title: The metabolic costs of improving ethanol yield by reducing glycerol formation capacity under anaerobic conditions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Finely regulating the carbon flux through the glycerol pathway by regulating the expression of the rate controlling enzyme, glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GPDH), has been a promising approach to redirect carbon from glycerol to ethanol and thereby increasing the ethanol yield in ethanol production. Here, strains engineered in the promoter of GPD1 and deleted in GPD2 were used to investigate the possibility of reducing glycerol production of Saccharomyces cerevisiae without jeopardising its ability to cope with process stress during ethanol production. For this purpose, the mutant strains TEFmut7 and TEFmut2 with different GPD1 residual expression were studied in Very High Ethanol Performance (VHEP) fed-batch process under anaerobic conditions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Both strains showed a drastic reduction of the glycerol yield by 44 and 61% while the ethanol yield improved by 2 and 7% respectively. TEFmut2 strain showing the highest ethanol yield was accompanied by a 28% reduction of the biomass yield. The modulation of the glycerol formation led to profound redox and energetic changes resulting in a reduction of the ATP yield (YATP) and a modulation of the production of organic acids (acetate, pyruvate and succinate). Those metabolic rearrangements resulted in a loss of ethanol and stress tolerance of the mutants, contrarily to what was previously observed under aerobiosis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This work demonstrates the potential of fine-tuned pathway engineering, particularly when a compromise has to be found between high product yield on one hand and acceptable growth, productivity and stress resistance on the other hand. Previous study showed that, contrarily to anaerobiosis, the resulting gain in ethanol yield was accompanied with no loss of ethanol tolerance under aerobiosis. Moreover those mutants were still able to produce up to 90 gl-1 ethanol in an anaerobic SSF process. Fine tuning metabolic strategy may then open encouraging possibilities for further developing robust strains with improved ethanol yield.
authors.affiliation: Université de Toulouse, INSA, UPS, INP, LISBP, 135 Av, de Rangueil, F-31077 Toulouse, France.
authors.forename: Julien
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Pagliardini
authors.forename: Georg
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Hubmann
authors.forename: Sandrine
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Alfenore
authors.forename: Elke
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Nevoigt
authors.forename: Carine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bideaux
authors.forename: Stephane E
authors.initials: SE
authors.lastname: Guillouet
mesh_terms: D000255:Adenosine Triphosphate / Q000378:metabolism; D000693:Anaerobiosis; D018533:Biomass; D019149:Bioreactors; D000431:Ethanol / Q000378:metabolism*; D005990:Glycerol / Q000378:metabolism*; D005993:Glycerolphosphate Dehydrogenase / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D060847:Metabolic Engineering; D010084:Oxidation-Reduction; D011401:Promoter Regions, Genetic; D012441:Saccharomyces cerevisiae / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism*; D029701:Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D014157:Transcription Factors / Q000235:genetics
chemical_list: D029701:Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins; D014157:Transcription Factors; D000431:Ethanol; D000255:Adenosine Triphosphate; D005993:Glycerolphosphate Dehydrogenase; D005990:Glycerol
references.citation: Metab Eng. 2000 Jan;2(1):69-77
references.pmid: 10935936
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2001 Feb;183(4):1441-51
references.pmid: 11157958
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1974 Nov;120(2):631-7
references.pmid: 4616942
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1989 Feb;171(2):1087-92
references.pmid: 2644223
references.citation: Eur J Biochem. 1968 Jul;5(2):165-72
references.pmid: 5667352
references.citation: Eur J Biochem. 1999 Nov;266(1):1-16
references.pmid: 10542045
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1997 Nov;21(3):231-41
references.pmid: 9451815
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2004 Sep 17;279(38):39677-85
references.pmid: 15210723
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Sep;62(9):3187-95
references.pmid: 8795209
references.citation: Mol Cell Biol. 1994 Jun;14(6):4135-44
references.pmid: 8196651
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Jan;63(1):128-32
references.pmid: 8979347
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2001 Jan;25(1):15-37
references.pmid: 11152939
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009 Feb;82(2):287-92
references.pmid: 19018525
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1996 Oct 4;271(40):24458-64
references.pmid: 8798704
references.citation: Metab Eng. 2006 Mar;8(2):102-11
references.pmid: 16289778
references.citation: Biomol Eng. 2007 Dec;24(6):638-42
references.pmid: 18032102
references.citation: EMBO J. 1998 Aug 3;17(15):4257-65
references.pmid: 9687494
references.citation: Yeast. 2000 Mar 30;16(5):463-74
references.pmid: 10705374
references.citation: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002 Jun;66(2):300-72
references.pmid: 12040128
references.citation: Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008 Jun 15;100(3):497-505
references.pmid: 18438874
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 Jan;73(6):1382-6
references.pmid: 17021874
references.citation: EMBO J. 1995 Apr 3;14(7):1360-71
references.pmid: 7729414
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Aug;72(8):5266-73
references.pmid: 16885275
references.citation: Microb Cell Fact. 2010 May 21;9:36
references.pmid: 20492645
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1994 Nov;176(21):6433-8
references.pmid: 7961393
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1981 Mar;145(3):1359-64
references.pmid: 7009582
references.citation: Microbiology (Reading). 1998 Feb;144(2):375-384
references.pmid: 33757226
references.citation: Genome Res. 2003 Feb;13(2):244-53
references.pmid: 12566402
references.citation: Metab Eng. 2011 Jan;13(1):49-59
references.pmid: 21126600
references.citation: Genome Res. 2004 Jul;14(7):1298-309
references.pmid: 15197165
references.citation: EMBO J. 1997 May 1;16(9):2179-87
references.pmid: 9171333
references.citation: Eukaryot Cell. 2003 Feb;2(1):170-80
references.pmid: 12582134
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1998 Oct;50(4):434-9
references.pmid: 9830094
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Sep;77(17):5857-67
references.pmid: 21724879
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 Jul;75(6):1361-6
references.pmid: 17505823
references.citation: Biotechnol Lett. 2006 Dec;28(24):2033-8
references.pmid: 17043906
references.citation: Lett Appl Microbiol. 2007 Feb;44(2):212-7
references.pmid: 17257263
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jan;76(1):190-5
references.pmid: 19915031
references.citation: Yeast. 1997 Jul;13(9):783-93
references.pmid: 9234667
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Mar;72(3):2134-40
references.pmid: 16517663
references.citation: Eur J Biochem. 2001 Apr;268(8):2464-79
references.pmid: 11298766
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2002 Oct;60(1-2):67-72
references.pmid: 12382043