4.5 Article

Overexpression of RCK1 improves acetic acid tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 292, 期 -, 页码 1-4

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2018.12.013

关键词

Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Inverse metabolic engineering; Acetic acid tolerance; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. Energy Biosciences Institute
  2. DOE Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research) [DE-SC0018420]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mixed sugars derived from lignocellulosic biomass can be converted into biofuels and chemicals by engineered microorganisms, but toxic fermentation inhibitors produced from harsh depolymerization processes of lignocellulosic biomass pose a critical challenge for economic production of biofuels and chemicals. Unlike other fermentation inhibitors generated from sugar degradation, acetic acid is inevitably produced from acetylated hemicellulose, and its concentrations in cellulosic hydrolysates are substantially higher than other fermentation inhibitors. The aim of this study was to identify novel genetic perturbations for improved acetic acid tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Through a genomic library-based approach, we identified an overexpression gene target RCK1 coding for a protein kinase involved in oxidative stress. Overexpression of RCK1 significantly improved glucose and xylose fermentation under acetic acid stress conditions. Specifically, the RCK1-overexpressing strain exhibited a two-fold higher specific ethanol productivity than the control strain in glucose fermentation under the presence of acetic acid. Interestingly, the engineered S. cerevisiae overexpressing RCK1 showed 40% lower intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels as compared to the parental strain when the strains were exposed to acetic acid, suggesting that RCK1 overexpression might play a role in reducing the oxidative stress caused by acetic acid.

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

4.5
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