4.7 Article

Stoichiometric network constraints on xylose metabolism by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae

期刊

METABOLIC ENGINEERING
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 229-238

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2003.11.006

关键词

flux balance analysis; extreme pathways; metabolic phenotype

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic pathway engineering is constrained by the thermodynamic and stoichiometric feasibility of enzymatic activities of introduced genes. Engineering of xylose metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae has focused on introducing genes for the initial xylose assimilation steps from Pichia stipitis, a xylose-fermenting yeast, into S. cerevisiae, a yeast traditionally used in ethanol production from hexose. However, recombinant S. cerevisiae created in several laboratories have used xylose oxidatively rather than in the fermentative manner that this yeast metabolizes glucose. To understand the differences between glucose and engineered xylose metabolic networks, we performed a flux balance analysis (FBA) and calculated extreme pathways using a stoichiometric model that describes the biochemistry of yeast cell growth. FBA predicted that the ethanol yield from xylose exhibits a maximum under oxygen-limited conditions, and a fermentation experiment confirmed this finding. Fermentation results were largely consistent with in silico phenotypes based on calculated extreme pathways, which displayed several phases of metabolic phenotype with respect to oxygen availability from anaerobic to aerobic conditions. However, in contrast to the model prediction, xylitol production continued even after the optimum aeration level for ethanol production was attained. These results suggest that oxygen (or some other electron accepting system) is required to resolve the redox imbalance caused by cofactor difference between xylose reductase and xylitol dehydrogenase, and that other factors limit glycolytic flux when xylose is the sole carbon source. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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