Activity Comparison of the Artificial Hybrid Promoter with Its Native Promoter in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2017.01.013

Abstract

Abstract: The responses of promoter strengths of artificial TEF1 promoter（PaTEF1）and native promoter PTEF1 as well as PTDH3 were comprehensively compared. The strength of PaTEF1 was not always higher than PTEF1,but varied along with the genetic background of host,medium,and cell growth phase. Among the three investigated hosts,PaTEF1 showed the highest strength in BY4741,while the lowest in LX03. The strengths of PaTEF1 were 1.4-4.6 and 0.9-2.0 times of those of native promoters（PTEF1 and PTDH3）in YPD100 medium,respectively. The activities of PaTEF1 in YPE（5% and 7%）were 0.7-1.3 and 0.8-1.3 times of PTEF1 and PTDH3. The activity of PaTEF1 in YPE was 1.7-2.0 times of that in YPD100,whereas 2.7-7.1 and 1.3-3.4 times for PTEF1 and PTDH3,respectively. The activities of the promoters in YEP were higher than those in YPD100,however,the activity variation of artificial promoters was less than that of native promoter. In addition,the variation trends of promoter strengths from early-log to mid-log phase and from mid-log to stationary phase varied in different host strains.

Key words: Saccharomyces cerevisiae, artificial hybrid promoter, TEF1 promoter, host strain, environmental condition

TANG Rui-qi, XIONG Liang, BAI Feng-wu, ZHAO Xin-qing. Activity Comparison of the Artificial Hybrid Promoter with Its Native Promoter in Saccharomyces cerevisiae[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2017, 33(1): 120-128.

References

[1] Kavšček M, Stražar M, Curk T, et al. Yeast as a cell factory：current state and perspectives[J]. Microbial Cell Factories, 2015, 14（1）：1.
[2] Mnaimneh S, Davierwala AP, Haynes J, et al. Exploration of essential gene functions via titratable promoter alleles[J]. Cell, 2004, 118（1）：31-44.
[3] Weinhandl K, Winkler M, Glieder A, et al. Carbon source dependent promoters in yeasts[J]. Microbial Cell Factories, 2014, 13（1）：1.
[4] Blazeck J, Alper HS. Promoter engineering：recent advances in controlling transcription at the most fundamental level[J]. Biotechnology Journal, 2013, 8（1）：46-58.
[5] Blazeck J, Garg R, Reed B, et al. Controlling promoter strength and regulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using synthetic hybrid promoters[J]. Biotechnology Bioengineering, 2012, 109：2884-2895.
[6] Peng B, Williams TC, Henry M, et al. Controlling heterologous gene expression in yeast cell factories on different carbon substrates and across the diauxic shift：a comparison of yeast promoter activities[J]. Microbial Cell Factories, 2015, 14：91.
[7] Alper H, Fischer C, Nevoigt E, et al. Tuning genetic control through promoter engineering[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102（36）：12678-12683.
[8] Westfall PJ, Pitera DJ, Lenihan JR, et al. Production of amorphadiene in yeast, and its conversion to dihydroartemisinic acid, precursor to the antimalarial agent artemisinin[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012, 109：E111-E118.
[9] Zhao XQ, Bai FW. Mechanisms of yeast stress tolerance and its manipulation for efficient fuel ethanol production[J]. Journal of Biotechnology, 2009, 144（1）：23-30.
[10] Blazeck J, Liu L, Redden H, et al. Tuning gene expression in Yarrowia lipolytica by a hybrid promoter approach[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2011, 77（22）：7905-7914.
[11] 熊亮, 程诚, 李凯, 等. 菊芋秸秆高浓度物料分步糖化及乙醇发酵[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2016, 22（3）：382-387.
[12] Sheff MA, Thorn KS. Optimized cassettes for fluorescent protein tagging in Saccharomyces cerevisiae[J]. Yeast, 2004, 21：661-670.
[13] Taxis C, Knop M. System of centromeric, episomal, and integrative vectors based on drug resistance markers for Saccharomyces cerevisiae[J]. Biotechniques, 2006, 40（1）：73-78.
[14] Gietz RD, Schiestl RH. High-efficiency yeast transformation using the LiAc/SS carrier DNA/PEG method[J]. Nature Protocols, 2007, 2（1）：31-34.
[15] Leavitt JM, Alper HS. Advances and current limitations in transcript-level control of gene expression[J]. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 2015, 34：98-104.
[16] Blazeck J, Alper H. Systems metabolic engineering：Genome-scale models and beyond[J]. Biotechnology Journal, 2010, 5（7）：647-659.
[17] Watanabe D, Kaneko A, Sugimoto Y, et al. Promoter engineering of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae RIM15 gene for improvement of alcoholic fermentation rates under stress conditions[J]. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2016, pii：S1389-1723（16）30202-X. doi:10. 1016/j. jbiosc. 2016. 08. 004.
[18] Rasool A, Zhang G, Li Z, et al. Engineering of the terpenoid pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae co-overproduces squalene and the non-terpenoid compound oleic acid[J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 2016, 152：457-467.
[19] Partow S, Siewers V, Bjørn S, et al. Characterization of different promoters for designing a new expression vector in Saccharomyces cerevisiae[J]. Yeast, 2010, 27（11）：955-964.
[20] Vickers CE, Bydder SF, Zhou Y, et al. Dual gene expression cassette vectors with antibiotic selection markers for engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae[J]. Microbial Cell Factories, 2013, 12：96.
[21] Bai FW, Anderson WA, Moo-Young M. Ethanol fermentation technologies from sugar and starch feedstocks[J]. Biotechnology Advances, 2008, 26（1）：89-105.
[22] Yamauchi Y, Izawa S. Prioritized expression of BTN2 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae under pronounced translation repression induced by severe ethanol stress[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2016, 7：1319.
[23] Redden H, Alper HS. The development and characterization of synthetic minimal yeast promoters[J]. Nature Communications, 2015, 6：7810.
[24] Ganapathi M, Palumbo MJ, Ansari SA, et al. Extensive role of the general regulatory factors, Abf1 and Rap1, in determining genome-wide chromatin structure in budding yeast[J]. Nucleic Acids Research, 2011, 39（6）：2032-2044.