Engineering yeast mitochondrial metabolism for 3-hydroxypropionate production.

3-Hydroxypropionate Acetyl-CoA carboxylase Malonyl-CoA reductase Redox factor engineering Yeast mitochondrion

Journal

Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts
ISSN: 2731-3654
Titre abrégé: Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300888906676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Apr 2023
Historique:
received: 13 02 2023
accepted: 24 03 2023
medline: 9 4 2023
entrez: 8 4 2023
pubmed: 9 4 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

With unique physiochemical environments in subcellular organelles, there has been growing interest in harnessing yeast organelles for bioproduct synthesis. Among these organelles, the yeast mitochondrion has been found to be an attractive compartment for production of terpenoids and branched-chain alcohols, which could be credited to the abundant supply of acetyl-CoA, ATP and cofactors. In this study we explored the mitochondrial potential for production of 3-hydroxypropionate (3-HP) and performed the cofactor engineering and flux control at the acetyl-CoA node to maximize 3-HP synthesis. Metabolic modeling suggested that the mitochondrion serves as a more suitable compartment for 3-HP synthesis via the malonyl-CoA pathway than the cytosol, due to the opportunity to obtain a higher maximum yield and a lower oxygen consumption. With the malonyl-CoA reductase (MCR) targeted into the mitochondria, the 3-HP production increased to 0.27 g/L compared with 0.09 g/L with MCR expressed in the cytosol. With enhanced expression of dissected MCR enzymes, the titer reached to 4.42 g/L, comparable to the highest titer achieved in the cytosol so far. Then, the mitochondrial NADPH supply was optimized by overexpressing POS5 and IDP1, which resulted in an increase in the 3-HP titer to 5.11 g/L. Furthermore, with induced expression of an ACC1 mutant in the mitochondria, the final 3-HP production reached 6.16 g/L in shake flask fermentations. The constructed strain was then evaluated in fed-batch fermentations, and produced 71.09 g/L 3-HP with a productivity of 0.71 g/L/h and a yield on glucose of 0.23 g/g. In this study, the yeast mitochondrion is reported as an attractive compartment for 3-HP production. The final 3-HP titer of 71.09 g/L with a productivity of 0.71 g/L/h was achieved in fed-batch fermentations, representing the highest titer reported for Saccharomyces cerevisiae so far, that demonstrated the potential of recruiting the yeast mitochondria for further development of cell factories.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
With unique physiochemical environments in subcellular organelles, there has been growing interest in harnessing yeast organelles for bioproduct synthesis. Among these organelles, the yeast mitochondrion has been found to be an attractive compartment for production of terpenoids and branched-chain alcohols, which could be credited to the abundant supply of acetyl-CoA, ATP and cofactors. In this study we explored the mitochondrial potential for production of 3-hydroxypropionate (3-HP) and performed the cofactor engineering and flux control at the acetyl-CoA node to maximize 3-HP synthesis.
RESULTS RESULTS
Metabolic modeling suggested that the mitochondrion serves as a more suitable compartment for 3-HP synthesis via the malonyl-CoA pathway than the cytosol, due to the opportunity to obtain a higher maximum yield and a lower oxygen consumption. With the malonyl-CoA reductase (MCR) targeted into the mitochondria, the 3-HP production increased to 0.27 g/L compared with 0.09 g/L with MCR expressed in the cytosol. With enhanced expression of dissected MCR enzymes, the titer reached to 4.42 g/L, comparable to the highest titer achieved in the cytosol so far. Then, the mitochondrial NADPH supply was optimized by overexpressing POS5 and IDP1, which resulted in an increase in the 3-HP titer to 5.11 g/L. Furthermore, with induced expression of an ACC1 mutant in the mitochondria, the final 3-HP production reached 6.16 g/L in shake flask fermentations. The constructed strain was then evaluated in fed-batch fermentations, and produced 71.09 g/L 3-HP with a productivity of 0.71 g/L/h and a yield on glucose of 0.23 g/g.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the yeast mitochondrion is reported as an attractive compartment for 3-HP production. The final 3-HP titer of 71.09 g/L with a productivity of 0.71 g/L/h was achieved in fed-batch fermentations, representing the highest titer reported for Saccharomyces cerevisiae so far, that demonstrated the potential of recruiting the yeast mitochondria for further development of cell factories.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37031180
doi: 10.1186/s13068-023-02309-z
pii: 10.1186/s13068-023-02309-z
pmc: PMC10082987
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

64

Subventions

Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 21808008
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 22211530047
Organisme : National Key Research and Development Program of China
ID : 2018YFA0900201
Organisme : Tianjin Synthetic Biotechnology Innovation Capacity Improvement Project
ID : TSBICIP-KJGG-009

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

ACS Synth Biol. 2020 Mar 20;9(3):546-555
pubmed: 32049515
FEMS Yeast Res. 2015 Sep;15(6):
pubmed: 26205245
Nat Commun. 2019 Aug 8;10(1):3586
pubmed: 31395883
Metab Eng. 2016 Nov;38:303-309
pubmed: 27471067
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2021 Feb;67:26-34
pubmed: 33360103
Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2020 Dec;59:182-192
pubmed: 33032255
ACS Synth Biol. 2018 Sep 21;7(9):2308-2316
pubmed: 30145882
Microb Cell Fact. 2020 Dec 10;19(1):226
pubmed: 33302960
Eukaryot Cell. 2003 Aug;2(4):809-20
pubmed: 12912900
Biotechnol Lett. 2022 Apr;44(4):571-580
pubmed: 35254611
EMBO J. 2003 May 1;22(9):2015-24
pubmed: 12727869
Bioresour Technol. 2022 Oct;361:127690
pubmed: 35901866
ACS Synth Biol. 2020 Dec 18;9(12):3236-3244
pubmed: 33186034
J Biol Chem. 1993 May 25;268(15):10946-52
pubmed: 8098706
Enzyme Microb Technol. 2020 Mar;134:109462
pubmed: 32044019
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Feb;77(3):732-8
pubmed: 21131518
Metab Eng. 2012 Mar;14(2):104-11
pubmed: 22326477
Science. 2021 Apr 16;372(6539):292-295
pubmed: 33859035
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 May 15;89(10):4534-8
pubmed: 1350093
J Biol Chem. 2005 Dec 2;280(48):39890-6
pubmed: 16179340
mBio. 2014 May 06;5(3):e01130-14
pubmed: 24803522
FEMS Yeast Res. 2020 Sep 1;20(6):
pubmed: 32592388
Biochemistry. 1996 Jun 18;35(24):7873-8
pubmed: 8672488
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 20;8(9):e75554
pubmed: 24073271
FEMS Yeast Res. 2015 May;15(3):
pubmed: 25852051
FEBS Lett. 1994 May 16;344(2-3):109-16
pubmed: 8187868
Nat Protoc. 2019 Mar;14(3):639-702
pubmed: 30787451
J Biol Chem. 2004 May 21;279(21):21779-86
pubmed: 14761959
ACS Synth Biol. 2017 May 19;6(5):905-912
pubmed: 28132498
Nat Chem Biol. 2017 Aug;13(8):823-832
pubmed: 28853733
Nat Commun. 2019 Mar 5;10(1):1053
pubmed: 30837474
Metab Eng. 2016 Mar;34:104-111
pubmed: 26791242
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2021 Nov;118(11):4269-4277
pubmed: 34273106
Front Microbiol. 2018 Sep 20;9:2185
pubmed: 30298059
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2022 May;119(5):1314-1326
pubmed: 35060115
Synth Syst Biotechnol. 2022 Jun 15;7(4):1034-1043
pubmed: 35801089
J Biol Chem. 1993 Jun 5;268(16):12116-22
pubmed: 8099357
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020 Oct;65:65-74
pubmed: 32092624
ACS Synth Biol. 2016 Mar 18;5(3):224-33
pubmed: 26750662
Yeast. 1992 Jul;8(7):501-17
pubmed: 1523884
Sci Rep. 2016 May 10;6:25675
pubmed: 27161023
Biotechnol Adv. 2018 Jul - Aug;36(4):1207-1222
pubmed: 29608950
Science. 2021 May 28;372(6545):968-972
pubmed: 33888598
Microb Cell Fact. 2016 Mar 15;15:53
pubmed: 26980206
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Mar;28(3):245-8
pubmed: 20212490
Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1116:119-31
pubmed: 24395361
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 11;9(12):e114738
pubmed: 25503745
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2022 Oct;119(10):2639-2668
pubmed: 35781640
Metab Eng. 2014 Mar;22:104-9
pubmed: 24502850
Metab Eng. 2019 Sep;55:76-84
pubmed: 31226348
J Biol Chem. 2009 Mar 20;284(12):7553-60
pubmed: 19158096
J Biol Chem. 2005 Feb 11;280(6):4469-75
pubmed: 15574419
Nat Commun. 2015 Sep 08;6:8224
pubmed: 26345617
J Biol Chem. 2012 Jul 6;287(28):23865-76
pubmed: 22580297
Nat Commun. 2022 Apr 7;13(1):1886
pubmed: 35393407
Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2006 May;38(5):293-8
pubmed: 16680368

Auteurs

Yiming Zhang (Y)

Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Soft Matter Science and Engineering, College of Life Science and Technology, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, 100029, China.

Mo Su (M)

Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Soft Matter Science and Engineering, College of Life Science and Technology, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, 100029, China.

Yu Chen (Y)

Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Zheng Wang (Z)

Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Soft Matter Science and Engineering, College of Life Science and Technology, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, 100029, China.

Jens Nielsen (J)

Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Soft Matter Science and Engineering, College of Life Science and Technology, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, 100029, China.
Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden.
BioInnovation Institute, Ole Maaløes Vej 3, DK2200, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Zihe Liu (Z)

Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Soft Matter Science and Engineering, College of Life Science and Technology, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, 100029, China. zihe@mail.buct.edu.cn.

Classifications MeSH