Response mechanisms of different Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains to succinic acid
Cai-Yun Xie,Ran-Ran Su,Bo Wu,Zhao-Yong Sun,Yue-Qin Tang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-024-03314-4
2024-05-08
Abstract:Background: The production of succinic acid (SA) from biomass has attracted worldwide interest. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is preferred for SA production due to its strong tolerance to low pH conditions, ease of genetic manipulation, and extensive application in industrial processes. However, when compared with bacterial producers, the SA titers and productivities achieved by engineered S. cerevisiae strains were relatively low. To develop efficient SA-producing strains, it's necessary to clearly understand how S. cerevisiae cells respond to SA. Results: In this study, we cultivated five S. cerevisiae strains with different genetic backgrounds under different concentrations of SA. Among them, KF7 and NBRC1958 demonstrated high tolerance to SA, whereas NBRC2018 displayed the least tolerance. Therefore, these three strains were chosen to study how S. cerevisiae responds to SA. Under a concentration of 20 g/L SA, only a few differentially expressed genes were observed in three strains. At the higher concentration of 60 g/L SA, the response mechanisms of the three strains diverged notably. For KF7, genes involved in the glyoxylate cycle were significantly downregulated, whereas genes involved in gluconeogenesis, the pentose phosphate pathway, protein folding, and meiosis were significantly upregulated. For NBRC1958, genes related to the biosynthesis of vitamin B6, thiamin, and purine were significantly downregulated, whereas genes related to protein folding, toxin efflux, and cell wall remodeling were significantly upregulated. For NBRC2018, there was a significant upregulation of genes connected to the pentose phosphate pathway, gluconeogenesis, fatty acid utilization, and protein folding, except for the small heat shock protein gene HSP26. Overexpression of HSP26 and HSP42 notably enhanced the cell growth of NBRC1958 both in the presence and absence of SA. Conclusions: The inherent activities of small heat shock proteins, the levels of acetyl-CoA and the strains' potential capacity to consume SA all seem to affect the responses and tolerances of S. cerevisiae strains to SA. These factors should be taken into consideration when choosing host strains for SA production. This study provides a theoretical basis and identifies potential host strains for the development of robust and efficient SA-producing strains.