3.9 Article

A Minimal Set of Glycolytic Genes Reveals Strong Redundancies in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Central Metabolism

期刊

EUKARYOTIC CELL
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 804-816

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/EC.00064-15

关键词

-

资金

  1. Technology Foundation STW (Vidi grant) [10776]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a result of ancestral whole-genome and small-scale duplication events, the genomes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and many eukaryotes still contain a substantial fraction of duplicated genes. In all investigated organisms, metabolic pathways, and more particularly glycolysis, are specifically enriched for functionally redundant paralogs. In ancestors of the Saccharomyces lineage, the duplication of glycolytic genes is purported to have played an important role leading to S. cerevisiae's current lifestyle favoring fermentative metabolism even in the presence of oxygen and characterized by a high glycolytic capacity. In modern S. cerevisiae strains, the 12 glycolytic reactions leading to the biochemical conversion from glucose to ethanol are encoded by 27 paralogs. In order to experimentally explore the physiological role of this genetic redundancy, a yeast strain with a minimal set of 14 paralogs was constructed (the minimal glycolysis [MG] strain). Remarkably, a combination of a quantitative systems approach and semiquantitative analysis in a wide array of growth environments revealed the absence of a phenotypic response to the cumulative deletion of 13 glycolytic paralogs. This observation indicates that duplication of glycolytic genes is not a prerequisite for achieving the high glycolytic fluxes and fermentative capacities that are characteristic of S. cerevisiae and essential for many of its industrial applications and argues against gene dosage effects as a means of fixing minor glycolytic paralogs in the yeast genome. The MG strain was carefully designed and constructed to provide a robust prototrophic platform for quantitative studies and has been made available to the scientific community.

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

3.9
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