4.3 Article

Metabolic flux analysis of a glycerol-overproducing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain based on GC-MS, LC-MS and NMR-derived 13C-labelling data

期刊

FEMS YEAST RESEARCH
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 216-231

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2006.00180.x

关键词

C-13-labelling; metabolic flux analysis; redox shuttle; glycerol; Saccharomyces cerevisiae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on unravelling the carbon and redox metabolism of a previously developed glycerol-overproducing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain with deletions in the structural genes encoding triosephosphate isomerase (TPI1), the external mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenases (NDE1 and NDE2) and the respiratory chain-linked glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GUT2). Two methods were used for analysis of metabolic fluxes: metabolite balancing and C-13-labelling-based metabolic flux analysis. The isotopic enrichment of intracellular primary metabolites was measured both directly (liquid chromatography-MS) and indirectly through proteinogenic amino acids (nuclear magnetic resonance and gas chromatography-MS). Because flux sensitivity around several important metabolic nodes proved to be dependent on the applied technique, the combination of the three C-13 quantification techniques generated the most accurate overall flux pattern. When combined, the measured conversion rates and C-13-labelling data provided evidence that a combination of assimilatory metabolism and pentose phosphate pathway activity diverted some of the carbon away from glycerol formation. Metabolite balancing indicated that this results in excess cytosolic NADH, suggesting the presence of a cytosolic NADH sink in addition to those that were deleted. The exchange flux of four-carbon dicarboxylic acids across the mitochondrial membrane, as measured by the C-13-labelling data, supports a possible role of a malate/aspartate or malate/oxaloacetate redox shuttle in the transfer of these redox equivalents from the cytosol to the mitochondrial matrix.

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

4.3
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