Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 1175–1184 | Cite as

Adaptive evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to generate strains with enhanced glycerol production

  • D. R. Kutyna
  • C. Varela
  • G. A. Stanley
  • A. R. Borneman
  • P. A. Henschke
  • P. J. Chambers
Applied genetics and molecular biotechnology
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The development of new wine yeast strains with improved characteristics is critical in the highly competitive wine market, which faces the demand of ever-changing consumer preferences. Although new strains can be constructed using recombinant DNA technologies, consumer concerns about genetically modified (GM) organisms strongly limit their use in food and beverage production. We have applied a non-GM approach, adaptive evolution with sulfite at alkaline pH as a selective agent, to create a stable yeast strain with enhanced glycerol production; a desirable characteristic for wine palate. A mutant isolated using this approach produced 41% more glycerol than the parental strain it was derived from, and had enhanced sulfite tolerance. Backcrossing to produce heterozygous diploids revealed that the high-glycerol phenotype is recessive, while tolerance to sulfite was partially dominant, and these traits, at least in part, segregated from each other. This work demonstrates the potential of adaptive evolution for development of novel non-GM yeast strains, and highlights the complexity of adaptive responses to sulfite selection.

Keywords

Adaptive evolution Fermentation Wine yeast Glycerol production 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research at the Australian Wine Research Institute is financially supported by Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body the Grape and Wine Research Development Corporation, with matching funds from the Australian Government. The AWRI is part of the Wine Innovation Cluster.

References

  1. Ausubel FM, Brent R, Kingston RE, Moore DD, Seidman JG, Smith JA, Struhl K (2007) Current protocols in molecular biology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Avram D, Bakalinsky AT (1997) SSU1 encodes a plasma membrane protein with a central role in a network of proteins conferring sulfite tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 179:5971–5974Google Scholar
  3. Brown SW, Oliver SG (1982) Isolation of ethanol-tolerant mutants of yeast by continuous selection. Eur J Appl Microbiol 16:119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke D, Dawson D, Stearns T (2000) Methods in yeast genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NYGoogle Scholar
  5. Cadiere A, Ortiz-Julien A, Camarasa C, Dequin S (2011) Evolutionary engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast strains with increased in vivo flux through the pentose phosphate pathway. Metab Eng 13:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cakar ZP, Seker UO, Tamerler C, Sonderegger M, Sauer U (2005) Evolutionary engineering of multiple-stress resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res 5:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cambon B, Monteil V, Remize F, Camarasa C, Dequin S (2006) Effects of GPD1 overexpression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae commercial wine yeast strains lacking ALD6 genes. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:4688–4694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers PJ, Bellon JR, Schmidt SA, Varela C, Pretorius IS (2009) Non-genetic engineering approaches to isolating and generating novel yeast for industrial applications. In: Kunze G, Satyanarayana T (eds) Yeast biotechnology: Diversity and applications. Springer Science + Business Media, pp 433–457Google Scholar
  9. Compagno C, Boschi F, Ranzi BM (1996) Glycerol production in a triose phosphate isomerase deficient mutant of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Prog 12:591–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Barros Lopes M, Rehman AU, Gockowiak H, Heinrich AJ, Langridge P, Henschke PA (2000) Fermentation properties of a wine yeast overexpressing the Saccharomyces cerevisiae glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene (GPD2). Aust J Grape Wine Res 6:208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drewke C, Thielen J, Ciriacy M (1990) Ethanol formation in adh0 mutants reveals the existence of a novel acetaldehyde-reducing activity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 172:3909–3917Google Scholar
  12. Eglinton JM, Heinrich AJ, Pollnitz AP, Langridge P, Henschke PA, de Barros Lopes M (2002) Decreasing acetic acid accumulation by a glycerol overproducing strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by deleting the ALD6 aldehyde dehydrogenase gene. Yeast 19:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eustace R, Thornton RJ (1987) Selective hybridization of wine yeasts for higher yields of glycerol. Can J Microbiol 33:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman GG, Donald GM (1957) Fermentation processes leading to glycerol: III. Studies on glycerol formation in the presence of alkalis. Appl Microbiol 5:216–220Google Scholar
  15. Gawel R, Van Sluyter S, Waters EJ (2007) The effects of ethanol and glycerol on the body and other sensory characteristics of Riesling wines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 13:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geertman JM, van Maris AJ, van Dijken JP, Pronk JT (2006) Physiological and genetic engineering of cytosolic redox metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for improved glycerol production. Metab Eng 8:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goto-Yamamoto N, Kitano K, Shiki K, Yoshida Y, Suzuki T, Iwata T, Yamane Y, Hara S (1998) SSU1-R, a sulfite resistance gene of wine yeast, is an allele of SSU1 with a different upstream sequence. J Ferment Bioeng 86:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grossmann M, Kiessling F, Singer J, Schoeman H, Schröder MB, von Wallbrunn C (2011) Genetically modified wine yeasts and risk assessment studies covering different steps within the wine making process. Ann Microbiol 61:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins VJ, Bell PJL, Dawes IW, Attfield PV (2001) Generation of a novel Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain that exhibits strong maltose utilization and hyperosmotic resistance using nonrecombinant techniques. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4346–4348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hohmann S (2002) Osmotic stress signaling and osmoadaptation in yeasts. Microbiol Mol Biol R 66:300–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huxley C, Green ED, Dunham I (1990) Rapid assessment of S. cerevisiae mating type by PCR. Trends Genet 6:236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iverson WP (1967) Yeast sporulation on two commonly available media. Appl Microbiol 15:966–967Google Scholar
  23. Johansson M, Sjöström JE (1984) Enhanced production of glycerol in an alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH1) deficient mutant of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Lett 6:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kutyna DR, Varela C, Henschke PA, Chambers PJ, Stanley GA (2010) Microbiological approaches to lowering ethanol concentration in wine. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuyper M, Toirkens MJ, Diderich JA, Winkler AA, van Dijken JP, Pronk JT (2005) Evolutionary engineering of mixed-sugar utilization by a xylose-fermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain. FEMS Yeast Res 5:925–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michnick S, Roustan JL, Remize F, Barre P, Dequin S (1997) Modulation of glycerol and ethanol yields during alcoholic fermentation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains overexpressed or disrupted for GPD1 encoding glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase. Yeast 13:783–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ness F, Lavallee F, Dubourdieu D, Aigle M, Dulaub L (1993) Identification of yeast strains using the polymerase chain reaction. J Sci Food Agr 62:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nevoigt E, Stahl U (1996) Reduced pyruvate decarboxylase and increased glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase [NAD+] levels enhance glycerol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 12:1331–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nissen T, Schulze U, Nielsen J, Villadsen J (1997) Flux distributions in anaerobic, glucose-limited continuous cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiology 143:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noble AC, Bursick GF (1984) The contribution of glycerol to perceived viscosity and sweetness in white wine. Am J Enol Vitic 35:110–112Google Scholar
  31. Park H, Bakalinsky AT (2000) SSU1 mediates sulphite efflux in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 16:881–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petrovska B, Winkelhausen E, Kuzmanova S (1999) Glycerol production by yeasts under osmotic and sulfite stress. Can J Microbiol 45:695–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pretorius IS (2000) Tailoring wine yeast for the new millennium: novel approaches to the ancient art of winemaking. Yeast 16:675–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rainieri S, Pretorius IS (2000) Selection and improvement of wine yeasts. Ann Microbiol 50:15–31Google Scholar
  35. Remize F, Barnavon L, Dequin S (2001) Glycerol export and glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, but not glycerol phosphatase, are rate limiting for glycerol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab Eng 3:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Remize F, Roustan JL, Sablayrolles JM, Barre P, Dequin S (1999) Glycerol overproduction by engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast strains leads to substantial changes in by-product formation and to a stimulation of fermentation rate in stationary phase. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:143–149Google Scholar
  37. Sonderegger M, Sauer U (2003) Evolutionary engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for anaerobic growth on xylose. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1990–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stanley D, Fraser S, Chambers PJ, Rogers P, Stanley GA (2010) Generation and characterisation of stable ethanol-tolerant mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Ind Microbiol Biot 37:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Storici F, Resnick MA (2006) The delitto perfetto approach to in vivo site-directed mutagenesis and chromosome rearrangements with synthetic oligonucleotides in yeast. Method Enzymol 409:329–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taherzadeh MJ, Adler L, Liden G (2002) Strategies for enhancing fermentative production of glycerol — a review. Enzyme Microb Technol 31:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor SL, Higley NA, Bush RK (1986) Sulfites in foods: uses, analytical methods, residues, fate, exposure assessment, metabolism, toxicity, and hypersensitivity. Adv Food Res 30:1–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeyl C (2005) The number of mutations selected during adaptation in a laboratory population of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 169:1825–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. R. Kutyna
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Varela
    • 1
  • G. A. Stanley
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. R. Borneman
    • 1
  • P. A. Henschke
    • 1
  • P. J. Chambers
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Wine Research InstituteAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Victoria University, School of Molecular SciencesMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Central Queensland University, Faculty of Sciences, Engineering & Health, RockhamptonQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations