Cargando…

Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase

The unfolded protein response (UPR) is one of the most important protein quality control mechanisms in cells. At least, three factors are predicted to activate the UPR in yeast cells during fermentation. Using UPRE-lacZ as a reporter, we constructed two indicator strains, KZ and WZ, based on Angel-d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zou, Shaolan, Jia, Yudie, He, Qing, Zhang, Kun, Ban, Rui, Hong, Jiefang, Zhang, Minhua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9008459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433667
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.837720
_version_ 1784687060041334784
author Zou, Shaolan
Jia, Yudie
He, Qing
Zhang, Kun
Ban, Rui
Hong, Jiefang
Zhang, Minhua
author_facet Zou, Shaolan
Jia, Yudie
He, Qing
Zhang, Kun
Ban, Rui
Hong, Jiefang
Zhang, Minhua
author_sort Zou, Shaolan
collection PubMed
description The unfolded protein response (UPR) is one of the most important protein quality control mechanisms in cells. At least, three factors are predicted to activate the UPR in yeast cells during fermentation. Using UPRE-lacZ as a reporter, we constructed two indicator strains, KZ and WZ, based on Angel-derived K-a and W303-1A strains, respectively, and investigated their UPR response to tunicamycin, ethanol, and acetic acid. Then, four strains carrying plasmids BG-cwp2 and BG were obtained to realize the displaying and secretion of β-glucosidase, respectively. The results of cellobiose utilization assays indicated interactions between the UPR and the metabolic burden between the strain source, anchoring moiety, oxygen supply, and cellobiose concentration. Meanwhile, as expected, growth (OD(600)), β-glucosidase, and β-galactosidase activities were shown to have a positive inter-relationship, in which the values of the KZ-derived strains were far lower than those of the WZ-derived strains. Additionally, extra metabolic burden by displaying over secreting was also much more serious in strain KZ than in strain WZ. The maximum ethanol titer of the four strains (KZ (BG-cwp2), KZ (BG), WZ (BG-cwp2), and WZ (BG)) in oxygen-limited 10% cellobiose fermentation was 3.173, 5.307, 5.495, and 5.486% (v/v), respectively, and the acetic acid titer ranged from 0.038 to 0.060% (v/v). The corresponding maximum values of the ratio of β-galactosidase activity to that of the control were 3.30, 5.29, 6.45, and 8.72, respectively. Under aerobic conditions with 2% cellobiose, those values were 3.79, 4.97, 6.99, and 7.67, respectively. A comparison of the results implied that β-glucosidase expression durably induced the UPR, and the effect of ethanol and acetic acid depended on the titer produced. Further study is necessary to identify ethanol- or acid-specific target gene expression. Taken together, our results indicated that the host strain W303-1A is a better secretory protein producer, and the first step to modify strain K-a for cellulosic ethanol fermentation would be to relieve the bottleneck of UPR capacity. The results of the present study will help to identify candidate host strains and optimize expression and fermentation by quantifying UPR induction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9008459
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90084592022-04-15 Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase Zou, Shaolan Jia, Yudie He, Qing Zhang, Kun Ban, Rui Hong, Jiefang Zhang, Minhua Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology The unfolded protein response (UPR) is one of the most important protein quality control mechanisms in cells. At least, three factors are predicted to activate the UPR in yeast cells during fermentation. Using UPRE-lacZ as a reporter, we constructed two indicator strains, KZ and WZ, based on Angel-derived K-a and W303-1A strains, respectively, and investigated their UPR response to tunicamycin, ethanol, and acetic acid. Then, four strains carrying plasmids BG-cwp2 and BG were obtained to realize the displaying and secretion of β-glucosidase, respectively. The results of cellobiose utilization assays indicated interactions between the UPR and the metabolic burden between the strain source, anchoring moiety, oxygen supply, and cellobiose concentration. Meanwhile, as expected, growth (OD(600)), β-glucosidase, and β-galactosidase activities were shown to have a positive inter-relationship, in which the values of the KZ-derived strains were far lower than those of the WZ-derived strains. Additionally, extra metabolic burden by displaying over secreting was also much more serious in strain KZ than in strain WZ. The maximum ethanol titer of the four strains (KZ (BG-cwp2), KZ (BG), WZ (BG-cwp2), and WZ (BG)) in oxygen-limited 10% cellobiose fermentation was 3.173, 5.307, 5.495, and 5.486% (v/v), respectively, and the acetic acid titer ranged from 0.038 to 0.060% (v/v). The corresponding maximum values of the ratio of β-galactosidase activity to that of the control were 3.30, 5.29, 6.45, and 8.72, respectively. Under aerobic conditions with 2% cellobiose, those values were 3.79, 4.97, 6.99, and 7.67, respectively. A comparison of the results implied that β-glucosidase expression durably induced the UPR, and the effect of ethanol and acetic acid depended on the titer produced. Further study is necessary to identify ethanol- or acid-specific target gene expression. Taken together, our results indicated that the host strain W303-1A is a better secretory protein producer, and the first step to modify strain K-a for cellulosic ethanol fermentation would be to relieve the bottleneck of UPR capacity. The results of the present study will help to identify candidate host strains and optimize expression and fermentation by quantifying UPR induction. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9008459/ /pubmed/35433667 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.837720 Text en Copyright © 2022 Zou, Jia, He, Zhang, Ban, Hong and Zhang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Zou, Shaolan
Jia, Yudie
He, Qing
Zhang, Kun
Ban, Rui
Hong, Jiefang
Zhang, Minhua
Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase
title Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase
title_full Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase
title_fullStr Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase
title_short Comparison of the Unfolded Protein Response in Cellobiose Utilization of Recombinant Angel- and W303-1A-Derived Yeast Expressing β-Glucosidase
title_sort comparison of the unfolded protein response in cellobiose utilization of recombinant angel- and w303-1a-derived yeast expressing β-glucosidase
topic Bioengineering and Biotechnology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9008459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433667
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.837720
work_keys_str_mv AT zoushaolan comparisonoftheunfoldedproteinresponseincellobioseutilizationofrecombinantangelandw3031aderivedyeastexpressingbglucosidase
AT jiayudie comparisonoftheunfoldedproteinresponseincellobioseutilizationofrecombinantangelandw3031aderivedyeastexpressingbglucosidase
AT heqing comparisonoftheunfoldedproteinresponseincellobioseutilizationofrecombinantangelandw3031aderivedyeastexpressingbglucosidase
AT zhangkun comparisonoftheunfoldedproteinresponseincellobioseutilizationofrecombinantangelandw3031aderivedyeastexpressingbglucosidase
AT banrui comparisonoftheunfoldedproteinresponseincellobioseutilizationofrecombinantangelandw3031aderivedyeastexpressingbglucosidase
AT hongjiefang comparisonoftheunfoldedproteinresponseincellobioseutilizationofrecombinantangelandw3031aderivedyeastexpressingbglucosidase
AT zhangminhua comparisonoftheunfoldedproteinresponseincellobioseutilizationofrecombinantangelandw3031aderivedyeastexpressingbglucosidase