Evaluation of reference genes for transcript analyses in Komagataella phaffii (Pichia pastoris).

Housekeeping genes Komagataella phaffii Pichia pastoris RT-qPCR Relative transcript analysis Transcriptomics

Journal

Fungal biology and biotechnology
ISSN: 2054-3085
Titre abrégé: Fungal Biol Biotechnol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101655873

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Mar 2023
Historique:
received: 14 02 2023
accepted: 10 03 2023
medline: 30 3 2023
entrez: 29 3 2023
pubmed: 30 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The yeast Komagataella phaffii (Pichia pastoris) is routinely used for heterologous protein expression and is suggested as a model organism for yeast. Despite its importance and application potential, no reference gene for transcript analysis via RT-qPCR assays has been evaluated to date. In this study, we searched publicly available RNASeq data for stably expressed genes to find potential reference genes for relative transcript analysis by RT-qPCR in K. phaffii. To evaluate the applicability of these genes, we used a diverse set of samples from three different strains and a broad range of cultivation conditions. The transcript levels of 9 genes were measured and compared using commonly applied bioinformatic tools. We could demonstrate that the often-used reference gene ACT1 is not very stably expressed and could identify two genes with outstandingly low transcript level fluctuations. Consequently, we suggest the two genes, RSC1, and TAF10 to be simultaneously used as reference genes in transcript analyses by RT-qPCR in K. phaffii in future RT-qPCR assays. The usage of ACT1 as a reference gene in RT-qPCR analysis might lead to distorted results due to the instability of its transcript levels. In this study, we evaluated the transcript levels of several genes and found RSC1 and TAF10 to be extremely stable. Using these genes holds the promise for reliable RT-qPCR results.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The yeast Komagataella phaffii (Pichia pastoris) is routinely used for heterologous protein expression and is suggested as a model organism for yeast. Despite its importance and application potential, no reference gene for transcript analysis via RT-qPCR assays has been evaluated to date. In this study, we searched publicly available RNASeq data for stably expressed genes to find potential reference genes for relative transcript analysis by RT-qPCR in K. phaffii. To evaluate the applicability of these genes, we used a diverse set of samples from three different strains and a broad range of cultivation conditions. The transcript levels of 9 genes were measured and compared using commonly applied bioinformatic tools.
RESULTS RESULTS
We could demonstrate that the often-used reference gene ACT1 is not very stably expressed and could identify two genes with outstandingly low transcript level fluctuations. Consequently, we suggest the two genes, RSC1, and TAF10 to be simultaneously used as reference genes in transcript analyses by RT-qPCR in K. phaffii in future RT-qPCR assays.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The usage of ACT1 as a reference gene in RT-qPCR analysis might lead to distorted results due to the instability of its transcript levels. In this study, we evaluated the transcript levels of several genes and found RSC1 and TAF10 to be extremely stable. Using these genes holds the promise for reliable RT-qPCR results.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36991508
doi: 10.1186/s40694-023-00154-1
pii: 10.1186/s40694-023-00154-1
pmc: PMC10061771
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

7

Subventions

Organisme : Austrian Research Promotion Agency
ID : 880555
Organisme : Austrian Science Fund,Austria
ID : P 35642

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Biotechnol Bioeng. 2020 Feb;117(2):543-555
pubmed: 31654411
Metab Eng. 2018 Nov;50:2-15
pubmed: 29704654
Microbiol Res. 2012 Sep 6;167(8):487-92
pubmed: 22704686
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2021 Jul 20;14(1):160
pubmed: 34284814
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2013 Feb;169(4):1160-72
pubmed: 23306884
Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2015 May-Jun;62(3):293-9
pubmed: 24953863
Genome Biol. 2007;8(2):R19
pubmed: 17291332
Genes (Basel). 2021 Jun 24;12(7):
pubmed: 34202507
BMC Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar 21;6:62
pubmed: 15780134
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017 Mar;44(3):413-417
pubmed: 28160205
F1000Res. 2015 Dec 30;4:1521
pubmed: 26925227
Front Microbiol. 2021 Jan 11;11:607028
pubmed: 33505376
Biotechnol Lett. 2004 Mar;26(6):509-15
pubmed: 15127793
J Biotechnol. 2010 Jan 1;145(1):30-7
pubmed: 19861137
Nat Methods. 2017 Apr;14(4):417-419
pubmed: 28263959
Cancer Res. 2004 Aug 1;64(15):5245-50
pubmed: 15289330
Clin Chem. 2009 Apr;55(4):611-22
pubmed: 19246619
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022 Sep;106(18):5893-5912
pubmed: 36040488
Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034
pubmed: 12184808
Yeast. 2020 Apr;37(4):305-312
pubmed: 32050051
Microb Cell Fact. 2021 Aug 9;20(1):156
pubmed: 34372831
Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 Dec 16;48(22):13000-13012
pubmed: 33257988
FEMS Yeast Res. 2016 Sep;16(6):
pubmed: 27388471
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2019 Oct;59:175-181
pubmed: 31470258
Microb Cell Fact. 2011 Mar 03;10:14
pubmed: 21371310
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
BMC Mol Biol. 2009 Oct 30;10:99
pubmed: 19874630
Plant Mol Biol. 2012 Jan 31;:
pubmed: 22290409
Microb Cell Fact. 2010 Jun 30;9:49
pubmed: 20591165
Bioinformatics. 2019 Jun 1;35(12):2084-2092
pubmed: 30395178
AMB Express. 2017 Dec;7(1):70
pubmed: 28342171
J Biotechnol. 2000 Jan 21;76(2-3):157-63
pubmed: 10656330
Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jan;39(Database issue):D19-21
pubmed: 21062823
Front Microbiol. 2020 Mar 20;11:463
pubmed: 32265887
Nature. 2000 Jun 8;405(6787):701-4
pubmed: 10864329
Metabolites. 2022 Apr 14;12(4):
pubmed: 35448535
Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 May 1;29(9):e45
pubmed: 11328886
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2021 Jun;105(11):4397-4414
pubmed: 34037840
F1000Res. 2020 Apr 28;9:304
pubmed: 32489650
Protein Expr Purif. 2016 Jun;122:38-44
pubmed: 26892536
J Biol Chem. 2021 Oct;297(4):101247
pubmed: 34582889
Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1152:185-94
pubmed: 24744034
J Biotechnol. 2016 Oct 10;235:121-31
pubmed: 27084056
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013 Feb;40(2):183-9
pubmed: 23306721
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009 Nov;36(11):1435-8
pubmed: 19760441
BMC Mol Biol. 2006 Oct 06;7:33
pubmed: 17026756

Auteurs

Mihail Besleaga (M)

Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060, Wien, Austria.

Gabriel A Vignolle (GA)

Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060, Wien, Austria.
Center for Health and Bioresources, Competence Unit Molecular Diagnostics, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, 1210, Vienna, Austria.

Julian Kopp (J)

Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060, Wien, Austria.

Oliver Spadiut (O)

Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060, Wien, Austria.

Robert L Mach (RL)

Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060, Wien, Austria.

Astrid R Mach-Aigner (AR)

Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060, Wien, Austria.

Christian Zimmermann (C)

Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Gumpendorfer Strasse 1a, 1060, Wien, Austria. christian.zimmermann@tuwien.ac.at.

Classifications MeSH