Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 501–515 | Cite as

SUMO expression shortens the lag phase of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast growth caused by complex interactive effects of major mixed fermentation inhibitors found in hot-compressed water-treated lignocellulosic hydrolysate

  • Lahiru N. Jayakody
  • Masafumi Kadowaki
  • Keisuke Tsuge
  • Kenta Horie
  • Akihiro Suzuki
  • Nobuyuki Hayashi
  • Hiroshi Kitagaki
Bioenergy and biofuels

Abstract

The complex inhibitory effects of inhibitors present in lignocellulose hydrolysate suppress the ethanol fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Although the interactive inhibitory effects play important roles in the actual hydrolysate, few studies have investigated glycolaldehyde, the key inhibitor of hot-compressed water-treated lignocellulose hydrolysate. Given this challenge, we investigated the interactive effects of mixed fermentation inhibitors, including glycolaldehyde. First, we confirmed that glycolaldehyde was the most potent inhibitor in the hydrolysate and exerted interactive inhibitory effects in combination with major inhibitors. Next, through genome-wide analysis and megavariate data modeling, we identified SUMOylation as a novel potential mechanism to overcome the combinational inhibitory effects of fermentation inhibitors. Indeed, overall SUMOylation was increased and Pgk1, which produces an ATP molecule in glycolysis by substrate-level phosphorylation, was SUMOylated and degraded in response to glycolaldehyde. Augmenting the SUMO-dependent ubiquitin system in the ADH1-expressing strain significantly shortened the lag phase of growth, released cells from G2/M arrest, and improved energy status and glucose uptake in the inhibitor-containing medium. In summary, our study was the first to establish SUMOylation as a novel platform for regulating the lag phase caused by complex fermentation inhibitors.

Keywords

SUMOylation Yeast Glycolaldehyde Bioethanol 

Supplementary material

253_2014_6174_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (959 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 959 kb)

References

  1. Adschiri T, Hirose S, Malaluan R, Arai K (1993) Noncatalytic conversion of cellulose in supercritical and subcritical water. J Chem Eng Jpn 26:676–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agbor TA, Cheong A, Comerford KM, Scholz CC, Bruning U, Clarke A, Cummins E, Cagney T, Taylor CT (2011) Small ubiquitin-related modifier (SUMO)-1 promotes glycolysis in hypoxia. J Biol Chem 286:4718–4726PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida JRM, Modig T, Petersson A, Hähn-Hägerdal B, Lidén G, Gorwa-Grauslund MF (2007) Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 82:340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreas P, Nathan JA, Goldberg AL (2013) The ATP cost and time required to degrade ubiquitinated proteins by the 26 S proteasome. J Biol Chem 288:29215–29222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ask M, Bettiga M, Mapelli V, Olsson L (2013) The influence of HMF and furfural on redox-balance and energy-state of xylose-utilizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:22PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auguilera J, Preito JA (2008) The Saccharomyces cerevisiae aldose reductase is implied in the metabolism of methylglyoxal in response to stress condition. Curr Genet 39:273–283Google Scholar
  7. Chaturvedi V, Verma P (2013) An overview of key pretreatment processes employed for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels and value added products. 3Biotech 3:415–431Google Scholar
  8. Ding MZ, Wang X, Yang Y, Yuan YJ (2012) Comparative metabolic profiling of parental and inhibitors-tolerant yeasts during lignocellulosic ethanol fermentation. Metabolomics 8:232–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer RA (1925) Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  10. Gietz RD, Schiestl RH (2007) High-efficient yeast transformation using the LiAc/SS carrier DNA/PEG method. Nat Protoc 2:31–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorsich SW, Dien BS, Nichols NN, Slininger PJ, Liu ZL, Skory CD (2006) Tolerance to furfural-induced stress is associated with pentose phosphate pathway genes ZWF1, GND1, RPE1, and TKL1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 71:339–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heer D, Heine D, Sauer U (2009) Resistance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to high concentrations of furfural is based on NADPH-dependent reduction by at least two oxireductases. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:7631–76318PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Honma T, Inomata H (2014) Density functional theory study of glyceraldehyde conversion in supercritical water. J Supercrit Fluids 90:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jayakody LN, Hayashi N, Kitagaki H (2011) Identification of glycolaldehyde as the key inhibitor of bioethanol fermentation by yeast and genome-wide analysis of its toxicity. Biotechnol Lett 33:285–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jayakody LN, Horie K, Hayashi N, Kitagaki H (2012) Improvement of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to hot-compressed water treated cellulose by expression of ADH1. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 94:273–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jayakody LN, Horie K, Hayashi N, Kitagaki H (2013a) Engineering redox cofactor utilization for detoxification of glycolaldehyde, a key inhibitor of bioethanol production, in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:6589–6600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jayakody LN, Hayashi N, Kitagaki H (2013b) Material and process for energy: communicating current research and technology development. In: Mendez-Vilas A (ed) Molecular mechanisms for detoxification of major aldehyde inhibitors for production of bioethanol by Saccharomyces cerevisiae from hot-compressed water-treated lignocelluloses. Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, pp 302–311Google Scholar
  18. Johnson ES, Blobel G (1999) Cell cycle-regulated attachment of the ubiquitin-related protein SUMO to the yeast septins. J Cell Biol 147:981–994PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kawahata M, Masaki K, Fujii T, Iefuji H (2006) Yeast genes involved in response to lactic acid and acetic acid: acidic conditions caused by the organic acids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cultures induce expression of intracellular metal metabolism genes regulated by Aft1p. FEMS Yeast Res 6:924–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klenk C, Humrich J, Quitterer U, Lohse MJ (2006) SUMO-1 controls the protein stability and the biological function of phosducin. J Biol Chem 281:8357–8364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klinke HB, Thomsen AB, Ahring BK (2004) Inhibition of ethanol-producing yeast and bacteria by degradation products produced during pre-treatment of biomass. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 66:10–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar P, Diane MB, Michael JD, Stroeve P (2009) Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:3713–3729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu ZL (2011) Molecular mechanisms of yeast tolerance and in situ detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysates. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 90:809–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu ZL, Moon JA (2009) Novel NADPH-dependent aldehyde reductase gene from Saccharomyces cerevisiae NRRL Y-12632 involved in the detoxification of aldehyde inhibitors derived from lignocellulosic biomass conversion. Gene 446:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu ZL, Moon J, Andersh BJ, Slininger PJ, Weber S (2008) Multiple gene-mediated NAD(P)H-dependent aldehyde reduction is a mechanism of in situ detoxification of furfural and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 81:743–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu X, Saka S (2012) New insights on monosaccharides’ isomerization, dehydration and fragmentation in hot-compressed water. J Supercrit Fluids 61:146–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu X, Yamauchi K, Phaiiboonsilpa N, Saka S (2009) Two-step hydrolysis of Japanese beech as treated by semi-flow hot-compressed water. J Wood Sci 55:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luterbacher JS, Rand JM, Alonso DM, Han J, Youngquist JT, Maravelias CT, Pfleger BF, Dumesic JA (2014) Nonenzymatic sugar production from biomass using biomass-derived γ-valerolactone. Science 343:277–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma M, Liu ZL (2010) Comparative transcriptome profiling analyses during the lag phase uncover YAP1, PDR1, PDR3, RPN4, and HSF1 as key regulatory genes in genomic adaptation to the lignocellulose derived inhibitor HMF for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BMC Genomics 11:660PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matmati N, Kitagaki H, Montefusco D, Mohanty BK, Hannun YA (2009) Hydroxyurea sensitivity reveals a role for ISC1 in the regulation of G2/M. J Biol Chem 284:8241–8246Google Scholar
  31. Matsufuji Y, Fujimura S, Ito T, Nishizawa M, Miyaji T, Nakagawa J, Ohyama T, Tomizuka N, Nakagawa T (2008) Acetaldehyde tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae involves the pentose phosphate pathway and oleic acid biosynthesis. Yeast 25:825–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moon J, Liu ZL (2012) Engineered NADH-dependent GRE2 from Saccharomyces cerevisiae by directed enzyme evolution enhances HMF reduction using additional cofactor NADPH. Enzym Microb Technol 50:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmqvist E, Grage H, Meinander NQ, Hahn-Hägerdal B (1999) Main and interaction effects of acetic acid, furfural, and p-hydroxybenzoic acid on growth and ethanol productivity of yeasts. Biotechnol Bioeng 63:46–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pereira BF, Guimarães PMR, Gomes DG, Mira NP, Teixeira MC, Sá-Correia I, Domingues L (2011) Identification of candidate genes for yeast engineering to improve bioethanol production in very high gravity and lignocellulosic biomass industrial fermentations. Biotechnol Biofuels 4:57PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson AA, Vogel F, Lachance RP, Fröling M, Antal MJ Jr, Tester JW (2008) Thermochemical biofuel production in hydrothermal media: a review of sub- and supercritical water technologies. Energy Environ Sci 1:32–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piper PW, Curran B, Davies MW, Lockheart A, Reid G (1986) Transcription of the phosphoglycerate kinase gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae increases when fermentative cultures are stressed by heat-shock. Eur J Biochem 161:525–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Praefcke GJ, Hofmann K, Dohmen RJ (2012) SUMO playing tag with ubiquitin. TIBS 37:23–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Psakhye I, Jentsch S (2012) Protein group modification and synergy in the SUMO pathway as exemplified in DNA repair. Cell 151:807–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saha BC, Iten LB, Cotta MA, Wu YV (2005) Dilute acid pretreatment, enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of wheat straw to ethanol. Process Biochem 40:3693–4000Google Scholar
  40. Simpson-Lavy KJ, Johnston M (2013) SUMOylation regulates the SNF1 protein kinase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:17432–17437PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skerker JM, Leon D, Price MN, Mar JS, Tarjan DR, Wetmore KM, Deutschbauer AM, Baumohl JK, Bauer S, Ibáñez AB, Mitchell VD, Wu CH, Hu P, Hazen T, Arkin AP (2013) Dissecting a complex chemical stress: chemogenomic profiling of plant hydrolysates. Mol Syst Biol 18:674Google Scholar
  42. Srikumar T, Lewicki MC, Raught B (2013) A global S. cerevisiae small ubiquitin-related modifier (SUMO) system interactome. Mol Syst Biol 9:688Google Scholar
  43. Teymouri F, Laureano-Perez L, Alizadeh H, Dale BE (2004) Ammonia fiber explosion treatment of corn stover. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 115:951–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Uzunova K, Göttsche K, Miteva M, Weisshaar SR, Glanemann C, Schnellhardt M, Niessen M, Scheel H, Hofmann K, Johnson ES, Praefcke GJ, Dohmen RJ (2007) Ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic control of SUMO conjugates. J Biol Chem 282:34167–34175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Dijken JP, Scheffers WA (1986) Redox balances in the metabolism of sugars by yeasts. FEMS Microbiol Lett 32:199–224Google Scholar
  46. Xiao H, Zhao H (2014) Genome-wide RNAi screen reveals the E3 SUMO-protein ligase gene SIZ1 as a novel determinant of furfural tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:78PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu Y, Lou X, Wu H (2007) Some recent advances in hydrolysis of biomass in hot compressed water and its comparison with other hydrolysis methods. Energy Fuel 22:46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zaldivar J, Martinez A, Ingram LO (2000) Effect of alcohol compounds found in hemicellulose hydrolysate on the growth and fermentation of ethanologenic Escherichia coli. Biotechnol Bioeng 68:524–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zar JH (1974) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang J, Hou B, Wang A, Li ZL, Wang H, Zhang T (2014) Kinetic study of retro-aldol condensation of glucose to glycolaldehyde with ammonium metatungstate as the catalyst. AIChE J. doi:10.1002/aic.14554 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhou W, Ryan JJ, Zhou H (2004) Global analyses of sumoylated proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Induction of protein sumoylation by cellular stresses. J Biol Chem 279:32262–32268PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lahiru N. Jayakody
    • 1
    • 2
  • Masafumi Kadowaki
    • 2
  • Keisuke Tsuge
    • 3
  • Kenta Horie
    • 2
  • Akihiro Suzuki
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nobuyuki Hayashi
    • 1
    • 4
  • Hiroshi Kitagaki
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry and Applied Biosciences, United Graduate School of Agricultural SciencesKagoshima UniversityKagoshima CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureSaga UniversitySagaJapan
  3. 3.Industrial Technology Center of SagaSagaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, Faculty of AgricultureSaga UniversitySagaJapan

Personalised recommendations