrates [47]	Studying substrate promiscuity mechanisms	Reference for understanding multi-substrate recognition
PtmO5-RhFRed Fusion Enzyme	Artificial P450-reductase fusion for efficient hydroxylation [52]	Remote C11 hydroxylation of ent-kauranes	Self-sufficient catalysis without separate reductase partners
IPP/FPP-Responsive Promoters	Dynamic metabolic flux control [46]	Automatic regulation of MVA pathway	Feedback-controlled expression minimizes intermediate accumulation
CRISPRi System	Targeted repression of competing pathways [46]	Downregulation of ERG9 (squalene synthase)	Precise flux redirection without genetic knockout
N-Boc-trans-4-fluoro-L-proline	N-Boc-trans-4-fluoro-L-proline, CAS:203866-14-2, MF:C10H16FNO4, MW:233.24 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
(4Z)-Lachnophyllum Lactone	(Z)-Lachnophyllum Lactone|CAS 81122-95-4|For Research		Bench Chemicals

Addressing pathway promiscuity and unwanted byproduct formation requires a multifaceted approach that embraces rather than fights the inherent diversity-generating capacity of terpene biosynthesis. The most successful strategies combine protein engineering to constrain or redirect catalytic promiscuity with metabolic engineering approaches that minimize competitive side reactions through spatial organization, dynamic regulation, and orthogonal pathway design.

Future directions in terpene biosynthesis research will increasingly leverage hybrid methodologies that integrate synthetic biology with synthetic chemistry, creating systems that bypass native promiscuity entirely through non-canonical building blocks and artificial metalloenzymes [26] [51]. These approaches align with the broader thesis of divergent strategies in terpene research, which seeks to expand rather than simply replicate nature's chemical diversity. By understanding the evolutionary advantages of terpene biosynthetic promiscuity and developing sophisticated engineering tools to control it, researchers can create efficient microbial cell factories that produce high-value terpenoids with the specificity and yield required for commercial applications while maintaining access to the structural diversity that makes this compound class so valuable for drug discovery and development.

Managing Metabolic Burden and Cytotoxicity in Engineered Strains

The engineering of microbial strains for the production of high-value terpenoids represents a cornerstone of modern industrial biotechnology. These compounds, with over 100,000 identified structures, exhibit remarkable diversity and commercial value as pharmaceuticals, flavors, fragrances, and fuels [31]. Within the context of divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research, two fundamental constraints consistently challenge scale-up and productivity: metabolic burden and cytotoxicity. Metabolic burden manifests when the heterologous expression of biosynthetic pathways overwhelms cellular resources, leading to reduced growth and diminished product yield [10]. Simultaneously, cytotoxicity occurs when the synthesized terpenoids, or intermediates in their production pathways, prove toxic to the host organism, limiting production capacity and stability [10] [53]. This technical guide examines the core mechanisms of these constraints and presents the latest engineering strategies to overcome them, enabling robust, industrial-scale terpene production.

Understanding and Quantifying Metabolic Burden

Metabolic burden arises from the redirection of cellular resources—energy, carbon, reducing equivalents, and amino acids—away from native processes such as growth and maintenance toward the expression and operation of heterologous pathways. In terpene biosynthesis, this is particularly pronounced due to the multi-step, cofactor-intensive nature of the pathways.

Key Contributing Factors

• Precursor and Cofactor Competition: The terpenoid backbone biosynthesis (MEP or MVA pathways) competes for fundamental precursors like acetyl-CoA and requires substantial ATP and NADPH pools [10].
• Resource Drain from Protein Synthesis: High-level expression of heterologous terpene synthases and cytochrome P450s consumes amino acids and energy that would otherwise support essential cellular functions [10] [16].
• Transcriptional and Translational Load: Strong, constitutive promoters can saturate the host's gene expression machinery, leading to global cellular stress [10].

Quantitative Assessment of Burden

Researchers must employ a multi-faceted approach to quantify metabolic burden. The table below outlines key measurable parameters and their implications.

Table 1: Key Metrics for Assessing Metabolic Burden in Engineered Strains

Metric	Description	Measurement Technique	Interpretation
Specific Growth Rate (μ)	The rate of biomass accumulation during exponential phase.	Optical Density (OD600) measurements over time.	A decrease of >20% vs. control strain indicates significant burden [10].
Maximum Biomass (ODmax)	The final cell density achieved in batch culture.	Endpoint OD600 measurement.	Lower ODmax suggests resource exhaustion due to heterologous expression.
Product Yield on Biomass (YP/X)	Mass of product formed per unit of biomass.	Product titer (e.g., GC-MS) divided by dry cell weight.	A low YP/X indicates inefficient conversion despite metabolic load.
mRNA Abundance	Transcript levels of heterologous vs. native genes.	RT-qPCR or RNA-Seq.	Saturation of transcription/translation machinery can be detected.
ATP/NADPH Pool	Intracellular concentration of key cofactors.	Metabolomic assays or biosensors.	Direct indicator of energy and redox stress from pathway operation.

Mechanisms and Assessment of Cytotoxicity

Cytotoxicity in terpene-producing strains primarily results from the interaction of non-native molecules with cellular structures. Terpenoids, being hydrophobic, can disrupt membrane integrity, while reactive intermediates can promiscuously interact with proteins and DNA.

Primary Cytotoxicity Mechanisms

• Membrane Disruption: Hydrophobic terpenes like limonene and farnesene can accumulate in lipid bilayers, compromising membrane integrity and function, leading to proton leakage and loss of ion gradients [10].
• Protein Misfolding and Inhibition: Terpenoid molecules can cause non-specific protein denaturation or inhibit the activity of essential enzymes [10].
• Oxidative Stress: The high metabolic flux required for terpene synthesis can elevate levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), causing damage to cellular components [10].

Standardized Cytotoxicity Assessment

Following standardized biocompatibility testing, such as ISO 10993-5 guidelines, is crucial for reliable assessment [53]. The most common method is the MTT assay, a colorimetric test that measures cellular metabolic activity as a proxy for cell viability.

Detailed MTT Assay Protocol [53]:

• Cell Line and Culture: Use a standard mammalian fibroblast line, such as L-929 mouse fibroblasts. Culture cells in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) at 37°C in a 5% COâ‚‚ atmosphere.
• Preparation of Extracts (Elution Method): Incubate the engineered strain or its purified terpene product in cell culture medium (DMEM with FBS) for a set period (e.g., 24 hours) under controlled conditions to create a testable extract.
• Exposure and Incubation: Seed L-929 cells in a 96-well plate and allow them to adhere overnight. Expose the cells to serial dilutions of the extract (e.g., 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%) and incubate for a predetermined period (e.g., 24-72 hours).
• MTT Application and Measurement:
  • Add MTT reagent (3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) to each well.
  • Incubate for 2-4 hours. Metabolically active cells reduce the yellow MTT to purple formazan crystals.
  • Solubilize the crystals with an organic solvent like Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO).
  • Measure the absorbance of the solution at 570 nm using a microplate reader.
• Data Analysis and Interpretation:
  • Calculate cell viability as a percentage compared to untreated control cells.
  • A cell viability of ≥70% for the undiluted extract is typically considered a pass (non-cytotoxic), with viability increasing with dilution [53].
  • Simultaneously, examine cell monolayers microscopically for morphological changes or signs of degeneration.

Table 2: In Vitro Cytotoxicity Testing Methods for Terpenoid Compounds

Method	Principle	Endpoint Measured	Advantages/Limitations
MTT Assay	Mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity reduces MTT to purple formazan.	Metabolic activity / Cell viability.	Colorimetric, rapid, sensitive; requires solubilization step [53].
Dye Exclusion (e.g., Trypan Blue)	Viable cells with intact membranes exclude the dye.	Membrane integrity / Proportion of live vs. dead cells.	Simple, direct count; manual and prone to counting errors [53].
ATP Assay	Luciferase reaction produces light proportional to cellular ATP.	ATP concentration (cell viability).	Highly sensitive, luminescent, real-time feasibility analysis; more expensive [53].
Flow Cytometry	Uses fluorescent markers for apoptosis (Annexin V) and death (Propidium Iodide).	Early/late apoptosis and necrosis.	High-content, multi-parameter data; requires specialized equipment [53].

Engineering Strategies for Burden and Toxicity Mitigation

Strategies for Reducing Metabolic Burden

• Dynamic Pathway Regulation: Implement feedback-controlled systems that decouple growth from production. For example, engineer strains where the glucose-mediated catabolite repression of promoters like P_BAD is negated, allowing for efficient gene expression even in the presence of glucose [54]. This was achieved in E. coli Nissle 1917 by knocking out araBAD, araFGH, and ptsG and constitutively expressing the araE transporter, enabling efficient protein production insensitive to glucose [54].
• Enhancement of Precursor and Cofactor Supply: Systematically engineer central carbon metabolism to increase the flux toward key terpene precursors (IPP/DMAPP). This includes overexpressing rate-limiting enzymes in the MEP pathway (e.g., DXS) and employing enzyme engineering to optimize the activity of key enzymes like isopentenyl diphosphate isomerase (IDI) [10] [16].
• Modular Pathway Optimization and Enzyme Engineering: Reconstruct complex pathways in a modular fashion, balancing the expression of each module separately. Utilize advanced genome editing tools like CRISPR-Cas and multiplexed cytosine base editors to fine-tune gene expression without overburdening the host [10]. Furthermore, screen for and engineer terpene synthases and P450s with higher catalytic efficiency and specificity, reducing the need for high enzyme expression levels [31] [16].

Strategies for Mitigating Cytotoxicity

• Efflux Pump Engineering and transporter overexpression: Overexpress native or heterologous efflux transporters to actively pump cytotoxic terpenoids out of the cell, reducing intracellular accumulation [10].
• Product Sequestration and In-Situ Removal: Employ two-phase fermentation systems where a hydrophobic organic phase (e.g., dodecane) captures terpenoids from the aqueous culture broth, continuously pulling product away from the cells [10].
• Promoter and Pathway Timing Optimization: Use inducible promoters to separate the growth phase from the production phase. Cells can be grown to high density before the terpene biosynthesis pathway is induced, minimizing the duration of cytotoxic stress [10].
• Tolerance Engineering via Adaptive Laboratory Evolution (ALE): Subject the production strain to gradually increasing levels of the target terpenoid. Select for evolved mutants with enhanced tolerance, and identify the underlying genetic mutations responsible for the robust phenotype [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Metabolic and Cytotoxicity Research

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Example Use in Research
CRISPR-Cas Systems	Precision genome editing for gene knock-outs, knock-ins, and transcriptional regulation.	Knocking out competing metabolic pathways (ptsG, araBAD) to re-route carbon flux [10] [54].
Cytosine Base Editors	Enable targeted C•G to T•A base conversions without double-strand breaks, for precise gene inactivation or optimization.	Fine-tuning the expression levels of multiple genes in the MEP pathway simultaneously [10].
MTT Assay Kit	Standardized in vitro cytotoxicity testing.	Quantifying the cytotoxicity of a newly synthesized terpenoid on L-929 fibroblast cells [53].
Flow Cytometer	Multi-parameter analysis of cell health, apoptosis, and cell cycle.	Distinguishing between early apoptotic, late apoptotic, and necrotic cell populations after terpene exposure [53].
ATP Assay Kit	Highly sensitive measurement of cell viability based on ATP content.	Real-time monitoring of cell viability in a high-throughput screening format for evolved tolerant strains [53].
λ-Red Recombinase System	Facilitates efficient homologous recombination in E. coli for genetic manipulations.	Construction of precise genomic deletions and insertions, as used in engineering probiotic E. coli [54].

Visualizing the Engineering Workflow

The following diagram illustrates a consolidated experimental workflow for developing robust terpenoid-producing strains, integrating the strategies discussed above.

The divergent strategies in modern terpene biosynthesis are powerfully exemplified by the engineering of scaffold-forming enzymes versus the downstream modifying P450s. The diagram below contrasts these approaches, highlighting their distinct challenges and mitigation strategies.

Effectively managing metabolic burden and cytotoxicity is not merely a supportive task but a central objective in the development of efficient microbial cell factories for terpenoid production. The divergent strategies explored—from dynamic regulation and precision genome editing for alleviating burden, to efflux engineering and in-situ product recovery for mitigating toxicity—provide a powerful toolkit for researchers. As the field advances, the integration of systems biology, machine learning, and high-throughput automated engineering will further enable the rational design of robust strains. Mastering these constraints is the key to unlocking the full potential of engineered strains, paving the way for the sustainable and economically viable production of the next generation of terpenoid-based medicines, flavors, and materials.

Strategies for Precursor Pool Enhancement and Flux Balancing

Within the broader context of divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research, the manipulation of precursor pools and metabolic flux represents a foundational pillar for achieving high-yield production of target compounds. Terpenoids, the most diverse class of natural products, all originate from two universal C5 building blocks: isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP) [48] [55]. These precursors are supplied through two major biosynthetic routes: the mevalonate (MVA) pathway (predominantly in the cytosol of eukaryotes) and the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway (operating in prokaryotes and plant plastids) [9] [55]. The inherent conflict between the cell's native metabolic objectives and the engineer's goal of maximizing terpenoid yield creates what is often the most significant bottleneck in industrial-scale production. This technical guide examines the core strategies for enhancing precursor availability and balancing the metabolic flux toward desired terpenoid end products, providing researchers and drug development professionals with both the theoretical framework and practical experimental protocols needed to advance terpenoid-based pharmaceutical applications.

Foundational Pathways and Bottlenecks

The MVA and MEP Pathways: An Engineering Perspective

The mevalonate (MVA) pathway utilizes acetyl-CoA as its starting substrate and operates through a series of six enzymatic reactions to produce IPP and DMAPP [9]. From a metabolic engineering standpoint, a critical constraint in the MVA pathway is the enzyme 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGR), which is highly regulated and represents a key flux-control point [26]. The methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway begins with pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (G3P) and proceeds through seven enzymatic steps to generate the same C5 isoprenoid precursors [9]. The initial enzyme in this pathway, 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS), often exhibits low catalytic efficiency and is considered a primary bottleneck [26].

Although traditionally viewed as separate systems with distinct subcellular localizations, substantial metabolic cross-talk occurs between these pathways, particularly in plants, where precursors can be exchanged across compartmental boundaries [56]. This exchangeability provides both a challenge and an opportunity for metabolic engineers seeking to optimize precursor supply.

Visualizing Core Terpenoid Building Block Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the core terpenoid precursor biosynthesis pathways and their connection to major terpenoid classes, highlighting key engineering targets:

Enhancement Strategies for Precursor Pools

Pathway Optimization and Enzyme Engineering

Enhancing precursor pools begins with systematic pathway optimization to remove natural regulatory constraints. Successful implementations include:

• HMGR Engineering: The MVA pathway's HMGR is subject to strict feedback inhibition. Expression of truncated, deregulated variants of HMGR in Artemisia annua significantly enhanced flux toward artemisinin precursors [29].
• DXS and DXR Overexpression: In the MEP pathway, overexpression of 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS) and 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate reductoisomerase (DXR) increased terpenoid precursor supply in engineered E. coli strains [55].
• Isopentenyl Diphosphate Isomerase (IDI) Enhancement: Directed evolution of IDI created a triple-mutant variant (L141H/Y195F/W256C) with 2.53-fold higher catalytic activity than wild-type, resulting in a 2.8-fold increase in lycopene production (exceeding 1.2 g/L) in engineered microbes [48].

Host System Selection and Engineering

The choice of microbial host significantly impacts precursor enhancement strategies, with each system offering distinct advantages:

Table 1: Host Systems for Terpenoid Precursor Enhancement

Host System	Key Advantages for Precursor Enhancement	Notable Engineering Targets	Maximum Reported Yields
E. coli	Rapid growth; Endogenous MEP pathway; Well-characterized genetics [57]	DXS, IDI, MVA pathway integration [26]	MVA pathway integration increased amorphadiene to 8.32 g/L [26]
S. cerevisiae	Native MVA pathway; Endogenous redox partners for P450s [57]	HMGR, ERG20, downregulation of ERG9 [29]	Artemisinic acid: >25 g/L [29]; Bisabolene: 18.6 g/L [26]
Y. lipolytica	High acetyl-CoA pools; Oleaginous metabolism [26]	Acetyl-CoA carboxylase, ACL, ME	β-Farnesene: 35.2 g/L [26]; Sclareol: 12.9 g/L [26]
Plant Systems	Native compartmentalization; P450 compatibility [29]	HMGR, DXS, tissue-specific promoters	Artemisinin: ~1.2% dry weight [29]

Experimental Protocol: MVA Pathway Integration in E. coli

Objective: Enhance IPP/DMAPP supply in E. coli by integrating the heterologous MVA pathway.

Materials:

• Plasmids: pMBIS or similar MVA pathway expression vector
• E. coli strain: BL21(DE3) or equivalent
• Antibiotics: Appropriate for plasmid selection
• Inducers: IPTG or L-arabinose (concentration-dependent on specific vector)
• Analytical standards: IPP, DMAPP, mevalonate

Procedure:

• Clone MVA pathway genes (atoB, HMGS, HMGR, MVK, PMK, PMD, IDI) under inducible promoters.
• Transform the construct into your production E. coli strain.
• Inoculate 5 mL LB medium with antibiotics and grow overnight.
• Dilute culture 1:100 in fresh medium and grow to OD600 ≈ 0.6.
• Induce pathway expression with appropriate inducer.
• Incubate for 16-24 hours post-induction.
• Quantify precursor levels using LC-MS/MS or enzymatic assays.
• Measure downstream terpenoid production via GC-MS.

Troubleshooting: If cytotoxicity is observed, consider:

• Using weaker promoters or tuning inducer concentration
• Two-stage cultivation (growth phase followed by production phase)
• Dynamic regulation systems to control pathway expression

Advanced Flux Balancing Methodologies

Dynamic Regulation and Modular Control

Static pathway overexpression often creates metabolic imbalance. Dynamic regulation systems address this by automatically adjusting pathway expression in response to metabolite levels:

• Metabolite-Responsive Promoters: Develop biosensors that activate precursor pathway expression when intracellular IPP/DMAPP levels drop below optimal thresholds.
• Quorum-Sensing Systems: Implement cell-density dependent induction to separate growth and production phases [48].
• CRISPRi Modulation: Use tunable CRISPR interference to fine-competeing pathways like fatty acid biosynthesis that consume acetyl-CoA precursors [29].

Modular pathway engineering separates the terpenoid biosynthetic pathway into distinct modules that can be independently optimized:

• Upstream Module: Acetyl-CoA → IPP/DMAPP
• Midstream Module: IPP/DMAPP → GPP/FPP/GGPP
• Downstream Module: Prenyl diphosphates → Target terpenoid

This approach enables balanced expression of each module, preventing the accumulation of cytotoxic intermediates while maximizing carbon channeling toward the desired product [48].

Enzyme Engineering and Compartmentalization

Protein engineering addresses catalytic limitations in native enzymes:

• Directed Evolution of Terpene Synthases: Error-prone PCR coupled with high-throughput screening identified an isoprene synthase double mutant (A570T/F340L) that increased isoprene production threefold compared to wild-type [48].
• Structure-Guided Engineering: Rational design of levopimaradiene synthase created variants with 2600-fold improved productivity (700 mg/L in bioreactors) and reduced byproduct formation [48].
• Prenyltransferase Engineering: Modifying chain-length specificity of prenyltransferases enables precise control over GPP/FPP/GGPP ratios [58].

Subcellular compartmentalization in engineered yeast and plant systems localizes terpenoid biosynthesis to specific organelles, reducing metabolic interference and cytotoxicity while improving pathway efficiency [29] [55].

Visualizing Advanced Flux Control Strategies

The following workflow diagrams the integrated approach to precursor enhancement and flux balancing:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Precursor and Flux Studies

Reagent/ Tool	Primary Function	Example Application	Key Considerations
pMBIS Plasmid	Heterologous MVA pathway expression in E. coli [26]	Enhancing IPP/DMAPP supply in non-native hosts	May require optimization of gene copy numbers and promoter strength
Lycopene Colorimetric Screening	High-throughput screening of precursor enhancement [48]	Rapid identification of productive IDI mutants	Correlation between color intensity and precursor pool size
DMAPP Toxicity Screening	Selection for improved isoprene synthases [48]	Directed evolution of terpene synthases	Requires construction of high-DMAPP producing strain
CRISPR-Cas9 Tools	Genome editing for pathway integration [29]	Knockout of competing pathways; promoter replacements	Essential for creating stable production strains without plasmids
Metabolite Biosensors	Dynamic monitoring of intracellular metabolites[ccitation:1]	Real-time tracking of IPP/DMAPP levels	Enables dynamic regulation system development
Fusion Tags (e.g., NudJ)	Enhanced terpenoid production via substrate channeling [57]	Improving nerol production (966.55 mg/L in E. coli)	Can reduce intermediate toxicity and increase yield

Quantitative Analysis of Engineering Outcomes

Table 3: Production Outcomes from Precursor and Flux Engineering

Target Compound	Host Organism	Engineering Strategy	Maximum Titer	Key Limitation Overcome
β-Farnesene	Y. lipolytica	Acetyl-CoA boosting; Large-scale optimization [26]	35.2 g/L [26]	Insufficient precursor supply
Artemisinic Acid	S. cerevisiae	MVA pathway enhancement; Plant dehydrogenase introduction [26]	25 g/L [29] [26]	Low expression of key enzymes
Limonene	E. coli	MVA pathway integration; Nontoxic solvent for extraction [57]	3.6 g/L [57]	Cytotoxicity of product
Nerol	E. coli	Metabolic and protein engineering; NudJ phosphatase utilization [57]	966.55 mg/L (shake flask) [57]	Complex synthetic pathway
Sclareol	Y. lipolytica	Enzyme engineering; GGPPS supply enhancement [26]	12.9 g/L [26]	Flux imbalance; unsuitable chassis
Geraniol	E. coli	Fusion tag evolution; Metabolic flux optimization [57]	2.1 g/L [57]	Poor enzyme activity and stability

Emerging Frontiers and Convergent Strategies

The field of precursor pool enhancement is evolving toward multi-omics guided design and non-native chemistry integration. Machine learning algorithms now enable predictive modeling of rate-limiting steps, while integrated transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses reveal previously unrecognized regulatory nodes [29]. A particularly promising frontier combines artificial metalloenzymes with traditional biosynthetic pathways, enabling non-natural carbene transfer reactions that expand terpenoid structural diversity beyond natural boundaries [26].

Furthermore, convergent evolution in terpenoid biosynthesis is being observed across species, as evidenced by the discovery of identical tripterifordin biosynthesis pathways in both Tripterygium wilfordii and Aconitum coreanum [16]. This suggests that optimal solutions for precursor enhancement and flux balancing may follow universal principles that transcend phylogenetic boundaries, offering researchers validated engineering blueprints across diverse host systems.

These advanced approaches represent the next evolutionary stage in terpenoid engineering—shifting from piecemeal pathway optimization to integrated systems that simultaneously address precursor availability, flux balance, and structural diversification through both biological and chemical means.

Challenges in Product Purification, Scale-Up, and Cost Reduction

Within the divergent strategies of terpene biosynthesis research, a fundamental tension exists between the pursuit of structural diversity and the imperative for industrial viability. While synthetic biology has made remarkable progress in engineering microbial cell factories to produce a vast array of terpenoid structures, the pathway from a laboratory proof-of-concept to a commercially viable process is fraught with challenges. The most significant of these are efficient product purification, successful scale-up of biosynthesis, and overall cost reduction [21] [26]. These hurdles are not merely engineering concerns; they are critical determinants that shape the choice of biosynthetic strategy, influence host organism selection, and ultimately dictate whether a novel terpene can transition from a scientific discovery to a marketable product. This guide examines these core challenges, providing a technical framework for researchers and development professionals to navigate the complexities of industrial implementation.

Technical Hurdles in Terpene Purification

The purification of terpenes from biological systems presents a unique set of technical difficulties that stem from both the physico-chemical properties of the products and the complexity of the fermentation broth.

The Core Problem of Product Complexity and Low Titers

Terpenes are often produced as complex mixtures of structurally similar compounds, making the isolation of a single target molecule particularly challenging. Furthermore, many engineered microbial systems still suffer from low volumetric titers, meaning the target terpene is present in a highly dilute aqueous solution amidst a host of cellular impurities [21] [59].

• Metabolic Byproducts: Engineered pathways can produce shunt metabolites or improper cyclization products, leading to low product selectivity [26] [60]. For instance, terpene synthases expressed in non-native hosts may generate multiple monoterpene byproducts (e.g., α-pinene, myrcene) alongside the target compound like sabinene [60].
• Cellular Impurities: The fermentation broth contains cells, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and salts, from which the hydrophobic terpene must be separated.
• Product Toxicity and Volatility: Many terpenes are hydrophobic and can disrupt microbial membranes at low concentrations, limiting the achievable titer in the fermentation broth. Their volatile nature also poses a risk of loss during processing [57] [60].

Advanced Separation Techniques

While traditional solid-phase chromatography is common at the laboratory scale, it becomes cost-prohibitive and complex for industrial-scale purification. Counter-Current Chromatography (CCC) has emerged as a powerful liquid-liquid separation technique that addresses several of these limitations [59].

Table 1: Comparison of Terpene Purification Methods

Method	Principle	Advantages	Disadvantages for Scale-Up
Steam Distillation	Volatility-based separation from plant material or broth	Well-established, no organic solvents	High energy input, potential thermal degradation of sensitive terpenes [61]
Solid-Phase Chromatography	Adsorption to a solid stationary phase	High resolution, analytical and preparative	Irreversible adsorption, high solvent consumption, expensive stationary phases [59]
Counter-Current Chromatography (CCC)	Partitioning between immiscible liquid phases	No irreversible adsorption, total sample recovery, low solvent cost, high loading capacity [59]	Solvent system selection is critical, can be perceived as complex

Experimental Protocol: Counter-Current Chromatography for Terpenoids

The following protocol, adapted from the work of Stepaniuk & Aponso, details the separation of terpenoids using CCC [59].

• Solvent System Selection: This is the most critical step. A two-phase solvent system must be selected where the target terpene has a partition coefficient (K) between 0.5 and 3.0, ideally close to 1. A standardized screening process is recommended:

  • Prepare a modified "Arizona" system series, varying the ratios of heptane, ethyl acetate, methanol, and water (e.g., from heptane/ethyl acetate/methanol/water in a 0:2:0:2 to 6:4:4:1 ratio) [59].
  • Shake the systems in a vial with a small amount of crude extract and allow to settle.
  • Analyze the distribution of the target compound in each phase by TLC or HPLC to determine K.
  • For highly hydrophobic terpenes, start with a non-polar system (e.g., heptane/acetonitrile); for more polar terpenoids, use a system like hexane/ethyl acetate/methanol/water.

• Sample Preparation: The crude terpene extract or clarified fermentation broth should be dissolved in a 1:1 mixture of the upper and lower phases of the chosen solvent system. Particulate matter should be removed by filtration to prevent clogging the CCC instrument.

• Instrument Setup and Separation:

  • Fill the CCC coil (wound tubing in a planetary centrifuge) with the stationary phase (typically the lower phase).
  • Rotate the coil at the manufacturer's specified speed (e.g., 800-1600 rpm for hydrodynamic instruments) to retain the stationary phase.
  • Pump the mobile phase (typically the upper phase for non-polar systems) through the coil at a predetermined flow rate (e.g., 2-5 mL/min for analytical scale).
  • Once the mobile phase elutes and hydrodynamic equilibrium is established, inject the prepared sample.
  • Monitor the eluent with a UV-Vis detector and collect fractions based on retention time or detected peaks.

• Analysis and Fraction Work-up: Analyze collected fractions by GC-MS or HPLC to identify those containing the pure target terpene. Pool pure fractions and evaporate the solvent under reduced pressure to obtain the purified compound.

CCC Purification Workflow

Scale-Up Challenges in Industrial Biosynthesis

Transitioning a terpene biosynthesis process from shake flasks to industrial fermenters introduces significant challenges related to microbial physiology, process control, and engineering.

Microbial and Metabolic Limitations

A primary bottleneck is the inherent toxicity of terpenes to microbial chassis like E. coli and yeast. As hydrophobic molecules, terpenes accumulate in and disrupt cell membranes, inhibiting growth and limiting production, especially in high-density fermentations [26] [60]. This is compounded by metabolic burden, where the heterologous expression of lengthy terpene pathways diverts cellular resources (ATP, NADPH, precursors) from growth and maintenance, reducing overall productivity [21] [10].

Furthermore, precursor flux imbalances are common. The native regulatory mechanisms of the host often restrict the supply of universal precursors IPP and DMAPP. Pushing flux toward a heterologous product requires extensive rewiring of central metabolism, which can lead to instability and the accumulation of toxic intermediates [26] [57].

Fermentation Process Scale-Up

Achieving and maintaining optimal conditions in large-scale bioreactors is non-trivial. Key challenges include:

• Oxygen Mass Transfer: Terpene biosynthesis is an aerobic process requiring significant oxygen. As scale increases, providing sufficient oxygen transfer without causing shear damage from excessive agitation becomes difficult [10] [57].
• Product Recovery and In Situ Removal: To mitigate product toxicity and feedback inhibition, advanced fermentation strategies employ in situ product removal (ISPR). This involves continuously extracting the terpene from the fermentation broth using methods like organic solvent overlay, adsorption resins, or membrane extraction [57]. For example, the addition of a non-toxic organic solvent like diisononyl phthalate in a limonene fermentation allowed a final titer of 3.6 g/L in a 3.1-L fermenter by sequestering the inhibitory product [57].
• Process Consistency: Ensuring consistent yields, product profiles, and microbial stability across scales from laboratory to industrial (e.g., 200,000 L) fermenters requires precise control and monitoring [57].

Cost Drivers and Reduction Strategies

The commercial success of biosynthetic terpenes hinges on reducing production costs to compete with plant extraction and chemical synthesis.

Major Cost Drivers

Techno-economic analyses consistently identify productivity (titer, rate, yield) as the primary determinant of production cost [57]. Low titers increase downstream purification costs exponentially. Feedstock cost is another major driver, as the carbon source (e.g., glucose, glycerol) constitutes a significant portion of the raw material expense. Finally, energy-intensive purification processes and waste disposal contribute substantially to operational expenditures [21] [62].

Engineering and Process Strategies for Cost Reduction

A multi-pronged approach is essential for achieving economic viability.

Table 2: Key Strategies for Cost Reduction in Terpene Biosynthesis

Strategy	Technical Approach	Exemplary Outcome
Enhancing Precursor Supply	Overexpression of rate-limiting enzymes (e.g., HMGR, DXS); engineering acetyl-CoA pools; introducing synthetic MVA pathways [26] [10] [57]	Up to 35.2 g/L β-farnesene in Y. lipolytica via acetyl-CoA boosting [26]
Host Engineering & Selection	Using oleaginous yeasts (e.g., Y. lipolytica) with high innate acetyl-CoA flux; improving tolerance via adaptive laboratory evolution [57] [60]	3.3 g/L geranylgeraniol in Y. lipolytica [26]
Fermentation Optimization	Using low-cost feedstocks; implementing in-situ product removal (ISPR); optimizing fed-batch strategies [10] [57]	130 g/L β-farnesene in a 200,000-L fermenter via process intensification [57]
Enzyme Engineering	Directed evolution of terpene synthases for higher activity and specificity; fusion proteins to channel precursors [26] [10]	Increased limonene yield via fusion proteins linking precursor supply and synthesis [10]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and materials critical for experiments in terpene biosynthesis, purification, and analysis.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Terpene Biosynthesis

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Two-Phase Solvent Systems (e.g., Hexane/Ethyl Acetate/Methanol/Water)	Core medium for Counter-Current Chromatography (CCC) purification [59]	Partition coefficient (K) of target terpene must be optimized; solvent purity is critical for recovery.
Isoprenoid Precursors (IPP, DMAPP, GPP, FPP)	Analytical standards for quantifying metabolic flux through the MVA/MEP pathways [59] [57]	Used in enzyme assays to test terpene synthase activity and specificity.
In-Situ Product Removal (ISPR) Agents (e.g., Diisononyl Phthalate, Isopropyl Myristate, Adsorption Resins)	Added to fermenters to absorb terpenes, reducing toxicity and inhibition [57]	Must be non-toxic to the production host and have high affinity for the target terpene.
Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Enzymes & Redox Partners	Catalyze regio- and stereo-specific oxidation of terpene scaffolds, creating diversity [21] [57]	Functional expression in prokaryotes is challenging; often require specific host redox partners (e.g., CPR).
CRISPR-Cas9 Base Editors (e.g., Cytidine/adenine base editors)	Precision genome editing without double-strand breaks; essential for multiplexed metabolic engineering in yeast [10]	Used to install point mutations in promoters or coding sequences to fine-tune enzyme expression or activity.

Cost Reduction Strategy Map

The challenges of purification, scale-up, and cost are not merely sequential obstacles but are deeply interconnected. The choice of biosynthetic strategy—whether to pursue maximal structural diversity through non-natural enzymatic pathways or to optimize for high titer of a single compound—has profound implications for downstream processing [21] [26]. Advances in metabolic engineering that increase yield directly alleviate the cost and difficulty of purification. Similarly, innovative purification techniques like CCC can improve recovery and make lower-titer processes economically feasible. Future progress will depend on an integrated approach that considers these factors from the initial stages of pathway design. By viewing the challenges of purification, scale-up, and cost as a unified optimization problem, researchers can more effectively bridge the gap between laboratory innovation and the industrial-scale, economically sustainable production of valuable terpenoids.

Evaluating Efficiency and Applicability Across Biological Systems

Comparative Analysis of Terpene Production in Plants, Bacteria, and Fungi

Terpenoids represent the most extensive class of natural products, with over 80,000 identified structures, playing crucial roles across biological systems and holding significant industrial value in pharmaceuticals, fragrances, and biofuels [26] [63]. These compounds, built from isoprene (C5H8) units, are classified based on carbon atom count into hemiterpenoids (C5), monoterpenoids (C10), sesquiterpenoids (C15), diterpenoids (C20), and higher polymers [10]. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive technical analysis of the divergent biosynthetic strategies employed by plants, bacteria, and fungi for terpene production, contextualized within advanced research methodologies and metabolic engineering paradigms. The distinct evolutionary paths and ecological niches of these organisms have resulted in specialized biosynthetic machinery, regulatory mechanisms, and chemical diversity, offering complementary platforms for scientific exploration and biotechnological application.

Biosynthetic Pathways: A Foundational Comparison

All terpenoids originate from two universal C5 precursors, isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP). However, nature utilizes two distinct metabolic routes to synthesize these building blocks: the mevalonate (MVA) pathway and the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway [26] [9].

• The MVA Pathway: Predominantly found in the cytosol of eukaryotes—including plants, fungi, animals, and some archaea—this pathway starts with acetyl-CoA. Key enzymatic steps include condensation to acetoacetyl-CoA and HMG-CoA, followed by a rate-limiting reduction to mevalonate by HMG-CoA reductase (HMGR). Subsequent phosphorylation and decarboxylation yield IPP, which isomerizes to DMAPP [26] [9].
• The MEP Pathway: Primarily operational in prokaryotes and plant plastids, this pathway begins with pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (G3P). The first committed step, catalyzed by 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS), is often a bottleneck. The pathway proceeds through seven enzymatic steps to produce IPP and DMAPP [26] [9].

The choice of pathway has profound implications for metabolic engineering. The MVA pathway is often characterized by tight regulation at the HMGR step, while the MEP pathway is considered more carbon- and energy-efficient but can be limited by DXS activity [26].

The following diagram illustrates the core pathways and their compartmentalization across biological systems.

Diagram 1: Compartmentalization of Terpene Biosynthetic Pathways in Plants, Bacteria, and Fungi.

Terpene Production Across Kingdoms

Plants

Plants are prolific producers of terpenoids, utilizing both the MVA (cytosol) and MEP (plastids) pathways to generate a vast array of compounds functioning as pigments, hormones, antioxidants, and mediators of ecological interactions [26] [64]. Their biosynthetic capacity is highly specialized and compartmentalized.

• Ecological Roles: Terpenes in plants serve as defensive compounds against herbivores and pathogens, attractants for pollinators, and allelopathic agents. A common garden experiment with Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) demonstrated that terpene emission profiles (including camphene and ent-kaurene) are associated with specific phyllosphere microbial communities, suggesting a co-evolutionary relationship between constitutive terpene emission and microbial ecology [64].
• Research and Engineering Focus: Plant metabolic engineering often focuses on transferring entire biosynthetic pathways into microbial hosts to overcome challenges associated with low yield, seasonal variation, and complex purification from native plant sources [26] [9]. Strategies include the heterologous expression of terpene synthases and cytochrome P450s in engineered yeast strains, enabling the production of high-value compounds like artemisinin and paclitaxel precursors [26] [10].

Bacteria

Historically underestimated, bacterial terpenoid biosynthesis is now recognized as a rich source of chemical diversity. Most bacteria, including model organisms like Escherichia coli, natively possess the MEP pathway [9] [63]. Genome mining reveals a widespread distribution of terpene synthase (TS) genes across at least 13 bacterial phyla, with Actinomycetota, Bacteroidota, Pseudomonadota, Myxococcota, and Cyanobacteriota being particularly prominent [65] [63].

• Expanding the Diterpene Space: A systematic screening of 334 bacterial TSs revealed that 37% were active as diterpene synthases, a significantly higher proportion than previously assumed. This study led to the discovery of three previously unreported diterpene skeletons from bacteria, demonstrating the vast untapped potential of bacterial terpene biosynthesis [65]:
  • Tetraisoquinene (1): A 5/5/5/5-fused tetracyclic skeleton from the myxobacterium Melittangium boletus.
  • Salbirenol (2): A 7/5/6-tricyclic diterpene alcohol from Streptomyces albireticuli.
  • Chitino-2,5(6),9(10)-triene (3): A 5/11-bicyclic diterpene from Chitinophaga japonensis.
• Research and Engineering Focus: Bacterial hosts like E. coli are prized for their rapid growth, clear genetic background, and ease of manipulation. Engineering strategies typically involve enhancing the endogenous MEP pathway or introducing the heterologous MVA pathway to boost precursor supply (IPP/DMAPP), coupled with the expression of heterologous terpene synthases [26] [10]. Bacillus species and other aerobic endospore-forming bacteria (AEFB) are also emerging as promising sources of novel terpene synthases and potential production hosts [63].

Fungi

Fungi are well-known producers of terpenoids, primarily utilizing the MVA pathway. They synthesize a range of bioactive compounds, including antibiotics, phytohormones like gibberellins, and toxins.

• Ecological and Functional Diversity: Terpenoids in fungi play vital roles in defense, competition, and communication. Comparative genomics of Suillus species revealed a high diversity of terpene biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs), with terpene abundance increasing in co-culture conditions, suggesting their role in fungal interactions [63]. Some fungi, such as the wood-rotting Polyporus brumalis, can produce sesquiterpenes using both the MVA and MEP pathways, indicating potential cross-talk or redundancy [63].
• Research and Engineering Focus: The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a premier eukaryotic chassis for terpenoid production. Its native MVA pathway provides a robust foundation for engineering. A key advantage of yeast is its ability to properly fold and localize plant-derived cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are essential for the functionalization of simple terpene skeletons into complex molecules [9] [10]. Engineering strategies often involve downregulating competing pathways (e.g., ERG9 for sterol biosynthesis) and overexpressing bottleneck enzymes in the MVA pathway [26] [10].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Terpene Production in Plants, Bacteria, and Fungi

Feature	Plants	Bacteria	Fungi
Primary Pathway	Both MVA (cytosol) and MEP (plastid) [9]	Predominantly MEP; Some Actinobacteria use MVA [9] [63]	MVA Pathway [9]
Representative Organisms	Cryptomeria japonica, Arabidopsis thaliana	Escherichia coli, Streptomyces spp., Bacillus spp. [65] [63]	Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Suillus spp., Polyporus brumalis [63]
Key Enzyme Classes	Terpene Synthases (TPSs), Cytochrome P450s	Terpene Synthases (TSs), Prenyltransferases [65]	Terpene Synthases, Prenyltransferases
Ecological Role	Defense, pollination, microbial association [64]	Largely unknown; proposed roles in defense and communication [65] [63]	Defense, competition, communication [63]
Chemical Diversity	Extremely High (>80,000 structures) [26]	Vastly underexplored; new skeletons being discovered [65]	High
Model Chassis	Nicotiana benthamiana, plant cell cultures [9]	Escherichia coli [26] [10]	Saccharomyces cerevisiae [9] [10]
Engineering Bottleneck	Compartmentalization, complex regulation	Precursor supply (DXS limitation), toxic intermediate accumulation [26]	Precursor flux (HMGR regulation), competing sterol pathway [26]

Advanced Research Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Genome Mining and Heterologous Expression of Bacterial Terpene Synthases

The discovery of novel bacterial terpenes relies heavily on genome mining and functional screening, as sequence alone is insufficient to predict enzyme function [65].

Detailed Experimental Protocol:

• Genome Mining and Selection: Identify putative terpene synthase (TS) genes from genomic databases using hidden Markov models (HMMs) targeting conserved metal-binding motifs (e.g., DDxxD, NSE/DTE) [65]. Select a phylogenetically diverse set of TSs for characterization. A recent study selected 334 TSs from 8 phyla, 17 classes, and 83 genera of bacteria [65].
• Gene Synthesis and Cloning: Synthesize codon-optimized genes for the selected TSs and clone them into an appropriate expression vector (e.g., a pET-based plasmid for E. coli) [65].
• Heterologous Expression in Engineered E. coli:
  • Use an engineered E. coli strain (e.g., BL21(DE3)) that overproduces the relevant precursor, such as geranylgeranyl diphosphate (GGPP) for diterpene screening [65].
  • Grow cultures in lysogeny broth (LB) with appropriate antibiotics to an OD~600~ of ~0.6.
  • Induce TS expression with Isopropyl β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG).
  • Incubate for a further 24-48 hours at a reduced temperature (e.g., 18-25°C) to facilitate proper protein folding and enzymatic activity.
• Product Detection and Analysis:
  • Initial Screening: Extract terpene products from the culture medium using an organic solvent like ethyl acetate or hexane. Analyze the extracts using Thin-Layer Chromatography (TLC) or High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) to identify producing strains [65].
  • Large-Scale Fermentation and Isolation: Scale up cultures of positive hits for product isolation. Purify compounds using techniques such as silica gel chromatography and preparative HPLC.
• Structural Elucidation:
  • Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Determine molecular mass and fragmentation patterns [65].
  • Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR): Perform 1D (¹H, ¹³C) and 2D (COSY, HSQC, HMBC, NOESY) NMR experiments to determine the planar structure and relative configuration of the terpene [65].
  • Vibrational Circular Dichroism (VCD): Use this powerful technique to determine the absolute configuration of the terpene in solution without the need for crystallization or chemical derivatization [65].

The workflow for this discovery process is summarized in the following diagram.

Diagram 2: Workflow for Genome Mining and Characterization of Bacterial Terpene Synthases.

Quantitative Analysis of Terpene Profiles

Accurate quantification of terpene content is essential for chemotyping and metabolic engineering validation. Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detection (GC-FID) is a robust and widely used method.

Detailed Experimental Protocol (GC-FID for Cannabis Terpenes) [66]:

• Sample Preparation:
  • Dry plant material (e.g., cannabis flowering tops) at 50°C for 24 hours and grind into a fine powder.
  • Weigh 1.0 g of powdered sample into a 15-mL centrifuge tube.
• Extraction:
  • Add 10 mL of extraction solvent (ethyl acetate containing an Internal Standard (IS), e.g., n-tridecane at 100 μg/mL).
  • Vortex mix, then sonicate for 15 minutes.
  • Centrifuge at 3000 rpm for 5 minutes.
  • Transfer the clear supernatant for analysis without filtration.
• GC-FID Instrumentation and Conditions:
  • System: Agilent 7890B GC with FID.
  • Column: DB5-MS (30 m × 0.25 mm ID, 0.25 μm film thickness).
  • Carrier Gas: Helium at 1.2 mL/min.
  • Inlet: Split mode (15:1 ratio) at 250°C.
  • Oven Program:
    • Initial: 70°C held for 2 min.
    • Ramp 1: 3°C/min to 85°C.
    • Ramp 2: 2°C/min to 165°C, hold 1 min.
    • Ramp 3: 30°C/min to 250°C, hold 20 min.
  • FID Temperature: 300°C.
  • Injection Volume: 2 μL.
• Quantification:
  • Prepare a six-point calibration curve (1-100 μg/mL) for each target terpene with the IS.
  • Identify terpenes by comparing retention times with authentic standards.
  • Calculate concentrations using the peak area ratio (terpene/IS) and the regression equation from the calibration curve.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Materials for Terpene Biosynthesis Research

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example & Notes
Codon-Optimized Genes	Heterologous expression of terpene synthases in microbial hosts.	Maximizes protein expression levels in non-native hosts like E. coli and yeast [65].
Engineered Microbial Chassis	Host platform for pathway engineering and production.	E. coli: Optimized with MVA or enhanced MEP pathway [26].S. cerevisiae: Engineered for enhanced precursor flux (e.g., downregulated ERG9) [26] [10].
Geranylgeranyl Diphosphate (GGPP)	Direct precursor for diterpene synthesis.	Supplied in vivo by engineered E. coli strains for high-throughput screening of diterpene synthases [65].
Isopropyl β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG)	Chemical inducer for protein expression in E. coli.	Used to induce T7 RNA polymerase-driven expression of terpene synthase genes [65].
Authentic Terpene Standards	Calibration and identification in analytical chemistry.	Critical for GC-FID and GC-MS quantification (e.g., α-pinene, β-myrcene, limonene, linalool) [66].
Internal Standard (for GC)	Normalization of analytical data and correction for variability.	n-Tridecane: A hydrocarbon not naturally found in plant samples, eluting between mono- and sesquiterpenes [66].
Ethyl Acetate	Organic solvent for terpene extraction from biological material.	Demonstrated as an optimal solvent for extracting a wide range of terpenes from Cannabis sativa [66].
Engineered Cytochrome P450 Enzymes	Catalyzing non-natural oxidative functionalization of terpene scaffolds.	Used for "scaffold hopping" to generate diverse terpenoid structures from a common intermediate [26] [67].

Emerging Frontiers and Concluding Perspectives

The field of terpene research is rapidly advancing beyond the reconstitution of natural pathways. Key frontiers include:

• Expanding the Chemical Space: The integration of synthetic biology and synthetic chemistry is pushing the boundaries of terpene diversity. This involves incorporating non-biological catalytic functions, such as artificial metalloenzymes (e.g., engineered cytochrome P450 variants for cyclopropanation), into engineered biosynthetic pathways to create "non-natural" terpenoids with novel properties [26].
• Enzyme-Enabled Scaffold Hopping: Innovative strategies are moving beyond single-target synthesis. For example, researchers have used engineered cytochrome P450 enzymes to selectively oxidate a single, commercially available terpene (sclareolide), creating a versatile intermediate that can be chemically reorganized into multiple distinct terpenoid natural products with different carbon skeletons, such as merosterolic acid B and cochlioquinone B [67]. This "scaffold hopping" paradigm challenges traditional retrosynthetic analysis and dramatically improves synthetic efficiency.
• Computational and AI-Driven Design: The use of machine learning for enzyme engineering, pathway optimization, and predictive modeling is becoming increasingly prevalent. These tools help in the rational design of high-performance cell factories and the prediction of enzyme function from sequence data [9] [68].

In conclusion, the comparative analysis of terpene production across plants, bacteria, and fungi reveals a remarkable picture of evolutionary divergence and functional specialization. Plants offer immense chemical diversity and ecological context, bacteria provide a largely untapped reservoir of novel enzymes and skeletons accessible via genome mining, and fungi (particularly yeast) serve as highly engineerable eukaryotic chassis. The future of terpenoid research lies in the synergistic integration of these systems, leveraging genomic insights, advanced metabolic engineering, and innovative synthetic chemistry to fully explore and exploit the terpenoid universe for scientific discovery and industrial application.

Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment of Biosynthetic Routes

Within the broader context of divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research, the evaluation of process viability extends beyond biological performance to encompass rigorous techno-economic assessment (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA). These analytical frameworks provide critical insights for guiding research priorities and investment decisions in the development of sustainable terpene production platforms. TEA quantifies the economic feasibility of biosynthetic processes by analyzing production costs, capital investment, and key financial metrics, while LCA evaluates environmental impacts across the entire value chain—from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal. The integration of these methodologies enables researchers to identify critical bottlenecks, optimize resource utilization, and develop strategies that balance economic viability with environmental responsibility in terpene production [69] [70].

The terpenoid market, valued at approximately $1.5 billion in 2025 and projected to reach $3.2 billion by 2032, reflects increasing demand across pharmaceutical, fragrance, flavor, and biofuel sectors [71]. This growth is driven by consumer preference for sustainable, bio-based alternatives to petroleum-derived compounds. Microbial production using engineered E. coli, S. cerevisiae, and Yarrowia lipolytica offers advantages over traditional plant extraction and chemical synthesis, including higher selectivity, renewable feedstocks, and reduced environmental impact [26] [60]. However, significant challenges remain in achieving cost-competitive and environmentally sustainable processes, particularly in optimizing yield, managing terpene toxicity, and scaling up production efficiently [69] [60].

Techno-Economic Assessment of Terpene Biosynthesis

Techno-economic assessment provides a systematic framework for evaluating the economic viability of terpene biosynthetic routes by identifying major cost drivers and establishing performance targets for metabolic engineering.

Key Economic Drivers and Cost Analysis

Comprehensive TEA studies reveal that microbial terpene production costs are predominantly influenced by three critical parameters: feed glucose concentration, product yield, and aeration rate (VVM - Volume of air per Volume of broth per Minute) [69]. Analysis of limonene production demonstrates the profound impact of these parameters on economic feasibility. Based on current experimental data (0.45% maximum theoretical yield, 14 wt% glucose concentration, 0.1 min⁻¹ VVM), limonene production cost is approximately $465/kg—significantly higher than its market price of ~$7/kg [69].

Table 1: Techno-Economic Analysis of Limonene Production via Microbial Biosynthesis

Parameter	Baseline Case	Improved Case	Impact on Production Cost
Production Cost	$465/kg	Target: <$7/kg	Must decrease ~65-fold to reach economic viability
Glucose Concentration	14 wt%	Increased concentration	Higher concentrations reduce downstream processing costs
Product Yield	0.45% of theoretical max	~30% of theoretical max	Required for economic viability at 14 wt% glucose, 0.1 min⁻¹ VVM
Aeration Rate (VVM)	0.1 min⁻¹	Optimized rate	Lower aeration reduces energy consumption and operating costs
Key Cost Drivers	Low yield, high aeration	Improved yield, optimized aeration	Yield improvement has greatest impact on economics

Among 12 terpenes analyzed, limonene represents the most promising short-term target due to its substantial market size (~$160 million/year in the US) and achievable break-even yield requirements [69]. The findings indicate that research should prioritize achieving higher product yields through metabolic engineering, as this parameter exerts the most significant influence on production economics.

Comparative Analysis of Terpene Products

Different terpenes exhibit varying economic potentials based on their market value, production requirements, and applications. Monoterpenes like limonene and pinene typically demonstrate better economic prospects than higher terpenes in the immediate term due to their established markets and relatively simpler biosynthesis.

Table 2: Comparative Techno-Economic Potential of Selected Terpenes

Terpene	Carbon Atoms	Market Price Range ($/kg)	Key Applications	Economic Potential
Limonene	C10	3-11 [69]	Solvents, flavor, fragrance	High - large market size, achievable yield targets
α-Pinene	C10	Varies	Fine chemicals, resins	Moderate - established market, technical challenges
Sclareol	C20	Premium	Fragrance, pharmaceuticals	High - achieved 12.9 g/L titer in Y. lipolytica [26]
β-Farnesene	C15	Varies	Biofuels, materials	High - achieved 35.2 g/L titer in Y. lipolytica [26]
Bisabolene	C15	Varies	Biofuels, cosmetics	Moderate - 18.6 g/L titer in S. cerevisiae [26]
Artemisinic Acid	C15	Premium	Pharmaceutical (antimalarial)	High - achieved 25 g/L titer in S. cerevisiae [26]

Recent advances in metabolic engineering have demonstrated progressively improved titers across various terpene products. For instance, β-farnesene production in Yarrowia lipolytica reached 35.2 g/L through acetyl-CoA boosting and large-scale optimization [26]. Similarly, sclareol production achieved 12.9 g/L in Y. lipolytica via enzyme engineering and enhanced GGPPS supply [26]. These improvements highlight the potential for economic viability through continued strain engineering and process optimization.

Life Cycle Assessment of Terpene Biosynthesis

Life cycle assessment provides a comprehensive methodology for quantifying environmental impacts across the entire value chain of terpene production, from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal.

Environmental Hotspots in Terpene Production

LCA studies consistently identify cultivation in photobioreactors as the predominant environmental hotspot in terpene biosynthesis, contributing 60-80% of total impacts across multiple categories [72]. Within this stage, electricity supply emerges as the key activity, responsible for 50-60% of the process's environmental burden and accounting for 86% of total electricity consumption [72]. For nopol synthesis from β-pinene, the raw materials extraction phase contributes more significantly to environmental impacts than the production process itself, with exceptions in freshwater ecotoxicity (FETP) and marine ecotoxicity (MEP) categories where waste disposal dominates [70].

The carbon footprint of terpene production varies considerably based on the specific compound and production system. Nopol synthesis exhibits a carbon footprint of 13.0-37.4 kg COâ‚‚-equivalent per kg of product, depending on the process configuration [70]. Implementing improved systems with optimized catalyst synthesis and reduced solvent consumption can reduce global warming potential by approximately 65% compared to baseline processes [70].

Comparative LCA of Production Systems

Comparative LCA studies provide valuable insights for selecting environmentally preferable production routes. Research on essential terpene oils produced by the macroalga Ochtodes secundiramea demonstrated that implementing semi-continuous operations can reduce environmental impacts by 1-25% across different categories [72]. Further optimization through scenario analysis identified potential improvements of 8-40% compared to baseline conditions [72].

Table 3: Life Cycle Assessment Findings for Terpene Production Systems

Production System	Key Environmental Findings	Improvement Strategies	Impact Reduction Potential
Macroalgal Terpene Oils (Ochtodes secundiramea)	Cultivation contributes 60-80% of impacts; Electricity accounts for 50-60% of burden	Semi-continuous operation; Renewable energy integration	1-25% through operational improvements; 8-40% through comprehensive optimization
Nopol Synthesis (from β-pinene)	Carbon footprint: 13.0-37.4 kg CO₂-eq/kg; Raw materials phase dominates impacts	Optimized catalyst synthesis; Solvent reduction and recycling	~65% reduction in global warming potential with improved system
Citrus Waste Extraction	Lower impacts compared to synthetic routes	Utilization of agricultural by-products	Reduced burden from waste avoidance and renewable feedstock

The functional unit of 1 kg of terpene product provides a standardized basis for comparing environmental impacts across different production systems. This normalization enables researchers to identify best practices and prioritize research directions that maximize environmental benefits while maintaining economic viability.

Experimental Protocols for Assessment Methodologies

Standardized experimental protocols are essential for generating comparable and reliable data for both TEA and LCA studies. This section details key methodologies cited in terpene biosynthesis research.

Techno-Economic Assessment Protocol

Goal and Scope Definition

• Define system boundaries: cradle-to-gate (raw materials to factory gate) or cradle-to-grave (including use and disposal phases)
• Establish functional unit: typically 1 kg of terpene product at specified purity (e.g., ≥95% for technical grade limonene)
• Identify key stakeholders and decision context [69]

Inventory Analysis

• Collect mass and energy balance data for all process units
• For microbial production: quantify glucose consumption, oxygen demand, nutrient requirements, and product yield
• Document equipment specifications and operating conditions (e.g., 30°C, 1 atm for fermentation) [69]
• For limonene case study: assume 40 T/h glucose feed capacity based on NREL bio-refinery benchmark [69]

Cost Estimation Methodology

• Capital Cost Estimation: Use factored estimation methods based on major equipment costs
• Operating Cost Estimation: Include raw materials, utilities, labor, maintenance, and overhead
• Calculate production cost ($/kg) considering capital depreciation, return on investment, and operating expenses [69]

Sensitivity Analysis

• Identify key parameters: glucose concentration, product yield, aeration rate
• Evaluate economic impact of parameter variations using tornado diagrams
• Establish performance targets for metabolic engineering [69]

Life Cycle Assessment Protocol

Goal and Scope Definition

• Define assessment objectives: identify environmental hotspots, compare production alternatives, support eco-design
• Establish system boundaries using process flow diagrams for all subsystems [70]
• Select impact categories: global warming potential, eutrophication, acidification, ecotoxicity, etc.

Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

• Collect input-output data for all unit processes within system boundaries
• For nopol synthesis: include surfactant synthesis, catalyst preparation, and Prins condensation reaction subsystems [70]
• Use commercial databases (e.g., Ecoinvent) for background processes
• Allocate burdens for multi-product systems using mass, energy, or economic allocation

Impact Assessment Methodology

• Select impact assessment method (e.g., ReCiPe, TRACI)
• Classify inventory data into impact categories
• Characterize using category-specific factors (e.g., kg COâ‚‚-equivalent for global warming) [70]
• Normalize and weight results (optional)

Interpretation and Sensitivity Analysis

• Identify significant issues based on inventory and impact assessment results
• Evaluate completeness, sensitivity, and consistency of data
• Conduct uncertainty analysis for key parameters
• Generate conclusions and recommendations [70]

Pathway Engineering and Experimental Workflows

The integration of TEA and LCA in terpene biosynthesis requires understanding the fundamental biological pathways and engineering strategies that enable microbial production.

Terpene Biosynthetic Pathways

Terpene biosynthesis in engineered microbes primarily proceeds through two distinct pathways: the mevalonate (MVA) pathway and methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway, both yielding the universal five-carbon building blocks isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP) [4] [26].

Diagram 1: Terpene Biosynthetic Pathways in Engineered Microbes. The MVA pathway (cytosol) and MEP pathway (plastids/bacteria) convert central carbon metabolites to IPP and DMAPP. Prenyltransferases (GPPS, FPPS, GGPPS) create precursor intermediates for different terpene classes.

The MVA pathway, native to eukaryotes and archaea, converts three acetyl-CoA molecules to IPP through six enzymatic steps, consuming three ATP equivalents and two NADPH molecules per IPP [4]. A critical rate-limiting step involves the conversion of HMG-CoA to mevalonate catalyzed by HMG-CoA reductase (HMGR). The MEP pathway, found in most bacteria and plant plastids, utilizes pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (GAP) to produce IPP and DMAPP through seven enzymatic reactions, requiring three ATP and three NADPH molecules per IPP [4] [26]. From an engineering perspective, the MEP pathway offers higher theoretical carbon yield but presents challenges with low catalytic efficiency of the first enzyme, 1-deoxy-d-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS) [26].

Metabolic Engineering Workflow

The development of efficient microbial cell factories for terpene production follows a systematic engineering workflow encompassing pathway selection, enzyme engineering, and process optimization.

Diagram 2: Metabolic Engineering Workflow for Terpene Production. The iterative process involves host selection, pathway reconstruction, enzyme engineering, and process optimization, with integrated TEA and LCA guiding engineering decisions.

Host Selection and Pathway Reconstruction: Engineers typically choose between Escherichia coli (MEP pathway native) or Saccharomyces cerevisiae (MVA pathway native) as production hosts, each offering distinct advantages [26] [60]. E. coli provides rapid growth and facile genetics but lower natural terpene flux and tolerance, while S. cerevisiae offers higher tolerance and compartmentalization but more complex metabolism. Recent success with non-conventional yeasts like Yarrowia lipolytica demonstrates the potential of hosts with native high acetyl-CoA flux [60]. Pathway reconstruction often involves introducing heterologous pathways—for example, expressing the complete MVA pathway in E. coli to bypass its native MEP pathway limitations [26].

Enzyme Engineering and Precursor Balancing: Critical bottlenecks in terpene biosynthesis include the low catalytic efficiency of DXS in the MEP pathway and HMGR in the MVA pathway [26]. Engineering strategies address these limitations through:

• Truncated and deregulated HMGR variants to overcome native regulation [26]
• Protein engineering of DXS for improved catalytic efficiency [26]
• Downregulation of competing pathways (e.g., ERG9 in yeast to reduce sterol biosynthesis) [26]
• Fusion proteins linking prenyltransferases to terpene synthases to promote substrate channeling [26]

Terpene Synthase Screening and Optimization: The expression of heterologous terpene synthases represents a critical determinant of overall process efficiency. Adaptive screening strategies identify optimal enzymes from natural biodiversity—for example, evaluating α-farnesene synthases from 140 different sources revealed Malus domestica as the most efficient for expression in Pichia pastoris [60]. Copy number optimization significantly impacts yield, as demonstrated in limonene production where increasing neryl diphosphate synthase (NPPS) and limonene synthase (LS) copies proportionally enhanced production [60].

Research Reagent Solutions for Terpene Biosynthesis

The experimental implementation of terpene biosynthetic routes requires specific reagents, enzymes, and genetic tools. The following table details essential research reagents and their applications.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Terpene Biosynthesis Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Experimental Notes
Pathway Enzymes	DXS, DXR, IDI, HMGR, GPPS, FPPS, GGPPS	Catalyze specific steps in MVA/MEP pathways and precursor formation	Rate-limiting enzymes (DXS, HMGR) are prime engineering targets; Prenyltransferases control product class specificity [26]
Terpene Synthases	Limonene synthase, bisabolene synthase, α-farnesene synthase	Convert prenyl diphosphate precursors to specific terpene products	Screening from biodiversity essential; Malus domestica α-farnesene synthase showed highest performance in P. pastoris [60]
Host Strains	E. coli BL21(DE3), S. cerevisiae, Y. lipolytica, P. pastoris	Microbial chassis for pathway engineering	E. coli offers rapid growth; yeast provides higher tolerance and eukaryotic protein processing [60] [73]
Fermentation Components	Isopentenol, dimethylallyl alcohol, glucose, glycerol	Carbon sources and pathway precursors	Isopentenol and dimethylallyl alcohol enable alternative IPP/DMAPP synthesis via IPK bypass [73]
Analytical Standards	Limonene, pinene, bisabolene, farnesene	Quantification and identification of terpene products	Essential for accurate yield determination and metabolic flux analysis
Specialized Enzymes	Isopentenyl phosphate kinases (IPKs)	Phosphorylate isopentenol and dimethylallyl alcohol to IPP and DMAPP	IPK from Methanococcoides burtonii improved carotenoid yields ~18-fold in E. coli [73]
Engineering Tools	CRISPR/Cas9 systems, plasmid vectors, promoters	Genetic manipulation and pathway optimization	Enable precise genome editing and tunable gene expression

The application of these research reagents enables the implementation of advanced engineering strategies such as the non-mevalonate bypass pathway using isopentenyl phosphate kinases (IPKs). Screening 93 IPK variants from biodiversity identified the Methanococcoides burtonii IPK as the most effective, improving neurosporene production >45-fold in engineered E. coli [73]. This approach decouples terpene precursor synthesis from central metabolism, potentially reducing metabolic burden and enabling independent optimization of growth and production phases.

The integration of techno-economic and life cycle assessment methodologies provides critical guidance for prioritizing research directions in terpene biosynthesis. Current analyses indicate that microbial terpene production faces significant economic challenges, with production costs for compounds like limonene substantially exceeding market prices using existing technologies [69]. However, TEA identifies specific engineering targets—particularly product yield and glucose concentration—that would enable economic viability. Concurrently, LCA studies reveal that energy-intensive cultivation represents the primary environmental hotspot, suggesting that renewable energy integration and process intensification offer the greatest opportunities for environmental impact reduction [72] [70].

The divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research reflect different approaches to addressing these challenges. Native pathway optimization focuses on enhancing precursor supply through enzyme engineering and regulatory manipulation, while non-native pathway implementation explores alternative routes like the IPK-mediated bypass to overcome inherent thermodynamic and regulatory limitations [73]. Host selection represents another strategic divergence, with proponents of E. coli emphasizing its well-characterized genetics and rapid growth, while yeast advocates highlight superior tolerance and eukaryotic protein processing capabilities [60].

Future research should prioritize the development of integrated engineering frameworks that simultaneously address economic, environmental, and biological considerations. The merger of synthetic biology with synthetic chemistry—exemplified by artificial metalloenzymes for non-natural terpene functionalization—promises to expand the accessible chemical space beyond natural terpenoids [26]. As these technical capabilities advance, the continued application of TEA and LCA will be essential for guiding the field toward economically viable and environmentally sustainable terpene production systems that effectively address growing market demands while minimizing environmental impacts.

Terpenes represent one of the largest and most structurally diverse classes of natural products, exhibiting a remarkable range of biologically active properties with significant implications for pharmaceutical development, agricultural chemistry, and cosmetic applications. Within the context of divergent biosynthesis research, understanding the precise relationship between terpene chemical structures and their resulting biological activities has emerged as a critical frontier. Functional validation—the experimental process of linking specific molecular features to defined biological effects—provides the essential framework for translating terpene structural diversity into targeted bioactive compounds. This technical guide examines the core principles and methodologies driving this field forward, providing researchers with the analytical tools and experimental approaches necessary to navigate the complex landscape of terpene bioactivity.

The structural divergence of terpenes originates biosynthetically from relatively simple precursor molecules that undergo enzyme-mediated modifications, including cyclization, oxidation, and rearrangement, to generate vast molecular libraries. As cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (CYPs) have been identified as key drivers in structural diversification, creating oxidatively modified terpenoids with enhanced and often novel bioactivities [16]. This biosynthetic plasticity presents both a challenge and opportunity for researchers seeking to establish definitive structure-activity relationships (SAR) that can predict and validate terpene bioactivity across different biological systems.

Structural Determinants of Terpene Bioactivity

Fundamental Chemical Features Influencing Activity

Terpene bioactivity is governed by specific molecular properties that dictate interactions with biological targets. Several key structural elements serve as primary determinants of their physiological effects:

• Carbon Skeleton and Cyclization Patterns: The basic carbon framework (acyclic, monocyclic, bicyclic, or polycyclic) fundamentally influences molecular shape and target complementarity. For instance, monoterpenes (C10) like limonene and pinene exhibit different bioactivity profiles than sesquiterpenes (C15) such as caryophyllene or diterpenes (C20) like tripterifordin [60] [16]. Cyclization patterns further define three-dimensional structure, creating unique chiral environments that determine binding specificity.

• Functional Groups and Oxidation State: Oxygen-containing functional groups (hydroxyl, carbonyl, carboxyl) dramatically influence terpene bioactivity by altering hydrogen bonding capacity, solubility, and electronic distribution. Systematic studies have demonstrated that oxygenated derivatives frequently exhibit enhanced bioactivity compared to their hydrocarbon precursors. For example, trans-verbenol (an oxygenated derivative of α-pinene) showed significantly greater cytotoxicity against human colon tumor cells (IC~50~ = 77.8 μg/mL) than its precursor (-)-α-pinene (IC~50~ = 206.3 μg/mL) [74]. Similarly, perillyl alcohol derived from limonene demonstrated improved activity over its parent compound [74].

• Stereochemistry and Chirality: The spatial orientation of atoms and functional groups creates enantiomeric forms that can exhibit dramatically different biological activities. Research has revealed noticeable enantiomeric differences in bioactivity, as demonstrated by (S)-(+)-carvone being 59.4% more toxic to tumor cells than its (R)-(-)-enantiomer counterpart [74]. This stereospecificity underscores the importance of chiral resolution in terpene bioactivity studies.

• Volatility and Molecular Size: Volatility decreases with increasing molecular weight (monoterpenes > sesquiterpenes > diterpenes), influencing bioavailability and delivery methods. Lower molecular weight terpenes typically demonstrate enhanced membrane permeability and more rapid systemic distribution when administered.

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Patterns

Establishing predictive relationships between terpene structures and specific bioactivities enables rational design of optimized compounds. Systematic evaluation of terpene analogs has revealed consistent QSAR patterns:

Table 1: Terpene Structural Features and Correlated Bioactivities

Structural Feature	Bioactivity Correlation	Exemplary Compounds	Experimental Evidence
Hydroxylation	Increased cytotoxicity against tumor cells	trans-Verbenol, Perillyl alcohol	IC~50~ values 59-62% lower than precursor hydrocarbons [74]
Enantiomeric Form	Differential cellular toxicity	(S)-(+)-carvone vs (R)-(-)-carvone	59.4% greater toxicity to tumor cells for (S)-(+)-enantiomer [74]
Carbon Skeleton Size	Target specificity and application scope	Caryophyllene (C15) vs Limonene (C10)	Caryophyllene binds CB2 receptors; Limonene shows anticancer effects [74] [75]
Ketone vs Alcohol	Variable inflammatory modulation	Verbenone (ketone) vs Trans-verbenol (alcohol)	Verbenone increased IL-6 production (60.2%); alcohol derivatives decreased IL-6 [74]

The emerging pattern from SAR studies indicates that bioactivity against tumor cells typically decreases in the following order: alcohols > ketones > hydrocarbons [74]. This hierarchy underscores the critical importance of oxygen functionalization in enhancing terpene bioactivity, particularly for anticancer applications.

Experimental Methodologies for Functional Validation

In Vitro Bioactivity Assessment

Robust functional validation requires implementation of standardized assays that quantitatively measure terpene effects on cellular and molecular targets:

• Cytotoxicity and Antiproliferative Assays:

  • MTT Assay: Measures cellular metabolic activity as an indicator of cell viability and proliferation. Used to determine IC~50~ values for terpenes against tumor cell lines [74] [76].
  • Neutral Red (NR) Assay: Quantifies viable cells through uptake of the supravital dye neutral red, providing complementary cytotoxicity data [74].
  • Application Protocol: Cells are incubated with terpenes across a concentration range (typically 5-500 μg/mL) for 24 hours before assay reagents are added. Dose-response curves are generated to calculate precise IC~50~ values [74].

• Anti-inflammatory Activity Assessment:

  • Cytokine Production Analysis: ELISA kits measure interleukin levels (e.g., IL-6) in cell culture supernatants with/without LPS pre-activation [74].
  • Inflammatory Signaling Pathway Evaluation: Western blotting analyzes protein expression in key pathways (PKC, p38, ERK, STAT3, Akt) [76].
  • Experimental Design: Immune cells or tissue models are treated with terpenes following inflammatory stimulation, then cytokine secretion and pathway activation are quantified.

• Antioxidant Capacity Evaluation:

  • DPPH Assay: Measures free radical scavenging activity using the stable radical 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl [74].
  • Limitation Note: Some terpenes show no significant antioxidative activity at concentrations below 500 μg/mL, indicating specificity in mechanisms of action [74].

• Enzyme Inhibition Studies:

  • Tyrosinase Inhibition Assay: Evaluates potential depigmenting effects using L-DOPA as substrate, relevant for cosmetic applications [76].
  • Assay Configuration: Reaction mixtures contain buffer, enzyme, terpene extract, and substrate, with absorbance measurements at 490 nm to quantify inhibition.

Biosynthesis and Compound Characterization Methods

• Biotransformation Systems:

  • Microbial Transformation: Employ specialized fungal strains (e.g., Mortierella minutissima, Chrysosporium pannorum) to convert terpene precursors into oxygenated derivatives [74].
  • Culture Conditions: Grown in liquid medium (malt extract 1%, peptone 0.5%, glucose 1%, yeast extract 0.5%) at 20°C with sequential substrate addition [74].
  • Product Isolation: Biomass removal followed by liquid extraction with diethyl ether, concentration via rotary evaporation, and purification through column chromatography [74].

• Analytical Characterization:

  • GC-MS Analysis: Identification and quantification of terpene compounds using non-chiral ZB-5 ms or chiral 20% permethylated β-cyclodextrin capillary columns [74].
  • Compound Identification: Comparison of retention indexes with standards and mass spectral matching to reference libraries (NIST, MassFinder) [74].

Divergent Biosynthesis Strategies for Bioactive Terpenes

Engineering Terpene Biosynthetic Pathways

Advances in metabolic engineering and synthetic biology have enabled the development of sophisticated platforms for producing bioactive terpenes through divergent biosynthesis strategies:

• Microbial Production Platforms:

  • Yeast Engineering: Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Yarrowia lipolytica, and Pichia pastoris are engineered with heterologous terpene synthases and optimized MVA pathways to produce specific terpenes [60].
  • Precursor Optimization: Enhancement of precursor availability (GPP, FPP, GGPP) through overexpression of rate-limiting enzymes (DXS, GGPPS) [16] [77].
  • Synthase Screening: Adaptive screening of terpene synthases from diverse biological origins to identify enzymes with high catalytic efficiency and product specificity [60].

• Plant Metabolic Engineering:

  • Transcriptome Mining: RNA sequencing of medicinal plants (e.g., Aconitum spp.) followed by de novo assembly to identify novel terpene synthases and modifying enzymes [16].
  • Combinatorial Biosynthesis: Reconstruction of terpene biosynthetic pathways in heterologous hosts to produce novel compounds and derivatives [16].

Enzyme Discovery and Engineering

The identification and optimization of terpene biosynthetic enzymes represents a core strategy for generating structural diversity:

• Terpene Synthase (TPS) Characterization:

  • Phylogenetic Analysis: Classification of TPS candidates into subfamilies (TPS-b, c, e/f, g) to predict function [16] [77].
  • Functional Validation: Heterologous expression in systems like Nicotiana benthamiana with precursor boostering (CfDXS, AtGGPPS, CPS) [16].
  • Product Profiling: GC-MS analysis of terpene products to determine enzyme specificity and catalytic efficiency [77].

• Cytochrome P450 Engineering:

  • Multifunctional P450s: Discovery and utilization of P450s that catalyze oxidation at multiple sites of terpene scaffolds [16].
  • Protein Engineering: Site-directed mutagenesis to tune P450 activity and product profiles, enhancing regioselectivity and catalytic efficiency [16].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Terpene Functional Validation

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Specific Examples
Cell-Based Assay Kits	Cytotoxicity and viability assessment	MTT, Neutral Red, LDH assay kits [74]
ELISA Kits	Cytokine quantification	IL-6, IL-1β, TNF-α ELISA kits [74]
Chemical Standards	Analytical calibration and identification	(R)-(+)-limonene, (-)-α-pinene, (R)-(-)-carvone [74]
Enzyme Inhibition Assays	Target-specific activity screening	Tyrosinase inhibition assay with L-DOPA substrate [76]
Biotransformation Systems	Microbial conversion of terpene precursors	Mortierella minutissima, Chrysosporium pannorum [74]
Chromatography Columns	Terpene separation and analysis	ZB-5 ms, chiral β-cyclodextrin columns [74]
Protein Expression Systems	Enzyme production and characterization	pEAQ-HT vectors, Nicotiana benthamiana transient expression [16]

Functional validation of terpene bioactivity represents an interdisciplinary frontier connecting natural product chemistry, molecular biology, and drug discovery. The divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis research highlight the importance of integrating fundamental structural analysis with sophisticated biological screening to establish definitive structure-activity relationships. As research advances, several emerging areas promise to enhance our understanding of terpene bioactivity:

Future directions will focus on multifunctional P450 engineering to expand the structural diversity of bioactive terpenes [16], multi-omics integration to elucidate complete biosynthetic pathways and regulatory networks, and high-throughput screening platforms to rapidly assess terpene bioactivity across multiple therapeutic targets. Additionally, the development of computational prediction models based on comprehensive SAR data will enable more efficient prioritization of terpene candidates for further development.

The continued functional validation of terpene structures and their bioactive properties will undoubtedly yield novel therapeutic agents, agricultural products, and cosmetic ingredients, firmly establishing terpenes as one of nature's most valuable biochemical resources. Through the application of divergent biosynthesis strategies and rigorous functional validation protocols, researchers can systematically unlock the full potential of these remarkable natural compounds.

Terpenoids represent the largest class of natural products with significant applications in pharmaceuticals, flavors, and fragrances. Their biosynthesis follows divergent evolutionary strategies in bacteria versus plants, resulting in distinct genetic architectures, regulatory mechanisms, and production yields. This technical analysis examines the fundamental differences between bacterial and plant terpenoid pathways, focusing on genetic organization, enzymatic promiscuity, and yield optimization. We provide quantitative comparisons of production capabilities and detailed experimental frameworks for pathway characterization. Understanding these divergent strategies provides crucial insights for metabolic engineering and synthetic biology approaches aimed at overcoming the inherent limitations of each system for industrial-scale terpenoid production.

Terpenoids, also known as isoprenoids, constitute the largest and most structurally diverse class of natural products, with over 80,000 characterized structures [26] [2]. These compounds possess potent biological activities that have been harnessed for pharmaceutical applications, including anticancer agents like taxol and antimalarial compounds such as artemisinin [27]. While historically considered predominantly plant-derived metabolites, bacteria have recently been recognized as possessing significant genetic potential for terpenoid biosynthesis [27] [20].

The fundamental biosynthetic logic of terpene formation differs markedly from other classes of secondary metabolites. All terpenoids originate from two universal five-carbon precursors, isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP) [9]. However, evolutionary pressures have shaped distinct biosynthetic strategies in bacteria versus plants, resulting in divergent genetic organization, regulatory mechanisms, and metabolic fluxes. These differences have profound implications for yield optimization and pathway engineering.

This review systematically compares bacterial and plant terpenoid pathways within the context of divergent evolutionary strategies for natural product biosynthesis. We examine how genetic organization reflects functional optimization in each kingdom and analyze the implications for metabolic engineering approaches aimed at industrial-scale production of high-value terpenoids.

Fundamental Pathway Architectures

Precursor Biosynthesis: MEP vs MVA Pathways

A fundamental divergence between bacterial and plant terpenoid biosynthesis lies in the pathways responsible for producing the universal C5 precursors, IPP and DMAPP. Bacteria primarily utilize the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway, while plants employ both the MEP and mevalonate (MVA) pathways in compartmentalized cellular environments [26] [9].

Table 1: Comparison of IPP/DMAPP Biosynthetic Pathways

Feature	MEP Pathway (Bacterial)	MVA Pathway (Plant Cytosol)
Primary location	Bacteria, plant plastids	Eukaryotes, plant cytosol
Initial substrates	Pyruvate + G3P	Acetyl-CoA
Theoretical carbon yield	Higher	Lower
Energy requirements	Lower ATP consumption	Higher ATP consumption
Key rate-limiting enzymes	DXS, DXR	HMGR
Notable inhibitors	Fosmidomycin	Statins

The MEP pathway, operating in most bacterial species and plant plastids, begins with the condensation of pyruvate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (G3P) [26]. This pathway consists of seven enzymatic steps culminating in IPP and DMAPP production. From an engineering perspective, the MEP pathway offers higher theoretical carbon yield and lower ATP consumption compared to the MVA pathway [26]. However, the first committed step catalyzed by 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS) represents a significant bottleneck due to low catalytic efficiency [26].

In contrast, plants utilize both the MEP pathway in plastids and the MVA pathway in the cytosol [9]. The cytosolic MVA pathway starts with acetyl-CoA and proceeds through six enzymatic reactions, with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGR) serving as the key regulated and rate-limiting step [26] [9]. This compartmentalization allows plants to direct terpenoid biosynthesis toward different subcellular locations and end products, with the MVA pathway typically supplying precursors for sesquiterpenes (C15) and triterpenes (C30), while the MEP pathway provides precursors for monoterpenes (C10), diterpenes (C20), and tetraterpenes (C40) [14].

Genetic Organization: Clustered vs Dispersed Genes

Perhaps the most striking difference between bacterial and plant terpenoid pathways lies in their genetic organization. Bacterial terpene biosynthetic genes are typically organized in compact, coordinately regulated biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs), while plant terpenoid genes are generally dispersed throughout the genome [27] [63].

In bacteria, genes encoding terpene cyclases and modifying enzymes (e.g., cytochrome P450s, dehydrogenases, transferases) are physically linked in operon-like structures [27]. This clustered organization facilitates horizontal gene transfer and coordinated regulation, allowing for rapid adaptation and optimization of metabolic pathways. The antiSMASH database has identified more than 4,000 bacterial terpene BGCs, though only a small fraction have been functionally characterized [27]. This genomic architecture significantly simplifies both bioinformatic analysis and pathway engineering, as the entire biosynthetic machinery for complex terpenoids is often contained within a single genetic locus.

In plants, terpenoid biosynthetic genes are typically scattered throughout the genome without physical linkage [16]. For example, in sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum), genes encoding various terpene synthases are not clustered but are differentially expressed across cultivars, leading to distinct chemotypes [14]. This dispersed organization reflects more complex transcriptional regulation, with expression patterns influenced by developmental stage, tissue type, and environmental conditions. The Aconitum genus, which produces bioactive diterpenoid alkaloids, employs multiple terpene synthases and cytochrome P450s that are distributed across the genome but exhibit coordinated expression in specific tissues [16].

The diagram below illustrates these fundamental organizational differences:

Enzymatic Strategies and Chemical Diversity

Terpene Synthase Promiscuity and Modularity

Terpene synthases (TSs) catalyze the conversion of acyclic prenyl diphosphates to cyclic hydrocarbon skeletons with multiple stereocenters. Both bacterial and plant TSs exhibit remarkable promiscuity, but this functional flexibility manifests differently in each kingdom.

Bacterial terpene synthases often display significant product promiscuity, with a single enzyme capable of generating multiple hydrocarbon scaffolds from a single substrate [27]. According to the "screening hypothesis" or "diversity-based hypothesis," this biosynthetic promiscuity provides an evolutionary advantage by enabling bacteria to generate chemical diversity at low metabolic cost [27]. For instance, genome mining of 334 bacterial terpene synthases from 83 genera revealed that 125 (37%) were active as diterpene synthases, producing 28 diterpenes including three previously unreported skeletons [20]. This diversity includes compounds like tetraisoquinene from Melittangium boletus and salbirenol from Streptomyces albireticuli [20].

Plant terpene synthases often exhibit a different type of flexibility through the creation of enzyme families via gene duplication and diversification. In sweet basil, different cultivars produce distinct terpene profiles based on differential expression of eight distinct terpene synthase genes rather than promiscuity of individual enzymes [14]. For example, a cultivar producing mostly (R)-linalool showed high expression of (R)-linalool synthase (LIS), while a geraniol-rich cultivar showed high expression of geraniol synthase [14]. This demonstrates how plants achieve chemical diversity through regulatory control of specialized enzymes rather than enzyme-level promiscuity.

Oxidative Tailoring and Pathway Elaboration

Following the formation of hydrocarbon skeletons by terpene synthases, oxidative tailoring enzymes, particularly cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (CYPs), dramatically expand chemical diversity. Both kingdoms employ P450s for this purpose, but with different organizational patterns and functional ranges.

In bacteria, P450 genes are typically located within the terpenoid BGCs, ensuring coordinated expression with the corresponding terpene synthases [27]. Recent studies have revealed bacterial P450s with remarkable multifunctionality. For example, in Aconitum species, researchers discovered 14 divergent P450s, eight of which were multifunctional, catalyzing oxidation at seven different sites of ent-atiserene and ent-kaurene scaffolds [16]. This functional plasticity enables significant structural diversification from limited core skeletons.

Plant P450s involved in terpenoid biosynthesis often exhibit high substrate specificity and are frequently involved in species-specific pathways. The Aconitum study also highlighted how plants employ P450s from multiple clans (CYP71, CYP85, and CYP72) to create highly oxidized diterpenoid skeletons that serve as precursors to bioactive compounds like the analgesic 3-acetylaconitine [16]. These P450s are not genetically linked to the terpene synthase genes but are co-regulated through complex transcriptional networks.

Yield Potential and Metabolic Engineering

Natural Yield Capabilities

The inherent genetic architecture of bacterial and plant terpenoid pathways directly influences their natural production capabilities. Quantitative comparisons reveal significant differences in yield potential between these systems.

Table 2: Comparative Yields of Selected Terpenoids in Engineered Systems

Terpenoid	Host Organism	Pathway	Maximum Titer	Key Engineering Strategy
β-Farnesene	Y. lipolytica	MVA	35.2 g/L	Acetyl-CoA boosting; large-scale optimization [26]
Artemisinic acid	S. cerevisiae	MVA	25 g/L	Plant dehydrogenase introduction; additional cytochrome [26]
Bisabolene	S. cerevisiae	MVA	18.6 g/L	MVA pathway enhancement; temperature-sensitive regulation [26]
Amorpha-4,11-diene	E. coli	MEP	8.32 g/L	Semi-continuous biomanufacturing [26]
Sclareol	Y. lipolytica	MVA	12.9 g/L	Enzyme engineering; increasing GGPPS supply [26]
(S)-linalool	Pantoea ananatis	MVA	10.9 g/L	Increasing protein solubility; elevating precursor supply [26]

Plants generally produce complex terpenoids at relatively low yields, often as complex mixtures of structurally related compounds. For example, taxol (paclitaxel) is produced in Taxus brevifolia in miniscule quantities (approximately 0.01-0.05% dry weight), necessitating sophisticated extraction and purification processes [27]. Similarly, cannabis plants produce over 100 different cannabinoids and terpenes in varying ratios, complicating the isolation of individual compounds [27] [78].

Bacterial systems, when engineered, can achieve remarkably high terpenoid titers, as evidenced by the production of 35.2 g/L β-farnesene in Yarrowia lipolytica [26]. This demonstrates the exceptional capacity of optimized microbial systems to accumulate lipophilic terpenoids, a feat unmatched in plant systems.

Metabolic Engineering Strategies

The divergent genetic architectures of bacterial and plant terpenoid pathways necessitate distinct metabolic engineering approaches. Bacterial systems benefit from their clustered genetic organization, while plant engineering must address dispersed gene networks and complex regulation.

Bacterial Pathway Engineering:

• Precursor enhancement: Optimization of the MEP pathway by overexpression of rate-limiting enzymes (DXS, IDI) [26]
• Heterologous expression: Reconstruction of complete BGCs in amenable hosts like E. coli or S. cerevisiae [20]
• Protein engineering: Directed evolution of terpene synthases to improve catalytic efficiency or alter product specificity [27]
• Fermentation optimization: Development of semi-continuous biomanufacturing processes [26]

Plant Pathway Engineering:

• Transcription factor modulation: Manipulation of regulatory genes to enhance entire pathway expression [9]
• Subcellular targeting: Strategic localization of enzymes to optimize metabolic flux [9]
• Multi-gene transfer: Simultaneous introduction of multiple pathway genes from dispersed loci [9]
• Hairy root cultures: Development of differentiated tissue cultures for enhanced secondary metabolite production [9]

A promising frontier in both systems is the integration of non-biological catalytic functions. Artificial metalloenzymes, such as engineered cytochrome P450 variants that catalyze non-natural carbene transfer reactions (cyclopropanation), are being developed to expand terpenoid structural diversity beyond natural boundaries [26].

Experimental Protocols for Pathway Characterization

Genome Mining for Terpenoid BGCs

Objective: Identify putative terpenoid biosynthetic gene clusters in bacterial genomes or dispersed terpenoid genes in plant genomes.

Materials:

• High-quality genomic DNA or RNA-seq data
• Bioinformatics tools (antiSMASH, PlantiSMASH, BLAST)
• Heterologous expression system (E. coli, S. cerevisiae)

Methodology:

• Sequence acquisition: Obtain whole-genome sequencing data or transcriptome data from target organism [63] [16]
• In silico analysis: Use antiSMASH for bacterial BGC identification or custom HMM profiles for plant terpene synthase identification [63] [20]
• Phylogenetic analysis: Construct phylogenetic trees of identified terpene synthases to infer evolutionary relationships and potential functions [63]
• Gene cloning: Isolate and clone candidate genes into appropriate expression vectors
• Heterologous expression: Express candidate genes in suitable hosts (E. coli for bacterial genes, N. benthamiana for plant genes) [16] [20]
• Metabolite analysis: Extract and analyze terpenoid products using GC-MS or LC-MS [78] [20]

Validation: Confirm enzyme activity through in vitro assays with purified protein and authentic standards [20].

Metabolic Flux Analysis in Engineered Systems

Objective: Quantify carbon flux through terpenoid pathways in engineered bacterial or plant systems.

Materials:

• (^{13})C-labeled carbon sources (e.g., (^{13})C-glucose)
• Engineered microbial strains or plant cell cultures
• GC-MS or LC-MS with capability for isotopomer analysis

Methodology:

• Labeling experiment: Grow engineered systems in minimal medium with (^{13})C-labeled carbon source [26]
• Time-course sampling: Collect samples at multiple time points during growth phase
• Metabolite extraction: Use appropriate organic solvents for terpenoid extraction
• Mass spectrometry analysis: Analyze mass isotopomer distributions of terpenoid products and pathway intermediates [78]
• Flux calculation: Apply computational models to calculate metabolic flux rates
• Bottleneck identification: Identify rate-limiting steps based on flux measurements

Application: Use flux data to guide targeted engineering of bottleneck enzymes [26].

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive workflow for terpenoid pathway characterization and engineering:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Terpenoid Pathway Studies

Reagent/Category	Function	Application Examples
antiSMASH	BGC identification	Mining bacterial genomes for terpene BGCs [63]
pEAQ-HT vector	Plant heterologous expression	Transient expression in N. benthamiana [16]
Codom-optimized synthetic genes	Heterologous expression	Expression of bacterial TSs in E. coli [20]
GGPP-producing E. coli strain	Diterpene precursor supply	Screening di-TS activity [20]
GC-MS/LC-MS	Terpenoid separation and identification	Metabolic profiling, product identification [78] [20]
Vibrational Circular Dichroism (VCD)	Absolute configuration determination	Stereochemical analysis of novel terpenes [20]
(^{13})C-labeled substrates	Metabolic flux analysis	Quantifying pathway activity in engineered systems [26]

Bacterial and plant terpenoid pathways represent divergent evolutionary solutions to the challenge of generating chemical diversity. Bacteria employ compact, coordinated gene clusters that facilitate horizontal transfer and rapid adaptation, while plants utilize dispersed gene networks with complex regulation that enables tissue-specific and developmentally controlled metabolite production. These fundamental differences in genetic organization directly impact yield potential and engineering strategies.

Bacterial systems generally offer superior yields and engineering tractability for industrial production, while plant pathways provide access to more complex, highly oxidized terpenoid scaffolds with significant bioactivities. Future research directions include the development of hybrid approaches that leverage the advantages of both systems, the application of artificial metalloenzymes to expand chemical diversity beyond natural boundaries, and the implementation of multi-omics technologies to elucidate regulatory networks in plant systems. Understanding these divergent biosynthetic strategies provides the foundation for next-generation terpenoid engineering with enhanced yields and novel chemical structures.

Conclusion

The exploration of divergent strategies in terpene biosynthesis reveals a powerful convergence of natural evolution and synthetic biology. The foundational understanding of dual biosynthetic pathways and promiscuous enzymes provides a blueprint for innovation. Methodological advances now allow us to reprogram these strategies in engineered cell factories, moving beyond traditional extraction. While significant challenges in optimization and scaling persist, comparative analyses validate microbial production as a sustainable and scalable alternative. The future of biomedical and clinical research is inextricably linked to these efforts; the continued engineering of terpene biosynthetic pathways promises not only a new generation of anti-infective, anticancer, and anti-inflammatory drugs but also a paradigm shift towards a more sustainable, bio-based production economy. Future work must focus on elucidating unresolved regulatory mechanisms and developing next-generation engineering tools to fully unlock the potential of the terpenome.

References

• 1. The mevalonate pathway of isoprenoid biosynthesis supports ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12265665/]
• 2. Advances in Terpenoid Biosynthesis: Chemical Diversity ... [https://etflin.com/article/310]
• 3. BJOC - Bacterial terpene biosynthesis: challenges and ... [https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjoc/articles/15/283]
• 4. Advances in the Biosynthesis of Plant Terpenoids [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12114759/]
• 5. Methylerythritol Phosphate Pathway of Isoprenoid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5031371/]
• 6. Plant terpenoid biosynthetic network and its multiple layers ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163782724000201]
• 7. The methylerythritol phosphate pathway as an oxidative ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49483-8]
• 8. Metabolic Engineering of Terpenoid Biosynthesis in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/47/9/723]
• 9. Biotechnological production of terpenoids using cell factories [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1621406/full]
• 10. Recent advances and multiple strategies for the synthesis ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0734975025001326]
• 11. Terpene Synthases as Metabolic Gatekeepers in the ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01166/full]
• 12. Recent advances in enzyme promiscuity | Sustainable Chemical Processes | Full Text [https://sustainablechemicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40508-016-0046-9]
• 13. Enzyme Promiscuity: Engine of Evolutionary Innovation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4215207/]
• 14. The Biochemical and Molecular Basis for the Divergent ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC527170/]
• 15. The complete functional characterisation of the terpene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7422722/]
• 16. Divergent multifunctional P450s-empowered biosynthesis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61188-0]
• 17. Transcriptome profiles of three Muscat table grape cultivars ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0101-y]
• 18. Comparative Analysis and Identification of Terpene ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/15/2797]
• 19. The molecular complexity of terpene biosynthesis in red algae [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/np/d4np00034j]
• 20. Exploring and expanding the natural chemical space of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57145-6]
• 21. Biosynthesis of Terpenoids: Mechanism, Engineering, and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/69593/biosynthesis-of-terpenoids-mechanism-engineering-and-industrialization]
• 22. Discovery and characterisation of terpenoid biosynthesis ... [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-06421-0]
• 23. Comparison data of common and abundant terpenes at ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4983143/]
• 24. Divergent Total Syntheses of Six Crinipellin-Type ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39902946/]
• 25. Class II terpene cyclases: structures, mechanisms, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10954422/]
• 26. Expanding the Terpene Universe: Synthetic Biology and Non ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12566044/]
• 27. Bacterial terpene biosynthesis: challenges and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6902898/]
• 28. Heterologous Metabolic Pathways: Strategies for Optimal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7385092/]
• 29. Metabolic Engineering of Terpenoid Biosynthesis in Medicinal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12468511/]
• 30. Metabolic Engineering of Escherichia coli for De Novo ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/11/6/331]
• 31. A Giant Step for Terpene Biosynthesis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12584058/]
• 32. Advances in semi-rational design of terpene synthases and ... [https://amb-express.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13568-025-01984-5]
• 33. Recent Advances in the Engineering of Cytochrome P450 ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/15/4/374]
• 34. Computational design and selections for an engineered ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3190154/]
• 35. The initial dynamics of product release in terpene ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40990851/]
• 36. Recent Advances in P450 Enzyme Engineering for the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40931706/]
• 37. Accelerating enzyme discovery and engineering with high ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/np/d4np00031e]
• 38. Protocol for high-throughput compound screening using ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666166721001076]
• 39. Quantitative high-throughput screening data analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4375054/]
• 40. High-throughput computational-experimental screening ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-021-00605-6]
• 41. Safeguarding artemisinin: integrating bioproduction ... [https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-025-05648-4]
• 42. Discovery of FoTO1 and Taxol genes enables biosynthesis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09090-z]
• 43. A novel high-temperature Kluyveromyces marxianus as ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369703X25001135]
• 44. The Paclitaxel Biosynthesis Pathway Unlocked - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12538117/]
• 45. Single-nucleus transcriptomics reveal the morphogenesis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63770-y]
• 46. Production of Terpenoids by Synthetic Biology Approaches [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7193017/]
• 47. An extremely promiscuous terpenoid synthase from the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8554039/]
• 48. Toward improved terpenoids biosynthesis: strategies to enhance the capabilities of cell factories | Bioresources and Bioprocessing | Full Text [https://bioresourcesbioprocessing.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40643-022-00493-8]
• 49. Expanding the terpene biosynthetic code with non- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32921-w]
• 50. Expanding catalytic promiscuity of a bifunctional terpene ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405805X24000413]
• 51. Expanding the structural diversity of terpenes by synthetic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167779923003451]
• 52. Divergent Synthesis of Complex Diterpenes via a Hybrid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7569743/]
• 53. A review of cytotoxicity testing methods and in vitro study of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12534221/]
• 54. Metabolic engineering of probiotic Escherichia coli for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85372-6]
• 55. Metabolic Perturbation and Synthetic Biology Strategies for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8539415/]
• 56. Divergent Regulation of Terpenoid Metabolism in the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2613740/]
• 57. Advances in the sustainable biosynthesis of valuable terpenoid flavor... [https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-025-02699-2]
• 58. Metal-dependent enzyme symmetry guides the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01235-9]
• 59. Counter-current chromatography for the separation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4032468/]
• 60. Recent Advances in Multiple Strategies for the Synthesis of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/8/11/615]
• 61. How Are Terpenes Products Made [https://terpenebeltfarms.com/blogs/how-are-terpenes-made-production-guide/]
• 62. Synthesis of medicinally relevant terpenes: reducing the cost ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4162426/]
• 63. Genome Mining Reveals Pathways for Terpene Production ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/11/2528]
• 64. Common garden experiments suggest terpene-mediated ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16496-2]
• 65. Exploring and expanding the natural chemical space of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12009305/]
• 66. Quantitative Determination of Cannabis Terpenes Using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10589468/]
• 67. Rice chemists leap across terpenoid landscapes with ... [https://news.rice.edu/news/2025/rice-chemists-leap-across-terpenoid-landscapes-enzyme-enabled-scaffold-hopping]
• 68. Terpene Effects Chart: Mapping Cannabis Compounds to ... [https://terpenebeltfarms.com/blogs/terpene-effects-chart-mapping-cannabis-compounds/]
• 69. Synthesis and techno-economic assessment of microbial ... [https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-018-1285-7]
• 70. Identification by Life Cycle Assessment of the critical stage ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352550920313579]
• 71. Terpenoid Market 2025: Key Investments and Strategic ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/terpenoid-market-2025-key-investments-strategic-moves-adscend-media-4upwf/]
• 72. Environmental life cycle optimization of essential terpene ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26519589/]
• 73. Exploring natural biodiversity to expand access to microbial ... [https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-019-1074-4]
• 74. Biological activity of terpene compounds produced by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11133002/]
• 75. How to Read a Terpene Chart: Your Complete Guide ... [https://mellowfellow.fun/blogs/learn/terpene-chart-reading]
• 76. Characterization of terpene extract from Cannabis sativa ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-10820-6]
• 77. Expression Analysis and Functional Validation of DcTPSb1 ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/47/1/25]
• 78. Simultaneous quantification of terpenes and cannabinoids by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11249406/]