| Literature DB >> 27120628 |
Hugo F Cueto-Rojas1, Reza Maleki Seifar2, Angela Ten Pierick3, Sef J Heijnen4, Aljoscha Wahl5.
Abstract
Ammonium (NH₄⁺) is the most common N-source for yeast fermentations, and N-limitation is frequently applied to reduce growth and increase product yields. While there is significant molecular knowledge on NH₄⁺ transport and assimilation, there have been few attempts to measure the in vivo concentration of this metabolite. In this article, we present a sensitive and accurate analytical method to quantify the in vivo intracellular ammonium concentration in Saccharomyces cerevisiae based on standard rapid sampling and metabolomics techniques. The method validation experiments required the development of a proper sample processing protocol to minimize ammonium production/consumption during biomass extraction by assessing the impact of amino acid degradation-an element that is often overlooked. The resulting cold chloroform metabolite extraction method, together with quantification using ultra high performance liquid chromatography-isotope dilution mass spectrometry (UHPLC-IDMS), was not only more sensitive than most of the existing methods but also more accurate than methods that use electrodes, enzymatic reactions, or boiling water or boiling ethanol biomass extraction because it minimized ammonium consumption/production during sampling processing and interference from other metabolites in the quantification of intracellular ammonium. Finally, our validation experiments showed that other metabolites such as pyruvate or 2-oxoglutarate (αKG) need to be extracted with cold chloroform to avoid measurements being biased by the degradation of other metabolites (e.g., amino acids).Entities:
Keywords: UHPLC-IDMS; in vivo quantification; intracellular ammonium; metabolomics; rapid sampling
Year: 2016 PMID: 27120628 PMCID: PMC4931543 DOI: 10.3390/metabo6020012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
Results of the spike experiments using cold-buffered chloroform-methanol extraction (CM5) as extraction method. The estimated concentration when the spiked amount (50 µM) is subtracted from the measurement is shown in brackets. The results are displayed as µMsample. The results are single injections of independent triplicates.
| Sample | Measured Concentration µMsample | Average ± St. Dev. |
|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | 4.2 ± 2.8 | |
| 2.2 | ||
| N.D. | ||
| 61.1 (11.1) | 9.2 ± 2.1 1 | |
| 57.0 (7.0) | ||
| 59.5 (9.5) | ||
| 35.9 | 31.2 ± 4.1 | |
| 28.7 | ||
| 28.9 | ||
| 94.4 (44.4) | 34.3 ± 9.0 1 | |
| 81.3 (31.3) | ||
| 77.2 (27.2) | ||
| 21.8 | 22.7 ± 1.3 | |
| 22.1 | ||
| 24.2 | ||
| 77.8 (27.8) | 29.1 ± 6.5 1 | |
| 73.3 (23.3) | ||
| 86.2 (36.2) |
1 Average of estimated concentration (measured concentration–spiked amount).
Results of total broth ammonium mass balance. Reconciled concentrations provide the best estimates of the measurements obtained by least square minimization of the differences between the measurements and estimated amounts, weighted with respect to their measurement errors.
| Type of Sample | Concentration Measured 1 (µMbroth) | Recovery (%) | Reconciled Concentration * (µMbroth) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intracellular BE (Aug 14) | 24.51 ± 2.15 | 124.50% | N.A. |
| Extracellular (Aug 14) | 6.23 ± 1.15 | ||
| Total broth BE (Aug 14) | 24.69 ± 5.25 | ||
| Intracellular BE5 (Oct 14) | 10.04 ± 1.93 | 77.93% | N.A. |
| Extracellular (Oct 14) | 1.05 ± 0.49 | ||
| Total broth BE5 (Oct 14) | 14.23 ± 0.23 | ||
| Intracellular CM5 (Oct 14) | 15.16 ± 1.24 | 96.66% | 15.57 ± 0.64 |
| Extracellular (Oct 14) | 1.05 ± 0.49 | 1.12 ± 0.46 | |
| Total broth CM5 (Oct 14) | 16.77 ± 0.57 | 16.68 ± 0.52 |
1 Average of three independent samples injected and quantified three times; N.A. = not applicable. BE: conventional boiling ethanol extraction; BE5: buffered boiling ethanol protocol.
Figure 1Experimental approach for quantifying amino acid degradation (adapted from [13]).
Quantitative analysis of amino acid decay using different extraction methods. The results displayed are averages of three independent samples (in µmol/gCDW).
| 13C Addition | Extraction Solution | Intracellular Metabolite Concentration (µmol/gCDW) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ala | Glu | Asp | Gln | PyrGlu | Pyruvate | αKG | NH4+ | ||
| AQ | BE5 | 6.97 ± 0.21 | 52.79 ± 0.36 | 11.51 ± 0.14 | 10.77 ± 0.25 | 0.78 ± 0.02 | 1.96 ± 0.17 | 3.01 ± 0.05 | 3.46 ± 0.28 |
| BA | BE5 | 5.73 ± 0.25 | 51.05 ± 0.75 | 10.80 ± 0.33 | 9.81 ± 0.19 | 1.11 ± 0.02 | N.M. | N.M. | N.M. |
| AQ | CM5 | 6.50 ± 0.07 | 51.95 ± 0.65 | 9.03 ± 0.09 2 | 10.85 ± 0.16 | 0.51 ± 0.02 2 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 2.29 ± 0.44 |
| BA | CM5 | 6.00 ± 0.05 | 49.95 ± 0.30 | 8.90 ± 0.07 | 10.68 ± 0.07 | 0.57 ± 0.06 | N.M. | N.M. | N.M. |
| AQ | BE | 7.86 ± 0.13 | 56.00 ± 0.95 | 11.54 ± 0.28 | 11.28 ± 0.14 | N.M. | 2.17 ± 0.24 | 2.81 ± 0.06 | 5.78 ± 0.20 |
gCDW = gram of cell dry weight. N.M. = not measured. In these cases, the analysis was not performed, therefore no experimental data are available; 1 Statistically significant difference found between AQ and BA samples, according to a t-test at a significance level of 0.05. 2 Statistically significant difference found between BE5 AQ and CM5 AQ samples, according to a t-test at a significance level of 0.05.