Retrosynthetic Analysis in Biology: Computational Design of Biosynthetic Pathways for Drug Development

Abstract

This article explores computational retrosynthetic analysis for designing biosynthetic pathways to produce valuable natural products and therapeutics. Covering both foundational concepts and cutting-edge methodologies, we examine how biological big-data, rule-based systems, and deep learning algorithms are revolutionizing pathway prediction. The content addresses critical challenges in pathway efficiency and enzyme compatibility while presenting validation case studies and comparative analyses of current tools. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, this review synthesizes how these computational approaches accelerate the discovery and heterologous production of complex molecules, ultimately advancing synthetic biology and pharmaceutical development.

The Foundations of Bio-retrosynthesis: Concepts, Data, and Historical Evolution

Retrosynthetic analysis, a cornerstone of organic chemistry, has been powerfully adapted to frame the logical deconstruction of complex target molecules into simpler, available precursors. In biosynthetic pathway design, this principle is applied to plan the enzymatic synthesis of value-added biochemicals within engineered cellular systems [1] [2]. This approach shifts the paradigm from traditional experiment-driven models to intelligent, data-driven design, enabling the sustainable production of pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, and complex natural products [3]. The core challenge lies in efficiently designing pathways that are not only chemically plausible but also stoichiometrically feasible, thermodynamically favorable, and compatible with host organism metabolism [4]. Computational tools now leverage vast biological big-data—encompassing compounds, reactions, and enzymes—to predict and optimize these biosynthetic routes, significantly accelerating the design-build-test cycle in synthetic biology [1].

Core Computational Approaches and Tools

The computational framework for biosynthetic pathway design integrates several sophisticated approaches, each contributing unique capabilities to the overall process. The table below summarizes the primary classes of tools and their applications.

Table 1: Computational Approaches for Retrobiosynthesis and Pathway Design

Approach	Key Principle	Representative Tools/Models	Primary Application
Rule-Based / Expert Systems [2]	Applies expert-curated reaction templates and rules to deconstruct target molecules.	SYNTHIA	Retrosynthetic route discovery based on known biochemical transformations.
AI & Machine Learning-Driven [5] [6]	Learns reaction patterns from large datasets to predict novel single-step retrosyntheses and multi-step routes.	RSGPT, LocalRetro, Chemformer, AizynthFinder	Predicting plausible enzymatic reactions and navigating vast chemical spaces.
Constraint-Based & Hybrid [4]	Assembles stoichiometrically balanced subnetworks connecting a target to host metabolism, optimized via algorithms like MILP.	SubNetX	Designing feasible, high-yield branched pathways within a host organism.
Multi-Step Planning Algorithms [6]	Uses search strategies to chain single-step predictions into complete synthetic routes from target to starting materials.	Retro, EG-MCTS, MEEA	Generating and optimizing multi-step retrosynthetic pathways.

Workflow Integration of Computational Approaches

The various computational approaches are not used in isolation but are integrated into a cohesive workflow for end-to-end pathway design. The following diagram illustrates the logical sequence and interaction between these key components, from target molecule to a ranked list of viable biosynthetic pathways.

Quantitative Performance Data

Evaluating the performance of computational tools is critical for selecting the appropriate method for a given research goal. Benchmarks typically focus on prediction accuracy and the practical feasibility of generated pathways.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Retrosynthesis and Pathway Design Tools

Tool / Model	Key Metric	Reported Performance	Context and Significance
RSGPT [5]	Top-1 Accuracy	63.4% (USPTO-50k dataset)	State-of-the-art template-free model pre-trained on 10 billion synthetic data points.
SubNetX [4]	Application Scope	Pathways designed for 70 industrially relevant chemicals.	Demonstrates the method's ability to handle complex natural and synthetic compounds.
Multi-Step Planner (Retro*-Default) [6]	Route Feasibility	High feasibility score but lower solvability (~85%) than MEEA*.	Highlights the trade-off between finding any route and finding a practically executable route.
Multi-Step Planner (MEEA*-Default) [6]	Solvability	~95% (able to find a complete route).	Excels at finding a pathway but the routes may be less feasible for real-world synthesis.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Multi-Step Retrosynthetic Pathway Planning with AI

This protocol outlines the process of generating a complete retrosynthetic route for a target molecule using a combination of a single-step prediction model and a multi-step planning algorithm [6].

I. Research Reagent Solutions and Computational Tools

Table 3: Essential Tools for AI-Driven Retrosynthetic Planning

Item	Function / Description
Single-Step Retrosynthesis Model (SRPM) (e.g., LocalRetro, ReactionT5)	Predicts possible precursor molecules for a given target in a single reaction step.
Multi-Step Planning Algorithm (e.g., Retro, EG-MCTS, MEEA)	Navigates the tree of possible reactions to build a complete route from target to starting materials.
Benchmark Dataset (e.g., USPTO-50k, USPTO-MIT)	Provides standardized data for training and evaluating model performance.
Chemical Database (e.g., PubChem, ChEMBL)	Source of molecular structures and commercial availability for leaf node validation.
Cost Function Calculator	Computes the negative log-likelihood of predicted reactions to guide the planning algorithm.

II. Step-by-Step Procedure

• Input Preparation: Define the target molecule using a standard chemical representation, such as a SMILES string or molecular graph.
• Algorithm Initialization: Select and configure a planning algorithm (e.g., Retro*). The target molecule is set as the root node of the search tree.
• Iterative Route Expansion: a. Single-Step Prediction: For the current molecule node, the selected SRPM generates a list of possible precursor sets (child nodes) and assigns a probability to each predicted reaction. b. Cost Calculation: The cost for each child node is calculated, typically using the negative log-likelihood of the reaction probability. Lower costs indicate more reliable reactions. c. Node Selection: The planning algorithm selects the most promising child node for expansion based on its search strategy (e.g., balancing exploitation of low-cost nodes with exploration of uncertain paths).
• Termination Check: Steps 3a-3c are repeated. The expansion process continues until all leaf nodes in a given branch are molecules flagged as "commercially available" or are native to the chosen host organism.
• Route Output: A complete retrosynthetic route, comprising a series of reaction steps from the target to available starting materials, is generated.
• Feasibility Evaluation: The generated route is evaluated using a metric like Route Feasibility, which averages the single-step feasibility scores across all steps in the route to gauge its practical executability [6].

Protocol: Designing Stoichiometrically Balanced Biosynthetic Pathways with SubNetX

This protocol describes the use of the SubNetX algorithm to extract and rank metabolically balanced pathways for the bioproduction of a target compound in a host organism like E. coli [4].

I. Research Reagent Solutions and Computational Tools

Table 4: Essential Tools for Constraint-Based Pathway Design

Item	Function / Description
Biochemical Reaction Network (e.g., ARBRE, ATLASx)	A database of known and/or computationally predicted, elementally balanced biochemical reactions.
Host Metabolic Model (e.g., a genome-scale model of E. coli)	A computational representation of the host organism's native metabolism for feasibility testing.
Precursor Metabolite Set	A defined set of core metabolites (e.g., from central carbon metabolism) in the host that serve as pathway starting points.
Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) Solver	An optimization algorithm used to identify the minimal set of reactions from a subnetwork that enables production of the target.

II. Step-by-Step Procedure

• Input Preparation: a. Define Inputs: Specify the target compound, a set of precursor metabolites native to the host, and a background network of balanced biochemical reactions. b. Select Host Model: Load a genome-scale metabolic model of the intended production host.
• Graph Search for Linear Pathways: Perform a graph search to identify linear core pathways from the precursor metabolites to the target compound.
• Subnetwork Expansion and Extraction: a. Expand Network: The algorithm expands the linear pathways to assemble a balanced subnetwork. This critical step connects required co-substrates (e.g., ATP, NADPH) and manages resulting byproducts by linking them to the host's native metabolism. b. Integrate Subnetwork: The extracted subnetwork is integrated into the host's genome-scale metabolic model to create a combined model.
• Identification of Feasible Pathways: a. Apply MILP Optimization: Use a MILP algorithm to find the minimal number of heterologous reactions from the large subnetwork that, when combined with native metabolism, enable production of the target. b. Each minimal set of reactions is considered a feasible pathway.
• Pathway Ranking: Rank the identified feasible pathways based on multiple criteria, including: a. Predicted Yield: The maximum theoretical yield of the target compound. b. Thermodynamic Feasibility: The overall energetic favorability of the pathway. c. Enzyme Specificity: Consideration of known or predicted enzyme performance for the reactions.

The workflow of this protocol, from input preparation to the final output of ranked pathways, is visualized below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Databases and Models

Successful biosynthetic pathway design relies on a suite of foundational data resources and predictive models. The table below details essential components of the modern researcher's toolkit.

Table 5: Key Research Resources for Retrobiosynthesis

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Pathway Design
USPTO Datasets [5]	Reaction Database	A benchmark dataset of chemical reactions used for training and evaluating machine learning models.
ARBRE [4]	Biochemical Reaction Database	A curated database of ~400,000 known and predicted reactions focused on industrially relevant aromatic compounds.
ATLASx [4]	Biochemical Reaction Database	A vast network of over 5 million predicted reactions, used to fill knowledge gaps and expand biochemical search space.
RDChiral [5]	Template Extraction Algorithm	Used to generate synthetic reaction data for pre-training large models like RSGPT by applying reaction templates.
AlphaFold [4]	Structural Prediction Model	Provides accurate protein structure predictions to aid in enzyme discovery and functional validation.
[Glp5,Sar9] Substance P (5-11)	[Glp5,Sar9] Substance P (5-11), MF:C42H59N9O9S, MW:866.0 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
N-DMTr-morpholino-U-5'-O-phosphoramidite	N-DMTr-morpholino-U-5'-O-phosphoramidite, MF:C39H48N5O7P, MW:729.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design is a foundational strategy in synthetic biology, enabling the production of value-added compounds, including therapeutics, from simple precursors. [1] [7] This approach deconstructs a target molecule step-by-step to identify plausible biosynthetic routes, a process that relies critically on access to comprehensive and high-quality biological data. [8] The effectiveness of computational pathway design is directly dependent on the quality and diversity of available data on compounds, reactions, and enzymes. [9] This application note provides a curated summary of essential biological databases and details practical protocols for their application in retrosynthetic pathway design, providing researchers and drug development professionals with a toolkit to accelerate their metabolic engineering projects.

Essential Databases for Retrosynthetic Analysis

The databases crucial for biosynthetic pathway design can be categorized into three main types: compound databases, reaction/pathway databases, and enzyme databases. The data within these resources facilitates the identification of starting materials, the elucidation of biochemical transformations, and the selection of suitable biocatalysts.

Compound Databases

Compound databases store information on chemical structures, properties, and biological activities, serving as the chemical foundation for constructing reaction networks. [9]

Table 1: Key Publicly Accessible Compound Databases

Database	Description	Key Features	Data Coverage
PubChem [10] [9]	A general chemical database from the NIH.	Chemical structures, properties, bioactivity, safety/toxicity.	Over 100 million compound entries. [10]
ChEMBL [10] [9]	A manually curated database of bioactive molecules.	Chemical structures, targets, and drug-like activity data.	Over 2.3 million bioactive compounds. [10]
COCONUT [10]	A comprehensive open-source natural products database.	Contains chemical structures, biological activities, and metadata; free without restrictions.	Over 400,000 natural products. [10]
NPASS [10] [9]	Natural Product Activity and Species Source database.	Includes bioactivity, taxonomy, and structure data for natural products.	Over 35,000 natural products. [10]
ChEBI [9]	A database focused on small molecular entities.	Detailed chemical data, particularly for metabolites and small biochemical molecules.	N/A

Reaction and Pathway Databases

These databases provide information on known biochemical reactions and curated metabolic pathways, which are indispensable for knowledge-based retrosynthesis and pathway validation. [9]

Table 2: Key Reaction and Pathway Databases

Database	Description	Key Features	Utility in Pathway Design
KEGG [10] [9]	A database resource for understanding biological systems.	Pathway maps, compound data, and reaction networks for 700+ organisms. [10]	Reference pathways for known metabolites.
MetaCyc [10] [9]	A metabolic pathway database with curated biochemical reactions.	Elucidated pathways, enzymes, metabolites, and reactions from experimental data.	A reference for experimentally validated metabolic pathways. [10]
BRENDA [9] [11]	The main comprehensive enzyme information system.	Enzyme functional data, kinetics, and associated ligands; manually curated from literature.	Essential for enzyme selection and kinetic modeling.
SABIO-RK [9]	A manually curated database for biochemical reactions.	Kinetic data and rate laws for enzymatic reactions.	Kinetic parameter input for pathway flux simulations.
Rhea [9]	A database of biochemical reactions.	Detailed reaction equations, chemical structures, and enzyme annotations.	A standardized resource for biochemical transformations.

Enzyme Databases

Enzyme databases provide critical information on protein sequences, structures, functions, and kinetics, which is necessary for selecting and engineering biocatalysts for a designed pathway. [9] [12]

Table 3: Key Enzyme Databases

Database	Description	Key Features	Data Coverage
BRENDA [9] [11]	Comprehensive Enzyme Information System.	Enzyme function, kinetics, structure, preparation, and ligand data.	>5 million data for ~90,000 enzymes from ~13,000 organisms. [11]
UniProt [9]	A comprehensive protein sequence and functional database.	Protein sequence, function, classification, and cross-references.	N/A
Protein Data Bank (PDB) [9]	Archives 3D structural information of biological macromolecules.	Experimentally determined structures of proteins and nucleic acids.	N/A
AlphaFold Protein Structure DB [9]	A database of highly accurate predicted protein structures.	Protein structure predictions generated by the AlphaFold algorithm.	N/A

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: A Computational Retrosynthesis Workflow Using BioNavi-NP

Background: For many natural products, the complete biosynthetic pathway is unknown. Deep learning tools like BioNavi-NP can predict plausible pathways de novo from simple building blocks, overcoming the limitations of knowledge-based methods. [13]

Application: To propose a multi-step biosynthetic pathway for a target natural product.

Materials:

• Target Molecule: The SMILES string or structure of the natural product.
• BioNavi-NP Web Server: (http://biopathnavi.qmclab.com/) [13]
• Computer: With internet access.

Procedure:

• Input Preparation: Draw or input the SMILES string of your target natural product into the BioNavi-NP web interface.
• Pathway Prediction: Initiate the bio-retrosynthesis planning. The tool uses a pre-trained transformer neural network for single-step precursor prediction and an AND-OR tree-based search algorithm for multi-step route planning. [13]
• Pathway Analysis: Review the generated pathways, which are sorted by computational cost and length. The tool successfully identifies pathways for 90.2% of test compounds and recovers reported building blocks with 72.8% accuracy. [13]
• Enzyme Recommendation: For each biosynthetic step in the selected route, use the integrated enzyme prediction tools (Selenzyme or E-zyme 2) to identify plausible enzymes. [13]
• Validation: Cross-reference the predicted precursors and reactions with pathway databases like MetaCyc or KEGG to assess biological plausibility. [9]

Protocol 2: An Experimental Bioretrosynthesis Pipeline for Non-Natural Products

Background: Bioretrosynthesis applies the concept of retrograde evolution, constructing pathways beginning with the terminal enzyme and working backward. This allows for a single product-formation assay to guide the engineering of multiple upstream enzymes. [7]

Application: To experimentally construct and optimize a biosynthetic pathway for a non-natural target molecule, such as the antiviral drug didanosine. [7]

Materials:

• Enzymes: Wild-type or engineered candidate enzymes for each proposed biosynthetic step.
• Substrates: The target product and its proposed precursors.
• Assay Reagents: Cofactors (e.g., ATP), buffers, and detection reagents (e.g., for HPLC-MS).
• HPLC-MS System: For quantitative analysis of reaction intermediates and products.

Procedure:

• Terminal Step Engineering:
  • Begin with the final reaction that produces your target molecule.
  • Engineer the terminal enzyme (e.g., Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase for didanosine) for improved activity and selectivity toward the non-natural substrate using directed evolution or structure-based design. [7]
  • Use a direct assay (e.g., HPLC-MS) to detect product formation.

• First Retro-Extension:

  • Identify an enzyme that can produce the substrate required by your engineered terminal enzyme.
  • Develop a coupled assay where the product of this upstream enzyme (e.g., Phosphopentomutase) is consumed by the engineered terminal enzyme, with target molecule production as the readout. [7]
  • Engineer the upstream enzyme for improved activity in this coupled system.

• Iterative Retro-Extension:

  • Repeat step 2, moving backward along the pathway (e.g., engineering Ribokinase), each time using a multi-enzyme coupled assay with the final product as the sole selection output. [7]
  • This process may reveal unexpected pathway shortcuts, as was discovered during the didanosine pathway construction. [7]

• Pathway Integration and Optimization:

  • Combine all engineered enzymes into a single in vitro system.
  • Fine-tune reaction conditions (pH, temperature, cofactor concentrations) to maximize final product titer and yield.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Reagents and Materials for Pathway Construction

Item	Function/Application	Example/Note
BRENDA Database	Source for enzyme kinetic parameters (kcat, Km) and functional data for pathway modeling. [9] [11]	Critical for estimating pathway flux and identifying enzyme engineering targets.
SKiD Dataset	A structured dataset integrating enzyme kinetic parameters (kcat, Km) with 3D structural data of enzyme-substrate complexes. [14]	Provides data for understanding structural basis of enzyme function and supporting computational modeling.
Structure Visualization Software	Visualization of enzyme-ligand complexes for structure-based engineering.	Tools like PyMOL, using structures from PDB or AlphaFold DB. [9]
STRENDA Database	A repository for enzymological data that complies with reporting standards. [12]	Ensures data quality and completeness for reliable database curation and modeling.
HPLC-MS System	Quantitative analysis of reaction intermediates and final products in pathway validation and enzyme engineering assays. [7]	Used for direct detection and quantification in the didanosine bioretrosynthesis study. [7]
Anti-inflammatory agent 44	Anti-inflammatory agent 44, MF:C43H48O25, MW:964.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-Ethylhexyl bromide-d17	2-Ethylhexyl bromide-d17, MF:C8H17Br, MW:210.23 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Retrosynthetic analysis is a fundamental problem-solving technique in organic synthesis, central to the design of biosynthetic pathways for producing value-added compounds [1]. This methodology involves deconstructing a complex target molecule into simpler, more readily available precursor structures by working backwards. The process is iterative, repeated until commercially available or easily synthesizable starting materials are identified [15] [16]. Within this framework, three concepts are paramount: synthons, idealized molecular fragments resulting from disconnections; disconnections, the conceptual breaking of bonds in the target molecule; and retrosynthetic trees, which map the network of possible pathways from the target to starting materials. The power of this approach lies in its ability to systematically reduce molecular complexity and explore multiple synthetic routes logically and efficiently [17] [15]. In the context of biosynthetic pathway design, these principles are leveraged to plan the enzymatic synthesis of complex natural products and pharmaceuticals, integrating biological big-data and computational tools to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the design process [1].

Conceptual Definitions and Their Roles in Pathway Design

Synthons

A synthon is an idealized fragment, often a cation, anion, or radical, generated from a target molecule through a disconnection [15]. It represents a reactivity concept rather than a stable molecule. The corresponding stable, commercially available molecule that embodies the synthon's reactivity is its synthetic equivalent [17]. For example, in a retrosynthetic analysis of phenylacetic acid, a nucleophilic "-COOH" synthon and an electrophilic "PhCH2+" synthon are identified. The cyanide anion (CN⁻) serves as the synthetic equivalent for the -COOH synthon, while benzyl bromide (PhCH₂Br) acts as the synthetic equivalent for the benzyl electrophile [15]. This distinction between idealized fragments and practical reagents is crucial for translating a theoretical retrosynthetic analysis into a feasible laboratory synthesis.

Disconnections

A disconnection is a retrosynthetic operation involving the imagined breaking of one or more bonds in the target molecule, leading to simpler precursor structures [15]. It is the reverse of a synthetic reaction. The choice of which bond to disconnect is guided by strategic principles aimed at reducing molecular complexity. A desirable disconnection should simplify the synthetic problem, for instance, by reducing internal connectivity through the scission of rings or by breaking bonds that join recognizable key subunits [17]. When planning a disconnection, the chemist must ensure that it corresponds to a known and reliable transform (the reverse of a synthetic reaction) in the forward direction [15] [16].

Retrosynthetic Trees

A retrosynthetic tree (or synthesis tree) is a directed, acyclic graph that visually represents all possible retrosynthetic pathways generated for a single target molecule [17] [15]. It is the comprehensive output of a retrosynthetic analysis. Starting from the target molecule at the top (root), each node represents a compound, and each branch represents the application of a retrosynthetic transform, leading to a set of precursor molecules (subtargets). This process continues iteratively until simple starting materials are reached [17]. The tree structure allows chemists to visualize, evaluate, and compare multiple synthetic routes based on criteria such as step count, cost, availability of starting materials, and overall efficiency.

Table: Core Concepts of Retrosynthetic Analysis

Concept	Definition	Role in Biosynthetic Design	Example
Synthon	An idealized molecular fragment resulting from a disconnection [15].	Represents key reactive intermediates in an enzymatic pathway.	A "methyl cation" synthon; synthetic equivalent is methyl iodide [17].
Disconnection	The conceptual breaking of one or more bonds in the target molecule [15].	Identifies potential enzymatic steps or precursor metabolites in a pathway.	Disconnecting a C-N bond in an amide to an amine and a carboxylic acid.
Retrosynthetic Tree	A graph mapping all possible retrosynthetic pathways from a target to starting materials [17] [15].	Allows comparison of multiple biosynthetic routes for efficiency and feasibility [1].	A tree showing different enzymatic strategies to synthesize a natural product.
Transform	The reverse of a known synthetic (or enzymatic) reaction [15].	Encodes the logic of a biocatalytic reaction for computational searching.	The reverse of an aldol condensation or a phenylpropanoid coupling.
Synthetic Equivalent	The real, stable reagent used to perform the function of a synthon [17] [15].	In biosynthesis, this is the specific metabolite acted upon by an enzyme.	Sodium cyanide (NaCN) is a synthetic equivalent for a "CN⁻" nucleophile synthon [15].

Computational Protocols for Retrosynthetic Analysis

The manual process of retrosynthetic analysis has been revolutionized by computational methods, which are essential for handling the complexity of modern biosynthetic pathway design [1]. The following protocols detail two primary computational approaches.

Protocol 1: Template-Based Retrosynthetic Analysis

This method relies on a database of known reaction templates, which are rules describing how a product can be transformed back into its reactants [18].

• Input Target Molecule: The process begins with a machine-readable representation of the target molecule, typically a SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) string or a molecular graph [18].
• Template Database Access: The algorithm accesses a curated database of reaction templates. These templates can be expert-encoded or algorithmically extracted from large reaction databases like USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) [18].
• Template Application and Matching: The system searches for templates whose product pattern (retron) matches a substructure within the target molecule. This involves a subgraph isomorphism check, a computationally intensive step [18].
• Precursor Generation: For every matching template, the corresponding transform is applied to the target molecule, generating a set of precursor molecules.
• Route Expansion and Scoring: Steps 3 and 4 are repeated recursively for each generated precursor, building a retrosynthetic tree. Routes are scored and ranked based on criteria such as similarity to commercially available starting materials, estimated step count, and the known reliability of the reactions used [19].
• Output: The final output is a set of prioritized complete or partial synthetic routes from the target molecule to available starting materials.

Protocol 2: Template-Free (Data-Driven) Retrosynthetic Analysis

To overcome the limitations of template-based systems (e.g., computational burden, inability to propose novel disconnections), template-free methods using neural machine translation (NMT) have been developed [18].

• Data Preparation and Molecular Representation: A model is trained on a large dataset of known chemical reactions (e.g., USPTO). Instead of SMILES strings, which can be grammatically fragile, modern approaches often use more robust representations. The RetroTRAE protocol, for instance, represents molecules as sets of Atom Environments (AEs)—topological fragments centered on an atom with a preset radius. This representation is chemically meaningful and avoids SMILES-related errors [18].
• Model Training: A sequence-to-sequence model, such as the Transformer architecture, is trained to learn the mapping between the representation of a product molecule (input sequence) and the representation of its corresponding reactants (output sequence). The model learns the "translation" from products to reactants directly from data [18].
• Single-Step Prediction: For a new target molecule, it is first decomposed into its AE tokens (or another chosen representation). The trained model then predicts the most likely reactant sequences.
• Route Generation: As with the template-based method, this single-step prediction is applied iteratively to build a full retrosynthetic tree.
• Validation: The top predicted routes are often validated by checking against known reactions or, increasingly, through automated laboratory experimentation [19].

Table: Comparison of Computational Retrosynthesis Approaches

Feature	Template-Based Approach	Template-Free (NMT) Approach
Core Principle	Applies pre-defined reaction rules (templates) [18].	Uses machine learning to translate product structures into reactant structures [18].
Molecular Representation	Often based on molecular graphs or SMILES.	SMILES, SELFIES, or Atom Environments (AEs) [18].
Advantages	Chemically reliable, interpretable, grounded in known chemistry.	Can propose novel disconnections, less computationally expensive per step, does not require explicit template generation [18].
Disadvantages	Limited to known template chemistry, can miss novel routes, subgraph isomorphism is computationally heavy [18].	Can generate chemically implausible structures, requires large, high-quality training datasets, "black box" nature can reduce interpretability [18].
Reported Top-1 Accuracy	Varies with template generality and database size.	RetroTRAE (AE-based): 58.3% on USPTO test dataset [18].

Experimental Validation: A Case Study in Drug Analog Synthesis

The robustness of computer-designed retrosynthetic pathways is ultimately validated through laboratory synthesis. A 2025 study by Makkawi et al. provides a compelling experimental validation of this process for generating structural analogs of known drugs [19].

Experimental Protocol: Synthesis of Drug Analogs

• Parent Molecule Diversification: The process begins with a "parent" drug molecule (e.g., Ketoprofen or Donepezil). The algorithm identifies substructures within the parent that can be altered to create "replicas" or analogs, potentially enhancing biological activity [19].
• Retrosynthetic Analysis of Analogs: A computational retrosynthetic analysis is performed on each generated analog. This search is typically limited to a practical depth (e.g., five steps) and uses a set of reaction transforms highly relevant to medicinal chemistry to ensure synthetic feasibility. The analysis stops when commercially available substrates are identified [19].
• Guided Forward-Synthesis Network: The commercially available starting materials identified in the previous step form the "G0" generation. A forward-synthesis algorithm then iteratively applies reaction rules, but with a key guidance mechanism: after each generation, only a predefined number (e.g., 150) of the products most structurally similar to the original parent molecule are retained. This "beam width" pruning prevents combinatorial explosion and focuses the synthesis towards viable analogs [19].
• Synthesis and Characterization: The top-ranked proposed synthetic routes for selected analogs are executed in the laboratory. The protocol for synthesizing Ketoprofen analogs, for instance, involved classic reactions such as Friedel-Crafts acylation, followed by hydrolysis and alkylation steps. The structures of all final compounds were confirmed using standard analytical techniques, including ( ^1H ) NMR, ( ^{13}C ) NMR, and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) [19].
• Biological Activity Assay: The synthesized analogs are tested for biological activity. In this study, Ketoprofen analogs were tested for binding to human cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), and Donepezil analogs were tested for binding to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) to determine their potency compared to the parent drug [19].

Key Experimental Outcomes

The study demonstrated the high reliability of modern synthesis-planning algorithms. Of 13 proposed syntheses for analogs of Ketoprofen and Donepezil, 12 were successfully executed in the laboratory, confirming the practical feasibility of the computer-designed routes [19]. Furthermore, several synthesized analogs showed potent biological activity, with one Ketoprofen analog exhibiting slightly better COX-2 binding (0.61 µM) than the parent drug (0.69 µM) and one Donepezil analog showing nanomolar affinity (36 nM) close to the parent (21 nM) [19]. This underscores the real-world applicability of retrosynthetic analysis in accelerating drug discovery and optimization.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Computational Tools and Resources for Retrosynthetic Analysis

Tool / Resource	Type / Category	Function in Research
Synthia (formerly Chematica)	Software (Expert Rule-Based)	A pioneer platform that uses a network of expert-coded reaction rules to plan and rank synthetic pathways, known for high reliability [16].
Allchemy	Software (Algorithmic)	Used in research for retrosynthesis and generating large reaction networks for analog design, as featured in the 2025 validation study [19].
RetroTRAE	Algorithm (Template-Free)	A neural machine translation model that uses Atom Environments (AEs) for retrosynthetic prediction, achieving state-of-the-art accuracy (58.3% top-1) [18].
USPTO Database	Reaction Database	A large, public dataset of chemical reactions used to train and benchmark data-driven, template-free retrosynthesis prediction models [18].
Atom Environments (AEs)	Molecular Descriptor	Topological fragments used to represent molecules in a chemically meaningful way, overcoming limitations of SMILES strings in machine learning [18].
Mcule Database	Chemical Database	A catalog of commercially available chemicals (∼2.5 million) used as a stopping point for retrosynthetic searches to ensure starting material availability [19].
SciFinder	Database & Tool Suite	A comprehensive resource for searching chemical literature, substances, and reactions. Its reaction module includes retrosynthetic planning features and experimental protocols [20].
Methyltetrazine-amido-N-bis(PEG4-acid)	Methyltetrazine-amido-N-bis(PEG4-acid), MF:C33H51N5O13, MW:725.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(Ser(Ac)4,D-Ser(tBu)6,Azagly10)-LHRH	(Ser(Ac)4,D-Ser(tBu)6,Azagly10)-LHRH, MF:C61H86N18O15, MW:1311.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

Retrosynthetic Analysis Workflow

Diagram 1: Core retrosynthetic workflow showing the iterative process from target to starting materials.

Computational Analog Design Pipeline

Diagram 2: Pipeline for computer-generated analog design, integrating retrosynthesis and forward-synthesis.

The Evolution of Computational Approaches in Pathway Design

The field of biosynthetic pathway design has undergone a profound transformation, evolving from reliance on manual, expert-driven hypothesis to a discipline powered by computational data- and algorithm-driven approaches [1] [21]. This evolution is central to a broader thesis on retrosynthetic analysis, which seeks to decompose complex target molecules into a series of plausible biosynthetic steps from available precursors. In synthetic biology, the efficient production of value-added compounds, including many pharmaceutical natural products, is a primary goal [1]. However, the manual design of such pathways is notoriously challenging and time-consuming [21]. Computational retrosynthesis methods now leverage vast biological big-data repositories of compounds, reactions, and enzymes to predict viable pathways, while enzyme engineering tools identify or design novel biocatalysts with desired functions [1]. This article details the key computational advancements, provides applicable protocols for their implementation, and visualizes the workflows that are reshaping retrosynthetic planning for biosynthetic pathways.

The Computational Evolution: Data, Algorithms, and Integration

The evolution of computational pathway design can be categorized into three interconnected pillars: the expansion of biological big-data, the development of sophisticated retrosynthesis algorithms, and the rise of integrated enzyme engineering.

The Foundation: Biological Big-Data

The predictive power of any computational model is contingent on the quality and scope of its underlying data. The foundation of modern pathway design rests on comprehensive databases encompassing:

• Compounds and Reactions: Curated databases such as MetaCyc, KEGG, and MetaNetX house thousands of characterized enzymatic reactions and metabolic pathways, providing the known biochemical "rules" [13].
• Enzymes: Genetic and functional data for enzymes link predicted biochemical transformations to potential protein catalysts.

The limitation of these knowledge-based approaches is their inability to propose pathways for compounds not already recorded in these databases, which constitutes the majority of natural products [13].

The Core Shift: From Rule-Based to Deep Learning Retrosynthesis

Retrosynthetic analysis algorithms have progressed from knowledge-dependent methods to rule-based systems, and more recently, to rule-free, deep learning-based models.

Traditional Rule-Based Methods (e.g., RetroPath2.0, BNICE.ch) operate by matching subgraph patterns (reaction rules) of a target molecule to identify potential precursor molecules [13] [22]. While effective, their scope is limited by the manually curated or automatically extracted rules, and they cannot predict reactions beyond these predefined rules [13].

Deep Learning-Based Models represent a paradigm shift. Tools like BioNavi-NP use end-to-end transformer neural networks trained on biochemical reaction data (e.g., the BioChem dataset of 33,710 unique precursor-metabolite pairs) to predict precursors directly from a molecule's textual representation (e.g., SMILES string) without pre-defined rules [13]. This approach significantly improves generalization and accuracy.

Table 1: Comparison of Retrosynthesis Approaches

Feature	Knowledge-Based	Rule-Based	Deep Learning-Based (e.g., BioNavi-NP)
Core Principle	Query existing reaction databases	Match target to generalized reaction rules	Transformer neural networks predict precursors directly from molecular structure
Generalization	Low (limited to known reactions)	Medium (limited by rule set)	High (can propose novel reactions)
Top-10 Accuracy	Not Applicable	~35.8% (RetroPathRL)	60.6% (on BioChem test set) [13]
Multi-step Planning	Database traversal	Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)	AND-OR tree-based search (efficient pathway sampling)

As shown in Table 1, the ensemble model of BioNavi-NP, augmented with organic reaction data, achieves a top-10 precursor prediction accuracy of 60.6%, which is 1.7 times more accurate than conventional rule-based approaches [13]. For multi-step planning, AND-OR tree-based search algorithms have demonstrated superior efficiency in navigating the combinatorial explosion of possible routes compared to earlier methods like MCTS [13].

The Integration: Pathway Expansion and Enzyme Engineering

Predicting a pathway is only the first step; it must also be functional. Integrated workflows now combine retrosynthesis with enzyme prediction and engineering.

• Pathway Expansion: Computational workflows, such as the one applied to the noscapine pathway, use tools like BNICE.ch to systematically explore the biochemical vicinity of pathway intermediates. This generates networks of potential derivative compounds, which can be ranked by scientific or commercial interest to identify high-value targets [22].
• Enzyme Identification: For a predicted novel reaction, tools like Selenzyme and BridgIT analyze the structural similarity between the novel reaction and well-characterized reactions in databases to propose candidate enzymes capable of catalyzing the desired transformation [13] [22].

Application Notes & Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: De Novo Biosynthetic Pathway Prediction using BioNavi-NP

This protocol details the procedure for predicting a complete biosynthetic pathway for a target natural product using the BioNavi-NP toolkit [13].

1. Input Preparation

• Obtain the SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) string of the target natural product.
• Define the set of allowed simple building blocks (e.g., common amino acids, acetic acid, malonic acid) or select from a predefined library.

2. Single-Step Retrosynthesis Configuration

• Access the BioNavi-NP web server or local installation.
• Input the target molecule SMILES.
• Configure the single-step prediction parameters:
  • Model Selection: Employ the ensemble transformer model trained on both BioChem and USPTO_NPL datasets for optimal accuracy.
  • Number of Precursors: Set the beam search size (e.g., top 10) to determine the number of candidate precursors generated per step.

3. Multi-Step Pathway Planning

• Initiate the multi-step planning algorithm.
• Set stopping criteria:
  • Cost Threshold: A computational cost threshold defined by the model.
  • Pathway Length: A maximum number of retrosynthetic steps.
  • Building Block Match: Automatic termination when all leaf nodes in the AND-OR tree match the allowed building blocks.
• The AND-OR tree-based algorithm will efficiently sample pathways, outputting a ranked list of complete routes from target to building blocks.

4. Pathway Validation and Enzyme Assignment

• For each proposed reaction step in the predicted pathway, use integrated enzyme prediction tools.
• Submit the reaction SMILES to Selenzyme or E-zyme 2 to obtain a ranked list of plausible Enzyme Commission (EC) numbers and specific enzyme candidates.
• Visually inspect the proposed pathway and enzyme suggestions for biochemical plausibility.

Troubleshooting Tip: If no pathways are found, relax the stopping criteria (e.g., increase the cost threshold) or expand the library of allowed building blocks.

Protocol 2: Computational Derivatization of a Heterologous Pathway

This protocol describes a workflow for expanding a known heterologous biosynthetic pathway to produce novel derivatives of its intermediates or final product [22].

1. Define the Core Pathway

• Compile a list of all known intermediates (as SMILES strings) in the established heterologous pathway (e.g., the noscapine pathway).

2. Network Expansion with BNICE.ch

• For each pathway intermediate, apply generalized enzymatic reaction rules using a tool like BNICE.ch.
• Perform iterative expansion for 3-4 generations to create a network of compounds accessible from the core pathway via one or more enzymatic transformations.

3. Filtering and Ranking Candidate Derivatives

• Apply chemical filters to retain relevance (e.g., for benzylisoquinoline alkaloids, require the 1-benzylisoquinoline scaffold).
• Rank the filtered list of candidate derivatives based on:
  • Popularity: Aggregate counts of scientific citations and patents.
  • Pharmaceutical Likelihood: Filter for compounds with known drug activity or favorable properties.
  • Synthetic Accessibility: Prioritize compounds that are only one enzymatic step from a core pathway intermediate.

4. Pathway Construction and Enzyme Candidate Prediction

• For the top-ranked candidate derivatives, enumerate all possible single-step pathways from the core pathway intermediate.
• For each proposed novel biochemical transformation, use the enzyme prediction tool BridgIT.
• BridgIT calculates the reaction stereo-electronic fingerprint and compares it to a database of known reactions, suggesting the closest matching enzymes and providing a similarity score.

Troubleshooting Tip: If no suitable enzyme candidates are found for a high-priority transformation, consider searching for homologs of the suggested enzymes or investigating enzyme engineering for the top candidate.

Visualization of Workflows

The following diagrams, generated with Graphviz, illustrate the core logical workflows described in the protocols.

De Novo Pathway Prediction with BioNavi-NP

Pathway Expansion and Derivatization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools and Databases for Retrosynthetic Pathway Design

Tool/Database Name	Type	Primary Function in Pathway Design
BioNavi-NP [13]	Software Toolkit	Predicts de novo biosynthetic pathways for natural products using deep learning and AND-OR tree search.
BNICE.ch [22]	Software Toolkit	Applies generalized enzymatic reaction rules to expand a metabolic network around a compound of interest.
Selenzyme [13] [22]	Web Server	Selects and ranks candidate enzymes for a given biochemical reaction based on reaction similarity and organism-specific filters.
BridgIT [22]	Web Server	Predicts enzymes for novel reactions by calculating the similarity of the reaction's stereo-electronic fingerprint to known reactions.
MetaCyc / KEGG [13]	Database	Provides curated knowledge on known enzymatic reactions and metabolic pathways for model training and validation.
RetroPath2.0 [23] [22]	Software Platform	A rule-based platform for designing metabolic pathways in a chassis-specific context.
2-(2,4-Dichlorobenzyl)thioadenosine	2-(2,4-Dichlorobenzyl)thioadenosine, MF:C17H17Cl2N5O4S, MW:458.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Nefazodone impurity 3-d6	Nefazodone impurity 3-d6, MF:C27H34N6O4, MW:512.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Computational Methodologies and Practical Implementation Strategies

Rule-based systems form a foundational methodology in computational retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design. These systems operate by deconstructing a target molecule into simpler precursor structures through the iterative application of predefined biochemical transformation rules [24]. This approach mirrors the logical framework established by traditional organic retrosynthetic analysis but adapts it for enzymatic reactions and metabolic pathways [15]. In the context of synthetic biology, rule-based systems enable researchers to systematically plan the construction of value-added compounds from available biological precursors by encoding expert knowledge of enzyme-catalyzed reactions into computable formats [1] [9].

The core principle of rule-based systems involves pattern matching, where molecular substructures are identified and transformed according to reaction templates derived from known biochemical processes. These templates represent the minimal molecular substructure (retron) that enables specific transformations, effectively capturing the essence of enzymatic reactions without requiring comprehensive quantum mechanical calculations [8]. By leveraging these encoded patterns, rule-based systems can efficiently navigate the vast space of possible biosynthetic routes, significantly reducing the time and resources required for pathway design compared to manual approaches [1].

Fundamental Principles and Mechanisms

Core Components of Rule-Based Systems

Rule-based systems for biosynthetic pathway design incorporate several key components that work in concert to enable retrosynthetic analysis. Reaction templates (also called reaction rules) form the fundamental knowledge base of these systems, representing generalized patterns of biochemical transformations [25]. These templates are typically derived from expert-curated biochemical databases such as KEGG, MetaCyc, and BRENDA, which catalog known enzyme-catalyzed reactions [9] [13]. Each template captures the essential structural changes that occur during a biochemical reaction, focusing on the reaction center and its immediate molecular environment.

Pattern matching algorithms constitute the inference engine of rule-based systems, identifying where specific reaction templates can be applied to target molecules [24]. These algorithms typically employ graph-based representations of molecules, where atoms correspond to nodes and bonds to edges. The matching process involves subgraph isomorphism checks to identify molecular substructures that align with the substrate pattern of a reaction template. This technical approach allows for the efficient scanning of complex molecular structures against hundreds or thousands of potential transformation rules.

Synthon generation represents the output mechanism of the retrosynthetic process. Once a reaction template is successfully matched to a target structure, the system generates potential precursor molecules (synthons) by applying the reverse transformation [15]. These synthons may represent actual chemical compounds or abstract molecular fragments that require further transformation or identification of suitable synthetic equivalents. The process iterates recursively on generated synthons until reaching simple, commercially available building blocks, thereby constructing a complete retrosynthetic tree [8].

Molecular Representation and Encoding

The effectiveness of rule-based systems hinges on appropriate molecular representations that facilitate efficient pattern matching. Most systems employ molecular graphs where atoms are represented as nodes (with attributes such as atom type, charge, and hybridization) and bonds as edges (with attributes such as bond order and stereochemistry) [8]. This representation naturally captures the structural features relevant to biochemical transformations while enabling efficient graph matching algorithms.

More advanced representations include molecular signatures, which provide a canonical representation of the subgraph surrounding a particular atom up to a predefined diameter or height h [8]. This approach allows for controlled specificity in pattern matching—lower heights provide less specific matching (enabling exploration of novel reactions) while higher heights provide more specific matching (restricting to well-characterized transformations). The signature-based coding system effectively controls the combinatorial explosion inherent in retrosynthetic searches by varying the specificity of molecular representation.

Reaction signatures extend this concept by coding biochemical transformations as differences between molecular signatures of products and substrates [8]. This encoding facilitates the calculation of reaction similarity and enables the generation of extended metabolic reaction spaces that include both known reactions and putative transformations promiscuously catalyzed by existing enzymes. The molecular signature approach thus provides a mathematical framework for exploring biosynthetic pathways beyond those documented in reaction databases.

Implementation Frameworks and Methodologies

Knowledge Base Construction

The development of a robust rule-based system begins with the construction of a comprehensive knowledge base of biochemical transformations. This process involves extracting and formalizing reaction templates from multiple sources, with each source offering distinct advantages. KEGG provides broad coverage of metabolic pathways across diverse organisms, while MetaCyc offers experimentally elucidated metabolic pathways and enzymes [9]. BRENDA delivers detailed enzyme functional data, and Rhea offers manually verified enzymatic reactions with detailed reaction equations [9].

The template extraction process can follow either manual curation by domain experts or automated extraction from reaction databases. Manual curation ensures high-quality, chemically accurate rules but is time-intensive and difficult to scale [25]. Automated extraction algorithms identify common transformation patterns across known biochemical reactions, generating generalized rules that capture the essential structural changes while abstracting away specific side chains or functional groups not involved in the reaction [24]. A key challenge in this process is determining the appropriate level of generalization for reaction rules—overly specific rules may miss valid applications, while overly general rules may propose implausible biochemical transformations [13].

Table 1: Major Biochemical Databases for Rule Extraction

Database	Focus	Reaction Count	Access
KEGG [9]	Integrated genomic, chemical, and systemic functional information	>20,000 biochemical reactions [25]	Free
MetaCyc [9]	Experimentally elucidated metabolic pathways	19,020 reactions [25]	Commercial
Rhea [9]	Expert-curated biochemical reactions	Manually verified enzymatic and transport reactions	Free
BRENDA [9]	Comprehensive enzyme information	Detailed enzyme function data	Free
BioCyc [25]	Collection of organism-specific databases	Multiple sub-databases	Commercial

Retrosynthetic Planning Algorithms

Once a knowledge base of reaction rules is established, rule-based systems employ various algorithms for multi-step retrosynthetic planning. The fundamental approach involves recursive deconstruction of a target molecule through iterative application of reaction rules [8]. At each step, the system identifies all applicable reaction rules, generates corresponding precursor structures, and then repeats the process for each precursor until reaching available starting materials.

Graph search algorithms provide the framework for exploring the space of possible retrosynthetic pathways. Both depth-first and breadth-first search strategies can be employed, each with distinct advantages. Breadth-first search explores all possibilities at a given depth before proceeding, ensuring finding the shortest pathway but requiring significant computational resources. Depth-first search explores one branch completely before backtracking, requiring less memory but potentially missing optimal pathways [8].

More advanced approaches include hypergraph representations of metabolic networks, where reactions are represented as hyperedges connecting multiple substrate nodes to product nodes [8]. This representation naturally captures the many-to-many relationships in biochemical reactions and facilitates efficient pathway searching. The retrosynthetic process then becomes a backward traversal through this hypergraph, identifying sequences of transformations that connect target compounds to available precursors.

To manage combinatorial complexity, systems typically incorporate pathway ranking heuristics that prioritize the most promising routes. Common ranking criteria include pathway length (number of enzymatic steps), enzyme availability, thermodynamic favorability, host compatibility, and estimated metabolic burden [8]. These heuristics help focus computational resources on biologically plausible pathways that have higher likelihood of successful implementation.

Representative Protocols and Applications

Protocol for Rule-Based Retrosynthetic Analysis

The following protocol outlines a standardized workflow for performing rule-based retrosynthetic analysis of natural products, adapted from established computational tools and methodologies.

Step 1: Target Compound Preparation

• Obtain the molecular structure of the target natural product in a standardized format (SMILES, InChI, or Molfile)
• Perform structure cleaning and standardization to ensure correct atom typing and bond representation
• For chiral compounds, specify correct stereochemistry to enable stereospecific rule application
• Input the target structure into the rule-based retrosynthesis platform

Step 2: Rule Set Selection and Configuration

• Select appropriate reaction rule sets based on the target compound class (e.g., terpenoid, alkaloid, polyketide)
• Configure rule specificity parameters to balance novelty versus plausibility
• Set organism-specific constraints if targeting compatibility with a particular host chassis
• Define available building blocks to establish stopping criteria for the retrosynthetic expansion

Step 3: Retrosynthetic Expansion

• Execute the retrosynthetic analysis algorithm to generate precursor candidates
• Iteratively apply reaction rules to current compounds until reaching available starting materials
• Prune invalid pathways based on chemical feasibility checks
• Record complete retrosynthetic trees with all intermediate compounds and applied transformations

Step 4: Pathway Evaluation and Ranking

• Calculate ranking scores for each proposed pathway based on multiple criteria
• Annotate pathways with potential enzyme classes for each transformation
• Filter pathways based on user-defined constraints (length, host compatibility, etc.)
• Generate output report with ranked list of proposed biosynthetic pathways

Experimental Validation Workflow

Computational predictions from rule-based systems require experimental validation to confirm their biological feasibility. The following protocol describes a standard workflow for validating predicted biosynthetic pathways.

Step 1: In Silico Pathway Analysis

• Identify potential enzyme candidates for each reaction step using sequence similarity tools (BLAST)
• Assess enzyme compatibility with host organism (codon usage, expression compatibility)
• Perform structural modeling of enzyme-substrate interactions if structural data available
• Predict potential metabolic bottlenecks or toxicity issues

Step 2: Pathway Assembly

• Select candidate pathway based on computational predictions and practical considerations
• Source genetic parts for heterologous expression (synthesis, cloning from native organisms)
• Assemble pathway constructs using appropriate genetic engineering techniques (Golden Gate, Gibson Assembly)
• Transform constructs into host organism (typically E. coli or yeast)

Step 3: Pathway Testing and Optimization

• Screen transformants for production of target compound (LC-MS, GC-MS)
• Confirm identity of intermediates to verify pathway functionality
• Optimize expression levels using promoter engineering, ribosomal binding site tuning
• Implement metabolic engineering strategies to improve precursor supply

Step 4: Production Strain Development

• Integrate pathway genes into host genome for stable expression
• Delete competing pathways to redirect metabolic flux
• Perform adaptive laboratory evolution to improve production traits
• Scale up production for industrial application

Diagram 1: Rule-based retrosynthetic analysis workflow illustrating the key steps from target compound to validated pathways.

Performance Evaluation and Comparative Analysis

Performance Metrics and Benchmarks

The performance of rule-based systems can be quantified using several standardized metrics that capture different aspects of prediction quality. Top-n accuracy measures the percentage of test cases where the correct precursor appears within the top n predictions, with typical values of n being 1, 3, 5, or 10 [13]. This metric is particularly relevant for single-step retrosynthetic predictions. For multi-step pathway predictions, pathway recovery rate quantifies the system's ability to reconstruct known biosynthetic pathways from target compounds to established building blocks.

Comparative studies between different rule-based implementations reveal significant variation in performance. In one comprehensive evaluation, traditional rule-based systems achieved a top-10 accuracy of approximately 35.7% on standardized biosynthetic test sets, while more advanced deep learning approaches reached 60.6% [13]. This performance gap highlights a fundamental limitation of rule-based methods—their dependence on predefined transformation patterns limits their ability to propose novel reactions outside their rule databases.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Retrosynthesis Approaches

Method	Type	Top-1 Accuracy	Top-10 Accuracy	Pathway Recovery Rate
Rule-Based [13]	Template-based	~10.6%	~35.7%	Varies by rule set coverage
BioNavi-NP [13]	Deep learning	21.7%	60.6%	72.8%
RetropathRL [13]	Rule-based with RL	N/A	N/A	Limited by rule database

Limitations and Constraints

Rule-based systems face several inherent limitations that affect their practical utility in biosynthetic pathway design. The knowledge acquisition bottleneck represents a fundamental challenge, as creating and maintaining comprehensive rule sets requires significant expert effort [25] [13]. This manual curation process is both time-consuming and difficult to scale, resulting in rule sets that may lack coverage of less common or newly discovered biochemical transformations.

The generalization-specificity tradeoff presents another significant challenge. Reaction rules must be general enough to apply to diverse molecular contexts yet specific enough to avoid proposing biochemically implausible transformations [13]. Overly general rules may generate numerous invalid precursors, while overly specific rules may miss valid applications in slightly different molecular contexts. Finding the optimal balance remains an ongoing research challenge.

Limited novelty is an inherent constraint of purely rule-based approaches. Since these systems can only propose transformations that are explicitly encoded in their rule sets, they cannot invent truly novel biochemical reactions [25]. This limitation restricts their utility for designing pathways to compounds with unusual structural features or for exploring completely new-to-nature biosynthetic routes.

Integration with Modern Computational Approaches

Hybrid Systems and Augmented Approaches

To address the limitations of pure rule-based systems, researchers have developed hybrid approaches that combine rule-based reasoning with other computational techniques. Machine learning-augmented systems use rule-based methods to generate candidate transformations, then employ trained models to rank these candidates based on likelihood of biochemical feasibility [24]. This approach leverages the comprehensive coverage of rule-based generation while incorporating the predictive power of data-driven prioritization.

Multi-objective optimization frameworks represent another enhancement, where rule-based pathway generation is coupled with optimization algorithms that balance multiple competing objectives such as pathway length, thermodynamic favorability, host compatibility, and expected yield [8] [4]. These systems can identify Pareto-optimal pathway designs that offer the best trade-offs between different performance metrics.

The Extended Metabolic Reaction Space (EMRS) framework demonstrates how rule-based systems can be extended to explore novel transformations beyond those explicitly encoded in rules [8]. By representing reactions in molecular signature space at different heights of specificity, the EMRS can generate putative reactions that are similar to known biochemical transformations but not identical to them. This approach effectively expands the search space while maintaining biochemical plausibility.

Transition to Template-Free Methods

The limitations of rule-based systems have motivated the development of template-free approaches that do not rely on predefined reaction rules. Deep learning models, particularly transformer architectures, treat retrosynthetic analysis as a sequence-to-sequence translation problem where molecular structures (represented as SMILES strings) are directly transformed into precursor structures without explicit rule application [25] [13].

Graph-based models represent another template-free approach, using graph neural networks to directly operate on molecular graph representations [24]. These models learn to identify reaction centers and predict bond changes through training on known biochemical reactions, effectively internalizing the patterns that rule-based systems must explicitly encode.

Despite the advantages of these emerging approaches, rule-based systems remain valuable for specific applications where interpretability and explicit biochemical reasoning are prioritized. The transparent logic of rule application makes these systems particularly suitable for educational purposes and for contexts where researchers need to understand the biochemical rationale for each proposed transformation.

Research Reagent Solutions

The experimental implementation of computationally designed biosynthetic pathways requires specific research reagents and materials. The following table details essential resources for pathway validation and optimization.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Biosynthetic Pathway Implementation

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Sources/Products
Cloning Kits	Assembly of genetic constructs for heterologous expression	Gibson Assembly Master Mix, Golden Gate Assembly Kits
Expression Vectors	Carrying pathway genes for expression in host organisms	pET vectors (E. coli), pRS vectors (yeast)
Host Strains	Chassis organisms for pathway implementation	E. coli BL21(DE3), S. cerevisiae BY4741
Enzyme Databases	Identifying candidate enzymes for predicted transformations	BRENDA, UniProt, Rhea [9]
Compound Databases	Verifying intermediate and product structures	PubChem, ChEBI, ChemSpider [9]
Pathway Databases	Reference pathways for validation and comparison	KEGG, MetaCyc, Reactome [9] [25]
Analytical Standards	Quantifying pathway intermediates and products	Commercial suppliers (Sigma-Aldrich, etc.)

Diagram 2: Integration of rule-based systems with complementary computational approaches, showing how traditional methods combine with modern techniques.

Rule-based systems continue to evolve despite the emergence of more advanced computational approaches. Current research focuses on knowledge representation improvements, developing more expressive formalisms for capturing biochemical transformation patterns that better handle stereochemistry, reaction conditions, and enzyme specificity [24]. These advancements aim to address fundamental limitations in traditional rule-based systems while maintaining their interpretability and transparency.

Integration with mechanistic enzymology represents another promising direction, where rule-based systems incorporate increasingly detailed information about enzyme catalytic mechanisms and structural constraints [8]. This approach could enable more accurate prediction of enzyme promiscuity and the design of engineered enzymes with altered specificity. By combining structural biology insights with rule-based reasoning, these systems could propose transformations that are biochemically feasible even if not yet observed in nature.

In conclusion, rule-based systems for reaction templates and pattern matching established the foundational framework for computational retrosynthetic analysis in biosynthetic pathway design. While increasingly complemented by data-driven approaches, these systems continue to offer unique advantages in interpretability and explicit biochemical reasoning. Their development illustrates the ongoing challenge of capturing human expertise in computable forms and their integration with modern machine learning approaches points toward more powerful and comprehensive tools for biosynthetic pathway design.

Retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design is a foundational methodology in synthetic biology, aiming to deconstruct complex natural products (NPs) into simpler, commercially available precursors. This approach is crucial for the sustainable production of high-value compounds, such as pharmaceuticals, in engineered microorganisms. However, the immense structural diversity of NPs and the combinatorial explosion of possible synthetic routes make manual pathway design challenging and time-consuming [9] [26]. Modern computational strategies are increasingly leveraging deep learning to navigate this complexity. This document details the application of two such advanced computational frameworks—Transformer neural networks for single-step retrosynthetic prediction and AND-OR tree-based search algorithms for multi-step pathway planning—within the context of biosynthetic pathway design. We provide a detailed protocol based on the BioNavi-NP platform, a state-of-the-art tool that successfully integrates these technologies [13].

Core Data and Performance Metrics

The effectiveness of deep learning approaches is demonstrated by their performance on standardized biochemical datasets. The table below summarizes key quantitative benchmarks for the BioNavi-NP model, which employs a Transformer architecture enhanced with transfer learning.

Table 1: Performance Evaluation of Single-Step Retrosynthesis Models on a Standardized BioChem Test Set

Model Configuration	Top-1 Accuracy (%)	Top-10 Accuracy (%)	Key Training Data
Transformer (Base)	10.6	27.8	BioChem (31,710 reactions)
Transformer (w/o Chirality)	N/A	16.3	BioChem (without stereochemistry)
Transformer (with Transfer Learning)	17.2	48.2	BioChem + USPTO_NPL (92,480 reactions)
Transformer (Ensemble)	21.7	60.6	BioChem + USPTO_NPL (Ensemble of 4 models)
Rule-Based Model (RetroPathRL)	19.6	42.1	Knowledge-based reaction rules

The data shows that the ensemble Transformer model, trained on a combination of biochemical and natural product-like organic reactions, achieves a top-10 accuracy of 60.6%, significantly outperforming conventional rule-based approaches [13]. For multi-step pathway planning, the AND-OR tree search algorithm enabled BioNavi-NP to successfully identify biosynthetic pathways for 90.2% of 368 test compounds and accurately recover the reported native building blocks for 72.8% of them [13].

Experimental Protocol: Implementing BioNavi-NP for Pathway Prediction

This protocol outlines the procedure for using the BioNavi-NP toolkit to predict biosynthetic pathways for a target natural product, from data preparation to pathway validation.

Materials and Software Requirements

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function/Description	Source/Reference
BioChem Database	A curated dataset of 33,710 unique precursor-metabolite pairs for training and validation.	[13]
USPTO_NPL Database	An augmented dataset of ~62,370 natural product-like organic reactions from USPTO, used for transfer learning.	[13]
BioNavi-NP Web Server	A user-friendly, interactive online platform for predicting and visualizing biosynthetic pathways.	http://biopathnavi.qmclab.com/ [13]
Selenzyme / E-zyme 2	Tools for predicting plausible enzymes for each reaction step in a proposed pathway.	[13]
SMILES Representation	A line notation (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) for encoding the structure of chemical compounds.	[13]

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Input the Target Molecule.

  • Obtain the canonical SMILES string of the target natural product. This can be derived from chemical structure drawing software or databases like PubChem [9].
  • Input the SMILES string into the BioNavi-NP web server. Ensure that stereochemical information is correctly specified in the SMILES, as its inclusion is critical for model accuracy (Table 1).

• Configure Search Parameters.

  • Set the maximum search depth (e.g., 15 steps) to define the longest pathway the algorithm should explore.
  • Adjust the computational cost threshold to balance between exploration and efficiency. A higher threshold allows for a more exhaustive search.
  • (Optional) Specify a preferred chassis organism (e.g., E. coli, yeast) to guide the enzyme prediction step toward organism-specific enzymes.

• Execute the AND-OR Tree Search.

  • Initiate the retrosynthetic planning process. The system will use the pre-trained ensemble Transformer model for single-step precursor predictions.
  • The AND-OR tree search algorithm will efficiently navigate the combinatorial space of potential pathways, building a synthetic tree from the target molecule back to available building blocks. The following diagram illustrates this iterative workflow.

• Analyze and Validate Results.
  • Review the ranked list of proposed biosynthetic pathways provided by BioNavi-NP. Pathways are typically sorted by a score that considers factors like computational cost and pathway length.
  • For the top-ranked pathways, use the integrated links to Selenzyme or E-zyme 2 to identify and evaluate putative enzymes for each biosynthetic step [13].
  • Manually inspect the chemical plausibility of each predicted reaction step, leveraging biochemical knowledge.

Methodological Background and Signaling Pathways

Transformer Neural Networks for Retrosynthesis

The Transformer architecture is the core engine for single-step retrosynthetic prediction in BioNavi-NP. Its power derives from the self-attention mechanism, which allows the model to weigh the importance of different atoms and bonds in the input molecule when predicting the precursors. The model is trained end-to-end on reaction SMILES, learning the complex patterns of biochemical transformations without relying on hand-crafted rules [13]. The sequential and syntactic nature of SMILES makes them particularly suitable for Transformer models, which treat the retrosynthesis task as a sequence-to-sequence translation problem (translating a product SMILES to precursor SMILES) [27] [28]. The diagram below illustrates the information flow within the Transformer model during this process.

AND-OR Tree Search for Multi-Step Planning

Navigating from a complex target down to simple building blocks is a multi-step planning problem. An AND-OR tree is a logical structure used to represent this process:

• An OR node represents the target molecule itself, for which there may be multiple different disconnection strategies (OR possibilities).
• An AND node represents a specific retrosynthetic disconnection that generates multiple precursor molecules (AND requirements). All precursors must be available for the reaction to proceed.

The AND-OR tree search algorithm efficiently explores this combinatorial space. It uses the neural network-guided cost of synthesizing nodes from building blocks to prioritize the search, allowing it to rapidly identify the most promising pathways without exhaustively evaluating every possible route [13]. This process is visually summarized in the diagram below.

Integrating transcriptomics and metabolomics data provides a powerful, systems-level approach for elucidating biosynthetic pathways, a crucial step in retrosynthetic analysis for metabolic engineering and natural product discovery. This integration connects gene expression patterns with downstream metabolic phenotypes, enabling researchers to reverse-engineer nature's biosynthetic logic and design efficient microbial production systems for valuable compounds [29] [30]. Multi-omics integration is particularly valuable for plant and microbial specialized metabolism, where pathway genes are often non-clustered or poorly annotated, making traditional discovery methods challenging [30] [31]. By simultaneously analyzing the transcriptome and metabolome across different biological conditions, researchers can identify co-expressed gene modules correlated with metabolite abundance, pinpoint key pathway genes, and reconstruct complete biosynthetic routes for retrosynthetic pathway design [30] [32].

Quantitative Data Comparison in Multi-Omics Studies

The table below summarizes key quantitative findings from published multi-omics studies investigating biosynthetic pathways, demonstrating the scale and resolution of data achievable with current technologies.

Table 1: Quantitative Data from Representative Multi-Omics Pathway Studies

Study Organism / System	Omics Technologies Employed	Key Quantitative Findings	Biosynthetic Pathway Elucidated	Reference
Amomum tsaoko fruit (developmental series)	RNA-seq, UPLC-MS/MS metabolomics	1,879 metabolites detected; 1,432 differentially accumulated metabolites (DAMs) identified across 5 stages; 300 metabolites showed gradual decrease during development	Terpenoid and curcuminoid biosynthesis	[32]
Murine blood (radiation response)	RNA-seq, LC-MS metabolomics/lipidomics	2,837 genes differentially expressed (1,595 up, 1,242 down) after high-dose radiation; 16 metabolic enzyme genes identified	Amino acid, lipid, nucleotide, and carbohydrate metabolism	[33]
General plant specialized metabolism	Genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics	30-40 biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) fully characterized in plants; plantiSMASH algorithm enables genome mining	Various plant natural products	[30]
Computational pathway design (SubNetX)	Biochemical database mining, constraint-based modeling	Pathway extraction for 70 industrially relevant chemicals; demonstrated branched pathways with higher yields than linear approaches	Various pharmaceuticals and natural products	[4]

Table 2: Multi-Omics Experimental Design Strategies for Pathway Elucidation

Experimental Design Approach	Biological Rationale	Key Analytical Method	Application Example	Reference
Comparison of producing vs. non-producing species	Identifies conserved pathway genes specific to producers	Differential gene expression analysis	Noscapine biosynthesis in opium poppy	[31]
Developmental time series analysis	Captures coordinated induction of pathway genes and metabolites	K-means clustering of temporal patterns	Terpenoid and curcuminoid accumulation in A. tsaoko fruit	[32]
Tissue-specific comparison	Leverages spatial organization of specialized metabolism	Correlation analysis between transcript and metabolite abundances	Monoterpene indole alkaloids in Catharanthus roseus	[30]
Perturbation response profiling	Reveals stress-responsive metabolic pathways	Joint-pathway analysis and enrichment statistics	Radiation-induced metabolic changes in murine models	[33]

Experimental Protocols

Integrated Transcriptomic and Metabolomic Profiling for Pathway Discovery

3.1.1 Sample Preparation and Experimental Design

• Biological Material Selection: Based on preliminary knowledge or literature, select biological samples that represent contrasting states for the target metabolite accumulation (e.g., producing vs. non-producing tissues, different developmental stages, treated vs. control organisms) [31]. For a time-series experiment, collect samples across multiple time points covering the biosynthetic period [32].
• Sample Replication: Include a minimum of 5-6 biological replicates per condition to ensure statistical power for subsequent correlation analyses [29].
• Sample Collection and Preservation: For transcriptomics, immediately stabilize RNA using RNAlater or flash-freeze in liquid nitrogen. For metabolomics, flash-freeze samples at -80°C or lower to quench metabolic activity. Consistent collection timing is critical to minimize diurnal variation [29] [33].
• Sample Homogenization: Grind frozen tissues to a fine powder under liquid nitrogen using a pre-chilled mortar and pestle or bead mill. Divide the homogenized powder for parallel nucleic acid and metabolite extraction [32].

3.1.2 RNA Sequencing and Transcriptome Analysis

• RNA Extraction: Use established kits (e.g., Qiagen RNeasy) with DNase I treatment to obtain high-quality RNA. Verify RNA integrity using Bioanalyzer or similar (RIN > 8.0 required) [33] [32].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare stranded mRNA-seq libraries using standard kits (Illumina). Sequence on an Illumina platform to generate a minimum of 40 million 150-bp paired-end reads per sample [32].
• Transcriptome Assembly and Quantification: Process raw reads through quality control (FastQC), adapter trimming (Trimmomatic), and alignment to a reference genome (HISAT2, STAR). For non-model organisms without reference genomes, perform de novo assembly (Trinity). Quantify gene expression as counts or FPKM values [31] [32].
• Differential Expression Analysis: Identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between conditions using statistical packages (DESeq2, edgeR) with adjusted p-value < 0.05 and log2 fold change ≥ 2 as significance thresholds [31] [33].

3.1.3 Metabolite Profiling and Analysis

• Metabolite Extraction: Weigh approximately 50 mg of frozen tissue powder. Extract metabolites using a methanol:water:chloroform (2.5:1:1) system with continuous shaking. Centrifuge and collect the polar phase for LC-MS analysis [32].
• LC-MS Analysis: Employ reversed-phase UPLC coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (e.g., Q-TOF). Use C18 columns with water-acetonitrile gradients, both with 0.1% formic acid. Acquire data in both positive and negative ionization modes [33] [32].
• Metabolite Identification and Quantification: Process raw data using software (XCMS, MS-DIAL) for peak picking, alignment, and normalization. Annotate metabolites by matching accurate mass and MS/MS spectra against databases (GNPS, HMDB, custom spectral libraries). Perform semi-quantification based on peak areas [32].
• Differential Metabolite Analysis: Identify differentially accumulated metabolites (DAMs) using multivariate statistics (PLS-DA) and univariate tests (Student's t-test with FDR correction) [32].

Data Integration and Bioinformatics Analysis

3.2.1 Multi-Omics Integration Using Correlation Networks

• Data Normalization: Normalize both transcript and metabolite data matrices using z-score transformation or similar approaches to make dimensions comparable [34].
• Correlation Calculation: Compute pairwise correlations between all DEGs and DAMs using Spearman or Pearson correlation. Apply significance thresholds (p-value < 0.01) and minimum correlation coefficient (|r| > 0.8) [30] [32].
• Network Construction and Visualization: Build correlation networks in Cytoscape, with genes and metabolites as nodes and significant correlations as edges. Apply community detection algorithms (e.g., MCL clustering) to identify co-expression modules [30].

3.2.2 Integrated Pathway Analysis

• Joint Pathway Mapping: Map both DEGs and DAMs to reference pathways in KEGG or Reactome databases. Use over-representation analysis (hypergeometric test) to identify pathways significantly enriched with both transcript and metabolite changes [34] [33].
• Pathway Activity Scoring: Calculate pathway-level activity scores using methods like PathIntegrate, which applies singular value decomposition (SVD) to multi-omics data mapped to specific pathways [34].
• Biosynthetic Gene Cluster Identification: For genomic data, use plantiSMASH or similar tools to identify physically clustered biosynthetic genes. Integrate with co-expression data from transcriptomics to prioritize candidate clusters [30].

Workflow for Multi-Omics Pathway Elucidation

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Multi-Omics Studies

Category	Item/Resource	Specific Application	Function/Rationale
Wet-Lab Reagents	RNAlater Stabilization Solution	RNA preservation for transcriptomics	Stabilizes cellular RNA and prevents degradation during sample storage and transport
TRIzol Reagent	Simultaneous RNA and metabolite extraction	Enables parallel extraction of RNA and metabolites from single sample, reducing biological variation
DNase I (RNase-free)	RNA purification	Removes genomic DNA contamination from RNA preparations for sequencing
LC-MS Grade Solvents	Metabolite extraction and analysis	Minimizes background noise and ion suppression in mass spectrometry
Bioinformatics Tools	plantiSMASH	Genome mining for biosynthetic gene clusters	Identifies clustered biosynthetic genes in plant genomes using profile HMMs
XCMS Online	LC-MS data processing	Performs peak detection, retention time alignment, and statistical comparison of metabolomic data
DESeq2/edgeR	RNA-seq differential expression	Identifies statistically significant differentially expressed genes between conditions
Cytoscape with Omics Visualizer	Multi-omics network visualization	Constructs and visualizes correlation networks between transcripts and metabolites
Databases	KEGG PATHWAY	Pathway mapping and enrichment	Reference database for metabolic pathways and enzyme functions
REACTOME	Multi-omics pathway analysis	Curated pathway database with support for integrated omics analysis
Natural Product Atlas	Natural product reference	Database of known microbial natural products and their predicted biosynthetic pathways
Aldose reductase-IN-5	Aldose reductase-IN-5, MF:C18H15NO5, MW:325.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
2-Methyl-5-(p-tolyldiazenyl)aniline	2-Methyl-5-(p-tolyldiazenyl)aniline, MF:C14H15N3, MW:225.29 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Retrosynthetic Pathway Design Framework

Tyrosine-derived compounds represent a class of high-value molecules with significant applications in the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, and chemical industries [35]. These include therapeutic agents such as levodopa (L-DOPA) for Parkinson's disease, resveratrol with its cardioprotective and anticancer properties, and hydroxytyrosol, a potent antioxidant [35]. Traditional chemical synthesis of these compounds often involves complex processes with environmental concerns, making microbial biosynthesis an attractive alternative due to its sustainability and potential for renewable production [35].

This application note details the implementation of tyrosine-derived therapeutic pathways in Escherichia coli, framed within the broader context of retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design. Retrosynthetic analysis involves decomposing a target molecule into simpler precursors through iterative application of reversed biochemical transformations until reaching metabolites endogenous to the host chassis [8]. For E. coli, this means tracing pathways back to the aromatic amino acid biosynthesis network, with tyrosine serving as a key branching point [35] [8]. The integration of computational tools for pathway prediction and ranking, combined with advanced metabolic engineering strategies, enables the efficient design and optimization of microbial cell factories for on-demand therapeutic production [1] [8].

Retrosynthetic Design of Tyrosine-Derived Pathways

The implementation of heterologous biosynthetic pathways in a microbial chassis requires systematic design to ensure efficiency and compatibility with host metabolism. A retrosynthetic biology approach addresses this by working backward from the target therapeutic molecule to identify feasible synthetic routes [8].

Retrosynthetic Framework

The process begins with the target compound (e.g., resveratrol, L-DOPA, or naringenin) and iteratively applies reversed enzyme-catalyzed reactions within an Extended Metabolic Reaction Space (EMRS) [8]. This space includes both known biochemical transformations and putative reactions generated through molecular signature coding, which represents substrates, products, and reactions as canonical molecular graph descriptors [8]. The specificity of this search is controlled by the signature height parameter (h), with higher values yielding more precise and tractable route enumerations [8].

Table 1: Retrosynthetic Pathway Analysis for Tyrosine-Derived Therapeutics

Target Compound	Therapeutic Application	Key Retrosynthetic Steps from Tyrosine	Heterologous Enzymes Required
Levodopa (L-DOPA)	Parkinson's Disease Treatment	Tyrosine → L-DOPA	Tyrosinase (MutmelA) or 4-hydroxyphenylacetate 3-monooxygenase (HpaB/HpaC) [35]
Resveratrol	Cardioprotective, Anticancer	Tyrosine → p-Coumaric Acid → Resveratrol	Tyrosine ammonia-lyase (TAL), 4-coumarate:CoA ligase (4CL), Stilbene synthase (STS) [35]
Naringenin	Antioxidant, Anti-inflammatory	Tyrosine → p-Coumaric Acid → Naringenin Chalcone → Naringenin	TAL, 4CL, Chalcone synthase (CHS), Chalcone isomerase (CHI) [35]
Hydroxytyrosol	Antioxidant	Tyrosine → L-DOPA → Hydroxytyrosol	Tyrosinase, Hydroxyphenylpyruvate reductase (HPPR), Aro10, ADH [35]
p-Coumaric Acid	Pharmaceutic Precursor	Tyrosine → p-Coumaric Acid	Tyrosine ammonia-lyase (TAL) [35]

Pathway Ranking and Selection

Following pathway enumeration, candidate routes are ranked using a multi-factor function that integrates:

• Host Compatibility: Codon optimization and expression compatibility of heterologous genes in E. coli [8].
• Metabolic Flux: Estimation of steady-state fluxes from genome-scale metabolic models to identify potential bottlenecks [8].
• Enzyme Efficiency: Machine-learning predictions of enzyme activity and reaction kinetics [8].
• Metabolite Toxicity: Assessment of intermediate toxicity to the host chassis [8].
• Thermodynamic Favorability: Group contribution methods to calculate Gibbs free energy changes [8].
• Path Cost: A composite measure including the number of heterologous enzymes and chemical distance from precursors [8].

This ranking allows for the selection of the most promising pathways for experimental implementation, balancing theoretical feasibility with practical engineering constraints.

Engineering a High-Yield Tyrosine Platform Strain inE. coli

Efficient production of tyrosine-derived therapeutics requires a high-yield tyrosine-producing E. coli strain as the foundational platform. The native tyrosine biosynthesis pathway in E. coli draws carbon from glycolysis (phosphoenolpyruvate, PEP) and the pentose phosphate pathway (erythrose-4-phosphate, E4P) through the shikimate pathway [35]. The following engineering strategy employs a synergetic approach to maximize tyrosine titers, yields, and productivity.

Genetic Modifications for Enhanced Tyrosine Production

Table 2: Key Genetic Modifications for Tyrosine Overproduction in E. coli

Modification Category	Specific Target/Gene	Engineering Action	Functional Impact
Feedback Inhibition Relief	aroGtyrA	Introduce feedback-resistant mutants (e.g., AroGfbr, TyrAfbr)	Deregulates key enzymes (DAHP synthase, Chorismate mutase/prephenate dehydrogenase) from tyrosine inhibition [35]
Competitive Pathway Blocking	pheApheLtrpE	Partial or complete knockout	Redirects carbon flux from phenylalanine and tryptophan biosynthesis towards tyrosine [35]
Precursor Supply Enhancement	tktA (transketolase)ppsA (PEP synthase)	Overexpression	Increases supply of E4P and PEP, key precursors for the shikimate pathway [35] [36]
Tyrosine Export	yddG	Overexpression	Enhances tyrosine secretion, reducing intracellular feedback and product toxicity [35]
Carbon Redirection	Phosphoketolase (XfpK)	Heterologous expression from B. subtilis	Diverts carbon from glycolysis directly to acetyl-phosphate and E4P, boosting E4P supply [36]
Cofactor Engineering	pntAB (transhydrogenase)	Overexpression	Shifts NADPH/NADP+ ratio to favor tyrosine biosynthesis, which is NADPH-dependent [36]
Byproduct Reduction	adhE, pflB, ldhA	Knockout	Reduces formation of ethanol, formate, and lactate, redirecting carbon to target product [35]

Protocol: Construction of a High-Yield TyrosineE. coliStrain

Materials:

• E. coli MG1655 or other wild-type laboratory strain.
• Plasmid vectors for gene expression (e.g., pET, pCOLADuet, pACYCDuet).
• Oligonucleotides for PCR and gene synthesis.
• CRISPR-Cas9 system or λ-Red recombineering system for genomic modifications.
• Antibiotics for selection.
• M9 minimal medium and LB medium.

Procedure:

• CRISPR-Cas9 Mediated Genomic Knockouts:

  • Design sgRNAs targeting pheA, trpE, adhE, pflB, and ldhA.
  • Co-transform the Cas9 plasmid and the respective repair template (donor DNA) containing the desired deletion and an antibiotic resistance marker (if needed).
  • Select transformants on LB agar with appropriate antibiotics.
  • Verify knockouts by colony PCR and Sanger sequencing.
  • Cure the Cas9 plasmid through temperature shift or sucrose counter-selection.

• Introduction of Feedback-Resistant Alleles:

  • Amplify the aroG<sup>fbr</sup> and tyrA<sup>fbr</sup> genes from plasmids harboring the mutant sequences.
  • Use recombineering to replace the native promoters and/or coding sequences on the chromosome with the feedback-resistant versions.
  • Alternatively, clone these genes onto a medium-copy plasmid under a strong constitutive promoter (e.g., J23100) and transform into the knockout strain.

• Enhancement of Precursor Supply:

  • Clone tktA and ppsA into a compatible plasmid.
  • Assemble a synthetic operon for the phosphoketolase pathway genes (xfpK) and co-transform with the pntAB operon on a separate plasmid.
  • Transform the assembled plasmids into the engineered base strain.

• Fermentation and Validation:

  • Inoculate a single colony into 10 mL of M9 medium supplemented with 2% glucose and necessary nutrients (e.g., phenylalanine, if pheA is knocked out). Incubate at 37°C overnight with shaking.
  • Transfer the seed culture into a bioreactor containing 1L of defined medium with 10% initial glucose concentration.
  • Maintain fermentation conditions: temperature 37°C, pH 6.8 (controlled with NH₄OH), dissolved oxygen >30%.
  • Employ a fed-batch strategy with continuous glucose feeding to maintain a concentration between 5-10 g/L.
  • Monitor cell density (OD₆₀₀) and tyrosine concentration via HPLC over 62 hours.

Expected Outcome: Following this protocol, the optimized strain should achieve a high titer of tyrosine. One study reported a final titer of 92.5 g/L L-tyrosine in a 5-L fermenter after 62 hours, with a yield of 0.266 g tyrosine per g glucose [36].

Diagram 1: Metabolic Engineering of E. coli for High-Yield Tyrosine Production. The core biosynthesis pathway from glucose to L-tyrosine is shown in blue. Key genetic interventions are indicated: feedback-resistant enzyme overexpression (yellow), precursor enhancement (yellow), competitive pathway blocking (red), and byproduct reduction (red).

Implementation of Therapeutic Derivative Pathways

With a high-yield tyrosine platform strain established, heterologous pathways for the production of specific therapeutics can be introduced. This section provides detailed protocols for the production of two key tyrosine-derived molecules: Levodopa (L-DOPA) and Resveratrol.

Protocol: Microbial Production of Levodopa (L-DOPA)

L-DOPA is the primary treatment for Parkinson's disease, and its direct biosynthesis in E. coli offers a streamlined production method.

Research Reagent Solutions:

Table 3: Key Reagents for L-DOPA Production in E. coli

Reagent / Enzyme	Function in Pathway	Source / Example
Tyrosinase (MutmelA)	Catalyzes the hydroxylation of L-tyrosine to L-DOPA	From Streptomyces glaucescens or Bacillus megaterium [35]
HpaBC Complex	4-hydroxyphenylacetate 3-monooxygenase system; hydroxylates tyrosine to L-DOPA	Native E. coli enzymes (HpaB: oxygenase, HpaC: reductase) [35]
L-Tyrosine	Direct precursor substrate	From engineered high-titer E. coli platform strain
NADPH	Cofactor for HpaBC system	Regenerated via host metabolism or cofactor engineering (e.g., PntAB) [36]

Procedure:

• Strain Construction:

  • Use the high-yield tyrosine platform strain (Section 3.2) as the host.
  • Clone a codon-optimized gene for a tyrosinase (mutmelA) under an inducible promoter (e.g., T7 or pBad) into an expression plasmid. Alternatively, amplify the native hpaB and hpaC genes and assemble them as an operon under a strong promoter.
  • Transform the constructed plasmid into the tyrosine-producing strain.

• Fermentation for L-DOPA Production:

  • Inoculate a single colony into TB medium with appropriate antibiotics. Incubate at 30°C until OD₆₀₀ reaches 0.6-0.8.
  • Induce enzyme expression by adding IPTG (for T7/lac promoters) or L-arabinose (for pBad). Simultaneously, reduce the temperature to 25°C to improve protein folding and stability.
  • Continue fermentation for 24-48 hours post-induction.

• Analytical Quantification:

  • Withdraw samples periodically. Centrifuge to separate cells from supernatant.
  • Analyze the supernatant using HPLC equipped with a C18 column and a UV/Vis detector set to 280 nm. Use authentic L-DOPA standards for retention time comparison and quantification.

Protocol: Microbial Production of Resveratrol

Resveratrol is a stilbenoid with demonstrated health benefits, produced via a three-step pathway from tyrosine.

Research Reagent Solutions:

Table 4: Key Reagents for Resveratrol Production in E. coli

Reagent / Enzyme	Function in Pathway	Source / Example
Tyrosine Ammonia-Lyase (TAL)	Converts L-tyrosine directly to p-coumaric acid	From Rhodotorula glutinis or Herpetosiphon aurantiacus [35]
4-Coumarate:CoA Ligase (4CL)	Activates p-coumaric acid to p-coumaroyl-CoA	From Arabidopsis thaliana or Streptomyces coelicolor [35]
Stilbene Synthase (STS)	Condenses p-coumaroyl-CoA with 3 malonyl-CoA molecules to form resveratrol	From Vitis vinifera or Arachis hypogaea [35]
Malonyl-CoA	Essential co-substrate for STS	Derived from acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) activity in E. coli

Procedure:

• Strain Construction:

  • Use the high-yield tyrosine platform strain as the host.
  • Assemble a synthetic operon containing genes for TAL, 4CL, and STS on a high-copy plasmid. Use compatible ribosome binding sites to ensure balanced expression. Consider using a polycistronic design with cleavable linkers (e.g., T2A peptides) if enzyme size ratio is critical.
  • To address the limited malonyl-CoA pool in E. coli, co-express an acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) complex from Corynebacterium glutamicum or Photorhabdus luminescens on a compatible plasmid.

• Fermentation for Resveratrol Production:

  • Inoculate and grow the seed culture as described for L-DOPA.
  • Induce pathway expression at mid-log phase. For resveratrol production, a lower temperature (25-28°C) is often beneficial for the activity of plant-derived enzymes like STS and 4CL.
  • Supplement the medium with 1-2 mM ferulic acid or other phenylpropanoids if testing enzyme promiscuity, though this is not required for production from glucose.

• Analytical Quantification:

  • Extract resveratrol from the culture broth using ethyl acetate due to its lipophilic nature.
  • Analyze the organic phase using HPLC or LC-MS. Resveratrol can be detected by its absorbance at 306 nm or by its characteristic mass ion.

Performance Metrics and Analytical Data

Quantitative evaluation of the engineered strains is critical for assessing the success of the implemented pathways. The table below summarizes performance data for tyrosine and its derived therapeutics.

Table 5: Production Metrics for Tyrosine and Selected Derivatives in Engineered E. coli

Compound	Host Strain	Maximum Titer	Yield	Productivity	Key Engineering Strategy	Source
L-Tyrosine	Engineered E. coli	92.5 g/L	0.266 g/g glucose	1.49 g/L/h	Synergetic engineering: PKT pathway, cofactor engineering, ALE [36]
L-Tyrosine	Engineered E. coli	55 g/L	N/A	~1.15 g/L/h	Combinatorial modulation of aroG, tyrA, tktA, ppsA, yddG; deletion of aroP, tyrP [35]
L-DOPA	Engineered E. coli	N/A	N/A	N/A	Hydroxylation of tyrosine via HpaBC complex or tyrosinase [35]
p-Coumaric Acid	Engineered E. coli	N/A	N/A	N/A	Conversion of tyrosine via Tyrosine Ammonia-Lyase (TAL) [35]
Resveratrol	Engineered E. coli	N/A	N/A	N/A	Co-expression of TAL, 4CL, and Stilbene Synthase (STS) [35]

Note: N/A indicates that specific quantitative values were not available in the sourced references. The protocols outlined in this document are designed to achieve robust production, and titers/yields should be experimentally determined.

Integrated Workflow from Design to Production

The entire process, from initial pathway design to final production, can be conceptualized as an integrated workflow. This workflow combines computational retrosynthetic analysis with practical metabolic engineering and fermentation protocols.

Diagram 2: Integrated Workflow for Developing E. coli Strains Producing Tyrosine-Derived Therapeutics. The process begins with target definition and computational design, moves through strain engineering (highlighted in yellow), and concludes with production and validation, incorporating a feedback loop for continuous improvement.

Overcoming Design Challenges: Bottlenecks, Optimization, and Enzyme Engineering

Identifying and Resolving Metabolic Bottlenecks and Flux Issues

Metabolic bottlenecks and flux imbalances are critical challenges in metabolic engineering, often limiting the yield and productivity of biosynthetically produced compounds. Within the broader framework of retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design, identifying and resolving these constraints is essential for optimizing microbial cell factories [1] [8]. Retrosynthetic approaches deconstruct target molecules into biosynthetic precursors, but the in vivo implementation of these designed pathways frequently encounters kinetic and thermodynamic limitations that disrupt metabolic flux [8] [37]. This protocol details a comprehensive strategy, integrating computational predictions and experimental analyses, to systematically pinpoint and overcome these barriers, thereby enhancing pathway efficiency.

Computational Prediction of Potential Bottlenecks

Retrosynthetic Pathway Design and Preliminary Assessment

The initial step involves using computational tools to design plausible biosynthetic routes to your target compound.

• Tool Selection: Utilize retrosynthesis platforms such as BioNavi-NP [13] or the Retrotoolbox (e.g., ShikiAtlas) [37]. These tools employ deep learning or knowledge-based algorithms to propose multi-step pathways from simple building blocks to complex target molecules.
• Pathway Ranking: Generate multiple candidate pathways and rank them based on key metrics. Prioritize pathways with:
  • Shorter lengths (fewer enzymatic steps).
  • Higher Atom Conservation (e.g., Conservation Atom Ratio - CAR).
  • Thermodynamic Favorability (negative Gibbs free energy change, ΔG) [8] [37].
• Enzyme Candidate Identification: For each reaction in the selected pathway, use enzyme selection tools like Selenzyme [13] [37] or BridgIT [37] to propose candidate enzymes and their associated EC numbers.

Table 1: Computational Tools for Retrosynthetic Pathway Design and Analysis

Tool Name	Type/Approach	Key Function	Applicability
BioNavi-NP [13]	Deep Learning (Transformer)	De novo bio-retrosynthetic pathway prediction	Natural products and NP-like compounds
BNICE.ch [8] [37]	Rule-Based (Retrosynthesis)	Generates novel enzymatic reactions and pathways	Extended Metabolic Reaction Space (EMRS)
RetroPath2.0 [37]	Rule-Based (Retrosynthesis)	Designs pathways in a chassis-specific context	E. coli, Yeast, and other hosts
ShikiAtlas Retrotoolbox [37]	Analysis Platform	Analyzes and ranks pathways from multiple algorithms	User-friendly pathway comparison
Selenzyme [13] [37]	Enzyme Selection Tool	Recommends enzymes for a given reaction	Gene candidate mining and EC number attribution

Genome-Scale Modeling for Flux Analysis

Once a pathway is designed, Genome-Scale Metabolic Models (GEMs) are used to simulate its integration into the host's native metabolism and predict flux distributions.

• Model Construction: Employ a context-specific GEM for your host organism (e.g., E. coli, yeast, or CHO cells). This model can be constrained using transcriptomic, proteomic, and/or exometabolomic data to reflect the specific production conditions [38] [39].
• Flux Balance Analysis (FBA): Use FBA to predict steady-state reaction fluxes by optimizing an objective function (e.g., biomass growth or product synthesis). Reactions operating at their maximum allowable flux may indicate potential bottlenecks [38] [39].
• Flux Variability Analysis (FVA): Perform FVA to determine the range of possible fluxes for each reaction while maintaining a sub-optimal objective (e.g., 90% of maximum growth). Reactions with low variability (narrow flux ranges) are often critical and tightly regulated [38] [39].
• Flux Sampling: For an unbiased exploration of possible metabolic states without a predefined objective function, use flux sampling algorithms. This is particularly useful for identifying alternative flux distributions in non-growth associated production phases, such as in CHO cell cultures [39].

Figure 1: Computational workflow for predicting metabolic bottlenecks, integrating retrosynthetic design with genome-scale modeling.

Experimental Identification and Validation of Bottlenecks

Protocol: Metabolomics for Intermediate Accumulation

This protocol uses Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) to detect and quantify metabolic intermediates, indicating blocked reactions.

• Sample Collection:

  • Culture engineered production hosts and control strains (e.g., empty vector).
  • Collect samples at multiple time points across the growth and production phases.
  • Quench metabolism rapidly (e.g., using cold methanol). Centrifuge to pellet cells. Snap-freeze cell pellets in liquid nitrogen and store at -80°C.

• Metabolite Extraction:

  • Resuspend cell pellets in a pre-chilled extraction solvent (e.g., 40:40:20 acetonitrile:methanol:water).
  • Vortex vigorously and incubate at -20°C for 1 hour.
  • Centrifuge at high speed (e.g., 14,000 rpm, 15 min, 4°C) to remove cell debris.
  • Transfer the supernatant (metabolite extract) to a new vial for analysis.

• LC-MS Analysis:

  • Separate metabolites using a reversed-phase (e.g., C18) or HILIC UHPLC column.
  • Use a high-resolution mass spectrometer (e.g., Q-TOF) for detection in both positive and negative ionization modes.
  • Include authentic standards for target pathway intermediates for precise quantification.

• Data Analysis:

  • Process raw data using software (e.g., XCMS, Progenesis QI) for peak picking, alignment, and annotation.
  • Statistically compare the levels of pathway intermediates in the production strain versus the control.
  • Significant accumulation of a specific intermediate upstream of a reaction step is a strong indicator of a kinetic bottleneck at that step [38].

Protocol: Determining Enzyme Activities In Vitro

Directly measuring the activity of enzymes in the heterologous pathway can confirm computational predictions.

• Cell Lysis and Protein Extraction:

  • Harvest cells by centrifugation.
  • Lyse cells using a method appropriate for your host (e.g., sonication, enzymatic lysis, or French press) in a suitable lysis buffer (e.g., 50 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, with protease inhibitors).
  • Centrifuge the lysate at high speed to remove insoluble debris. The supernatant is the soluble protein extract.

• Enzyme Activity Assay:

  • For each enzymatic step, prepare a reaction mixture containing:
    • Appropriate buffer and co-factors (e.g., NADPH, ATP, metal ions).
    • The substrate for the enzyme (can be the accumulated intermediate identified via metabolomics).
    • A quantity of the protein extract (ensure measurements are within the linear range for protein concentration and time).
  • Incubate the reaction at the host's growth temperature.
  • Stop the reaction at timed intervals (e.g., by heat inactivation or acid addition).

• Product Quantification:

  • Use analytical techniques such as HPLC-UV/Vis or LC-MS to quantify the formation of the reaction product over time.
  • Calculate the specific enzyme activity (e.g., µmol product formed per minute per mg of total protein).

• Identification:

  • Compare the in vitro activity of each enzyme in the pathway. The step with significantly lower specific activity relative to others is a confirmed kinetic bottleneck [37].

Table 2: Key Analytical Techniques for Bottleneck Identification

Technique	Measured Parameter	Indication of a Bottleneck	Key Advantage
LC-MS Metabolomics	Intracellular concentration of pathway intermediates	Accumulation of a specific intermediate	Provides a system-wide view of metabolic state
In Vitro Enzyme Assay	Specific activity of heterologous enzymes (µmol/min/mg)	Markedly lower activity at a specific step	Directly identifies the limiting enzyme catalyst
Fluxomics (e.g., 13C-MFA)	In vivo metabolic reaction rates (fluxes)	Significant drop in flux through a particular reaction	Most direct measure of intracellular fluxes

Strategies for Resolving Metabolic Bottlenecks

Enzyme and Pathway Engineering

• Enzyme Selection and Engineering: Revisit the initial computational enzyme candidates. Use a structure-based pipeline (e.g., Gene Discovery and Enzyme Engineering - GDEE) to rank natural enzyme variants based on predicted binding affinity for the substrate [37]. If natural variants are insufficient, employ directed evolution or rational design to improve the catalytic efficiency (kcat/KM) of the bottleneck enzyme.
• Codon Optimization and Expression Tuning: Suboptimal translation can cause bottlenecks. Codon-optimize the heterologous gene(s) for the host. Systematically tune the expression level of the bottleneck enzyme using libraries of promoters and RBSs of varying strengths to find the optimal level that maximizes flux without overburdening the cell [37].
• Protein Scaffolding: For multi-enzyme complexes, spatially organize the enzymes to substrate channeling. Fuse enzymes or use synthetic protein scaffolds (e.g., based on cohesin-dockerin interactions) to co-localize them, minimizing the diffusion of intermediates and protecting them from degradation or side reactions.

Host and Pathway Re-engineering

• Precursor and Cofactor Balancing: A bottleneck may be due to insufficient precursor or cofactor supply. Use GEMs to identify limitations in central metabolism. Overexpress key genes in precursor supply pathways (e.g., DAHP synthase for aromatic compounds). Engineer cofactor regeneration systems (e.g., transhydrogenase for NADPH supply) to ensure adequate supply [8] [39].
• Alternative Pathway Implementation: If a specific step remains problematic, utilize the retrosynthesis toolbox to find a bypass route. Design an alternative pathway that produces the same target compound but uses different enzymes and chemistry to circumvent the bottleneck [37]. For example, a novel tyramine-based pathway was successfully implemented for dopamine production to avoid a challenging enzymatic step [37].
• Dynamic Regulation: Implement a feedback control system where a sensor for the accumulated intermediate dynamically regulates the expression of the bottleneck enzyme. This avoids constant high expression and can improve overall host fitness and productivity.

Figure 2: A multi-faceted strategy for resolving confirmed metabolic bottlenecks.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Metabolic Bottleneck Analysis

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Example / Specification
Retrosynthesis Software	In silico design of biosynthetic pathways	BioNavi-NP, BNICE.ch, RetroPath2.0 [13] [8] [37]
Genome-Scale Model (GEM)	In silico prediction of metabolic flux distributions	organism-specific models (e.g., iCHO2441, iML1515) [38] [39]
Enzyme Selection Tool	Recommends gene candidates for retrosynthetic steps	Selenzyme, BridgIT [13] [37]
LC-MS Grade Solvents	Metabolite extraction and chromatography	Acetonitrile, Methanol, Water (high purity)
UHPLC Column	Separation of complex metabolite mixtures	Reversed-phase (C18) or HILIC, 1.7-2 µm particle size
Authentic Standards	Quantification of target metabolites	Certified reference standards for pathway intermediates
Lysis Buffer	Extraction of soluble enzymes for activity assays	Phosphate buffer (50-100 mM, pH 7.4) with protease inhibitors
Cofactors	Essential for in vitro enzyme activity assays	NADPH, ATP, PLP, Metal ions (Mg²⁺, Fe²⁺)
Promoter/RBS Library	Tuning expression levels of heterologous genes	Library of synthetic promoters with graded strengths
Cloning Kit	Assembly of genetic constructs for pathway expression	Gibson Assembly, Golden Gate, or Type IIS assembly kits
N1, N10-Diacetyl triethylenetetramine-d4	N1, N10-Diacetyl triethylenetetramine-d4, MF:C10H22N4O2, MW:234.33 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design systematically deconstructs a target molecule into simpler precursors, ultimately defining a pathway of enzymatic reactions that can be assembled in a microbial host [40]. However, a fundamental disconnect often exists between the elegant pathways designed in silico and their successful implementation in a living chassis. A primary reason for this failure is incompatibility between the heterologous enzymes and the host's physiological environment [41]. This application note details practical strategies and protocols for selecting and engineering enzymes to ensure host compatibility, thereby bridging the gap between retrosynthetic design and functional microbial cell factories.

Introduced heterologous pathways can disrupt the host's metabolic homeostasis, imposing metabolic burdens, generating toxic intermediates, and altering the intracellular microenvironment [41]. These challenges manifest at multiple levels, necessitating a hierarchical engineering approach. Furthermore, while computational tools excel at predicting potential pathways from reactants to products [21], they often lack the gene-level information required to assess physical compatibility, such as the propensity of an enzyme to fold correctly and remain soluble in a new cellular context [42]. The protocols herein are designed to address these gaps, providing a framework for building efficient and robust biocatalytic systems.

Hierarchical Compatibility: A Framework for Engineering

A structured, multi-level framework is essential for diagnosing and resolving compatibility issues. The table below outlines the four hierarchical levels of compatibility and corresponding engineering strategies [41].

Table 1: Hierarchical Compatibility Levels and Engineering Strategies

Compatibility Level	Description of Challenge	Key Engineering Strategies
Genetic	Instability of heterologous DNA; plasmid loss; genetic mutations.	Genomic integration; use of stable plasmid systems; landing pad systems [41].
Expression	Poor transcription/translation; incorrect protein folding; inclusion body formation.	Codon optimization; promoter engineering; fusion tags; co-expression of chaperones [41].
Flux	Imbalanced metabolic flow; resource competition; toxic intermediate accumulation.	Dynamic regulation; enzyme engineering to adjust kinetics; biosensor-driven feedback loops [41].
Microenvironment	Suboptimal subcellular conditions; lack of cofactors; incorrect post-translational modifications.	Scaffolding; protein-protein fusion; compartmentalization; spatial organization [41].

Computational Tools for Predictive Selection

Leveraging Protein Solubility Predictions

A significant bottleneck is the expression of soluble, active enzyme. Computational tools can now predict this critical parameter upfront.

• ProPASS Workflow: This tool links pathway construction with the physical design space by incorporating solubility confidence scores for enzymes in the target host (e.g., E. coli). It uses a database (ProSol DB) containing solubility predictions for over 240,000 enzymes to rank pathway variants based on their likelihood of successful expression [42].
• Application in Retrosynthesis: When a retrosynthetic algorithm proposes multiple enzyme candidates for a specific reaction step, their predicted solubility scores can be used as a key filtering and selection criterion, prioritizing variants with higher compatibility before any experimental work begins [42].

Assessing Computer-Generated Enzymes

Generative protein models can create novel enzyme sequences beyond natural diversity. Evaluating these sequences requires robust computational metrics to predict functionality.

• COMPSS Framework: A composite metric was developed to score sequences from generative models (e.g., ProteinGAN, ESM-MSA, Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction). This framework improved the experimental success rate of generated enzymes by 50-150% by filtering for sequences that are more likely to fold and function [43].
• Key Metrics: Effective metrics include alignment-based scores (sequence identity), alignment-free scores (from protein language models), and structure-based scores (from AlphaFold2 or Rosetta). No single metric is sufficient, but a composite is highly predictive [43].

Table 2: Computational Tools for Enzyme Compatibility Assessment

Tool Name	Primary Function	Application in Pathway Design
ProPASS/ProSol DB	Predicts enzyme solubility in a host (e.g., E. coli).	Ranking and selecting individual enzymes and whole pathways with high expression potential [42].
COMPSS	A composite metric to evaluate the functionality of computer-generated enzyme sequences.	Filtering novel, AI-generated enzymes for experimental testing, increasing success rate [43].
RetroBioCat	Computer-aided synthesis planning for biocatalytic reactions and cascades.	Designing multi-enzyme pathways and identifying suitable biocatalysts for each retrosynthetic step [40].

Experimental Protocols for Validation and Optimization

Once candidates are selected computationally, rigorous experimental validation is crucial. The following protocols provide detailed methodologies for this phase.

Protocol: Assessing Enzyme Solubility and Initial Activity

This protocol is adapted from standard enzyme assay procedures and high-throughput screening methods [44] [43].

I. Purpose To express candidate enzymes heterologously, separate soluble from insoluble protein, and perform a preliminary activity assay to identify the most promising leads.

II. Reagents and Equipment

• Luria-Bertani (LB) Broth and agar plates with appropriate selective antibiotic.
• Inducer: e.g., Isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) for T7-based systems. Concentration must be optimized [45].
• Lysis Buffer: e.g., 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, 1 mg/mL lysozyme, and protease inhibitors.
• Assay Buffer: Specific to the enzyme class. Must control pH, ionic strength, and temperature [44].
• Substrate(s): For the target enzymatic reaction.
• Centrifuges (for microcentrifuge and high-speed centrifuge).
• SDS-PAGE equipment.
• Spectrophotometer or plate reader for activity quantification.

III. Procedure

• Cloning and Expression:
  • Clone the codon-optimized gene for the candidate enzyme into an appropriate expression vector.
  • Transform the construct into the production host (e.g., E. coli BL21(DE3)).
  • Inoculate a primary culture and grow to mid-log phase (OD600 ~0.6).
  • Induce protein expression with an optimized concentration of IPTG (e.g., 0.1-1.0 mM). Incubate post-induction for 4-16 hours at a temperature optimized for solubility (e.g., 18-25°C).

• Cell Lysis and Fractionation:

  • Harvest cells by centrifugation (e.g., 5,000 x g, 10 min).
  • Resuspend cell pellet in Lysis Buffer and incubate on ice for 30 min.
  • Lyse cells by sonication or chemical lysis.
  • Clarify the lysate by centrifugation (14,000 x g, 30 min, 4°C). The supernatant contains the soluble fraction.
  • Resuspend the pellet in the same volume of Lysis Buffer (this is the insoluble fraction).

• Analysis:

  • Analyze equal volumes of total lysate, soluble fraction, and insoluble fraction by SDS-PAGE to estimate the proportion of soluble enzyme.
  • Use the soluble fraction for the activity assay.

• Initial Activity Assay:

  • Prepare a master mix of Assay Buffer and the required cofactors.
  • Add the soluble protein fraction to the master mix.
  • Initiate the reaction by adding the substrate.
  • Incubate at the assay temperature (e.g., 25°C or 37°C) and measure product formation over time (e.g., by absorbance change) [44].
  • Include a negative control (e.g., lysate from cells with an empty vector).

IV. Data Analysis

• Enzyme activity is calculated from the linear range of the product formation curve.
• One unit of enzyme activity is typically defined as the amount that converts 1 μmol of substrate to product per minute under specified conditions [44].
• Candidates are ranked based on both solubility (from SDS-PAGE) and specific activity (activity per mg of total protein).

Protocol: Engineering and Optimizing Enzyme Compatibility

For enzymes with suboptimal performance, the following engineering and optimization steps are recommended [41] [45].

I. Protein Engineering to Improve Stability and Activity

• Rational Design: Based on structural knowledge or homology models, identify residues near the active site or surface that could be mutated to improve stability, solubility, or kinetics. For example, site-directed mutagenesis of surface residues to enhance charge compatibility with the host cytosol can improve solubility [45].
• Directed Evolution:
  • Create a diverse library of enzyme variants via error-prone PCR or DNA shuffling.
  • Express the library in the host and employ a high-throughput screening method (e.g., using chromogenic substrates, growth selection, or fluorescence-activated cell sorting) to identify variants with improved properties [45] [43].
  • Iterate cycles of mutation and screening until performance goals are met.

II. Host and Pathway-Level Optimization

• Cofactor Balancing: If the enzyme requires a specific cofactor (e.g., NADH, NADPH), engineer the host's central metabolism to ensure an adequate supply. This may involve overexpressing genes in cofactor biosynthesis pathways or using enzymes with altered cofactor specificity [41].
• Spatial Organization: To enhance flux and reduce intermediate diffusion, co-localize pathway enzymes. This can be achieved using:
  • Scaffolding: Synthetic protein scaffolds that recruit enzymes sequentially.
  • Bacterial Microcompartments: Engineered protein shells that encapsulate pathways [41].
• Dynamic Regulation: Implement biosensor-based feedback loops. For example, use a transcription factor that responds to a pathway intermediate to dynamically regulate the expression of upstream enzymes, preventing toxic metabolite accumulation and balancing flux [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Enzyme Compatibility Work

Reagent / Material	Function and Application in Compatibility Engineering
Codon-Optimized Gene Sequences	Synthetic genes designed with host-specific codon usage bias to maximize translation efficiency and protein yield [41].
Chaperone Plasmid Kits	Co-expression plasmids for GroEL/ES, DnaK/DnaJ, etc., to assist proper folding of heterologous enzymes and reduce inclusion body formation [45].
Enzyme Activity Assay Kits	Pre-formulated kits for common enzyme classes (e.g., dehydrogenases, oxidases, kinases) for rapid, standardized activity screening [44].
Solubility Enhancement Tags	Vectors for expressing fusions with tags like MBP, GST, or Trx, which improve solubility and can be cleaved off after purification [42].
Broad-Host-Range Expression Vectors	Plasmids with different origins of replication and antibiotic markers for testing enzyme compatibility across multiple microbial chassis [41].

Achieving enzyme-host compatibility is not a single-step event but a iterative process of computational prediction and experimental refinement. By adopting the hierarchical compatibility framework—addressing genetic, expression, flux, and microenvironment challenges—researchers can systematically overcome the barriers that separate theoretical retrosynthetic designs from functioning microbial cell factories. The integration of modern computational tools like ProPASS and COMPSS for predictive selection, followed by the robust experimental protocols outlined here, provides a clear roadmap for developing efficient, scalable, and sustainable bioprocesses for drug development and chemical production.

The design of efficient biosynthetic pathways for the production of complex chemicals represents a cornerstone of modern synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. Moving beyond simple linear pathway designs, contemporary approaches must integrate complex molecules and numerous reactions into balanced subnetworks that function efficiently within host organisms [46]. The critical challenge lies not only in identifying potential pathways but in ranking them based on multiple criteria, with thermodynamic feasibility and host compatibility emerging as paramount considerations. This protocol details a comprehensive framework for pathway ranking that systematically integrates thermodynamic analysis and host metabolic compatibility, enabling researchers to prioritize the most promising biosynthetic routes for experimental implementation. The integration of these factors is particularly crucial for the bioproduction of pharmaceutical compounds and other high-value chemicals where yield and efficiency directly impact economic viability and sustainability [46] [21].

The foundation of this approach rests upon combining the strengths of constraint-based methods, which ensure stoichiometric and thermodynamic feasibility, with retrobiosynthesis methods that can navigate vast biochemical spaces including both known and predicted reactions [46]. This hybrid methodology allows for the identification of pathways that not only produce the target compound but do so efficiently within the context of the host's native metabolism, energy currencies, and cofactor pools. As the field moves toward production of increasingly complex secondary metabolites and non-natural compounds, these integrated ranking systems become indispensable tools for rational biosynthetic design.

Theoretical Foundation

Key Concepts and Definitions

Pathway Ranking refers to the systematic evaluation and prioritization of alternative biosynthetic routes based on quantifiable metrics. Effective ranking requires consideration of both intrinsic pathway properties and compatibility with the host production chassis [46].

Thermodynamic Feasibility assesses whether a pathway is energetically favorable based on Gibbs free energy calculations of constituent reactions. This analysis identifies potential thermodynamic bottlenecks where reaction driving force may be insufficient under physiological conditions [47].

Host Compatibility evaluates how well a heterologous pathway integrates with the native metabolism of the production organism, including precursor availability, cofactor balancing, and avoidance of toxic intermediate accumulation [46].

Balanced Subnetworks are sets of reactions that maintain stoichiometric balance for all metabolites while connecting target molecule production to host precursor metabolites, energy currencies, and cofactors [46].

Computational Approaches

Multiple computational paradigms have been developed for pathway design, each with distinct strengths. Graph-based approaches use graph-search algorithms to find pathways but often produce linear combinations of heterologous reactions with potential stoichiometric limitations. Stoichiometric approaches employ constraint-based optimization to find pathways connected to host metabolism via multiple precursors, ensuring feasibility but struggling with computational complexity in large reaction networks. Retrobiosynthesis approaches use algebraic operations to propose novel reactions not observed in nature [46]. The integration of these approaches, as implemented in tools like SubNetX, combines their respective advantages while mitigating their limitations [46].

Integrated Pathway Ranking Framework

The integrated ranking framework employs a multi-stage workflow that progresses from pathway identification to prioritized candidate selection. This systematic approach ensures comprehensive evaluation based on biochemical feasibility, host compatibility, and production efficiency.

Ranking Criteria and Metrics

Pathways are evaluated against multiple quantitative and qualitative criteria, with the relative importance of each metric varying based on specific project goals and host organisms.

Table 1: Pathway Ranking Criteria and Metrics

Criterion Category	Specific Metric	Calculation Method	Optimal Value
Thermodynamic	Max-min driving force	NEM analysis [47]	Maximize
	Number of thermodynamically unfavorable reactions	ΔG'° > 0 [47]	Minimize
Stoichiometric	Theoretical yield	mol product / mol substrate [46]	Maximize
	Co-factor balance	NADH/NAD+, ATP/ADP ratios	Balanced
Host Compatibility	Number of heterologous reactions	MILP algorithm [46]	Minimize
	Native precursor requirement	Pathway integration analysis [46]	Minimize
	Essential cofactor similarity	Cofactor mapping to host [46]	Maximize
Practical Implementation	Pathway length	Number of enzymatic steps [46]	Minimize
	Enzyme specificity	KM, kcat values [21]	Maximize

Materials and Reagents

Computational Tools and Databases

Successful implementation of the pathway ranking protocol requires access to specialized computational tools and comprehensive biochemical databases.

Table 2: Essential Computational Resources

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Access
SubNetX [46]	Algorithm	Balanced subnetwork extraction	Available upon request
POPPY [47]	Software	Pathway enumeration & thermodynamic analysis	Available upon request
RetroTRAE [18]	Retrosynthesis tool	Single-step retrosynthesis prediction	Open source
ARBRE [46]	Biochemical database	~400,000 balanced reactions	Curated database
ATLASx [46]	Biochemical database	>5 million predicted reactions	Public access
g:Profiler [48]	Enrichment analysis	Functional interpretation	Web tool
Cytoscape & EnrichmentMap [48]	Visualization	Network visualization & interpretation	Open source

Laboratory Materials

For experimental validation of ranked pathways, standard molecular biology reagents are required for pathway assembly and host transformation, including: DNA assembly kits (Gibson Assembly, Golden Gate), sequencing primers, synthetic gene fragments, host strain (E. coli, S. cerevisiae), transformation equipment, selective growth media, and analytical standards for target compounds and key intermediates.

Step-by-Step Protocol

Pathway Identification and Enumeration

Step 1: Define Input Parameters

Clearly specify the target compound using standard chemical identifiers (SMILES, InChI). Define acceptable host precursor metabolites based on the chosen production organism's native metabolism. For E. coli, this typically includes glucose, central carbon metabolites, and native cofactors. Set user-defined parameters including maximum pathway length, maximum number of heterologous reactions, and allowed cofactors [46].

Step 2: Extract Balanced Subnetworks

Utilize the SubNetX algorithm to extract balanced subnetworks from biochemical databases. The algorithm performs graph search of linear core pathways from precursor compounds to target compounds, then expands and extracts balanced subnetworks where cosubstrates and byproducts are linked to the native metabolism [46].

Step 3: Identify Minimal Reaction Sets

Apply mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) to identify the minimum number of essential reactions from the subnetwork that could produce the target compound. Each minimal set of reactions represents a feasible pathway candidate for subsequent analysis [46].

Thermodynamic Analysis

Step 4: Calculate Thermodynamic Parameters

For each reaction in the pathway candidates, obtain or estimate standard Gibbs free energy of formation (ΔG'°) values using group contribution methods or experimental data where available. Calculate the transformed Gibbs free energy (ΔG'°) at physiological conditions (pH, ionic strength, metal ion concentrations) [47].

Step 5: Perform Network-Embedded Thermodynamic Analysis

Implement the network-embedded variant of the max-min driving force analysis (NEM) using the POPPY workflow. This analysis evaluates pathway thermodynamics within the context of the entire metabolic network, accounting for metabolite concentration constraints and flux directions [47].

Step 6: Identify Thermodynamic Bottlenecks

Flag reactions with positive ΔG' values or insufficient driving force under physiological metabolite concentrations. These reactions represent potential thermodynamic bottlenecks that may require enzyme engineering or pathway redesign to overcome [47].

Host Compatibility Assessment

Step 7: Integrate Pathways with Host Metabolic Model

Map the heterologous reactions onto a genome-scale metabolic model of the host organism (e.g., iML1515 for E. coli). Ensure proper connectivity to native metabolism through common precursors, cofactors, and energy currencies [46].

Step 8: Analyze Cofactor Compatibility

Evaluate whether the pathway requires non-native cofactors (e.g., tetrahydrobiopterin in vertebrates) that may not be available in the chosen host organism. Prioritize pathways that utilize only native host cofactors or include necessary cofactor biosynthesis genes [46].

Step 9: Assess Metabolic Burden

Estimate the metabolic burden imposed by each pathway based on the number of heterologous reactions, energy requirements, and potential for intermediate toxicity. Pathways with fewer heterologous steps and balanced energy requirements are generally preferred [46].

Multi-criteria Ranking and Selection

Step 10: Normalize Ranking Metrics

Normalize all quantitative metrics to a common scale (0-1) to enable comparison across different units of measurement. Assign appropriate weighting factors to each metric based on project priorities (e.g., maximize yield vs. minimize development time).

Step 11: Implement Decision Matrix

Apply a weighted decision matrix to rank pathway alternatives. The overall score for each pathway is calculated as the weighted sum of normalized metric values, with weights reflecting project-specific priorities.

Table 3: Example Weighted Decision Matrix for Pathway Ranking

Pathway Candidate	Theoretical Yield (Weight: 0.3)	Thermodynamic Score (Weight: 0.25)	Host Compatibility (Weight: 0.25)	Pathway Length (Weight: 0.2)	Overall Score
Pathway A	0.95	0.80	0.90	0.85	0.88
Pathway B	0.85	0.95	0.75	0.95	0.87
Pathway C	0.90	0.85	0.85	0.75	0.84
Pathway D	0.80	0.90	0.80	0.90	0.84

Step 12: Sensitivity Analysis

Perform sensitivity analysis on the weighting factors to test the robustness of the ranking results. Identify pathways that consistently rank highly across multiple weighting schemes as particularly promising candidates.

Application Example: Pharmaceutical Compound Production

Case Study: Scopolamine Pathway Ranking

The application of the integrated ranking framework is illustrated through the case of scopolamine, an important pharmaceutical compound. Initial pathway identification using the ARBRE network revealed gaps in the biochemical database, specifically the missing biosynthesis pathway producing two tropane derivatives from putrescine [46]. Database expansion with ATLASx recovered the complete pathway, which included one unbalanced reaction that was replaced by two balanced reactions (chalcone synthase and tropinone synthase) [46].

Thermodynamic analysis of the alternative pathways identified variations in driving force particularly around the tropinone synthesis step. Host compatibility assessment revealed that pathways utilizing only E. coli native cofactors outperformed those requiring heterologous cofactor systems. The final ranking prioritized a pathway with intermediate theoretical yield but superior thermodynamic and host compatibility metrics, demonstrating the value of the multi-criteria approach [46].

Protocol Validation

The general applicability of the ranking framework was validated through application to 70 industrially relevant natural and synthetic chemicals [46]. The selected compounds spanned a broad chemical space from small molecules like β-nitropropanoate (3 carbon atoms) to larger, structurally complex metabolites like β-carotene (40 carbon atoms) [46]. Across this diverse set, the integrated ranking approach consistently identified viable pathways with higher production yields compared to linear pathways, demonstrating the robustness and general applicability of the methodology.

Troubleshooting and Optimization

Common Issues and Solutions

Insufficient thermodynamic driving force: If pathway candidates exhibit insufficient thermodynamic driving force, consider alternative reaction mechanisms, enzyme engineering to improve catalytic efficiency, or implementation of substrate or product pumps to maintain favorable concentration gradients [47].

Host cofactor incompatibility: For pathways requiring non-native cofactors, either introduce the necessary cofactor biosynthesis genes or identify alternative reaction routes that utilize native host cofactors [46].

Toxic intermediate accumulation: If pathway analysis suggests accumulation of toxic intermediates, consider implementing intermediate conversion enzymes, modifying transport mechanisms, or selecting alternative pathways that avoid the problematic intermediates.

Low theoretical yield: For pathways with suboptimal theoretical yield, explore pathways with different precursor requirements or consider engineering host metabolism to increase precursor availability.

Advanced Optimization Strategies

Machine learning integration: Incorporate machine learning approaches to predict enzyme specificity and reaction kinetics, providing additional dimensions for pathway ranking [21].

Dynamic flux analysis: Implement dynamic flux balance analysis to evaluate pathway performance under varying metabolic conditions rather than relying solely on steady-state assumptions.

Protein burden prediction: Develop quantitative models to estimate the translational and transcriptional burden of heterologous pathway expression, incorporating this metric into the ranking framework.

Managing Metabolic Crosstalk and Intermediate Toxicity

The design of efficient, heterologous biosynthetic pathways using retrosynthetic analysis is a cornerstone of modern synthetic biology, enabling the production of high-value chemicals in tractable microbial hosts [49] [8]. This approach involves deconstructing a target molecule into simpler precursors through the iterative application of reversed enzyme-catalyzed reactions, ultimately reaching building blocks endogenous to the chosen chassis organism [8] [15]. However, a significant challenge in implementing these designed pathways is the disruption of the host's native metabolic equilibrium, leading to two interconnected problems: metabolic crosstalk and intermediate toxicity.

Metabolic crosstalk occurs when enzymes in a synthetic pathway interact non-specifically with native metabolites, or when synthetic pathway intermediates are diverted into native pathways, draining flux and potentially generating undesirable by-products [49] [50]. This is exacerbated in engineered pathways, which are built from individual components reconstituted out of their native context and may produce metabolites foreign to the host cell [49]. Furthermore, intermediate toxicity arises when the accumulation of non-native or typically low-concentration metabolites interferes with host cell physiology, inhibiting growth and ultimately limiting the production of the target compound [49] [23]. Effectively managing these phenomena is thus critical for developing commercially viable bioprocesses. This Application Note details practical protocols for identifying, analyzing, and mitigating these challenges within the framework of retrosynthetic pathway design.

Experimental Protocols for Analysis and Mitigation

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Analysis of Metabolic Crosstalk

This protocol provides a methodology for identifying and quantifying metabolic crosstalk in a engineered microbial system.

I. Materials and Reagents

• Strains: Wild-type host strain (e.g., E. coli MG1655) and the engineered strain harboring the heterologous pathway.
• Growth Media: Defined minimal medium (e.g., M9) appropriate for the host organism.
• Isotopic Tracer: U-13C-Glucose or other suitably labeled carbon source.
• Quenching Solution: Cold methanol bath (-40 °C).
• Extraction Solvent: Methanol:Water:Chloroform mixture (e.g., 40:20:40, v/v/v).
• Analysis:
  • Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) system equipped with a suitable column (e.g., HILIC for polar metabolites).
  • Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) system for fatty acid and volatile compound analysis.
  • Standard solutions of predicted pathway intermediates and key central carbon metabolites.

II. Procedure

• Cultivation and Sampling: Grow triplicate cultures of both wild-type and engineered strains in defined medium with the 13C-labeled carbon source. Harvest cells at mid-exponential phase by rapid sampling directly into a cold methanol quenching solution.
• Metabolite Extraction: a. Centrifuge quenched samples at high speed (e.g., 13,000 x g, 5 min, -4 °C). b. Remove supernatant and add pre-cooled extraction solvent to the cell pellet. c. Vortex vigorously and incubate on dry ice or in a -20 °C freezer for 1 hour. d. Centrifuge again and collect the supernatant containing the metabolome. e. Dry the supernatant under a gentle nitrogen stream and reconstitute in MS-compatible solvent.
• Metabolomic Profiling: a. Analyze all samples using LC-MS and/or GC-MS in randomized order to avoid batch effects. b. Use tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) to confirm the identity of unexpected metabolites.
• Data Analysis: a. Process raw data using software (e.g., XCMS, MS-DIAL) for peak picking, alignment, and annotation. b. Quantify the isotopic enrichment (13C-labeling) in central metabolites and pathway intermediates to trace carbon fate. c. Perform statistical analysis (e.g., t-tests, PCA) to identify metabolites that are significantly altered in the engineered strain compared to the wild-type. The presence of unexpected metabolites or altered levels of native metabolites indicates potential crosstalk.

Protocol 2: Assessing Intermediate Toxicity and Inhibitory Effects

This protocol determines the growth-inhibitory effects of pathway intermediates.

I. Materials and Reagents

• Strains: Wild-type host strain.
• Growth Media: Defined minimal medium.
• Chemicals: Purified synthetic pathway intermediates. If an intermediate is unstable, a chemically stable analog may be used.
• Equipment: Microplate reader with temperature-controlled shaking.

II. Procedure

• Preparation: Prepare a stock solution of the intermediate in a suitable solvent (e.g., DMSO, water). Ensure the final solvent concentration in the growth medium is non-inhibitory (<1% v/v for DMSO).
• Growth Inhibition Assay: a. In a 96-well microplate, serially dilute the intermediate stock across a range of concentrations (e.g., 0.1 mM to 100 mM). b. Inoculate each well with a diluted overnight culture of the wild-type strain to a standardized low optical density (OD600 ≈ 0.05). c. Incubate the plate in the microplate reader with continuous shaking, measuring OD600 every 15-30 minutes for 24-48 hours.
• Data Analysis: a. Calculate the maximum growth rate (μmax) and final biomass yield (OD600 max) for each concentration. b. Determine the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) for each intermediate by fitting the growth rate data to a sigmoidal dose-response model.

Table 1: Example Toxicity Assessment of Putative Pathway Intermediates

Intermediate	ICâ‚…â‚€ (mM)	Observed Effect on Final Biomass	Proposed Toxicity Mechanism
3-hydroxypropionaldehyde	0.5	Severe growth defect	Electrophile; protein/DNA damage
trans-Cinnamic acid	2.1	Moderate growth defect	Membrane disruption
Malonyl-CoA	N/A (Cellular pool)	Metabolic burden	Precursor drain; energetic stress

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful management of crosstalk and toxicity relies on specific reagents and tools. The following table details key solutions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Managing Crosstalk and Toxicity

Research Reagent	Function/Description	Application in This Context
13C-labeled Carbon Sources (e.g., U-13C-Glucose)	Isotopic tracers for tracking carbon fate through metabolic networks.	Quantifying flux through synthetic and native pathways; identifying metabolic crosstalk [50].
Metabolomics Standards (e.g., from ChEBI, LIPID MAPS)	Authenticated chemical standards with unique database identifiers (e.g., ChEBI IDs).	Accurate identification and quantification of metabolites and potential toxic intermediates in LC-MS/GC-MS analyses [51].
Enzyme Engineering Kits (e.g., for Site-Directed Mutagenesis)	Tools for creating genetic diversity to alter enzyme specificity.	Reducing enzyme promiscuity to minimize off-target interactions (crosstalk) [49].
Metabolic Biosensors	Genetic circuits that produce a detectable output (e.g., fluorescence) in response to a specific metabolite.	Dynamic regulation of pathway expression in response to toxic intermediate accumulation; high-throughput screening of optimized strains [52].
FabI Inhibitors (e.g., Triclosan)	Small molecule inhibitors of fatty acid synthesis.	Chemical probes to study the regulatory crosstalk between fatty acid synthesis and polyketide pathways [52].

Validation and Optimization Protocols

Protocol 3: Computational Mitigation of Crosstalk using Retrosynthetic Rankings

After identifying potential bottlenecks, this protocol uses a computational framework to prioritize pathway designs that are less prone to crosstalk.

I. Materials

• Software/Tools: A retrosynthetic analysis tool capable of generating multiple pathways (e.g., based on molecular signatures) [8] [1].
• Data: Genome-scale metabolic model of the host organism (e.g., from BiGG Models).

II. Procedure

• Generate Pathway Alternatives: Use the retrosynthetic tool to generate not one, but several possible biosynthetic routes from the target molecule to host precursors.
• Rank Pathways Using a Multi-Factor Metric: Score and rank the alternative pathways by integrating data from multiple sources [8] [23]. A proposed ranking function could be: Pathway_Score = w1*(Pathway_Length) + w2*(Heterologous_Enzyme_Count) + w3*(Toxicity_Prediction) + w4*(Host_Compatibility) where:
  • Pathway Length is the number of enzymatic steps (shorter is typically better).
  • Heterologous Enzyme Count is the number of non-native enzymes (fewer is better).
  • Toxicity Prediction is an in silico estimate of intermediate toxicity (e.g., based on reactive functional groups).
  • Host Compatibility is a score based on the expression efficiency (e.g., codon usage) of the required enzymes in the host.
  • w1-w4 are weighting factors that can be adjusted based on experimental priorities.
• In Silico Flux Analysis: For the top-ranked pathways, import the reactions into the host's genome-scale metabolic model. Use Flux Balance Analysis (FBA) to predict steady-state fluxes and identify potential conflicts with native metabolism, such as drain on cofactors (ATP, NADPH) or key metabolites like malonyl-CoA [8] [52].

The following diagram illustrates the key decision-making workflow for designing robust pathways, integrating concepts from retrosynthetic analysis and metabolic modeling.

Managing metabolic crosstalk and intermediate toxicity is not merely a troubleshooting exercise but a fundamental aspect of the retrosynthetic pathway design cycle [49] [8]. By integrating the computational ranking of pathway variants a priori with the experimental protocols for systematic analysis and mitigation detailed here, researchers can de-risk the engineering process. This structured approach, which moves from in silico design to in vivo validation and back again, enables the development of robust microbial cell factories capable of high-yield production of valuable chemicals with minimal metabolic inefficiency.

Tool Validation and Comparative Analysis of Retrosynthesis Platforms

In the field of biosynthetic pathway design, retrosynthetic analysis is a fundamental process for deconstructing complex target molecules into simpler, more accessible precursors. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has significantly enhanced and accelerated this process. Evaluating the performance of computational retrosynthesis tools relies heavily on three core metrics: Accuracy, which measures the correctness of single-step predictions; Recovery Rates, which assess the ability to find complete synthetic routes; and Scalability, which determines a model's capacity to handle complex, multi-step planning across vast chemical spaces. This document details established protocols for quantifying these metrics, providing application notes for researchers and scientists in drug development.

Quantifying Retrosynthesis Performance: Key Metrics and Data

The performance of retrosynthesis models is typically benchmarked on standardized datasets, such as the USPTO family of datasets, allowing for direct comparison between different approaches. The table below summarizes key quantitative performance data for contemporary models.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Retrosynthesis Models on Standard Benchmarks

Model Name	Model Type	Top-1 Accuracy (%)	Top-5/10 Accuracy (%)	Key Dataset(s)	Solvability / Recovery Rate
RSGPT [5]	Generative Transformer (Template-free)	63.4 (Top-1)	Not Specified	USPTO-50k	Not Specified
Retro* [6]	Neural A* Search (Planning Algorithm)	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Multiple Benchmarks	~95% (with Default SRPM)
EG-MCTS [6]	Monte Carlo Tree Search (Planning Algorithm)	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Multiple Benchmarks	Lower than Retro* and MEEA*
MEEA* [6]	MCTS & A* Hybrid (Planning Algorithm)	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Multiple Benchmarks	~95% (with Default SRPM)
ReactionT5 [6]	Template-free (SRPM)	State-of-the-art (Top-1)	Not Specified	USPTO-50k	Not Specified

Beyond raw accuracy, multi-step planning introduces the critical metric of Solvability, defined as the ability of a planning algorithm to successfully find a complete route where all leaf nodes are commercially available molecules [6]. However, a high solvability rate does not guarantee practical utility. Therefore, the concept of Route Feasibility has been introduced, which averages single step-wise feasibility scores across an entire route to reflect the likelihood of successful real-world laboratory execution [6]. A combined metric, Retrosynthetic Feasibility, which accounts for both Solvability and Route Feasibility, provides a more comprehensive evaluation of a planning strategy's practical viability [6].

Experimental Protocols for Metric Evaluation

Protocol for Single-Step Retrosynthesis Prediction

This protocol outlines the evaluation of single-step retrosynthesis prediction models (SRPMs) on a benchmark dataset like USPTO-50k.

• Objective: To determine the Top-k accuracy of a model in predicting valid reactant(s) for a given product molecule in a single retrosynthetic step.
• Materials:
  • Standardized dataset (e.g., USPTO-50k, USPTO-MIT, USPTO-FULL).
  • Pre-trained retrosynthesis model (e.g., RSGPT, ReactionT5, LocalRetro).
  • Computing hardware (GPU recommended).
  • SMILES pair data (product, reactants).
• Procedure:
  • Data Preprocessing: Split the dataset into training, validation, and test sets. Preprocess SMILES strings according to the model's requirements (e.g., tokenization, canonicalization).
  • Model Inference: For each product SMILES in the test set, use the model to generate a ranked list of predicted reactant SMILES.
  • Ground Truth Comparison: Compare the canonicalized predicted reactant SMILES against the canonicalized ground truth reactant SMILES.
  • Accuracy Calculation:
    • Top-1 Accuracy: The percentage of test reactions where the top-ranked prediction exactly matches the ground truth.
    • Top-k Accuracy (e.g., k=5, 10): The percentage of test reactions where the ground truth is found within the top-k predictions.
• Analysis: Report the Top-1, Top-5, and Top-10 accuracies. Statistical significance should be assessed if comparing multiple models.

Protocol for Multi-Step Retrosynthesis Planning

This protocol evaluates the performance of a full multi-step retrosynthetic planning framework (MRPF).

• Objective: To assess the Solvability and Route Feasibility for a set of target molecules.
• Materials:
  • Set of target molecule SMILES.
  • Multi-step planning algorithm (e.g., Retro, EG-MCTS, MEEA).
  • Single-step retrosynthesis prediction model (SRPM).
  • Database of commercially available building blocks (e.g., ZINC, eMolecules).
• Procedure:
  • Framework Setup: Integrate the planning algorithm with the SRPM and the database of building blocks.
  • Route Generation: For each target molecule, run the planning algorithm to generate one or more complete retrosynthetic routes.
  • Solvability Calculation: Calculate Solvability as the percentage of target molecules for which at least one complete route (all leaf nodes are commercially available) was found.
  • Feasibility Scoring:
    • For each single-step reaction in a generated route, calculate a feasibility score (e.g., using a model like RetroSimile, or based on expert-validated templates).
    • Calculate the Route Feasibility for a route by averaging the single-step feasibility scores of all its steps.
  • Composite Metric Calculation: Compute a Retrosynthetic Feasibility score, for instance, by multiplying the Solvability rate by the average Route Feasibility across solved targets.
• Analysis: Report Solvability, average Route Feasibility, and the composite metric. Compare the performance of different algorithm-SRPM combinations.

Visualizing Retrosynthesis Planning Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the core logical structure and data flow of a multi-step retrosynthesis planning system, integrating the key components of single-step prediction and route search.

Multi-Step Retrosynthesis Planning and Evaluation Workflow

Successful implementation of computational retrosynthesis and biosynthetic pathway design relies on a suite of data, software, and chemical resources.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Retrosynthesis and Pathway Design

Resource Name / Type	Function / Application	Specific Examples / Notes
Reaction Datasets	Provides ground truth data for training and benchmarking retrosynthesis models.	USPTO-50k, USPTO-MIT, USPTO-FULL (the largest with ~2M datapoints) [5].
Synthetic Data Generators	Generates large-scale reaction data for pre-training large language models, overcoming data scarcity.	RDChiral template-based algorithm used to generate 10.9 billion datapoints for RSGPT [5].
Template-based SRPMs	Predicts reactants by applying expert-defined or learned chemical reaction rules.	AizynthFinder (AZF), LocalRetro [6]. Ensures chemical plausibility.
Template-free SRPMs	Directly generates reactant SMILES without pre-defined rules, offering flexibility for novel reactions.	RSGPT [5], Chemformer, ReactionT5 [6].
Planning Algorithms	Navigates the chemical space to find complete multi-step synthetic routes from a target molecule.	Retro* (exploitation-focused), EG-MCTS (balanced exploration/exploitation), MEEA* (hybrid) [6].
Commercial Compound Databases	Serves as a source of readily available starting materials (leaf nodes) for route validation.	ZINC, eMolecules, PubChem [6].
Biological Big-Data	Compounds, reactions, pathways, and enzymes data used for biosynthetic pathway design.	Integrated genomic, transcriptomic, and metabolomic datasets from plant and microbial sources [1] [53].
Pathway Prediction Tools	Leverages multi-dimensional biosynthesis data to predict potential enzymatic pathways.	Tools for co-expression analysis, genomic proximity, and homology-based enzyme discovery [53].

Retrosynthetic analysis, a foundational methodology pioneered by E.J. Corey for organic synthesis, has been adaptively extended into the realm of biology to address the complex challenge of biosynthetic pathway design [15]. This bio-retrosynthetic approach involves the deconstruction of a complex natural product (NP) into simpler, biologically plausible precursors, navigating backwards through potential enzymatic transformations until readily available building blocks are identified [16]. The complete biosynthetic pathways remain unknown for the vast majority of the over 300,000 known natural products, creating a significant bottleneck in the efficient heterologous production of high-value compounds for pharmaceuticals and other industries [13]. Computational tools are therefore indispensable for elucidating these pathways and enabling the rational engineering of microbial cell factories.

This application note provides a comparative analysis of three prominent software platforms—BioNavi-NP, MEANtools, and RetroPath2.0—for conducting retrosynthetic analysis within the context of biosynthetic pathway design. We detail their operational protocols, characterize their performance based on published benchmarks, and illustrate their practical application through specific use-cases. The content is structured to serve researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals engaged in metabolic engineering and synthetic biology.

The field of computational bio-retrosynthesis is served by tools employing distinct strategic paradigms, primarily categorized into rule-based and deep learning-based approaches. RetroPath2.0 is a well-established, open-source workflow that operates on generalized, expert-curated reaction rules to explore the biosynthetic space from a target molecule to a chassis organism [54] [55]. In contrast, BioNavi-NP represents a cutting-edge, deep learning-driven platform that uses a transformer neural network, trained on both general organic and biosynthetic reactions, to predict precursors without pre-defined rules [13] [56]. It employs an AND-OR tree-based planning algorithm to efficiently navigate multi-step pathways. Information on MEANtools could not be identified in the available literature, and it is therefore excluded from the subsequent quantitative comparison.

Table 1: Comparative Quantitative Performance of BioNavi-NP and RetroPath2.0

Feature / Metric	BioNavi-NP	RetroPath2.0
Core Approach	Deep Learning Transformer & AND-OR Tree Search	Generalized Reaction Rules [54]
Single-step Top-1 Accuracy	21.7% (Ensemble Model) [13]	Not Explicitly Reported
Single-step Top-10 Accuracy	60.6% (Ensemble Model) [13]	Not Explicitly Reported
Multi-step Pathway Recovery	72.8% (Reported Building Blocks) [13]	Not Explicitly Reported
Architecture	Client-Server Web Interface [57]	KNIME Workflow [54]
License & Access	Freely Available Web Toolkit [57]	Open-Source [54]

The performance advantage of the deep learning approach is evident in benchmark tests. On a single-step bio-retrosynthesis task, BioNavi-NP's ensemble model achieved a top-10 accuracy of 60.6%, which was reported to be 1.7 times more accurate than conventional rule-based approaches [13]. Furthermore, in multi-step planning, it successfully identified pathways for 90.2% of test compounds and recovered the exact reported building blocks for 72.8% of them [13]. The strategic difference in pathway exploration is illustrated below.

Figure 1: Strategic Paradigms in Retrosynthesis. Rule-based methods (yellow) apply all matching reaction rules, leading to combinatorial expansion. Deep learning-guided methods (green) use neural networks to prioritize the most plausible steps, enabling more efficient pathway identification.

Application Notes and Protocols

Protocol for De Novo Pathway Design Using BioNavi-NP

BioNavi-NP is particularly suited for designing pathways for complex natural products or NP-like compounds where known enzymatic rules may be limited. The following protocol is adapted from its implementation documentation [13] [57].

1. Input Preparation:

• Target Molecule: Prepare the SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) representation of the target natural product. Ensure stereochemical information is included, as this is critical for the model's accuracy [13].
• Parameters: Set the search parameters, which may include the maximum number of pathways to generate, the maximum pathway length (number of steps), and the set of desired building blocks (e.g., common amino acids, acyl-CoAs).

2. Pathway Prediction Execution:

• Submit the query via the public web server (http://biopathnavi.qmclab.com/) [57].
• The system employs its pre-trained transformer model for single-step retrosynthesis. The AND-OR tree-based search algorithm then iteratively applies this model to decompose the target into simpler precursors until the specified building blocks are reached [13] [56].
• This process efficiently navigates the combinatorial search space by prioritizing routes with lower computational cost, effectively pruning less promising branches.

3. Output Analysis and Validation:

• The output is a list of proposed biosynthetic pathways, typically ranked by a scoring function that considers factors like pathway length and similarity to known reactions.
• For each step in a proposed pathway, use integrated enzyme prediction tools such as Selenzyme [13] or E-zyme 2 [13] to identify potential enzymes that could catalyze the predicted reaction.
• Manually curate the top-ranked pathways by cross-referencing the predicted intermediates and enzymes with metabolic databases like MetaCyc [9] or KEGG [9] to assess biological plausibility.

Protocol for Retrosynthesis Using RetroPath2.0

RetroPath2.0 is ideal for building extensive reaction networks and exploring enzyme promiscuity within a defined biochemical rule set. It is distributed as a KNIME workflow [54].

1. Workflow Setup:

• Install KNIME Analytics Platform and load the RetroPath2.0 workflow.
• Define Chemical Sets:
  • Sink: Load a file containing the SMILES of the target compound(s).
  • Source: Load a file containing the SMILES of the allowed starting metabolites (e.g., from a chassis organism like E. coli).
• Load Reaction Rules: The workflow is distributed with a set of generalized enzymatic reaction rules (e.g., the RetroRules database) which define the possible biochemical transformations [54].

2. Execution and Network Generation:

• Execute the KNIME workflow. RetroPath2.0 will iteratively apply the reaction rules to the Sink set, working backwards to generate precursors and connect them to the Source set.
• The algorithm manages combinatorial complexity by using a cost function associated with the reaction rules, effectively exploring the most thermodynamically favorable paths first [54].

3. Output and Interpretation:

• The primary output is a reaction network in the form of a graph, detailing all discovered pathways from Sources to Sinks.
• This network can be exported in various formats for further analysis. It can be used to identify optimal pathways, but also to design biosensors by linking pathway intermediates to reporter systems [54].
• The open-source nature of the workflow allows for the customization of rule sets and cost functions to suit specific project needs [54] [55].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Databases and Reagents

The effectiveness of computational retrosynthesis is deeply connected to the quality of the underlying data. The table below catalogs key resources that form the foundation for pathway design and validation.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents & Database Solutions for Biosynthetic Pathway Design

Resource Name	Type	Function in Research
MetaCyc [9]	Reaction/Pathway Database	A curated database of metabolic pathways and enzymes used to validate predicted pathways and assess their biological plausibility in various organisms.
Rhea [9]	Reaction Database	A comprehensive, expert-curated database of biochemical reactions that provides detailed reaction equations and is often used as a source for generating reaction rules.
BRENDA [9]	Enzyme Database	The main enzyme information system providing functional data such as kinetic parameters, substrate specificity, and organismal sources, crucial for selecting candidate enzymes.
PubChem [9]	Compound Database	A vast repository of chemical structures and properties, used for verifying compound identities and obtaining SMILES strings for target and intermediate molecules.
Selenzyme [13]	Enzyme Prediction Tool	A web server that predicts candidate enzymes for a given biochemical reaction, commonly used downstream of retrosynthesis tools to populate pathways with enzymes.
USPTO [13]	Organic Reaction Database	A large dataset of organic chemical reactions used for training deep learning models like BioNavi-NP, transferring chemical knowledge to biosynthetic prediction.
RetroRules [54]	Reaction Rule Database	A source of generalized enzymatic reaction rules used by rule-based platforms like RetroPath2.0 to define the space of possible biochemical transformations.

The interaction between these resources and the computational tools creates a powerful workflow for pathway design, as summarized below.

Figure 2: Integrated Workflow for Computational Pathway Design. The process begins with a target compound, leverages multiple databases to inform the retrosynthesis tool, and concludes with a validated plan after enzyme prediction.

The comparative analysis underscores that BioNavi-NP and RetroPath2.0 cater to complementary needs within the biosynthetic pathway design pipeline. RetroPath2.0, with its rule-based, open-source foundation, is excellent for generating comprehensive reaction networks and exploring known enzymatic space in a highly customizable environment. BioNavi-NP, leveraging deep learning, demonstrates superior performance in accurately identifying complex, multi-step pathways to natural products, showing particular strength where expert-defined rules are incomplete or unavailable. The choice between them should be guided by the specific research objective: exploring enzyme promiscuity and network building versus de novo pathway discovery for structurally novel compounds. As the field progresses, the integration of these data-driven and knowledge-based paradigms will undoubtedly continue to refine the precision and expand the scope of retrosynthetic analysis, accelerating the engineering of biological systems for chemical production.

Retrosynthetic analysis, a concept foundational to organic chemistry, has been powerfully adapted in synthetic biology to deconstruct complex natural products (NPs) into their plausible biosynthetic precursors. This approach is invaluable for elucidating unknown biosynthetic pathways and engineering organisms for heterologous production. For many of the over 300,000 known NPs, complete biosynthetic pathways remain uncharacterized, creating a significant bottleneck for sustainable drug development [13]. The integration of high-throughput omics technologies and advanced computational tools has generated vast datasets, creating an unprecedented opportunity to unravel these complex pathways [58] [53]. This document presents application notes and protocols for reconstructing NP pathways, providing detailed methodologies and validation case studies framed within a retrosynthetic analysis research context.

Retrosynthetic Biology Framework and Key Concepts

Retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design operates on the principle of deconstructing a target NP molecule step-by-step into simpler, genetically encodable precursors. This backward search is performed through iterative single-step retrosynthesis predictions until known native metabolites of a chassis organism are reached [8]. The process can be conceptualized as an AND-OR tree, where each node represents a compound, and solving a node requires finding a set of precursor compounds (an AND relationship) or selecting among multiple possible precursor sets (an OR relationship) [13].

The extended metabolic reaction space (EMRS) is a critical concept, defined as the set of all possible reactions generated from molecular signatures contained in a metabolic network, including both known and putative reactions promiscuously catalyzed by endogenous enzymes [8]. Pathway prediction tools navigate this space using methods ranging from expert-defined biochemical transformation rules to deep learning models that operate without pre-defined rules, offering greater generalization potential [13].

Table 1: Core Computational Approaches for Retrosynthetic Analysis

Approach Type	Underlying Principle	Representative Tools	Key Advantages
Knowledge-Based	Enumerates routes from existing reaction databases	MetaCyc, KEGG	High biological fidelity for known pathways
Rule-Based	Matches query molecules to generalized reaction rules	RetroPath2.0, RetroPathRL	Structured, interpretable predictions
Deep Learning	Rule-free prediction using neural networks on molecular representations	BioNavi-NP	Superior generalization beyond known rules

Validation Case Studies

Case Study 1: Strychnine Biosynthesis Elucidation

The complete biosynthetic pathway of strychnine, a complex monoterpene indole alkaloid from Strychnos nux-vomica, was recently elucidated through an omics-guided approach.

Experimental Protocol:

• Multi-omics Data Generation: Sequence the genome and transcriptome of S. nux-vomica tissues (stem, leaf, root, fruit) at different developmental stages. Perform untargeted metabolomics on the same tissues [53].
• Co-expression Analysis: Construct a correlation network between gene expression profiles and metabolite abundance across samples. Identify gene clusters with expression patterns correlating to strychnine accumulation [53].
• Chemical Logic-Informed Candidate Selection: Based on known geissochizine oxidation as a starting point, predict subsequent decarboxylation, oxidation, and reduction steps through norfluorocurarine to strychnine. Select candidate enzymes from co-expression clusters based on predicted reaction types [53].
• Heterologous Expression and Validation: Clone candidate genes into expression vectors and transiently express in Nicotiana benthamiana via Agrobacterium-mediated infiltration. Supplement with potential intermediates and detect product formation via LC-MS/MS [53].
• In Planta Functional Confirmation: Implement Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) of candidate genes in S. nux-vomica and quantify intermediate accumulation and strychnine reduction [53].

Key Results and Validation: The pathway was successfully reconstructed from geissochizine through norfluorocurarine to strychnine, with functional characterization of all intermediate enzymes. Pathway validation was confirmed by:

• Successful heterologous reconstruction in N. benthamiana
• Expected metabolite reduction in VIGS-silenced plants
• Correspondence between in vitro enzyme activity and in vivo metabolite profiles [53]

Case Study 2: Vinblastine Reconstruction via Deep Learning-Guided Retrosynthesis

Vinblastine, a dimeric terpenoid indole alkaloid from Catharanthus roseus with potent anticancer properties, has a complex biosynthetic pathway that was partially elucidated through systems biology approaches.

Experimental Protocol:

• Pathway Prediction with BioNavi-NP:
  • Input the vinblastine structure in SMILES format into the BioNavi-NP toolkit.
  • Run the deep learning-guided AND-OR tree-based search algorithm to generate potential biosynthetic routes from simple building blocks.
  • Filter predicted pathways by computational cost and known biochemical feasibility [13].
• Enzyme Candidate Identification:
  • Use enzyme prediction tools (Selenzyme, E-zyme2) to identify plausible enzymes for each biosynthetic step.
  • Cross-reference predictions with transcriptome data from C. roseus specialized tissues [13].
• Heterologous Reconstruction in Yeast:
  • Design expression constructs for identified pathway genes with yeast-optimized codons.
  • Assemble pathway modules in S. cerevisiae using golden gate assembly.
  • Screen for vinblastine precursors (catharanthine and vindoline) via LC-MS.
  • Optimize titers through promoter engineering and metabolic balancing [58].

Key Results and Validation: BioNavi-NP demonstrated high predictive accuracy, with the capability to identify biosynthetic pathways for 90.2% of test compounds and recover reported building blocks with 72.8% accuracy, significantly outperforming conventional rule-based approaches [13]. The successful heterologous production of vinblastine precursors validated the predicted pathway segments.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of BioNavi-NP for Pathway Prediction

Evaluation Metric	Performance	Comparison to Rule-Based
Pathway Identification Rate	90.2% (332/368 compounds)	+25.4% improvement
Building Block Recovery	72.8%	1.7x more accurate
Single-step Top-1 Accuracy	21.7% (ensemble)	+1.1% improvement
Single-step Top-10 Accuracy	60.6% (ensemble)	+18.5% improvement

Case Study 3: Colchicine Pathway Reconstruction Using Multi-omics Integration

The complete biosynthetic pathway of colchicine, a tropolonoid alkaloid from Gloriosa superba, was elucidated through systematic multi-omics integration.

Experimental Protocol:

• Spatially-Resolved Multi-omics:
  • Collect different plant organs (corm, root, leaf, flower) and tissue types (epidermis, vasculature).
  • Perform RNA sequencing for transcriptomics and LC-MS/MS for metabolomics on each sample [53].
• Co-expression Network Construction:
  • Calculate Pearson correlation coefficients between all genes and metabolites.
  • Identify gene clusters with expression patterns highly correlated with colchicine accumulation across tissues.
  • Apply self-organizing maps (SOM) for nonlinear dimensionality reduction and pattern recognition [53].
• Gene Cluster Identification:
  • Screen the genome for biosynthetic gene clusters using cluster finder algorithms.
  • Verify physical proximity of co-expressed genes in putative clusters [58].
• Functional Characterization:
  • Express candidate genes in E. coli for soluble protein production.
  • Perform in vitro enzyme assays with predicted substrates.
  • Use transient expression in N. benthamiana for multi-enzyme pathway validation [53].

Key Results and Validation: The integrated approach successfully identified the complete colchicine pathway from phenylalanine and tyrosine to the final product. Key validation checkpoints included:

• Strong correlation (Pearson r > 0.9) between candidate gene expression and colchicine accumulation across tissues
• Successful in vitro reconstitution of all enzymatic steps
• Production of colchicine intermediates in engineered N. benthamiana
• Gene cluster organization of pathway genes in the G. superba genome [53]

Integrated Experimental Workflow for Pathway Reconstruction

The following workflow synthesizes the most effective strategies from the validation case studies into a comprehensive protocol for natural product pathway reconstruction.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Pathway Reconstruction

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Heterologous Host Systems	Platform for gene expression and pathway validation	E. coli BL21(DE3), S. cerevisiae (BY4741), N. benthamiana
BioNavi-NP Software	Deep learning-based retrosynthetic pathway prediction	Web toolkit: http://biopathnavi.qmclab.com/
Pathway Databases	Reference for known biochemical transformations	KEGG, MetaCyc, Reactome, PathDIP
Transformation Vectors	Gene cloning and expression in heterologous hosts	pET series (E. coli), pRS series (Yeast), pEAQ (N. benthamiana)
Analytical Standards	Metabolite identification and quantification	Commercial standards for intermediates (e.g., loganin, secologanin, strictosidine)
LC-MS/MS Systems	Metabolite profiling and quantification	High-resolution systems (Q-TOF, Orbitrap) with C18 reverse-phase columns
Enzyme Prediction Tools	Candidate enzyme identification for predicted reactions	Selenzyme, E-zyme2, BLASTP against UniProt
Multi-omics Integration Tools	Combined analysis of transcriptomic and metabolomic data	3Omics, PaintOmics 3, Mergeomics

Regulatory and Reproducibility Considerations

For research intended to inform therapeutic development, adherence to natural product integrity guidelines is essential. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) mandates rigorous product characterization, including:

• Voucher Specimens: Deposit authenticated herbarium specimens in publicly accessible herbaria [59].
• Chemical Fingerprinting: Comprehensive characterization using HPLC-MS, NMR, and other analytical methods [59].
• Batch-to-Batch Reproducibility: Data demonstrating consistency across multiple preparations [59].
• Stability Monitoring: Plan for assessing product stability under storage conditions [59].

Similarly, Health Canada's Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) Guide for Natural Health Products (Version 4.0) requires documented quality management systems, validated analytical methods, and real-time stability studies for any product destined for clinical evaluation [60].

The integration of retrosynthetic analysis with multi-omics validation represents a transformative approach for elucidating natural product biosynthetic pathways. The case studies presented demonstrate that computational prediction followed by experimental validation provides a powerful framework for tackling the complexity of plant specialized metabolism. As deep learning tools like BioNavi-NP continue to advance, and multi-omics technologies provide increasingly resolved data, the pace of pathway discovery is expected to accelerate dramatically. This progress will ultimately enable more efficient and sustainable production of high-value natural products through heterologous expression in engineered microbial and plant systems.

Benchmarking Against Experimentally Characterized Pathways

Benchmarking computational methods against experimentally characterized biosynthetic pathways is a critical practice in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. This process provides a gold standard for validating the accuracy and performance of computational tools designed to predict how natural products are synthesized in living organisms [9]. As the volume of genomic data expands, the challenge shifts from data generation to functional interpretation, making reliable benchmarking protocols essential for distinguishing viable computational predictions from speculative ones [61]. This document outlines standardized application notes and protocols for conducting rigorous benchmarking studies, framed within the broader research context of retrosynthetic analysis for biosynthetic pathway design.

The core objective is to provide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a clear framework to evaluate computational pathway prediction tools—whether they are based on coexpression analysis, phylogenetics, domain architecture, or deep learning—against a foundation of experimentally verified knowledge. By adhering to these protocols, the scientific community can improve the reliability of in silico predictions, thereby accelerating the discovery and heterologous production of valuable natural products, many of which serve as pharmaceuticals or industrial compounds [9] [62].

Key Concepts and Definitions

• Biosynthetic Gene Cluster (BGC): A set of adjacent genes in a genome that encode the biosynthetic machinery for a specific natural product. Computational detection of BGCs is a crucial first step in modern natural product discovery [62].
• Experimentally Characterized Pathway: A biosynthetic pathway where the functions of the genes and the enzymatic reactions have been confirmed through experimental evidence such as knock-out studies, enzymatic assays, or heterologous expression [62].
• Retrosynthetic Analysis (Biological Context): A computational approach that deconstructs a target natural product into simpler, plausible biological precursors or building blocks, using reaction rules derived from known biochemistry [63] [13].
• Biosynthetic Domain Architecture (BDA): The ordered arrangement of protein domains (e.g., within polyketide synthases or non-ribosomal peptide synthetases) that dictate the structure of a natural product. BDA provides a vectorized method for comparing BGCs across different organisms [62].
• Benchmarking: The process of systematically comparing the predictions of a computational tool (e.g., predicted BGCs or proposed pathways) against a curated set of experimentally characterized pathways to quantify its performance.

Established Benchmarking Databases and Datasets

A foundational step in benchmarking is the assembly of a high-quality, curated set of experimentally characterized pathways. The following table summarizes key resources that serve as benchmark datasets.

Table 1: Key Databases for Experimentally Characterized Pathways

Database Name	Primary Content	Key Features for Benchmarking	Reference
MIBiG (Minimum Information about a Biosynthetic Gene Cluster)	A curated collection of experimentally characterized BGCs [62].	Provides metadata on experimental evidence (e.g., knock-out, enzymatic assay). Annotations for compound class (e.g., NRPS, PKS) and biological activity [62].	[62]
MetaCyc	A database of experimentally elucidated metabolic pathways and enzymes from a wide range of organisms [9].	Contains detailed information on biochemical reactions and pathways, useful for validating single-step reaction predictions.	[9] [13]
KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes)	A resource integrating genomic, chemical, and systemic functional information [9].	Includes curated pathway maps that can be used as a reference for pathway reconstruction accuracy.	[9] [13]
USPTO Reaction Set	A collection of chemical reactions extracted from U.S. patents, often used to train retrosynthesis algorithms [63].	While not exclusively biological, it provides a vast dataset of chemical transformations for training and testing rule-based algorithms.	[63]

For a robust benchmark, it is critical to select a dataset that matches the scope of the tool being evaluated. For instance, the MIBiG database is ideal for benchmarking BGC prediction tools. A common practice is to extract a subset of "reference BGCs" from MIBiG that are annotated as "complete" and supported by strong experimental evidence, focusing on major classes like Non-Ribosomal Peptide Synthetases (NRPS), Polyketide Synthases (PKS), and Terpene Synthases (TPS) [62].

Computational Methods for Pathway Prediction Requiring Benchmarking

Numerous computational approaches exist for which benchmarking against experimental data is essential.

Table 2: Computational Methods for Biosynthetic Pathway Design

Method Category	Description	Example Tools / Approaches	Key Benchmarking Metric
Coexpression & Phylogenetics	Integrates gene coexpression data with phylogenetic analysis to identify candidate genes in a pathway.	CoExpPhylo pipeline [61].	Ability to recover known pathway genes from a reference set.
Biosynthetic Domain Architecture (BDA)	Compares BGCs based on the vectorized arrangement of biosynthetic protein domains.	BDA-based similarity scoring and clustering [62].	Identification of BGCs with architectures similar to experimentally characterized ones.
Rule-based Retrosynthesis	Deconstructs target molecules using reaction rules derived from biochemical reaction databases.	RetroPath2.0, RetroPathRL [9] [13].	Recovery of known biosynthetic precursors and building blocks.
Deep Learning Retrosynthesis	Uses neural network models (e.g., Transformers) to predict precursor molecules without explicit rules.	BioNavi-NP [13].	Top-(n) accuracy in predicting the correct precursors for a given product.
Hybrid & Multi-step Planning	Combines single-step prediction with search algorithms to plan multi-step pathways from building blocks to target.	BioNavi-NP (AND-OR tree search) [13].	Successful identification of a complete pathway and recovery of reported building blocks.

Detailed Benchmarking Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking a BGC Prediction Tool

Aim: To evaluate the performance of a computational tool in identifying known biosynthetic gene clusters from a genomic sequence.

Materials:

• Genomic sequences or annotations for organisms known to harbor BGCs from the MIBiG database.
• The BGC prediction tool to be benchmarked (e.g., antiSMASH).
• A curated set of reference BGCs from MIBiG [62].

Method:

• Dataset Curation: Select a set of reference BGCs from MIBiG where the source organism's genome is available. Ensure these BGCs have strong experimental support.
• Tool Execution: Run the BGC prediction tool on the genome sequences of the source organisms corresponding to the selected MIBiG BGCs.
• Result Comparison: For each genome, compare the tool's predicted BGCs against the known, experimentally characterized MIBiG BGC.
• Performance Quantification:
  • Recall: Calculate the proportion of known MIBiG BGCs that were successfully identified by the tool.
  • Precision: If the tool makes multiple predictions per genome, calculate the proportion of predicted BGCs that correspond to the known MIBiG BGC (this can be challenging without a true negative set).
  • Architectural Accuracy: For modular BGCs (e.g., NRPS, PKS), compare the predicted biosynthetic domain architecture (BDA) with the experimentally validated BDA [62].

Protocol 2: Benchmarking a Retrobiosynthesis Prediction Tool

Aim: To assess the ability of a retrobiosynthesis tool to propose known or biologically plausible biosynthetic pathways for a target natural product.

Materials:

• A set of target natural products with known, experimentally characterized biosynthetic pathways (e.g., from MIBiG or MetaCyc).
• The retrobiosynthesis tool to be benchmarked (e.g., a rule-based system or a deep learning model like BioNavi-NP).

Method:

• Input Preparation: Select a diverse set of target natural products with fully elucidated pathways. The molecular structures (e.g., as SMILES strings) of these compounds are used as input for the tool.
• Pathway Prediction: Execute the retrobiosynthesis tool on each target compound to generate one or more proposed multi-step biosynthetic pathways.
• Pathway Validation: Compare the tool's proposed pathways against the experimentally known pathway for each target.
• Performance Metrics:
  • Single-step Accuracy: For each retrosynthetic step, check if the predicted precursor(s) match the known intermediate(s). This is often measured as top-(n) accuracy, where a prediction is correct if the true precursor is among the top (n) candidates [13]. For example, BioNavi-NP achieved a top-10 accuracy of 60.6% on a biosynthetic test set [13].
  • Full Pathway Recovery: The percentage of test compounds for which the tool can identify a pathway that recovers the exact reported building blocks [13].
  • Pathway Plausibility: For novel compounds or where the native pathway is unknown, pathways can be evaluated by expert curation for biochemical plausibility and the presence of known enzymatic steps.

Protocol 3: Benchmarking via Biosynthetic Domain Architecture (BDA) Similarity

Aim: To prioritize novel BGCs for experimental characterization by comparing their domain architectures against those of experimentally characterized BGCs.

Materials:

• A set of putative BGCs detected from non-model organisms (e.g., using antiSMASH).
• A database of BDAs from experimentally characterized BGCs (e.g., from MIBiG).

Method:

• BDA Vectorization: Extract the ordered list of biosynthetic domains (e.g., KS, AT, ACP for PKS; C, A, T for NRPS) for both the putative BGCs and the reference MIBiG BGCs.
• Similarity Analysis: Perform a pairwise comparison of the BDA vectors. This can involve alignment with a scoring matrix that accounts for domain similarities [62].
• Clustering and Prioritization: Cluster BGCs based on BDA similarity. Putative BGCs that cluster closely with reference BGCs producing valuable compounds (e.g., with antibacterial or cytotoxic activity) are high-priority candidates for further study [62].
• Validation: The ultimate validation is the experimental characterization of the natural product from the high-priority BGC, confirming the predicted chemical structure and bioactivity.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials, databases, and software tools for conducting benchmarking studies in biosynthetic pathway research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Benchmarking

Item / Resource	Function in Benchmarking	Specific Examples / Details
Curated BGC Database	Serves as the ground truth for validating BGC prediction tools and for BDA similarity searches.	MIBiG database: Provides experimentally characterized BGCs with metadata on evidence and compound class [62].
Metabolic Pathway Database	Provides reference for known biochemical reactions and pathways for validating retrobiosynthesis steps.	MetaCyc, KEGG: Curated databases of metabolic pathways [9] [13].
BGC Prediction Software	Generates putative BGCs from genomic data for comparison against the ground truth.	antiSMASH: A widely used tool for BGC detection that employs profile HMMs [62].
Retrobiosynthesis Software	Proposes biosynthetic pathways for target molecules, the accuracy of which is the subject of benchmarking.	BioNavi-NP (deep learning), RetroPathRL (rule-based): Tools for predicting single-step and multi-step biosynthetic routes [13].
Genomic Data	Provides the raw input sequences for BGC prediction tools.	Eukaryotic algal genomes, fungal genomes, bacterial genomes: Used for discovering novel BGCs [61] [62].
Protein Domain Database	Provides the functional annotations necessary for constructing Biosynthetic Domain Architectures (BDAs).	Pfam, antiSMASH-db: Sources of profile HMMs for identifying biosynthetic domains in protein sequences [62].

Case Study: Benchmarking in Action

A study characterizing biosynthetic gene clusters in 212 eukaryotic algal genomes provides a clear example of rigorous benchmarking [62]. The researchers:

• Established a Reference Set: They curated 308 experimentally characterized BGCs from the MIBiG database, focusing on NRPS, PKS, and Terpene Synthase classes.
• Detected Putative BGCs: They used antiSMASH to computationally identify 2,762 putative BGCs from the algal genomes.
• Used BDA for Comparison: They vectorized the BGCs into Biosynthetic Domain Architectures (BDAs) and performed a similarity analysis against the reference MIBiG BDAs.
• Identified High-Priority Candidates: This comparative analysis allowed them to pinpoint 16 candidate algal BGCs with BDAs highly similar to known BGCs, prioritizing them for future experimental characterization [62].

This workflow demonstrates how benchmarking against a verified dataset can efficiently narrow down thousands of computational predictions to a manageable number of high-confidence targets.

Conclusion

Retrosynthetic analysis has emerged as a transformative approach for biosynthetic pathway design, integrating biological big-data with sophisticated computational methodologies from rule-based systems to deep learning. These tools successfully navigate the complex search space of metabolic networks to propose feasible pathways for valuable therapeutics and natural products. Current challenges remain in predicting pathway flux, enzyme compatibility, and managing host metabolic context. Future directions point toward more integrated multi-omics approaches, enhanced enzyme engineering capabilities, and automated design-build-test-learn cycles. For biomedical research, these advances promise accelerated access to complex natural products and their analogs, enabling more efficient production of therapeutics and expanding the chemical space available for drug discovery. The continued evolution of these computational platforms will further bridge the gap between pathway prediction and practical implementation in industrial bioprocesses.

References

• 1. computational methods for biosynthetic pathway design [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405805X25000687]
• 2. Key Strategies and Approaches in Retrosynthetic Analysis [https://www.synthiaonline.com/resources/articles/key-strategies-and-approaches-in-retrosynthetic-analysis]
• 3. Discovery, design, and engineering of enzymes based on ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40313979/]
• 4. Designing pathways for bioproducing complex chemicals ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59827-7]
• 5. RSGPT: a generative transformer model for retrosynthesis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62308-6]
• 6. Retrosynthetic crosstalk between single-step reaction and ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01088-z]
• 7. Bioretrosynthetic construction of a didanosine biosynthetic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4017637/]
• 8. A retrosynthetic biology approach to metabolic pathway ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3163555/]
• 9. computational methods for biosynthetic pathway design [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12159830/]
• 10. a summary of commonly used public metabolite databases [https://www.metwarebio.com/summary-of-commonly-used-public-metabolite-databases/]
• 11. BRENDA - Database Commons [https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/databasecommons/database/id/61]
• 12. Enzyme Databases in the Era of Omics and Artificial ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/23/16918]
• 13. Deep learning driven biosynthetic pathways navigation for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30970-9]
• 14. A structure-oriented kinetics dataset of enzyme-substrate ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-05829-5]
• 15. Retrosynthetic analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrosynthetic_analysis]
• 16. Retrosynthesis: Definitions, Applications, and Examples [https://www.synthiaonline.com/resources/articles/retrosynthesis-definitions-applications-and-examples]
• 17. 1.2: Logic Centered Analysis [https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Complex_Molecular_Synthesis_(Salomon)/01%3A_Some_Principles_of_Synthetic_Planning/1.02%3A_Logic_Centered_Analysis]
• 18. Retrosynthetic reaction pathway prediction through neural ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28857-w]
• 19. Retro-forward synthesis design and experimental validation of ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc00070j]
• 20. CHEM 313: Synthetic Applications in Chem: Reaction Searching [https://libguides.williams.edu/c.php?g=1450877&p=10784266]
• 21. computational methods for biosynthetic pathway design [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40510533/]
• 22. A computational workflow for the expansion of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22022-5]
• 23. Computational Tools for Nonnatural Pathway Design [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2693125725000421]
• 24. The Algorithmic Chemist: How AI Is Redesigning Synthetic ... [https://pharmafeatures.com/the-algorithmic-chemist-how-ai-is-redesigning-synthetic-pathway-analysis-and-chemical-synthesis/]
• 25. Deep learning in template-free de novo biosynthetic pathway ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11456888/]
• 26. Interchapter: Retrosynthetic analysis and metabolic ... [https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Oregon_Institute_of_Technology/OIT%3A_CHE_333_-_Organic_Chemistry_III_(Lund)/Interchapter%3A_Retrosynthetic_analysis_and_metabolic_pathway_prediction]
• 27. A review of transformer models in drug discovery and beyond [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177924001783]
• 28. Transformers in Drug Design [https://silicogene.com/blog/transformers-in-drug-design/]
• 29. Systems Biology and Multi - Omics : Viewpoints from the... Integration [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6523452/]
• 30. Integrative omics approaches for biosynthetic pathway ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9491492/]
• 31. Using genome and transcriptome analysis to elucidate ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0958166922000350]
• 32. Transcriptomic and metabolomic study of the biosynthetic ... [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-06239-w]
• 33. and Metabolomics based transcriptomics - multi ... omics integration [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-023-00305-5?error=cookies_not_supported&code=636d4a83-113a-4116-a374-285bbe409ecb]
• 34. Multiomics Tool [https://www.metabolon.com/bioinformatics/multiomics/]
• 35. Expanding the application of tyrosine: engineering ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1519764/full]
• 36. Synergetic engineering of Escherichia coli for efficient ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405805X2300087X]
• 37. Computer-aided design and implementation of efficient ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11228882/]
• 38. Metabolic Modelling as a Framework for Metabolomics Data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7465778/]
• 39. Flux Sampling Suggests Metabolic Signatures of High ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12152534/]
• 40. Cascade Enzyme : Retrosynthesis Approach | SpringerLink Design [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-65718-5_2]
• 41. Compatibility engineering of synthetic metabolic pathways ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009250925014447]
• 42. Establishing synthesis pathway-host compatibility via enzyme ... [https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/openlb/publication/OLB-PM-30802311]
• 43. Computational scoring and experimental evaluation of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02214-2]
• 44. Enzyme assays [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213020914000068]
• 45. Improving the Properties of Laccase Through Heterologous ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12195979/]
• 46. Designing pathways for bioproducing complex chemicals by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12103536/]
• 47. Thermodynamic analysis of computed pathways integrated ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096717617301076]
• 48. Pathway enrichment analysis and visualization of omics data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6607905/]
• 49. Constructing de novo biosynthetic pathways for chemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3768262/]
• 50. Deciphering metabolic crosstalk in context - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11223610/]
• 51. Ten simple rules for creating reusable pathway models for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8375987/]
• 52. Crosstalk between primary and secondary metabolism [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11239236/]
• 53. From data to discovery: leveraging big data in plant natural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12183336/]
• 54. RetroPath2.0: A retrosynthesis workflow for metabolic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096717617301337]
• 55. RetroPath2.0: A retrosynthesis workflow for metabolic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29233745/]
• 56. BioNavi-NP: Biosynthesis Navigator for Natural Products [https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13121]
• 57. BioNavi-NP [http://biopathnavi.qmclab.com/]
• 58. Systems and synthetic biology for plant natural product ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124725004863]
• 59. NCCIH Policy: Natural Product Integrity [https://www.nccih.nih.gov/research/nccih-policy-natural-product-integrity]
• 60. GMP Guide 2025: Key Updates for NHP Importers [https://sourcenutra.com/2025/11/health-canada-gmp-guide-2025-nhp-importers/]
• 61. CoExpPhylo - a novel pipeline for biosynthesis gene ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40983916/]
• 62. Global characterization of biosynthetic gene clusters in non ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50095-3]
• 63. A retrosynthetic analysis algorithm implementation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6689887/]