Skip to main content
Log in

Ethanol inhibition of Saccharomyces and Candida enzymes

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Current Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Ethanol inhibition of several hydrolases (sucrase, maltase, trehalase, melezitase and cellobiase) has been measured in both highly ethanol-tolerant Saccharomyces strains (R) and in Candida strains less tolerant to ethanol (S). Cells were either grown in the presence of ethanol and the activities of the enzymes measured without preincubation in this alcohol (“in situ” inhibition assay), or the culture was grown in the absence of ethanol and the activities of the enzymes were determined after preincubation and in the presence of this compound (“in vitro” inhibition assay). Ethanol inhibition (Ki values) of sucrase, maltase, trehalase, and melezitase was quite different for these different enzymes in the same strain (R or S), but similar for the same enzyme in different strains (R and S). The Ki values for cellobiase, which is absent from the R strain, were higher when induced than at the basal level and higher in in vitro assays than in in situ assays. This suggests that the inhibition observed in situ is mainly the result of an inhibition of other proteins related to cellobiase (i.e., those involved in its synthesis) but not a direct inactivation of the enzyme by ethanol. Accordingly, when hybrids between Saccharomyces (R) and Candida (S) strains were constructed by protoplast fusion, and cellobiase was measured in the parental Candida strain and some of the hybrids, there was an increase in the Ki values in the in situ assays from 2.25% ethanol in Candida to 5.5% in some of the hybrids.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera A, Benítez T (1986) Arch Microbiol 143:337–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Baulcombe D, Buffard D (1983) Planta 157:493–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderón IL, Cerdá-Olmedo E (1982) Mutat Res 108:133–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey GP, Ingledew WM (1986) CRC Crit Rev Microbiol 13:219–280

    Google Scholar 

  • D'Amore T, Stewart GG (1977) Enzyme Microbiol Technol 9:321–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson RC (1980) Gene 10:347–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Farahnak F Seki T, Ryu DDY, Ogrydziak D (1986) Appl Environ Microbiol 51:995–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Gondé P, Blondin B, Ratomahenina R, Arnaud A, Galzy P (1982) J Ferment Technol 60:579–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Gondé P, Blondin B, Leclerc M, Ratomahenina R, Arnaud A, Galzy P (1984) Appl Environ Microbiol 48:265–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez J, Benítez T (1986) Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 25:150–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez J, Benítez T (1987) Curr Genet 12:421–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez J, Benítez T (1988a) Curr Genet 13:461–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez J, Benítez T (1988b) Appl Environ Microbiol 54:917–922

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen E, Eagle L, Bredenhann G (1985) Curr Genet 9:313–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonge P, Jongh FCM, Meijers R, Steensma HY, Scheffers WA (1986) Yeast 2:579–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinner U, Boucher F (1985) Curr Genet 9:619–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohchi C, Toh-e A (1986) Mol Gen Genet 203:89–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Biely P, Latta RK, Barbosa MFS, Schneider H (1986) Appl Environ Microbiol 52:320–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Llorente P, Sols A (1969) In: Abstracts of 6th FEBS Meeting. Madrid, p 123

  • Lowry OH, Rosebrough NI, Farr AI, Randall RJ (1951) J Biol Chem 193:265–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Maleszka R, Wang PY, Schneider H (1982) Can J Biochem 60:144–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagodawithana TW, Whitt JT, Cutaia AJ (1977) ASBC J 35:179–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Pina A, Calderón IL, Benítez T (1986) Appl Environ Microbiol 51:995–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa MF Sá Correia I, Novais JM (1987) Biotechnol Lett 9:441–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman F, Fink GR, Hicks JB (1986) Methods in yeast genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd MG, Poulter RTM, Sullivan PA (1985) Annu Rev Microbiol 39:579–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Skipper N, Sutherland M, Davies RW, Kilburn D, Miller RC, Warren A, Wong R (1986) Science 230:958–960

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer JFT, Bizeau C, Reynolds N, Spencer DM (1985a) Curr Genet 9:649–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer JFT, Spencer DM, Bizeau C, Martini AV, Martini A (1985b) Curr Genet 9:623–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Martins I (1982) Appl Environ Microbiol 44:1253–1257

    Google Scholar 

  • Toivola A, Yarrow D, Bosch E, Dijken JP, Scheffers WA (1984) Appl Environ Microbiol 47:1221–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Toyomasu T, Mori K (1987) Agric Biol Chem 51:935–937

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubb RS (1984) CRC Crit Rev Biotechnol 1:241–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JJ, Khachatourians GG, Ingledew WM (1982) Mol Gen Genet 186:95–100

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martín-Rendón, E., Jiménez, J. & Benítez, T. Ethanol inhibition of Saccharomyces and Candida enzymes. Curr Genet 15, 7–16 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00445746

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00445746

Key words

Navigation