Cargando…
Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica
BACKGROUND: The yeast Yarrowia lipolytica is an increasingly common biofactory. To enhance protein expression, several promoters have been developed, including the constitutive TEF promoter, the inducible POX2 promotor, and the hybrid hp4d promoter. Recently, new hp4d-inspired promoters have been cr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5316184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28212656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12934-017-0647-3 |
_version_ | 1782508803018719232 |
---|---|
author | Dulermo, Rémi Brunel, François Dulermo, Thierry Ledesma-Amaro, Rodrigo Vion, Jérémy Trassaert, Marion Thomas, Stéphane Nicaud, Jean-Marc Leplat, Christophe |
author_facet | Dulermo, Rémi Brunel, François Dulermo, Thierry Ledesma-Amaro, Rodrigo Vion, Jérémy Trassaert, Marion Thomas, Stéphane Nicaud, Jean-Marc Leplat, Christophe |
author_sort | Dulermo, Rémi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The yeast Yarrowia lipolytica is an increasingly common biofactory. To enhance protein expression, several promoters have been developed, including the constitutive TEF promoter, the inducible POX2 promotor, and the hybrid hp4d promoter. Recently, new hp4d-inspired promoters have been created that couple various numbers of UAS1 tandem elements with the minimal LEU2 promoter or the TEF promoter. Three different protein-secretion signaling sequences can be used: preLip2, preXpr2, and preSuc2. RESULTS: To our knowledge, our study is the first to use a set of vectors with promoters of variable strength to produce proteins of industrial interest. We used the more conventional TEF and hp4d promoters along with five new hybrid promoters: 2UAS1-pTEF, 3UAS1-pTEF, 4UAS1-pTEF, 8UAS1-pTEF, and hp8d. We compared the production of RedStar2, glucoamylase, and xylanase C when strains were grown on three media. As expected, levels of RedStar2 and glucoamylase were greatest in the strain with the 8UAS1-pTEF promoter, which was stronger. However, surprisingly, the 2UAS1-pTEF promoter was associated with the greatest xylanase C production and activity. This finding underscored that stronger promoters are not always better when it comes to protein production. We therefore developed a method for easily identifying the best promoter for a given protein of interest. In this gateway method, genes for YFP and α-amylase were transferred into a pool of vectors containing different promoters and gene expression was then analyzed. We observed that, in most cases, protein production and activity were correlated with promoter strength, although this pattern was protein dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Protein expression depends on more than just promoter strength. Indeed, promoter suitability appears to be protein dependent; in some cases, optimal expression and activity was obtained using a weaker promoter. We showed that using a vector pool containing promoters of variable strength can be a powerful tool for rapidly identifying the best producer for a given protein of interest. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12934-017-0647-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5316184 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53161842017-02-24 Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica Dulermo, Rémi Brunel, François Dulermo, Thierry Ledesma-Amaro, Rodrigo Vion, Jérémy Trassaert, Marion Thomas, Stéphane Nicaud, Jean-Marc Leplat, Christophe Microb Cell Fact Research BACKGROUND: The yeast Yarrowia lipolytica is an increasingly common biofactory. To enhance protein expression, several promoters have been developed, including the constitutive TEF promoter, the inducible POX2 promotor, and the hybrid hp4d promoter. Recently, new hp4d-inspired promoters have been created that couple various numbers of UAS1 tandem elements with the minimal LEU2 promoter or the TEF promoter. Three different protein-secretion signaling sequences can be used: preLip2, preXpr2, and preSuc2. RESULTS: To our knowledge, our study is the first to use a set of vectors with promoters of variable strength to produce proteins of industrial interest. We used the more conventional TEF and hp4d promoters along with five new hybrid promoters: 2UAS1-pTEF, 3UAS1-pTEF, 4UAS1-pTEF, 8UAS1-pTEF, and hp8d. We compared the production of RedStar2, glucoamylase, and xylanase C when strains were grown on three media. As expected, levels of RedStar2 and glucoamylase were greatest in the strain with the 8UAS1-pTEF promoter, which was stronger. However, surprisingly, the 2UAS1-pTEF promoter was associated with the greatest xylanase C production and activity. This finding underscored that stronger promoters are not always better when it comes to protein production. We therefore developed a method for easily identifying the best promoter for a given protein of interest. In this gateway method, genes for YFP and α-amylase were transferred into a pool of vectors containing different promoters and gene expression was then analyzed. We observed that, in most cases, protein production and activity were correlated with promoter strength, although this pattern was protein dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Protein expression depends on more than just promoter strength. Indeed, promoter suitability appears to be protein dependent; in some cases, optimal expression and activity was obtained using a weaker promoter. We showed that using a vector pool containing promoters of variable strength can be a powerful tool for rapidly identifying the best producer for a given protein of interest. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12934-017-0647-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5316184/ /pubmed/28212656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12934-017-0647-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Dulermo, Rémi Brunel, François Dulermo, Thierry Ledesma-Amaro, Rodrigo Vion, Jérémy Trassaert, Marion Thomas, Stéphane Nicaud, Jean-Marc Leplat, Christophe Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica |
title | Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica |
title_full | Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica |
title_fullStr | Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica |
title_full_unstemmed | Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica |
title_short | Using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in Yarrowia lipolytica |
title_sort | using a vector pool containing variable-strength promoters to optimize protein production in yarrowia lipolytica |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5316184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28212656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12934-017-0647-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dulermoremi usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT brunelfrancois usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT dulermothierry usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT ledesmaamarorodrigo usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT vionjeremy usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT trassaertmarion usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT thomasstephane usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT nicaudjeanmarc usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica AT leplatchristophe usingavectorpoolcontainingvariablestrengthpromoterstooptimizeproteinproductioninyarrowialipolytica |