4.6 Article

Overexpression of an archaeal protein in yeast: Secretion bottleneck at the ER

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
Volume 79, Issue 7, Pages 713-723

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.10367

Keywords

archaea; Pyrococcus furiosus; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; expression; optimization; secretory pathway engineering; endoplasmic reticulum; gene dosage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Archaeal enzymes have great potential for industrial use; however, expressing them in their natural hosts has proven challenging. Growth conditions for many archaea are beyond typical fermentation capabilities, and to compound the problem, archaea generally achieve much lower biomass yields than Escherichia coli or Saccharomyces cerevisiae. To determine whether a eukaryotic host, S. cerevisiae, would be a suitable alternative for archaeal protein production, we examined the expression of the tetrameric beta-glucosidase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus. We engineered the beta-glucosidase to facilitate secretion into the culture medium and have demonstrated the beta-glucosidase's secretion and activity. We determined the dependence of beta-glucosidase secretion on gene copy number and obtained a transformant capable of secreting similar to10 mg/L in batch culture. All transformants retained large intracellular fractions of beta-glucosidase, indicative of an intracellular bottleneck. Cell fractionation by sucrose density centrifugation and immunofluorescence identified the endoplasmic reticulum as the secretion bottleneck. Preliminary evidence indicates that the cause of this bottleneck is misfolding of the monomeric glucosidase, rather than tetrameric association. Expression at moderately elevated temperatures (between 30 and 40degreesC) improved beta-glucosidase yields, suggesting that higher temperature expression may improve folding and secretion yields. (C) 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available