4.2 Article

New insights into the toxicity mechanism of octanoic and decanoic acids on Saccharomyces cerevisiae

期刊

YEAST
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 451-460

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/yea.3071

关键词

medium-chain fatty acid; NIC; MIC; detoxification mechanism; ROS; Pdr12; Tpo1

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [AGL 2010-00015]
  2. Rovira i Virgili University [2009BRDI/12/13]
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Octanoic (C8) and decanoic (C10) acids are produced in hypoxic conditions by the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as by-products of its metabolism and are considered fermentation inhibitors in the presence of ethanol at acidic pH. This study aims to broaden our understanding of the physiological limits between toxicity and ester production in yeast cells. To this end, the non-inhibitory concentration (NIC) and maximum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were first established for C8 and C10 at physiological pH (5.8) without ethanol. The results showed that when these acids were added to culture medium at these values, they tended to accumulate in different cellular fractions of the yeast. While C8 was almost entirely located in the cell wall fraction, C10 was found in the endocellular fraction. Cell fatty acid detoxification was also different; while the esterification of fatty acids was more efficient in the case of C10, the peroxisome was activated regardless of which fatty acid was added. Furthermore, the study of the Pdr12 and Tpo1 transporters that evolved during the detoxification process revealed that C8 was mostly expelled by the Pdr12 carrier, which was related to higher -oxidative damage in the presence of endocellular C10. C10 is more toxic at lower concentrations than C8. Although they are produced by yeast, the resulting intracellular medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs) caused a level of toxicity which promoted cell death. However, MCFAs are involved in the production of beverage flavours. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据