4.7 Article

Metabolic Engineering ofSaccharomyces cerevisiaefor Enhanced Carotenoid Production From Xylose-Glucose Mixtures

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00435

关键词

Saccharomyces cerevisiae; xylose-glucose mixtures; Pho13; Gal2; carotenoid

资金

  1. Guangdong Province Science and Technology Innovation Strategy Special Fund [2018B020206001]
  2. GDAS' Special Project of Science and Technology Development [2020GDASYL20200302002]
  3. Science and Technology Plan Project of Guangdong Province [2016A010105013, 2019B030316017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Co-utilization of xylose and glucose from lignocellulosic biomass is an economically feasible bioprocess for chemical production. Many strategies have been implemented for efficiently assimilating xylose which is one of the predominant sugars of lignocellulosic biomass. However, there were few reports about engineeringSaccharomyces cerevisiaefor carotenoid production from xylose-glucose mixtures. Herein, we developed a platform for facilitating carotenoid production inS. cerevisiaeby fermentation of xylose-glucose mixtures. Firstly, a xylose assimilation pathway with mutant xylose reductase (XYL1m), xylitol dehydrogenase (XYL2), and xylulokinase (XK) was constructed for utilizing xylose. Then, introduction of phosphoketolase (PK) pathway, deletion ofPho13and engineering yeast hexose transporter Gal2 were conducted to improve carotenoid yields. The final strain SC105 produced a 1.6-fold higher production from mixed sugars than that from glucose in flask culture. In fed-batch fermentation with continuous feeding of mixed sugars, carotenoid production represented a 2.6-fold higher. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report thatS. cerevisiaewas engineered to utilize xylose-glucose mixtures for carotenoid production with a considerable high yield. The present study exhibits a promising advantage of xylose-glucose mixtures assimilating strain as an industrial carotenoid producer from lignocellulosic biomass.

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

4.7
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