Different Routes of Protein Folding Contribute to Improved Protein Production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Qi Qi, Feiran Li, Rosemary Yu, Martin K M Engqvist, Verena Siewers, Johannes Fuchs, Jens Nielsen
Author Information
  1. Qi Qi: Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. ORCID
  2. Feiran Li: Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  3. Rosemary Yu: Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  4. Martin K M Engqvist: Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  5. Verena Siewers: Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  6. Johannes Fuchs: Proteomics Core Facility, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  7. Jens Nielsen: Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden nielsenj@chalmers.se. ORCID

Abstract

Protein folding is often considered the flux controlling process in protein synthesis and secretion. Here, two previously isolated strains with increased α-amylase productivity were analyzed in chemostat cultures at different dilution rates using multi-omics data. Based on the analysis, we identified different routes of the protein folding pathway to improve protein production. In the first strain, the increased abundance of proteins working on the folding process, coordinated with upregulated glycogen metabolism and trehalose metabolism, helped increase α-amylase productivity 1.95-fold compared to the level in the original strain in chemostat culture at a dilution rate of 0.2/h. The second strain further strengthened the folding precision to improve protein production. More precise folding helps the cell improve protein production efficiency and reduce the expenditure of energy on the handling of misfolded proteins. As calculated using an enzyme-constrained genome-scale metabolic model, the second strain had an increased productivity of 2.36-fold with lower energy expenditure than that of the original under the same condition. Further study revealed that the regulation of -glycans played an important role in the folding precision control and that overexpression of the glucosidase Cwh41p can significantly improve protein production, especially for the strains with improved folding capacity but lower folding precision. Our findings elucidated in detail the mechanisms in two strains having improved protein productivity and thereby provided novel insights for industrial recombinant protein production as well as demonstrating how multi-omics analysis can be used for identification of novel strain-engineering targets. Protein folding plays an important role in protein maturation and secretion. In recombinant protein production, many studies have focused on the folding pathway to improve productivity. Here, we identified two different routes for improving protein production by yeast. We found that improving folding precision is a better strategy. Dysfunction of this process is also associated with several aberrant protein-associated human diseases. Here, our findings about the role of glucosidase Cwh41p in the precision control system and the characterization of the strain with a more precise folding process could contribute to the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 25;8(1):1131 [PMID: 29070809]
  2. Bioprocess Technol. 1991;13:166-76 [PMID: 1367289]
  3. Metab Eng. 2019 Sep;55:142-151 [PMID: 31220665]
  4. Mol Cell. 1998 Apr;1(5):639-48 [PMID: 9660948]
  5. FEBS J. 2006 Apr;273(7):1331-49 [PMID: 16689923]
  6. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006 Jun 5;94(2):353-61 [PMID: 16570317]
  7. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D442-D450 [PMID: 30395289]
  8. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2017 Dec;48:77-84 [PMID: 28410475]
  9. Nat Commun. 2020 Apr 20;11(1):1881 [PMID: 32312967]
  10. J Theor Biol. 2003 Jul 7;223(1):55-78 [PMID: 12782117]
  11. PLoS One. 2013 May 07;8(5):e63284 [PMID: 23667601]
  12. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015 Mar;42(3):453-64 [PMID: 25561318]
  13. Microb Cell Fact. 2009 Mar 24;8:17 [PMID: 19317892]
  14. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2010 Nov;34(6):952-85 [PMID: 20412306]
  15. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 Jun 30;83(14): [PMID: 28476767]
  16. Metab Eng. 2014 Jul;24:129-38 [PMID: 24853352]
  17. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 May 7;116(19):9324-9332 [PMID: 31000602]
  18. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013 Oct;97(20):8955-62 [PMID: 23392765]
  19. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014 Dec;30:168-77 [PMID: 25032908]
  20. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2014 Jun;26:32-8 [PMID: 24704806]
  21. J Biotechnol. 2010 May 17;147(2):116-21 [PMID: 20363268]
  22. Mol Syst Biol. 2017 Aug 3;13(8):935 [PMID: 28779005]
  23. Nat Commun. 2019 Aug 8;10(1):3586 [PMID: 31395883]
  24. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015 Sep;112(9):1872-82 [PMID: 25850421]
  25. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008 Jul;1783(7):1381-95 [PMID: 18298958]
  26. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2013 Nov;37(6):872-914 [PMID: 23480475]
  27. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015 Dec;16(12):742-52 [PMID: 26465718]
  28. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jan 1;30(1):69-72 [PMID: 11752257]
  29. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 20;115(47):E11025-E11032 [PMID: 30397111]
  30. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Aug 25;112(34):E4689-96 [PMID: 26261321]
  31. FEMS Yeast Res. 2012 Aug;12(5):491-510 [PMID: 22533807]
  32. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2012 May;109(5):1259-68 [PMID: 22179756]

MeSH Term

Amylases
Gene Expression Regulation, Fungal
Membrane Glycoproteins
Polysaccharides
Protein Biosynthesis
Protein Folding
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins
alpha-Glucosidases

Chemicals

Membrane Glycoproteins
Polysaccharides
Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins
Amylases
CWH41 protein, S cerevisiae
alpha-Glucosidases