| Literature DB >> 28145511 |
Lina Lindahl1, Aline X S Santos2,3, Helén Olsson1, Lisbeth Olsson1, Maurizio Bettiga1.
Abstract
The sustainable production of fuels and chemicals using microbial cell factories is now well established. However, many microbial production processes are still limited in scale due to inhibition from compounds that are present in the feedstock or are produced during fermentation. Some of these inhibitors interfere with cellular membranes and change the physicochemical properties of the membranes. Another group of molecules is dependent on their permeation rate through the membrane for their inhibition. We have investigated the use of membrane engineering to counteract the negative effects of inhibitors on the microorganism with focus on modulating the abundance of complex sphingolipids in the cell membrane of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Overexpression of ELO3, involved in fatty acid elongation, and AUR1, which catalyses the formation of complex sphingolipids, had no effect on the membrane lipid profile or on cellular physiology. Deletion of the genes ORM1 and ORM2, encoding negative regulators of sphingolipid biosynthesis, decreased cell viability and considerably reduced phosphatidylinositol and complex sphingolipids. Additionally, combining ELO3 and AUR1 overexpression with orm1/2Δ improved cell viability and increased fatty acyl chain length compared with only orm1/2Δ. These findings can be used to further study the sphingolipid metabolism, as well as giving guidance in membrane engineering.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28145511 PMCID: PMC5286413 DOI: 10.1038/srep41868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Simplified illustration of sphingolipid metabolism in S. cerevisiae.
Genes overexpressed in this study are indicated in green and genes deleted are indicated in red. Abbreviations: VLCFA, very-long-chain fatty acid (C24-C26); LCB, long-chain base; PI, phosphatidylinositol; PI4P, phosphatidylinositol 4-phosphate; IPC, inositol phosphoceramide; MIPC, mannosyl-inositol phosphoceramide; MIP2C, mannosyl-diinositolphosphoceramide. The Illustration is drawn by the authors.
Strains constructed in this study.
| Background strain | Recombinant strain | Genotype |
|---|---|---|
| CEN.PK 113-6B | ||
| CEN.PK 113-6B | ||
| CEN.PK 113-6B | ||
| CEN.PK 113-6B | ||
| CEN.PK 113-6B | ||
| CEN.PK 113-6B |
Primers for gene expression analysis.
| Gene | Primer | Sequence 5′-3′ |
|---|---|---|
| AUR1 qRT-PCR fwd | ACTAATCCCGCACCTTGGAT | |
| AUR1 qRT-PCR rev | CATGTTAGGATGGGCAAGGC | |
| ELO3 qRT-PCR fwd | TGGCTAACGGGTATCATGCT | |
| ELO3 qRT-PCR rev | AATGGAGAGGCGTTCAAGGC | |
| TAF10 qRT-PCR fwd | TACCCGAATTTACAAGAAAAGATAAGA | |
| TAF10 qRT-PCR rev | ATTTCTGAGTAGCAAGTGCTAAAAGTC |
Physiological parameters obtained from aerobic batch fermentation in mineral medium supplemented with amino acids.
| Strain | Physiological parameters | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| μmax (h−1) | Viability (%) | Final biomass | YBiomass/substrate (cmol × cmol−1) | YEtOH/substrate (cmol × cmol−1) | YGlycerol/substrate (cmol × cmol−1) | |
| 0.44 ± 0.00 | 100 ± 0 | 5.0 ± 0.1 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | 0.43 ± 0.01 | 0.013 ± 0.000 | |
| 0.44 ± 0.01 | 100 ± 0 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | 0.44 ± 0.04 | 0.012 ± 0.000 | |
| 0.37 ± 0.03* | 89 ± 1* | 3.9 ± 0.1* | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.04* | 0.019 ± 0.000* | |
| 0.42 ± 0.00# | 97 ± 2 | 4.6 ± 0.0*# | 0.14 ± 0.01* | 0.40 ± 0.01# | 0.014 ± 0.000# | |
1Final biomass concentration when all carbon sources had been depleted, measured in gram dry weight per litre culture. Results were calculated from three biological replicates and are given as the mean ± standard deviation. Differences obtained using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD for multiple pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05). *Significant difference compared to wild type, #Significant difference compared to orm1/2Δ.
Figure 2Lipid profiles of the constructed strains analysed during mid-exponential growth in minimal medium supplemented with amino acids.
(a) Complex sphingolipid classes. (b) Total ceramides. (c) Glycerophospholipid classes. (d) Degree of unsaturation per lipid in total glycerophospholipids. (e) Complex sphingolipid total chain length per lipid. (f) Ceramide chain length per lipid. (g) Total glycerophospholipid chain length per lipid. *Significant difference compared to wild type. #Significant difference compared with orm1/2Δ mutant. Differences obtained using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD for multiple pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05). The results were calculated from three biological replicates and are given as the mean ± standard deviation.