| Literature DB >> 28341679 |
Arthur R Gorter de Vries1, Jack T Pronk1, Jean-Marc G Daran2.
Abstract
Chromosomal copy number variation (CCNV) plays a key role in evolution and health of eukaryotes. The unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is an important model for studying the generation, physiological impact, and evolutionary significance of CCNV. Fundamental studies of this yeast have contributed to an extensive set of methods for analyzing and introducing CCNV. Moreover, these studies provided insight into the balance between negative and positive impacts of CCNV in evolutionary contexts. A growing body of evidence indicates that CCNV not only frequently occurs in industrial strains of Saccharomyces yeasts but also is a key contributor to the diversity of industrially relevant traits. This notion is further supported by the frequent involvement of CCNV in industrially relevant traits acquired during evolutionary engineering. This review describes recent developments in genome sequencing and genome editing techniques and discusses how these offer opportunities to unravel contributions of CCNV in industrial Saccharomyces strains as well as to rationally engineer yeast chromosomal copy numbers and karyotypes.Entities:
Keywords: aneuploidy; evolutionary adaptation; fermentation; genome engineering; industrial yeast; industrial yeast fermentation; strain improvement
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28341679 PMCID: PMC5440705 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.03206-16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol ISSN: 0099-2240 Impact factor: 4.792
FIG 1Methods to analyze chromosome copy number and DNA content in yeast cells. (A) Absolute quantification of the DNA content of strain CBS1483 by flow cytometry using the DNA-intercalating dye Sytox Green and calibration with three strains of known ploidy. (Adapted from reference 23.) (B) qPCR fluorescence profiles for different initial concentrations of a template DNA sequence can be used to infer the amount of initial template in a reaction and to calculate relative copy numbers of different parts of the template DNA. (Republished from reference 157.) (C) Chromosome copy number determination of S. cerevisiae variants using contour-clamped homogeneous electric field electrophoresis and Southern blotting. I, stained CHEF gel; II, Southern blot hybridization; III, quantification of the hybridization bands. Lanes 1 and 2 show two disomic knockout strains that have only a single copy of chromosome VIII, while lane 3 shows a diploid control strain. (Modified from reference 28 with permission [copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.].) (D) Copy number estimation of chromosome II by array comparative genomic hybridization of an evolved strain relative to its unevolved parental strain. Deviating copy number can be detected by significant deviations of the measured signal and has been accentuated by a red line. (Republished from reference 108.) (E) Copy number estimation of the genome of the wine production strain VL3, based on whole-genome sequencing and read depth analysis. A marked increase of the read depth for chromosome VIII indicates a gain of copy of that chromosome. (Adapted from reference 117.)
FIG 2Schematic representation of chromosome segregation and of the common mechanisms leading to chromosome missegregation. Two chromatids of two different chromosomes are shown in red and blue, with their centromeres and kinetochores. In green, the centrosomes are shown with the assembled microtubule attached to the kinetochores of the chromatids. For each case, the microtubule-kinetochore assembly is shown before and after the anaphase. (A) Correct chromosome segregation is achieved by amphitelic spindle assembly, where microtubules connect each chromatid to a different centrosome, resulting in separation to opposite cellular poles during anaphase and maintaining a stable karyotype in the daughter cells (45). (B and C) If only one of the chromatids is attached to a centrosome or both chromatids are attached to the same kinetochore, referred to as monotely and syntely, respectively, proceeding to anaphase would result in the missegregation of both chromatids to that centrosome. However, monotelic and syntelic spindle assemblies are detected at the spindle assembly checkpoint and therefore rarely cause chromosome missegregation. (D) In the case of a merotelic spindle assembly, a chromatid is attached to both centrosomes and, as a result, cannot migrate to a cellular pole. The resulting random segregation of the lagging chromosome can cause missegregation, damage, and micronucleus formation (158). (E) When more than two centrosomes are formed, random attachment of chromatids can result in chromosome missegregation due to chromosome lagging or unequal chromosome segregation (159).
Examples of whole-chromosome copy number variations acquired during laboratory evolution experiments with Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains
| Selected phenotype | Aneuploid chromosome(s) | Confirmed causality | Contributing gene(s) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biomass sedimentation | Whole-genome duplication | Yes | ||
| Glucose-limited growth | Whole-genome duplication | Yes | ||
| High temp tolerance | III (+1) | Yes | 17 individual genes | |
| High pH tolerance | V (+1) | Yes | ||
| Glucose-limited growth | I (+1), III (+1), V (+1) | No | ||
| Phosphate-limited growth | IV (+1), VI (+1), X (+1), XIII (+2), XVI (+1) | No | ||
| Lactate utilization by | III (+1) | Yes | ||
| Xylose utilization | I (−1) | No | ||
| XIV (+1) | No | |||
| Copper tolerance | II (+1), VIII (+1) | No | ||
| Galactose tolerance | VIII (+1) | Yes | ||
| Ethanol tolerance | III (+1), VIII (+1) | No | ||
| Radicicol resistance | XV (+1) | Yes | ||
| Fluconazole resistance | VIII (+1) | No | ||
| Tunicamycin resistance | XVI (−1) | Yes | ||
| Benomyl resistance | XII (−1) | No | ||
| Suppressors of | IV (+1) | Yes | ||
| Suppressors of | XIII (+1), XVI (+1) | Yes | ||
| Suppressors of | IX (+1) | No | ||
| Suppressors of telomerase insufficiency | VIII (−1) | No |
In the examples listed, the acquired CCNV was hypothesized to contribute to the selected phenotype. “Confirmed causality” indicates that a causal link between CCNV and the phenotype acquired during laboratory evolution was experimentally confirmed. In cases where the impact of a CCNV on phenotype was linked to specific genes, this is also indicated. Segmental aneuploidies observed in the cited studies are not included in the table.
Examples of CCNV in industrial Saccharomyces strains
| Strain | Species | Industrial product | Approximate overall ploidy | Aneuploid chromosome(s) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BR001 | Bread | 4n | IX (+1) | ||
| BR004 | Bread | 4n | IX (+1) | ||
| E-IM3 | Cacao | 3n | VII | ||
| AY529517 | Cacao | 2n | IV, XII | ||
| YE 2-2 | Coffee | 3n | I, XV, XVI | ||
| JV2 | Coffee | 4n | Extensive aneuploidy | ||
| Y-393 | Kefir | 3n | I, III, IX | ||
| YJM1356 | Cider | 2n | I (+2) | ||
| YJM1439 | Ginger beer | 2n | VIII (+2) | ||
| FostersO | Ale beer | >2n | III (+1), XIV (−1) | ||
| FostersB | Ale beer | >2n | III (+1), V (+1), XV (+1) | ||
| CBS1483 | Lager beer | >2n | Extensive aneuploidy | ||
| CBS1270 | Lager beer | >2n | Extensive aneuploidy | ||
| AWRI796 | Wine | 2n | I (+1) | ||
| VL3 | Wine | 2n | VIII (+1) | ||
| F-12 | Flor wine | 2n | VII (+1), XIII (+2) | ||
| SA001 | Sake | 2–3n | V (+1) | ||
| SA003 | Sake | 2–3n | I (+1) | ||
| SP011 | Spirits | 2n | I (−1), III (−1), VI (−1), IX (−1), XII (−1) | ||
| SP001 | Spirits | 2n | I (−1), VI (−1) | ||
| Y-999 | Bioethanol from starch | 3n | III | ||
| CBS7960 | Bioethanol from sugarcane | 2n | VIII | ||
| ZTW1 | Bioethanol from corn mash | 3n | IX (+1) |
The overall ploidy of the strains and identified aneuploid chromosomes are indicated. For strains in which the copy number deviation from euploidy has been determined, this is reported between parentheses. Extensive aneuploidy refers to strains with more than 10 aneuploid chromosomes. Segmental aneuploidies that occur in many of these strains are not indicated in the table.