Recent developments in synthetic biology tools and techniques are driving commercialization of a wide range of products for human health, agriculture, environmental stewardship, and other purposes. This article reviews some of the trends in synthetic biology applications as well as some of the tools enabling these and future advances. These tools and capabilities are being developed in the context of a rapidly changing industry, which may have an impact on the rate and direction of progress. Final products are subject to a regulatory framework that is being challenged by the pace, scale, and novelty of this new era of biotechnology. This article includes discussion of these factors and how they may affect product design and the types of applications that are most likely to be supported and pursued commercially. The final section provides perspective on the security implications of these advances, with a focus on US interests.
Recent developments in synthetic biology tools and techniques are driving commercialization of a wide range of products for human health, agriculture, environmental stewardship, and other purposes. This article reviews some of the trends in synthetic biology applications as well as some of the tools enabling these and future advances.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Life Sciences; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology; Committee on Future Biotechnology Products and Opportunities to Enhance Capabilities of the Biotechnology Regulatory System. Preparing for Future Products of Biotechnology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2017.
2.
National Research Council; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology; Board on Life Sciences; Committee on Industrialization of Biology: A Roadmap to Accelerate the Advanced Manufacturing of Chemicals. Industrialization of Biology: A Roadmap to Accelerate the Advanced Manufacturing of Chemicals. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.
3.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology; Board on Life Sciences; Committee on Strategies for Identifying and Addressing Potential Biodefense Vulnerabilities Posed by Synthetic Biology. Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2018.
4.
JinekM, ChylinskiK, FonfaraI, HauerM, DoudnaJA, CharpentierE. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 2012; 337(6096):816-821.
5.
AdamsB. CRISPR cuts out $90M IPO bid as another gene editing biotech goes public. Fierce BiotechSeptember12, 2016.
6.
BegleyS. First CRISPR clinical trial backed by U.S. companies launches. STATAugust31, 2018
7.
MullinE. CRISPR in 2018: coming to a human near you. MIT Technol RevDecember18, 2017.
8.
KaiserJ. A human has been injected with gene-editing tools to cure his disabling disease. Here's what you need to know. ScienceNovember15, 2017.
9.
LedfordH. First test of in-body gene editing shows promise. NatureSeptember5, 2018.
10.
RanaP, MarcusAD, FanW. China, unhampered by rules, races ahead in gene-editing trials. Wall Street Journal January 21, 2018.
11.
CrossR. CRISPR's breakthrough problem. Chem Eng News, 2017; 95(7):28-33. February 13, 2017.
12.
CharlesworthCT, DeshpandePS, DeverDP, et al.Identification of pre-existing adaptive immunity to Cas9 proteins in humans. BioRxivJanuary5, 2018
13.
BegleyS. A serious new hurdle for CRISPR: edited cells might cause cancer, two studies find. STATJune11, 2018.
14.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Existing gene therapy pipeline likely to yield dozens of approved products within five years. New Drug Development Paradigms Initiative. Focus Project, Research Brief November 13, 2017. https://newdigs.mit.edu/sites/default/files/FoCUS_Research_Brief_2017F211v011.pdf. Accessed July9, 2018.
15.
GaudelliNM, KomorAC, ReesHA, et al.Programmable base editing of A*T to G*C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature, 2017; 551(7681):464-471. Erratum: Nature 2018;559(7714):E8.
16.
AbudayyehOO, GootenbergJS, EssletzbichlerP, et al.RNA targeting with CRISPR-Cas13. Nature, 2017; 550(7675):280-284.
17.
CrossR. David Liu launches Beam Therapeutics to treat genetic diseases with CRISPR base editing. Chem Eng NewsMay14, 2018.
18.
DeckerS, CortezM. This court battle will decide who will make a fortune from gene-editing tech. BloombergApril29, 2018.
19.
CohenJ. How the battle lines over CRISPR were drawn. ScienceFebruary15, 2017.
20.
SherkowJS. The CRISPR patent decision didn't get the science right. That doesn't mean it was wrong. STAT September 11, 2018.
21.
CarlsonR. Estimating the biotech sector's contribution to the US economy. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34(3):247-255.
AltpeterF, SpringerNM, BartleyLE, et al.Advancing crop transformation in the era of genome editing. Plant Cell, 2016; 28(7):1510-1520.
28.
BomgardnerMM. CRISPR: a new toolbox for better crops. Chem Eng News, 2017; 95(24):30-34.
29.
CerierS. USDA's hands-off approach to gene-edited crops could revolutionize research and development. Genetic Literacy Project May 15, 2018.
30.
BrodwinE. A new Monsanto-backed company is on the verge of producing the first fruit made with a blockbuster gene-editing tool that could revolutionize agriculture. Business Insider March 27, 2018.
31.
Sánchez-LeónS, Gil-HumanesJ, OzunaCV, et al.Low-gluten, nontransgenic wheat engineered with CRISPR/Cas9. Plant Biotechnol J, 2018; 16(4):902-910.
32.
RegaladoA. These are not your father's GMOs. MIT Technol Rev December 19, 2017.
GootenbergJS, AbudayyehOO, KellnerMJ, et al.Multiplexed and portable nucleic acid detection platform with Cas13, Cas12a, and Csm6. Science, 2018; 360(6387):439-444.
36.
MyhrvoldC, FreijeCA, GootenbergJS, et al.Field-deployable viral diagnostics using CRISPR-Cas13. Science, 2018; 360(6387):444-448.
37.
TastanovaA, FolcherM, MüllerM, et al.Synthetic biology-based cellular biomedical tattoo for detection of hypercalcemia associated with cancer. Sci Transl Med, 2018; 10(437).
38.
MimeeM, NadeauP, HaywardA, et al.An ingestible bacterial-electronic system to monitor gastrointestinal health. Science, 2018; 360(6391):915-918.
39.
YousefiH, AliMM, SuH-M, FilipeCDM, DidarTF. Sentinel wraps: real-time monitoring of food contamination by printing DNAzyme probes on food packaging. ACS Nano, 2018; 12(4):3287-3294.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Nature's silent sentinels could help detect security threats. DARPA website. November 17, 2017. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-11-17. Accessed October3, 2018.
43.
WongMH, GiraldoJP, KwakSY, et al.Nitroaromatic detection and infrared communication from wild-type plants using plant nanobionics. Nat Mater, 2017; 16(2):264-272.
44.
LeeSM. The latest “unicorn” genetically engineers everything from perfume to food. Buzzfeed December 14, 2017.
45.
UtroskeD. Fragrance ingredients made via fermentation have arrived on a commercial scale. Cosmetics Design May 30, 2017.
46.
DolginE. Bioengineers aim to break big ag's addiction to fertilizers. IEEE Spectrum May 31, 2018.
HalleranAD, SwaminathanA, MurrayRM. Single day construction of multigene circuits with 3G assembly. ACS Synth Biol, 2018; 7(5):1447-1480.
60.
EylesTH, ViorNM, TrumanAW. Rapid and robust yeast-mediated pathway refactoring generates multiple new bottromycin-related metabolites. ACS Synth Biol, 2018; 7(5):1211-1218.
61.
GibsonDG, BendersGA, Andrews-PfannkochC, et al.Complete chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Science, 2008; 319(5867):1215-1220.
62.
NoyceRS, LedermanS, EvansDH. Construction of an infectious horsepox virus vaccine from chemically synthesized DNA fragments. PLoS One, 2018; 13(1):e0188453.
63.
van der SlootA, TyersM. Synthetic genomics: rewriting the genome chromosome by chromosome. Mol Cell, 2017; 66(4):441-443.
64.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. BTO lays foundation for a new generation of biotech ventures. DARPA. September 18, 2017. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-09-18. Accessed October3, 2018.
65.
NguyenPQ, CourchesneND, Duraj‐ThatteA, PraveschotinuntP, JoshiNS. Engineered living materials: prospects and challenges for using biological systems to direct the assembly of smart materials. Adv Mater, 2018; 30(19):e1704847.
66.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Living structural materials could open new horizons for engineers and architects. DARPA. August 5, 2016. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-08-05. Accessed October3, 2018.
ListgartenJ, WeinsteinM, KleinstiverBP, et al.Prediction of off-target activities for the end-to-end design of CRISPR guide RNAs. Nat Biomed Eng, 2018; 2(1):38-47.
77.
HarveyCJB, TangM, SchlechtU, et al.HEx: a heterologous expression platform for the discovery of fungal natural products. Sci Adv, 2018; 4(4):eaar5459.
78.
FidlerB. Race to mine fungi for drugs revs up as Verdine's LifeMine gets $55M. Xconomy September 18, 2017.
79.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Building the foundation for future synthetic biology applications with BRICS. DARPA. July 29, 2014. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2014-07-29. Accessed October11, 2018.
80.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Voices from DARPA: Episode 12: The Neobiologist. August 15, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcepT9an-wQ. Accessed July9, 2018.
WendtKE, UngererJ, CobbRE, ZhaoH, PakrasiHB. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated targeted mutagenesis of the fast growing cyanobacterium Synechococcus elongatus UTEX 2973. Microb Cell Fact, 2016; 15(1):115.
83.
DvořákP, NikelPI, DamborskýJ, de LorenzoV. Bioremediation 3.0: engineering pollutant-removing bacteria in the times of systemic biology. Biotechnol Adv, 2017; 35(7):845-866.
84.
AdamsBL. The next generation of synthetic biology chassis: moving synthetic biology from the laboratory to the field. ACS Synth Biol, 2016; 5(12):1328-1330.
RinkeC, SchwientekP, SczyrbaA, et al.Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature, 2013; 499(7459):431-437.
87.
MooreSJ, MacDonaldJT, WieneckeS, et al.Rapid acquisition and model-based analysis of cell-free transcription-translation reactions from nonmodel bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2018; 115(19):E4340-E4349.
88.
GutlebenJ, De MaresMC, van ElsasJD, SmidtH, OvermannJ, SipkemaD. The multi-omics promise in context: from sequence to microbial isolate. Crit Rev Microbiol, 2018; 44(2):212-229.
89.
BrowneHP, ForsterSC, AnonyeBO, et al.Culturing of ‘unculturable’ human microbiota reveals novel taxa and extensive sporulation. Nature, 2016; 533(7604):543-546.
90.
JiangY, QianF, YangJ, et al.CRISPR-Cpf1 assisted genome editing of Corynebacterium glutamicum. Nat Commun, 2017; 8:15179.
91.
TongY, CharusantiP, ZhangL, WeberT, LeeSY. CRISPR-Cas9 based engineering of actinomycetal genomes. ACS Synth Biol, 2015; 4(9):1020-1029.
92.
FriedmanRM, CarterSR, RodemeyerM, GarfinkelMS. Synthetic Biology and the U.S. Biotechnology Regulatory System: Challenges and Options. La Jolla, CA: J. Craig Venter Institute; 2014.
93.
DrinkwaterK, KuikenT, LightfootS, McNamaraJ, OyeK. Creating a Research Agenda for the Ecological Implications of Synthetic Biology. MIT Program on EmergingTechnologies and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Synthetic Biology Project; May 2014.
BrinegarK, YetisenAK, ChoiS, et al.The commercialization of genome-editing technologies. Crit Rev Biotechnol, 2017; 37(7):924-932.
96.
GuoX, ChavezA, TungA, et al.High-throughput creation and functional profiling of DNA sequence variant libraries using CRISPR-Cas9 in yeast. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36(6):540-546.
97.
BaoZ, HamediRadM, XueP, et al.Genome-scale engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with single-nucleotide precision. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36(6):505-508.
98.
RoyKR, SmithJD, VoneschSC, et al.Multiplexed precision genome editing with trackable genomic barcodes in yeast. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36(6):512-520.
99.
TangW, LiuDR. Rewritable multi-event analog recording in bacterial and mammalian cells. Science, 2018; 360(6385):eaap8992.
100.
KnightSC, TjianR, DoudnaJA. Genomes in focus: development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 imaging technologies. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 2018; 57(16):4329-4337.
101.
ChenL, LiW, Katin-GrazziniL, et al.A method for the production and expedient screening of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated non-transgenic mutant plants. Hortic Res, 2018; 5:13.
102.
HuJH, MillerSM, GeurtsMH, et al.Evolved Cas9 variants with broad PAM compatibility and high DNA specificity. Nature, 2018; 556(7699):57-63.
103.
KonermannS, LotfyP, BrideauNJ, OkiJ, ShokhirevMN, HsuPD. Transcriptome engineering with RNA-targeting type VI-D CRISPR effectors. Cell, 2018; 173(3):665-676.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dialing up the body's defenses against public health and national security threats. DARPA. May 25, 2018. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-05-25. Accessed October3, 2018.
106.
PurseyE, SünderhaufD, GazeWH, WestraER, van HouteS. CRISPR-Cas antimicrobials: challenges and future prospects. PLoS Pathog, 2018; 14(6):e1006990.
107.
JuneCH, O'ConnorRS, KawalekarOU, GhassemiS, MiloneMC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science, 2018; 359(6382):1361-1365.
RouetR, ThumaBA, RoyMD, et al.Receptor-mediated delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 endonuclease for cell-type-specific gene editing. J Am Chem Soc, 2018; 140(21):6596-6603.
110.
LinoCA, HarperJC, CarneyJP, TimlinJA. Delivering CRISPR: a review of the challenges and approaches. Drug Deliv, 2018; 25(1):1234-1257.
National Academies ofSciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Life Sciences; Committee on Gene Drive Research in Non-Human Organisms: Recommendations for ResponsibleConduct. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016.
113.
GantzVM, BierE. Genome editing. The mutagenic chain reaction: a method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations. Science, 2015; 348(6233):442-444.
114.
BuchmanA, MarshallJM, OstrovskiD, YangT, AkbariOS. Synthetically engineered Medea gene drive system in the worldwide crop pest Drosophila suzukii. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2018; 115(18):4725-4730.
115.
HammondA, GaliziR, KyrouK, et al.A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34(1):78-83.
116.
GantzVM, JasinskieneN, TatarenkovaO, et al.Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015; 112(49):E6736-E6743.
117.
GrunwaldHA, GantzVM, PoplawskiG, XuXS, BierE, CooperKL. Super-Mendelian inheritance mediated by CRISPR/Cas9 in the female mouse germline. bioRxiv Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/04/362558. Accessed July9, 2018.
118.
EsveltKM, SmidlerAL, CatterucciaF, ChurchGM. Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. Elife, 2014; 3:e03401.
119.
BurtA, CoulibalyM, CrisantiA, et al.Gene drive to reduce malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. J Responsible Innov, 2018; 5(1_suppl):S66-S80.
120.
HammondAM, GaliziR. Gene drives to fight malaria: current state and future directions. Pathog Glob Health, 2018; 111(8):412-423.
121.
LiM, BuiM, YangT, BowmanCS, WhiteBJ, AkbariOS. Germline Cas9 expression yields highly efficient genome engineering in a major worldwide disease vector, Aedes aegypti. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2017; 114(49):E10540-E10549.
122.
RegaladoA. Farmers seek to deploy powerful gene drive. MIT Technol Rev December 12, 2017.
123.
LeitschuhCM, KanavyD, BackusGA, et al.Developing gene drive technologies to eradicate invasive rodents from islands. J Responsible Innov, 2018; 5(1_suppl):S121-S138.
124.
HammondAM, KyrouK, BruttiniM. The creation and selection of mutations resistant to a gene drive over multiple generations in the malaria mosquito. PLoS Genet, 2017; 13(10):e1007039.
MarshallJM, AkbariOS. Can CRISPR-based gene drive be confined in the wild? A question for molecular and population biology. ACS Chem Biol, 2018; 13(2):424-430.
CarterSR, FriedmanRM. Policy and Regulatory Issues for Gene Drives in Insects: Workshop Report. La Jolla, CA: J. Craig Venter Institute; 2016.
129.
JamesS, CollinsFH, WelkhoffPA, et al.Pathway to deployment of gene drive mosquitoes as a potential biocontrol tool for elimination of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa: recommendations of a scientific working group. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2018; 98(6Suppl):S1-S49.
130.
AdelmanZ, AkbariO, BauerJ, et al.Rules of the road for insect gene drive research and testing. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35(8):716-718.
National Academies ofSciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee onScience, Technology, and Law; Committee on Dual Use Research of Concern: Options for FutureManagement. Dual Use Research of Concern in the Life Sciences: Current Issues and Controversies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2017.
DiEuliisD, CarterSR, GronvallGK. Options for synthetic DNA order screening, revisited. mSphere, 2017; 2(4):e00319-17.
137.
KoblentzGD. The de novo synthesis of horsepox virus: implications for biosecurity and recommendations for preventing the reemergence of smallpox. Health Secur, 2017; 15(6):620-628.
138.
National Academies ofSciences, Engineering, and Medicine; National Academies ofSciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Committee on Human Gene Editing: ScientificMedical, and EthicalConsiderations. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2017.
139.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome Editing: An Ethical Review. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London; 2016.
LiangP, XuY, ZhangX, et al.CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell, 2015; 6(5):363-372.
142.
LiangP, DingC, SunH, et al.Correction of β-thalassemia mutant by base editor in human embryos. Protein Cell, 2017; 8(11):811-822.
143.
FogartyNME, McCarthyA, SnijdersKE, et al.Genome editing reveals a role for OCT4 in human embryogenesis. Nature, 2017; 550(7674):67-73. Erratum: Nature 2017;551(7679):256.
144.
MaH, Marti-GutierrezN, ParkS-W, et al.Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 2017; 548(7668):413-419.
145.
LiuET, Bolcun‐FilasE, GrassDS, et al.Of mice and CRISPR. EMBO Rep, 2017; 18(2):187-193.
HaiT, TengF, GuoR, LiW, ZhouQ. One-step generation of knockout pigs by zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res, 2014; 24(3):372-375.
148.
YumS-Y, YounK-Y, ChoiW-J, JangG. Development of genome engineering technologies in cattle: from random to specific. J Anim Sci Biotechnol, 2018; 9:16.
149.
PhillipsMcDougall. The cost and time involved in the discovery, development and authorisation of a new plant biotechnology derived trait. A consultancy study for CropLife International. 2011. www.croplife.org/PhillipsMcDougallStudy. Accessed July9, 2018.
ScottJ. Current biotech regulations create animal and crop approval blocks and bottlenecks but gene editing may open new doors. Genetic Literacy Project March 8, 2018.
158.
RegaladoA. Farmland gene editors want cows without horns, pigs without tails, and business without regulations. MIT Technol Rev March 12, 2018.
SwetlitzI. In a remote West African village, a revolutionary genetic experiment is on its way—if residents agree to it. STAT March 14, 2017.
173.
YongE. One man's plan to make sure gene editing doesn't go haywire. Atlantic July 11, 2017.
174.
KolodziejczykB, PerelloE. Catastrophic risk to ecosystems puts biotechnology fixes on the table. Brookings: Techtank May 31, 2018.
175.
CornishL. Understanding the continued opposition to GMOs. Devex January 22, 2018.
176.
BlochS. At CRISPRcon, an organic luminary embraces gene editing. Will the industry follow? New Food Economy June 6, 2018.
177.
Wilson Center. U.S. Trends in Synthetic Biology Research Funding. Washington, DC: Wilson Center Synthetic Biology Project; September 2015.
178.
CyranoskiD. CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time. Nature, 2016; 539:479.
179.
DavisN. China vs. the west: who will lead the way in embryo editing research?. Leapsmag November 30, 2017.
180.
GronvallGK. US competitiveness in synthetic biology. Health Secur, 2015; 13(6):378-389.
181.
LynchDJ. Biotechnology: the US-China dispute over genetic data. Financial Times July 31, 2017.
182.
MurchRS, SoWK, BuchholzWG, RamanS, PeccoudJ. Cyberbiosecurity: an emerging new discipline to help safeguard the bioeconomy. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2018; 6:39.
183.
National Academy of Engineering; National Research Council; Policy and Global Affairs; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Board on Life Sciences. Positioning Synthetic Biology to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century: Summary Report of a Six Academies Symposium Series. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013.
184.
OngS. Singapore bets big on synthetic biology. Nature April 25, 2018.
185.
JoslingT. A review of WTO rules and GMO trade. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. BioRes 2015;9(3).
186.
CyranoskiD. Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens. Nature, 2017; 542:399-400.
187.
India completes first biodefense level 4 lab. Global Biodefense March 11, 2013.
188.
Anthrax war—the Malaysian connection. ProPublica September 10, 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Department of Health and Human Services framework for guiding funding decisions about proposed research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens. December 2017. https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Pages/p3co.aspx. Accessed July9, 2018.
198.
National Institutes of Health. Tools for the Identification, Assessment, Management, and Responsible Communication of Dual Use Research of Concern: A Companion Guide. September 2014. https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/durc-companion-guide.pdf. Accessed October3, 2018.
