You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: As final step in their biosynthesis, flavonoids are often glycosylated which has a profound effect on their solubility, stability and bio-activity  [8, 9] . For example, the best studied flavonol quercetin, which makes up to 75 % of our daily flavonoid intake, predominantly occurs as different glycosides. Over 350 different quercetin glycoforms have been reported to date with varying pharmacological properties [10, 11] . In this context, hyperoside (quercetin 3-O-galactoside) and quercitrin (quercetin 3-O-rhamnoside) ( Fig. 1) have gained a lot of attention as valuable products for the pharmaceutical industry e.g., as powerful antioxidants with cytoprotective effects [12] [13] [14] [15] and as promising antiviral agents that block replication of the influenza virus [16] or inhibit the viruses hepatitis B [17] and SARS [18] . Furthermore, they have been attributed with anti-inflammatory [19, 20] , antidepressant [21, 22] , apoptotic [23] and antifungal [24] activities, rendering them interesting therapeutics resulting in a steadily increasing market demand. To date, the majority of quercetin and its glycosides are extracted from plant material, which is generally a laborious and low-yielding process requiring many purification steps [25] . In vitro plant cell cultures or engineered plants can be used to overcome the low yields and improve production [26] [27] [28] , however since metabolic engineering of plants is both very controversial and still in its infancy [29] , this approach is often restricted to small-scale production. Although chemical synthesis of quercetin (glycosides) has proven to be feasible [30] [31] [32] , stereoselective formation of glycosidic linkages is often hampered by the presence of various reactive groups [33] , which requires many protecting and deprotecting steps [34] . In addition, the generation of toxic waste and a low atomefficiency [35] render these production processes neither sustainable nor economically viable. As a result, in the last two decades enormous efforts have been invested in the development of alternative production methods for these specialized (secondary) plant metabolites [36] . Advances in the fields of protein engineering, systems and synthetic biology have accelerated these efforts to transform model organisms like Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in real microbial cell factories for the sustainable production of flavonoids [37] [38] [39] . Subsequently, strategies for the in vivo glycosylation of flavonoids have also been developed. These are typically based on both the overexpression of specific glycosyltransferases, which transfer a sugar residue from an activated nucleotide sugar to an aglycon in a stereoand regioselective way, and the engineering or introduction of the targeted nucleotide sugar pathway. In this way, Fig. 1 Transformation of E. coli W into a sucrose-based galactosylation and rhamnosylation platform. The metabolic engineering strategy applied makes use of several gene deletions (indicated in red) and overexpressions of genes (indicated in green). The rational of a split metabolism is applied, whereby sucrose is divided by sucrose phosphorylase (BaSP) in fructose to be used for growth and a glucose 1-phosphate as activated precursor for UDP-glucose. The latter is a universal pivot molecule for the formation of UDP-galactose and UDP-rhamnose, interconversions catalyzed by the enzymes GalE and MUM4, respectively. To ensure growth-coupled production, various genes, involved in the metabolization of these UDPsugars and their precursors, were knocked out (shown in red). The production of the bioactive quercetin glycosides hyperoside and quercitrin was chosen to evaluate the versatility of the engineered production platform. Finally, the introduction of either the glycosyltransferase F3GT or RhaGT ensures efficient galactosylation or rhamnosylation, respectively various quercetin glycosides have already been produced in E. coli such as the naturally occurring 3-O-glucoside [40] , 3-O-xyloside [41] and 3,7-O-bisrhamnoside [42] , or the new-to-nature quercetin 3-O-(6-deoxytalose) [43] . However, despite these engineering efforts, the reported product rates and titers are still in the milligram range, rendering these microbial production hosts unsuitable for industrial applications. The developed production processes are typically biphasic bioconversion processes using resting cells, which makes it difficult to improve production rates [44] . Furthermore, such systems often entail expensive growth media or the addition of enzyme inducers, making the overall process very costly. To tackle these problems, we previously developed an efficient platform for the glucosylation of small molecules in E. coli W [45] . Through metabolic engineering, a mutant was created which couples the production of glucosides to growth, using sucrose as a cheap and sustainable carbon source. By introducing the sucrose phosphorylase from Bifidobacterium adolescentis (BaSP) sucrose can be split into fructose to be used for growth purposes and glucose 1-phosphate (glc1P) to be used as precursor for UDP-glucose (UDP-glc) formation ( Fig. 1) . To impede the conversion of glc1P into biomass precursors, several endogenous genes involved in its metabolization such as phosphoglucomutase (pgm) and glucose-1-phosphatase (agp) were knocked out. Subsequently, glc1P can efficiently be channeled towards UDP-glc by overexpressing the uridylyltransferase from Bifidobacterium bifidum (ugpA). Metabolization of UDP-glc is prevented by knocking out the UDP-sugar hydrolase (ushA) and the galactose operon (galETKM). However, in view of the pivotal role of UDP-glc in the production of a large variety of UDP-sugars, this glucosylation system can easily be extended towards other UDP-sugars, such as UDP-galactose (UDP-gal), UDPrhamnose (UDP-rha) and UDP-glucuronate. In the present contribution, this previously developed E. coli W-based glucosylation platform is transformed into a platform for galactosylation and rhamnosylation ( Fig. 1) , whose potential is demonstrated using the galactosylation and rhamnosylation of exogenously fed quercetin yielding hyperoside and quercitrin, respectively, as case study. Escherichia coli W is a fast-growing non-pathogenic strain which tolerates osmotic stress, acidic conditions, and can be cultured to high cell densities, making it an attractive host for industrial fermentations [46] . Moreover, E. coli W is able to grow on sucrose as sole carbon source [46] , which is an emerging feedstock for the production of bio-products. Hence, E. coli W was selected as host for sucrose-based in vivo glycosylation. Prior to the production of the glycosides hyperoside and quercitrin in E. coli W, the toxicity of their aglycon quercetin was investigated. To this end, the wild type (WT) strain was grown on minimal sucrose medium containing different concentrations of quercetin (0, 0.15 and 1.5 g/L). The specific growth rates (h −1 ) (0.96 ± 0.06, 0.92 ± 0.05 and 0.87 ± 0.06, respectively) were not significantly different (p ANOVA = 0.12) nor from the one previously determined for the WT [45] (p = 0.69, p = 0.98 and p = 0.68, respectively). On the other hand, the optical density at 600 nm after 24 h incubation (6.36 ± 0.12, 5.18 ± 0.16 and 4.77 ± 0.20, respectively) was lower (about 20 %) when quercetin was added (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0001). No significant difference in optical density could be observed between 0.15 and 1.5 g/L quercetin (p = 0.14). In view of the above, it was opted to add 1.5 g/L quercetin to evaluate the potential of the developed glycosylation platform. To evaluate the in vivo glycosylation potential, strains sGAL1 and sRHA1, which constitutively express the flavonol 3-O-galactosyltransferase from Petunia hybrida and the flavonol 3-O-rhamnosyltransferase from A. thaliana, respectively, were cultured in minimal medium with 1.5 g/L of quercetin for 16 h. TLC analysis of the supernatants of both cultures yielded two new yellow product spots. The TLC spot obtained from the sGAL1 culture, which had the same retention time as the hyperoside standard (R f = 0.5), was subsequently purified and analyzed. Both NMR and MS analysis confirmed the production of quercetin 3-O-galactoside. However, the product spot obtained from the sRHA1 culture had a different retention factor (R f = 0.55) than the quercitrin standard (R f = 0.74), and was identified as isoquercitrin (quercetin 3-O-glucoside). As opposed to other reports on wild type E. coli strains expressing RhaGT, which simultaneously produced quercitrin (quercetin 3-O-rhamnoside) and isoquercitrin [47, 48] , no rhamnoside could be detected. Examination of the E. coli W genome revealed that the gene cluster responsible for the endogenous production of dTDP-rhamnose, which functions as an alternative rhamnosyldonor for RhaGT in E. coli B and K12 derivatives [47] , was not present [46, 49] . In a follow-up experiment, sGAL1 and sRHA1 were grown on minimal medium with two different concentrations (0.15 and 1.5 g/L) of quercetin. Growth and glycoside formation were monitored during 30 h. The final titers (C p ) and specific productivities (q p ) are shown in Fig. 2 . Remarkably, an increase in quercetin concentration resulted in a two to threefold increase in productivity and titer, indicating that quercetin supply is rate-limiting and crucial for efficient in vivo glycosylation. However, while sGAL1 continuously produced hyperoside during the exponential phase, which is also reflected in the relatively high specific productivity, sRHA1 only started to accumulate significant amounts of isoquercitrin at the end of the exponential phase. This production start coincides with a reduction in specific growth rate, which dropped from 0.35 ± 0.04 to 0.06 ± 0.01 h −1 . As described in detail in the Background section, we previously metabolically engineered E. coli W to create a platform for in vivo glucosylation of small molecules [45] . In the original base glucosylation strain, sucrose phosphorylase encoded by BaSP was located on a mediumcopy plasmid and transcribed from a medium-strong constitutive promoter (P22) [50] . For reasons of comparison and flexibility, it was opted to integrate BaSP in the genome of E. coli W. In addition, chromosomal integration is advantageous because of a significant increase in gene stability. Since the level of gene expression can considerably be impacted by the genome integration site [51] due to structural differences such as supercoiling DNA regions, two different DNA sites were assessed for BaSP integration, i.e., melA and glgC, which encode an α-galactosidase and a glucose-1-phosphate adenylyltransferase, respectively. To this end, an adapted knockin-knockout procedure for large DNA fragments was applied, which is schematically shown in Additional file 1: Figure S2 . BaSP under control of promoter P22 was knocked in at the two different loci in E. coli W ΔcscAR, which resulted in the E. coli W strains ΔcscAR ΔmelA::L4-P22-BaSP-L5 and ΔcscAR ΔglgC::L4-P22-BaSP-L5. Their maximal specific growth rate (µ max ) on minimal sucrose medium, which is shown in Fig. 3 , was compared to the original strain ΔcscAR + pBaSP. The influence of the knockin locus on the maximal specific growth rate is clear. Interestingly, integration at the melA locus resulted in a strain with a µ max which was not significantly different from the reference strain ΔcscAR + pBaSP. In view of the latter and considering the aimed growth-coupled production, it was opted to integrate BaSP at the melA locus leading to the final production base strain E. coli W ΔcscAR Δpgm Δagp ΔushA ΔlacZYA::P22-lacY ΔgalETKM ΔmelA::L4-P22-BaSP-L5 (sGLYC) as shown in Table 1 . In nature, UDP-glc serves as a pivot molecule in the formation of a variety of UDP-sugars [44] . For example, using the interconverting enzymes UDP-glucose 4-epimerase (GalE) and UDP-rhamnose synthase (MUM4) UDP-glc can be converted to UDP-gal and UDP-rha, respectively. Though GalE is natively present in E. coli W an alternative homologous epimerase (GalE2) from B. bifidum was also selected and cloned due to the Fig. 2 Comparison of the specific glycoside productivities (q p ) and glycoside titers (C p ) for strains sGAL1, which produces the 3-O-galactoside, and sRHA1, which produces the 3-O-glucoside, when grown for 30 h on minimal medium containing 0.15 or 1.5 g/L of quercetin. Error bars represent standard deviations tight and complex regulation of GalE expression in E. coli W. On the other hand, UDP-rhamnose synthesis is restricted to plants. Due to lack of the rfb cluster [46] E. coli W is even unable to form endogenous dTDP-rhamnose as alternative rhamnosyl donor. Hence, the MUM4 gene from A. thaliana was expressed from plasmid pMUM4 to achieve UDP-rhamnose formation in E. coli (Fig. 1) .

Question: What characteristics does glycosylation have on flavonoids?
solubility, stability and bio-activity