4.6 Article

Genome-wide association across Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains reveals substantial variation in underlying gene requirements for toxin tolerance

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007217

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (DOE Office of Science BER) [DE-FC02-07ER64494]
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1256259]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellulosic plant biomass is a promising sustainable resource for generating alternative biofuels and biochemicals with microbial factories. But a remaining bottleneck is engineering microbes that are tolerant of toxins generated during biomass processing, because mechanisms of toxin defense are only beginning to emerge. Here, we exploited natural diversity in 165 Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains isolated from diverse geographical and ecological niches, to identify mechanisms of hydrolysate-toxin tolerance. We performed genome-wide association (GWA) analysis to identify genetic variants underlying toxin tolerance, and gene knockouts and allele-swap experiments to validate the involvement of implicated genes. In the process of this work, we uncovered a surprising difference in genetic architecture depending on strain background: in all but one case, knockout of implicated genes had a significant effect on toxin tolerance in one strain, but no significant effect in another strain. In fact, whether or not the gene was involved in tolerance in each strain background had a bigger contribution to strain-specific variation than allelic differences. Our results suggest a major difference in the underlying network of causal genes in different strains, suggesting that mechanisms of hydrolysate tolerance are very dependent on the genetic background. These results could have significant implications for interpreting GWA results and raise important considerations for engineering strategies for industrial strain improvement.

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

4.6
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