In-Depth Computational Analysis of Natural and Artificial Carbon Fixation Pathways

In the recent years, engineering new-to-nature CO₂- and C1-fixing metabolic pathways made a leap forward. New, artificial pathways promise higher yields and activity than natural ones like the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) cycle. The question remains how to best predict their in vivo performance and what actually makes one pathway "better" than another. In this context, we explore aerobic carbon fixation pathways by a computational approach and compare them based on their specific activity and yield on methanol, formate, and CO₂/H₂ considering the kinetics and thermodynamics of the reactions. Besides pathways found in nature or implemented in the laboratory, this included two completely new cycles with favorable features: the reductive citramalyl-CoA cycle and the 2-hydroxyglutarate-reverse tricarboxylic acid cycle. A comprehensive kinetic data set was collected for all enzymes of all pathways, and missing kinetic data were sampled with the Parameter Balancing algorithm. Kinetic and thermodynamic data were fed to the Enzyme Cost Minimization algorithm to check for respective inconsistencies and calculate pathway-specific activities. The specific activities of the reductive glycine pathway, the CETCH cycle, and the new reductive citramalyl-CoA cycle were predicted to match the best natural cycles with superior product-substrate yield. However, the CBB cycle performed better in terms of activity compared to the alternative pathways than previously thought. We make an argument that stoichiometric yield is likely not the most important design criterion of the CBB cycle. Still, alternative carbon fixation pathways were paretooptimal for specific activity and product-substrate yield in simulations with C1 substrates and CO₂/H₂ and therefore hold great potential for future applications in Industrial Biotechnology and Synthetic Biology.