Schrödinger's yeast: the challenge of using transformation to compare fitness among Saccharomyces cerevisiae that differ in ploidy or zygosity

Linnea Sandell,Stephan G König,Sarah P Otto
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16547
IF: 3.061
2023-12-05
PeerJ
Abstract:How the number of genome copies modifies the effect of random mutations remains poorly known. In yeast, researchers have investigated these effects for knock-out or other large-effect mutations, but have not accounted for differences at the mating-type locus. We set out to compare fitness differences among strains that differ in ploidy and/or zygosity using a panel of spontaneously arising mutations acquired in haploid yeast from a previous study. To ensure no genetic differences, even at the mating-type locus, we embarked on a series of transformations, which first sterilized and then temporarily introduced plasmid-borne mating types. Despite these attempts to equalize the haplotypes, fitness variation introduced during transformation swamped the differences among the original mutation-accumulation lines. While colony size looked normal, we observed a bi-modality in the maximum growth rate of our transformed yeast and determined that many of the slow growing lines were respiratory deficient ("petite"). Not previously reported, we found that yeast that were TID1/RDH54 knockouts were less likely to become petite. Even for lines with the same petite status, however, we found no correlation in fitness between the two replicate transformations performed. These results pose a challenge for any study using transformation to measure the fitness effect of genetic differences among strains. By attempting to hold haplotypes constant, we introduced more mutations that overwhelmed our ability to measure fitness differences between the genetic states. In this study, we transformed over one hundred different lines of yeast, using two independent transformations, and found that this common laboratory procedure can cause large changes to the microbe studied. Our study provides a cautionary tale of the need to use multiple transformants in fitness assays.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?