| Literature DB >> 30185188 |
Matthew Hilliard1, Andrew Damiani1, Q Peter He1, Thomas Jeffries2,3, Jin Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scheffersomyces stipitis is an important yeast species in the field of biorenewables due to its desired capacity for xylose utilization. It has been recognized that redox balance plays a critical role in S. stipitis due to the different cofactor preferences in xylose assimilation pathway. However, there has not been any systems level understanding on how the shift in redox balance contributes to the overall metabolic shift in S. stipitis to cope with reduced oxygen uptake. Genome-scale metabolic network models (GEMs) offer the opportunity to gain such systems level understanding; however, currently the two published GEMs for S. stipitis cannot be used for this purpose, as neither of them is able to capture the strain's fermentative metabolism reasonably well due to their poor prediction of xylitol production, a key by-product under oxygen limited conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Genome-scale metabolic network model (GEM); Phenotype phase-plane analysis; Redox balance; Scheffersomyces stipitis; System identification
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30185188 PMCID: PMC6126012 DOI: 10.1186/s12934-018-0983-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Basic Information for two P. stipitis GEMs iBB814 and iDH814
| Specification | iBB814 | iDH814 |
|---|---|---|
| Reactions | 1371 | 1380 |
| Cytosol | 751 | 759 |
| Mitochondria | 125 | 126 |
| Transport | 495 | 495 |
| Metabolites | 971 | 972 |
| genes | 814 | 814 |
| Percent of genome (%) | 13.6 | 13.6 |
| Compartment | Cytosol, exchange, mitochondria | Cytosol, exchange, mitochondria |
Fig. 1Demonstration of the SID based framework for GEM refinement
Fig. 23D phenotype phase planes for the two GEMs. a Growth PhPP for iBB814, b growth PhPP for iDH814, c CO2 production PhPP for iBB814, d CO2 production PhPP for iDH814, e ethanol production PhPP for iBB814, f ethanol production PhPP for iDH814, g xylitol production PhPP for iBB814, h xylitol production PhPP for iDH814. Uptake and flux values given in mmol/gCDW/h. Growth rate given in h−1
Fig. 32D phenotype phase plots with LO indicated by red line for a iBB814 and b iDH814. Uptake values given in mmol/gCDW/h
Fig. 4PCA loading values visualized on central carbon metabolic network maps for a iBB814 and b iDH814 along the LO
Point-matching validation of three GEMs
| Data source | Exp. cond.a | Product | err %b | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| iSS884 | iBB814 | iDH814 | |||
| Caspeta et al. [ | O: 0.24 | EtOH | 29.9 | 39.1 |
|
| CO2 | 11.8 | 16 |
| ||
| Cell | 32.1 | 66.1 |
| ||
| O: 0.35 | EtOH | 2.3 | 6.6 |
| |
| CO2 | 22.7 | 28.5 |
| ||
| Cell |
| 63.7 |
| ||
| O: 0.75 | EtOH |
| 16 | 3.6 | |
| CO2 |
| 38.8 | 27.1 | ||
| Cell |
| 75.7 | 49.9 | ||
| Li [ | O: 1.64 | EtOH | 11.1 | 36.5 |
|
| CO2 | 37 | 55 |
| ||
| Cell | 47 | 30.3 |
| ||
| O: 6.23 | EtOH |
| 2.721 | 0.81 | |
| CO2 | 12.2 | 18.9 |
| ||
| Cell | 26.6 | 40.4 |
| ||
| O: 1.33 | EtOH |
| 14.5 | 7.4 | |
| CO2 | 6.2 | 6.1 |
| ||
| Cell |
| 63.2 | 22.2 | ||
| O: 6.00 | EtOH |
| 2.31 |
| |
| CO2 | 10.5 | 21.3 |
| ||
| Cell |
| 47 |
| ||
aUnits C/O flux: mmol/(gCDW/h). In [8], xylose is the substrate. In [23], xylose is the substrate for the first two conditions and glucose for the last two conditions. Since NADPH dependent glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH3) is repressed by glucose, the corresponding reaction was disabled for the two cases where glucose is the substrate
b. When the experimental value is zero, absolute error is given (marked with 1). Better prediction values (i.e., smaller errors) are shown in italics
Comparison of iDH814 xylitol results to experimental data
| Case | YE/S experiment | Xylitol experimental (mmol/gCDW/h) | Xylitol prediction (mmol/gCDW/h) | Ratio of XR NADPH/NADH | OUR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.328 | 0.1408 | 0.1408 | 0.94 | 2.33 |
| 2 | 0.358 | 0.0934 | 0.0935 | 0.207 | 1.64 |
| 3 | 0.376 | 0.0115 | 0.0116 | 0.11 | 1.42 |
| 4 | 0.437 | 0.0172 | 0.0173 | 0.11 | 0.50 |
YE/S is the ethanol yield, where xylose is the substrate (S). Xylose reductase (XR) redox ratio and oxygen uptake rate (OUR) were varied. Minimized the error between ethanol yield of experiment and prediction from iDH814, then examined the xylitol productions from experiments and those predicted by iDH814
Fig. 5Experimental ethanol production and NADPH stoichiometric coefficient in XR vs OUR. As can be seen, the linear fits for XRratio and ethanol production indicate that the three points are in the same phenotypic phase
Fig. 6Visualization of the metabolic network response induced by the reduced oxygen uptake
Summary of the balance of cytosolic electron carriers
| Metabolite | Process | Cond 1 | Cond 3 | Cond 3 − Cond 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NADH | Produced | 11.77 | 12.44 | 0.67 |
| Consumed | 11.77 | 12.44 | 0.67 | |
| NADPH | Produced | 3.96 | 2.13 | − 1.83 |
| Consumed | 3.96 | 2.13 | − 1.83 | |
| Q6H2 | Produced | 4.42 | 2.63 | − 1.79 |
| Consumed | 4.42 | 2.63 | − 1.79 |
Reactions that contribute significantly to shift in redox balance
| Role | Reaction | Reaction equation | Flux changea | Match TPM trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NADH production | GAPD | −1 nad[c] +−1 pi[c] +−1 g3p[c] ⟷ 1 h[c]+1 nadh[c]+1 13dpg[c] | 0.585 | Yes |
| XDH | −1 h[c] +−1 nadh[c] +−1 xylu-D[c] ⟷ 1 nad[c]+1 xylt[c] | 0.112 | Yes | |
| NADH consumption | ALCDH | −1 etoh[c] +−1 nad[c] ⟷ 1 h[c]+1 acald[c]+1 nadh[c] | 0.746 | Yes |
| NADHDH | −1 h[c] +−1 nadh[c] +−1 q6[m] ⟶ 1 nad[c]+1 q6h2[m] | − 2.294 | Yes | |
| XYLR1 | −1 h[c] +−1 nadh[c] +−1 xyl-D[c] ⟶ 1 nad[c]+1 xylt[c] | 1.950 | N/Ab | |
| PYRC | −1 h[c] +−1 nadh[c] +−1 glu-L[c] ⟷ 2 h2o[c]+1 nad[c]+1 1pyr5c[c] | 0.282 | No | |
| NADPH production | G6PDH | −1 nadp[c] +−1 g6p[c] ⟶ 1 h[c]+1 nadph[c]+1 6pgl[c] | − 0.892 | Yes |
| GND | −1 nadp[c] +−1 6pgc[c] ⟶ 1 nadph[c]+1 co2[c]+1 ru5p-D[c] | − 0.892 | Yes | |
| NADPH consumption | XYLR2 | −1 h[c] +−1 nadph[c] +−1 xyl-D[c] ⟶ 1 nadp[c]+1 xylt[c] | − 1.950 | N/Ab |
| P5CR | −2 h[c] +−1 nadph[c] +−1 1pyr5c[c] ⟶ 1 nadp[c]+1 pro-L[c] | 0.282 | No | |
| Q6H2 production | NADHDH | −1 h[c] +−1 nadh[c] +−1 q6[m] ⟶ 1 nad[c]+1 q6h2[m] | − 2.294 | Yes |
| Q6H2 consumption | CYOR_u6m | −2 h[m] +−1 q6h2[m] +−2 ficytc[m] ⟶ 4 h[c]+1 q6[m]+2 focytc[m] | − 1.788 | Yes |
| ATP production | ATPSm | −1 adp[m] +−1 pi[m] +−4 h[c] ⟶ 1 atp[m]+1 h2o[m]+4 h[m] | − 1.793 | Yes |
aFlux change values given in mmol/gCDW/h
bThe gene for xylose reductase is the same for both the NAD and NADP dependent routes
GEM predicted flux changes vs. experimental gene expression level changes
| Reaction | Flux change | TPM change (trial I) | TPM change (trial II) | Reaction | Flux change | TPM change (trial I) | TPM change (trial II) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAPD | + | + | + | TKT1 | − | − | − |
| PGK | + | + | + | G6PI | − | − | − |
| PGM | + | + | + | G6PDH | − | − | − |
| ENO | + | + | + | PGL | − | − | − |
| PYK | + | + | + | GND | − | − | − |
| ATPSm | − | o | − | NADH2-u6t | + | + | o |
| ATPtm-H | − | + | + | GLUD2 | − | − | − |
| PYRDC | + | + | + | RPE | + | − | − |
| ALCDH | + | + | + | ACS1 | − | − | − |
| XYLUR | + | + | + | ALDDH1 | − | − | − |
| XYLK | + | + | + | PDHm | − | − | − |
| CYOR_u6m | − | o | − | PC | − | o | − |
| SUCCDH1m | − | o | − | ASPGLU2 m | + | − | − |
| G3PD1* | − | − | − | PYRC | + | − | − |
| NADHDH* | − | − | − | P5CR | + | − | − |
| G3PDm | − | o | − | PRO1 m | + | − | − |
| RPI | − | − | − | PYRCm | + | − | − |
| FBA | + | − | + | ACONHm | − | − | − |
| PFK | + | + | + | CITSm | − | − | − |
| TPI | + | + | + | ICDH1m | − | − | − |
| TKT2 | − | − | − | FUMm | − | − | − |
| TALA | − | + | + | MDHm | − | − | − |
| CYOOm | − | + | + | SUCCDHpm | − | − | − |