Editor: Monique Bolotin-Fukuhara
Comprehensive phenotypic analysis for identification of genes affecting growth under ethanol stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Article first published online: 19 NOV 2008
© 2008 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved
FEMS Yeast Research
Volume 9, Issue 1, pages 32–44, February 2009
How to Cite
Yoshikawa, K., Tanaka, T., Furusawa, C., Nagahisa, K., Hirasawa, T. and Shimizu, H. (2009), Comprehensive phenotypic analysis for identification of genes affecting growth under ethanol stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Research, 9: 32–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00456.x
- Issue published online: 8 JAN 2009
- Article first published online: 19 NOV 2008
- Received 29 February 2008; revised 19 September 2008; accepted 1 October 2008.First published online 19 November 2008.
- ethanol stress;
- osmotic stress;
- yeast deletion collection
- Top of page
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Supporting Information
We quantified the growth behavior of all available single gene deletion strains of budding yeast under ethanol stress. Genome-wide analyses enabled the extraction of the genes and determination of the functional categories required for growth under this condition. Statistical analyses revealed that the growth of 446 deletion strains under stress induced by 8% ethanol was defective. We classified these deleted genes into known functional categories, and found that many were important for growth under ethanol stress including several categories that have not been characterized, such as peroxisome. We also performed genome-wide screening under osmotic stress and identified 329 osmotic-sensitive strains. We excluded these strains from the 446 ethanol-sensitive strains to extract the genes whose deletion caused sensitivity to ethanol-specific (359 genes), osmotic-specific (242 genes), and both stresses (87 genes). We also extracted the functional categories that are specifically important for growth under ethanol stress. The genes and functional categories identified in the analysis might provide clues to improving ethanol stress tolerance among yeast cells.
- Top of page
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Supporting Information
The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is used in the production of alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine, and its importance in the production of biofuels from biomass resources has recently increased. During bio-production processes, yeast cells are generally exposed to several types of environmental stresses that decrease their productivity, such as high ethanol concentrations, osmotic pressure, and oxidative stresses (Attfield, 1997; Gibson et al., 2007). Ethanol is a major stress factor that interferes with the growth and production of ethanol by yeast cells in the production process of alcoholic beverages and biofuels. Hence, the responses of yeast cells to ethanol have been investigated in detail in order to improve their tolerance to ethanol stress. For example, yeast cells respond to ethanol stress by altering the unsaturated fatty acid composition of the cellular membrane (You et al., 2003), accumulating trehalose (Lucero et al., 2000), selectively exporting mRNA from the nucleus (Takemura et al., 2004), and forming P-bodies (Izawa et al., 2007).
Studies of the genome-wide response to ethanol stress using microarrays and comprehensive expression data have resulted in the construction of some ethanol-tolerant yeast strains (Hirasawa et al., 2007). However, the construction of deletant or overexpression strains from those genes that are detected in transcriptional studies to alter their expression patterns in response to ethanol stress does not always lead to a change in the ethanol stress response. Thus, the effect of gene manipulation – such as deletion and overexpression – on the acquisition of ethanol tolerance in yeast cells remains obscure. Therefore, analysis of phenotypic changes such as sensitivity and tolerance to ethanol stress is important for improving the ethanol tolerance of yeast cells by genetic modifications.
Here, we report a high-resolution quantitative analysis of growth behavior under ethanol stress in a collection of yeast strains with a single gene deletion (Winzeler et al., 1999) to elucidate the functional categories of genes involved in survival under ethanol stress. This collection of strains is a powerful tool with which to determine the effects of gene deletion under specific conditions (Scherens & Goffeau, 2004). We cultured deletion strains individually with and without ethanol, and determined their growth curves to evaluate the effect of gene deletion. Other studies have screened genes that are important for growth under ethanol stress from collections of deletion strains (Kubota et al., 2004; Fujita et al., 2006; van Voorst et al., 2006); however, ethanol-sensitive strains were screened in these studies by colony formation on ethanol-supplemented agar, and their growth behavior was not quantified. In contrast, we quantified the specific growth rates of each deletion strain in a liquid medium with and without ethanol and statistically analyzed the effect of the gene deletion. In order to focus on genes that are involved in growth under stress, we excluded data for deletion strains with growth defects under nonstress conditions from further analysis. We also measured the growth of each strain under osmotic stress induced by adding NaCl to the medium. By comparing growth both under ethanol and under osmotic stresses, we identified which genes are generally important for the stress response and which are specifically important for either ethanol or osmotic stress. We screened novel genes and gene categories involved in growth under ethanol stress using high-throughput cultivation and statistical analysis.
Materials and methods
- Top of page
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Supporting Information
Medium and yeast strains
We evaluated the growth of single gene deletion strains derived from S. cerevisiae BY4742 (MATαhis3Δ1 leu2Δ0 lys2Δ0 ura3Δ0) or BY4739 (MATαleu2Δ0 lys2Δ0 ura3Δ0) purchased from Open Biosystems. All strains were cultured in YPD medium (1% Bacto yeast extract, 2% Bacto peptone, and 2% glucose).
We prepared culture stocks by culturing deletion strains on plates containing YPD agar (YPD medium containing 2% agar) containing 150 μg mL−1 of geneticin. Colonies generated from each strain were suspended in 15% glycerol in 96-well microtiter plates and stored at −80 °C. Some deletion strains that proliferated slowly on the YPD plates with geneticin were removed; 4729 single gene deletion strains were eventually analyzed in this study.
Cultivation system of deletion strains in a microtiter plate
We prepared precultures by shaking deletion strains at 1050 strokes min−1 on a microplate shaker, TITRAMAX1000 (Heidolph Instruments, Germany), in 100 μL of YPD medium in 96-well microtiter plates (Corning Inc.) for 24 h at 30 °C. Thereafter, 2 μL of preculture was inoculated in 100 μL of warm YPD medium, and cells were cultured at 30 °C without shaking. To investigate the growth behavior of deletion strains under stress, 25 μL of 40% (v/v) ethanol (final concentration, 8%) or 25 μL of 5 M NaCl (final concentration, 1 M NaCl) was added to the culture medium 4 h later, at the time corresponding to the mid-log phase. Sterilized water (25 μL) was added to the culture medium to provide the nonstress condition. Growth of the deletion strains was monitored at 0, 2, 4, 5.5, 7, and 9 h under the nonstress condition and at 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 h under the stress condition by measuring the OD600 nm of each well using the microplate reader 1420 ARVO (PerkinElmer Inc.). Before measuring the OD, the plates were agitated for 1 min at 1050 strokes min−1 on a shaker. We used the HIS3 deletion strain of BY4742 (BY4742Δhis3) as a standard because the HIS3 deletion did not alter the phenotype from the wild-type strain BY4742. The standard strain was cultured together with the deletion strains (4 wells per plate). The standard strain was located at identical positions in all plates. A 96-well microtiter plate comprises eight rows and 12 columns. The standard strain was located at (3, 4), (3, 9), (6, 4), and (6, 9), where the values in parentheses represent the position (row, column) in a 96-well plate. We did not use the outermost wells of the 96-well plate, which are the first and eighth rows and the first and 12th columns in order to avoid the effect of evaporation of the medium. All strains were separately cultured twice under nonstress and stress conditions.
Calculation of specific growth rate
Raw OD data obtained by the microplate reader were processed as follows: the OD of blank wells containing only medium was subtracted from the raw OD data. Then, to compensate for the nonlinearity of the OD value in case of high cell density, ODs of several samples were measured both by the microplate reader and by the spectrophotometer, UVmini-1240 (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan), at 660 nm. Subsequently, we introduced the following relationships for the compensation of raw OD data of the microplate reader. We used different relationships before and after changing the environment because the culture volume was changed by the addition of ethanol, NaCl, or water. For data before the addition of ethanol, NaCl, or water, we used:
while for data after the addition of ethanol, NaCl, or water, we used:
where OD is the value obtained using the microplate reader and OD′ is the calibrated OD. The specific growth rate under the nonstress condition was calculated by linear regression using the natural logarithm of calibrated OD values at 5.5, 7, and 9 h, and that under the stress conditions was calculated using the natural logarithm of calibrated OD values at 7, 9, and 11 h. The robustness of the calculation of the specific growth rate using only three time points was confirmed by a good correlation between the specific growth rates obtained by three time points (7, 9, and 11 h under 8% ethanol) and a greater number of time points (7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 h under 8% ethanol) (data not shown). This indicated that the calculation of the growth rate using three time points was sufficiently accurate; therefore, we used three time points for calculating the specific growth rate.
To compare the specific growth rates of deletion strains cultured in different microtiter plates, specific growth rates were normalized with those of the standard strain cultured in each plate using the formula
where μi,j,k is the specific growth rate of strain i in plate j under condition k, is the average of the specific growth rate of the standard strain from four wells in plate j under condition k, μstd,k is the median of all specific growth rates of the standard strain under condition k, and is the normalized specific growth rate. The normalized specific growth rates of all deletion strains under each condition are shown in Supporting Information, Table S1.
Functional analysis of gene products
Functions of gene products were classified using the Functional Catalogue (FunCat) described in the Munich Information Center for Protein Sequences (MIPS) database (http://mips.gsf.de/genre/proj/yeast/, Ruepp et al., 2004) and the Saccharomyces genome database (SGD, http://www.yeastgenome.org/). We applied a hypergeometric test to evaluate whether or not a functional category was overrepresented by genes deleted from strains exhibiting stress sensitivity by the following formula:
where N is the total number of genes, M is the number of genes related to a functional category from the total genes, n is the number of genes in the selected genes, and k is the number of genes related to a functional category from among the selected genes.
Ten thousand sets of randomized data were obtained by random sampling of the same number of the genes of ethanol-sensitive strains from the genes of all the deletion strains. Then the distributions of the proportion of each category in the randomized data sets were calculated and P-values of the observed data were computed by the two-sided hypothesis test with a normal distribution assumption.
Construction of single gene overexpression strains
For the construction of single gene overexpression strains LDB19, MEH1, PRO2, and YNL335W, the DNA fragment corresponding to each gene was amplified by a PCR from the BY4742Δhis3 genomic DNA using KOD plus DNA polymerase (Toyobo Co. Ltd, Japan) and the following sets of primers: 5′-TCACGGTACCATACGTTTTACCATG-3 and 5-AAATCTCGAGTAAATACCTTTAACG-3 for LDB19, 5-TAGTGGGTACCACGACAGATTTAAG-3 and 5-AGCTTCTAGACCAATGATGTTATAC-3 for MEH1, 5-GAGTAGGTACCAAAAGGAGCACAGG-3 and 5-ACGTCCTCTAGACATGGAACTTAGC-3 for PRO2, and 5-CTCCGGTACCAAAGAATCAATCATG-3 and 5-TGTTCATTCTAGACTCGCCTCATTG-3 for YNL335W (the underlined sequence represents the artificially introduced restriction enzyme sites for cloning into the expression vector). Each amplified PCR product was cloned into the appropriate restriction sites in the YIp-type vector pAURΔCENARS (Hirasawa et al., 2007). The sequence of each cloned gene was confirmed using the automated DNA sequencer ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) and the BigDye Terminator Cycle Sequencing Kit v.3.1 (Applied Biosystems). The plasmids carrying each gene were introduced into the BY4742Δhis3 by the lithium acetate method (Gietz & Woods, 2002). In the constructed strains, the cloned genes were constitutively expressed from the ADH1 promoter on pAURΔCENARS.
Results and discussion
- Top of page
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Supporting Information
Identification of strains sensitive or tolerant to ethanol stress
To analyze the effects of single gene deletion on growth under ethanol and osmotic stress, we obtained growth data for all available single gene deletion strains of S. cerevisiae under nonstress and stress conditions. Stress conditions were created by the addition of ethanol (final concentration, 8%) or NaCl (final concentration, 1 M) to culture broth at the mid-log phase. We calculated the specific growth rates of strains under all culture conditions. Figure 1 shows that the measurement reproducibility of the specific growth rates of deletion strains was high.
We simultaneously obtained 720 sets of information regarding the specific growth rates of the standard strain from the cultivation of all the deletion strains in 90 microtiter plates twice under each condition. In each plate, the standard strain was contained in four wells. Table 1 shows the average and SD of the specific growth rates of 720 growth data for the standard strain under each condition. The coefficient of variance of the growth rate of the standard strain under the nonstress condition was 1%, indicating that the specific growth rates of deletion strains could be evaluated in our culture system at a high resolution.
|Condition||Average specific growth rate (h–1)||SD (h–1)||Threshold for sensitive strains (h–1)*||Threshold for tolerant strains (h–1)*|
|Nonstress||0.452||4.4 × 10–3||0.437||0.466|
|8% Ethanol||0.178||5.6 × 10–3||0.160||0.196|
|1 M NaCl||0.203||7.6 × 10–3||0.178||0.229|
From all the deletion strains available in the library, in order to identify those deletion strains that were tolerant or sensitive to stress, we statistically compared the specific growth rates of the deletion and standard strains. Because the distribution of the growth rates of the standard strain described above was bell shaped (Fig. 2), we applied the empirical rule that 99.9% of the data lay within 3.3 SD of the mean. Thus, deletion strains with growth rates outside the range of 3.3 SD of the mean could be regarded as stress tolerant or sensitive, with significantly different growth rates from the standard strain (P<0.001) (Fig. 2). We defined stress-sensitive deletion strains as those whose growth rates in both independent cultures were lower than the threshold value. Although the average growth rate of two cultures is generally used for such analyses, we used a conservative definition because the average growth rate is often unreliable when the data include outliers. Table 1 shows the threshold values of specific growth rates used to identify sensitive and tolerant strains under each condition.
Table 2 shows the numbers of stress-sensitive and -tolerant deletion strains under each condition. Some strains identified as stress sensitive also exhibited a significantly lower growth rate under the nonstress condition than that of the standard strain, as also reported by Warringer et al. (2003).
|Nonstress||591 (0)||4095 (4095)||43 (43)|
|8% Ethanol||864 (446)||3862 (3690)||3 (2)|
|1 M NaCl||637 (329)||4080 (3799)||12 (10)|
Comparison of data with those from other studies
We compared our data with the findings of others who have similarly examined the effect of a single gene deletion on growth under ethanol stress (Kubota et al., 2004; Fujita et al., 2006; van Voorst et al., 2006). Table 3 shows that our data overlapped with c. 70% of that from the ethanol-sensitive strains identified by others. The ethanol-sensitive strains identified in these studies included those with defective growth under the nonstress condition identified in the present study, as represented in parentheses in Table 3. Because in the present study we quantified the growth of individual strains, we could exclude deletion strains with defective growth under the nonstress condition and thus define the effect of a single gene deletion on the growth under stress more precisely. Thus, we excluded data from such strains from the following analyses to specifically determine which genes are required for growth under ethanol stress (Table 2). In the study reported by Warringer et al. (2003), the authors calculated the phenotype index by dividing the growth rate under the stress condition by that under the nonstress condition in order to take into consideration the growth defects due to the deletion. However, in this method, when a deletion strain exhibits severe growth defects in both the nonstress and the stress conditions, the calculated phenotype index often becomes large enough to be classified as a stress-tolerant strain. To exclude such cases, we removed the strains exhibiting growth defects in the nonstress condition from the analysis and used the specific growth rate itself for analysis.
|No. of ethanol-sensitive strains||Kubota et al. (2004)||van Voorst et al. (2006)||Fujita et al. (2006)||Present study|
|Kubota et al. (2004)||256 (114)||21 (5)||61 (27)||183 (63)|
|van Voorst et al. (2006)||46 (20)||11 (5)||38 (14)|
|Fujita et al. (2006)||137 (56)||102 (33)|
|Present study||864 (446)|
Among the other three studies, only four deletion strains of GIM4, GIM5, SMI1, and VPS36 were commonly observed to be sensitive to ethanol; these strains were also identified to be ethanol sensitive in the present study. Such a low overlap of the ethanol-sensitive strains among these studies could be due to the difference in the medium (liquid or solid) and the ethanol concentrations used. The deletion strains of GIM4 and GIM5 encoding the subunits of the heterohexameric cochaperone prefolding complex also exhibited growth defects under the nonstress condition in the present study; therefore, we consider that these genes are required not only for ethanol tolerance but also for normal growth. VPS36 encodes one of the components of the Endosomal Sorting Complex Required for Transport (ESCRT)-II. Notably, all the deletion strains of the genes encoding the components of ESCRT complexes –MVB12, SRN2, STP22, and VPS28 for ESCRT-I; SNF8 and VPS25 for ESCRT-II; and DID4, SNF7, and VPS24 for ESCRT-III – also exhibited sensitivity to ethanol. The ESCRT complex is involved in the mechanism of protein sorting to multivesicular bodies (Bowers & Stevens, 2005); thus, protein sorting is an important process for growth under ethanol. Smi1p is responsible for coordinating cell cycle progression with cell wall integrity. The ethanol sensitivity of this gene deletion was consistent with a previous study that reported the importance of the regulator of the cell cycle progression under ethanol (Kubota et al., 2004).
Functional categorization of the genes whose deletions resulted in ethanol sensitivity
We classified the genes whose deletions specifically resulted in ethanol sensitivity into functional categories using MIPS (Ruepp et al., 2004). Table 4 lists the functional categories of over-represented genes deleted from strains that were sensitive to 8% ethanol (P<0.01). Functional categories containing a large number of genes related to growth under ethanol stress might have important cellular functions for ethanol stress sensitivity and tolerance.
|MIPS functional category number||MIPS functional category||P-value||No. of genes among selected genes (446)||No. of genes among all genes (4138)|
|01.01.09.06||Metabolism of tryptophan||1.01E−04||8||16|
|01.01.09.06.01||Biosynthesis of tryptophan||2.49E−04||5||7|
|01.05.04||Regulation of C-compound and carbohydrate utilization||2.99E−03||18||84|
|01.20.15.03||Biosynthesis of ubiquinone||4.58E−03||3||4|
|02.11||Electron transport and membrane-associated energy conservation||2.04E−03||11||39|
|14.04||Protein targeting, sorting, and translocation||8.66E−08||39||151|
|14.10||Assembly of protein complexes||2.07E−08||31||100|
|20.09.07||Vesicular transport (Golgi network, etc.)||3.82E−03||21||106|
|20.09.07.03||ER to Golgi transport||3.26E−03||9||30|
|30.01.05.05.01||Small GTPase-mediated signal transduction||2.55E−03||11||40|
|43.01.03.05||Budding, cell polarity, and filament formation||8.68E−03||33||202|
The deletion strains of the genes classified into the category ‘metabolism of tryptophan’–TRP1, TRP2, TRP3, TRP4, TRP5, ARO1, ARO2, and ARO7– were sensitive to 8% ethanol. We have previously described the ethanol sensitivity of TRP1-5 deletion strains and the ethanol tolerance of strains overexpressing TRP1-3 and TRP5 (Hirasawa et al., 2007). Here, we found that the strains with deleted ARO1, ARO2, and ARO7 genes were ethanol sensitive. Both ARO1 and ARO2 are required for the biosynthesis of chorismate, a precursor of aromatic amino acids, and the deletion of either of them causes tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine auxotrophy (Lucchini et al., 1978). Figure 3 summarizes the pathway of aromatic amino acid biosynthesis and the sensitivity of these deletion strains to stress. The ethanol sensitivity of the ARO1 and ARO2 deletion strains might be due to the absence of tryptophan biosynthesis. ARO7 encodes chorismate mutase, which converts chorismate to prephenate – a precursor of tyrosine and phenylalanine. The ARO7 mutant was a tyrosine and phenylalanine auxotroph (Ball et al., 1986), indicating that the simultaneous loss of tyrosine and phenylalanine biosynthesis is related to the ethanol sensitivity of the strain with ARO7 deletion.
We found that the deletion mutants of the genes overrepresented in the functional categories of ‘vesicular transport (Golgi network, etc.)’ and ‘vacuolar transport’ including VPS genes (VPS4, VPS24, VPS25, VPS28, VPS30, VPS35, VPS36, VPS38, VPS54, VPS68, and VPS74) were sensitive to 8% ethanol. The importance of this function with respect to ethanol stress has been described above, and this result was consistent with previous studies (Kubota et al., 2004; van Voorst et al., 2006).
Functional categories of ‘aerobic respiration’ and ‘mitochondrion’ showed a very low P-value. Genes contained in these categories were involved in mitochondrial functions such as ubiquinone (coenzyme Q) biosynthesis (COQ5, COQ9, and COQ10), cytochrome c oxidase (COX7, COX9, COX11, COX12, COX14, COX16, COX18, and COX23), and mitochondrial ribosomal protein (MRP1, MRP49, MRPL6, MRPL7, MRPL13, MRPL20, MRPL22, MRPL25, MRPL27, MRPL32, MRPL33, MRPL37, MRPL38, MRPL40, MRPL49, MRPS5, MRPS8, MRPS17, and MRPS28). Some relationships between mitochondrial function and ethanol tolerance were reported, for example, ethanol sensitivity of the respiratory-deficient strains (Aguilera & Benítez, 1985) and dependence on the mitochondrial genome (Jiménez & Benítez, 1988). Thus, the deletion of these genes caused respiratory deficiency and resulted in the ethanol sensitivity of these deletion strains.
Ethanol sensitivity of strains with a PEX gene deletion
We found that the genes in deletion strains exhibiting sensitivity to 8% ethanol were over-represented in the functional category ‘peroxisomal transport,’ in which strains with deletions of the PEX8, PEX14, PEX15, PEX17, PEX19, and PEX22 genes were scored as ethanol sensitive. Interestingly, the proteins encoded by these genes are involved in peroxisome transport or in the peroxisomal membrane-protein import machinery (Brown & Baker, 2003); further, deletion strains of the genes (PEX1, PEX4, PEX10, and PEX12) that are not included in the ‘peroxisomal transport’ category but whose products are involved in the peroxisome transport machinery were also sensitive to 8% ethanol. The gene names in each category are summarized in Table 5. In contrast, all deletion strains of the PEX genes whose products are involved in peroxisome targeting signaling (PTS2) and regulation of peroxisome size and numbers were not sensitive to 8% ethanol (Table 5).
|Peroxisome transport machinery||PEX1, PEX2, PEX4, PEX6*, PEX8, PEX10, PEX12, PEX13, PEX14, PEX15, PEX17, PEX22|
|Peroxisomal membrane protein import machinery||PEX3, PEX19|
|Peroxisome targeting signaling (PTS2) receptor||PEX7, PEX18, PEX21|
|Regulation of peroxisome size and numbers||PEX11, PEX25, PEX27, PEX28, PEX29, PEX30, PEX31, PEX32*|
|β-Oxidation of fatty acids||CAT2, CTA1, DCI1, ECI1, FOX2, IDP3, MDH3, POT1, POX1, PXA1, PXA2, SPS19|
|Lysine biosynthesis||LYS1, LYS2, LYS4, LYS5, LYS9, LYS12, LYS14|
According to the SGD and previous studies (Erdmann et al., 1989; Brocard et al., 1997; Huhse et al., 1998; Koller et al., 1999; Hettema et al., 2000; Rehling et al., 2000; Albertini et al., 2001; Birschmann et al., 2005), the categorized phenotype of all ethanol-sensitive strains with PEX gene deletions is a ‘lack of morphologically recognizable peroxisomes.’ Thus, the disappearance of peroxisomes themselves might cause the ethanol sensitivity of these strains. Furthermore, our results showed that all the strains with deletions of genes encoding peroxisomal matrix enzymes, including those for lysine biosynthesis and the β-oxidation of fatty acids (Breitling et al., 2002), were not sensitive to 8% ethanol (Table 5). The finding that the growth properties of the deletion strains of the enzymes that are functionally associated with peroxisomes and those of PEX deletion strains did not correspond also supports the notion that the absence of peroxisomes results in ethanol sensitivity. This suggested that peroxisomes serve an unknown function(s) associated with growth under ethanol stress.
Deletion strains severely sensitive to ethanol
Deletion strains of LDB19, MEH1, PRO2, and YNL335W exhibited the severest sensitivity to 8% ethanol as shown in Fig. 4. The LDB19 deletion strain exhibited a shortened telomere length and reduced affinity for the alcian blue dye (Askree et al., 2004; Corbacho et al., 2005). However, the relationship between these functions and ethanol stress is not clear. With respect to MEH1, it was reported that the deletion of this gene results in a defect in vacuolar acidification (Gao et al., 2005). It is known that ethanol stress induces intracellular acidification (Rosa & Sá-Correia, 1996) and that the transportation of intracellular H+ to the vacuole by H+ V-ATPase is important for recovery from intracellular acidification (Fujita et al., 2006). Thus, the ethanol sensitivity of the MEH1 deletion strain might be due to a defect in the H+ transportation to the vacuole. PRO2 is involved in proline biosynthesis. It has been reported that strains accumulating proline exhibited ethanol tolerance (Takagi et al., 2005). In our data, the deletion strain of PRO1, which encodes for another component of proline biosynthesis, was also ethanol sensitive. These results suggest that proline is important for ethanol tolerance and that the ethanol sensitivity of the PRO2 deletion strain might be associated with the deficiency in proline biosynthesis. YNL335W encodes only a hypothetical protein; however, our results suggested a function for the product of this gene and its relationship with ethanol tolerance. To further investigate the importance of these genes with respect to ethanol stress tolerance, we constructed the overexpression stains in which each of these genes was constitutively expressed. In this construction, the standard strain BY4742Δhis3 was used as the host strain for overexpression. However, the growth rates of these overexpression strains in the ethanol stress condition were identical to those of the standard strain. The results indicated that although these genes are important for growth under the ethanol stress condition, the amount of their products is not important for improving ethanol stress tolerance.
Relationship between gene expression and genes of ethanol-sensitive deletion strains
Previously, we have performed genome-wide expression analysis under ethanol stress in yeast (Hirasawa et al., 2007). Here, to investigate the relationship between the change in the expression levels before and after addition of the stress and the effect of gene deletion on the ethanol stress response, we analyzed how the genes screened from the phenotypic data of the deletion strains change their expression levels after the addition of the stress using the data obtained from the genome-wide expression analysis. As shown in Fig. 5, among the genes whose deletion strains showed ethanol sensitivity, the proportion of genes that were upregulated (ratio >2) after the addition of ethanol was significantly low (P<0.05, randomization test) in comparison with all the genes examined (4729 in total). Also, the proportion of genes that did not change their expression levels was significantly high (P<0.01, randomization test). In the up-regulated genes whose deletion strains showed ethanol sensitivity, genes for heat shock protein (HSP26) and trehalose synthesis (TPS1) were included. Genes involved in ergosterol biosynthesis (ERG2, ERG3, ERG5, and ERG6) were included in the downregulated genes. The genes whose expression was not altered included those related to peroxisomal and mitochondrial functions whereas these same genes were identified as required for growth in the presence of ethanol in our screening. Genes that are upregulated under stress conditions are often selected as a target gene for manipulation (i.e. deletion or overexpression) to construct ethanol-tolerant strains. However, our result suggested that the genes whose expression levels were not altered under the ethanol-stressed condition contained a higher proportion of genes important for growth under the ethanol-stressed condition than that of the upregulated genes.
Comparison of strains sensitive to ethanol and osmotic stress
We identified the genes that are important for growth under ethanol stress. We then investigated whether these genes are generally important for the stress response by analyzing the growth behavior of deletion strains under osmotic stress, which is usually encountered during bioproduction processes. We aimed to determine which of the genes were specifically important for growth under ethanol stress by subtracting those strains that were sensitive to osmotic stress induced by 1 M NaCl. The relationship between the specific growth rates observed with 8% ethanol and 1 M NaCl is shown in Fig. 6, and the numbers of deletion strains exhibiting sensitivity and tolerance to 8% ethanol and/or 1 M NaCl are described in Table 6. Figure 6 shows that the growth of almost all strains that were cross-sensitive to ethanol and osmotic stress was also defective under the nonstress condition. We excluded the strains showing defective growth under the nonstress condition and found that the stress-sensitive strains were roughly classifiable into groups that were specifically sensitive to either ethanol or osmotic stress. Notably, fewer deletion strains were sensitive to both 8% ethanol and 1 M NaCl (87 strains) than to either 8% ethanol or 1 M NaCl (359 and 242 strains, respectively). These findings indicate that the mechanisms of the response to ethanol and osmotic stress are considerably different.
|1 M NaCl|
After subtracting deletion strains sensitive to osmotic stress from those that were ethanol sensitive, we examined the functional categories to which the resulting group belonged. Table 7 shows that the categories screened were similar to those before subtracting the strains that were sensitive to osmotic stress, except for categories such as ‘regulation of C-compound and carbohydrate utilization’ and ‘small GTPase-mediated signal transduction.’ Here, the functional categories of ‘peptide binding,’‘temperature perception and response,’ and ‘peroxisome’ were identified to be specifically important for growth under ethanol stress. Identification of the ‘temperature perception and response’ was consistent with the report by Piper (1995). Notably, the appearance of the functional category ‘peroxisome’ and persistence of all deletion strains of the genes classified into the ‘peroxisomal transport’ category indicated that peroxisomes are specifically related to growth under ethanol stress.
|MIPS functional category number||MIPS functional category||P-value||No. of genes among selected genes (359)||No. of genes among all genes (4138)|
|01.01.09.06.01||Biosynthesis of tryptophan||1.58E−03||4||7|
|01.20.15.03||Biosynthesis of ubiquinone||2.42E−03||3||4|
|02.11||Electron transport and membrane-associated energy conservation||3.25E−04||11||39|
|14.04||Protein targeting, sorting, and translocation||9.67E−06||30||151|
|14.10||Assembly of protein complexes||2.18E−09||29||100|
|20.09.07.03||ER to Golgi transport||6.94E−04||9||30|
|34.11.09||Temperature perception and response||6.91E−03||5||15|
The over-represented genes for deletion strains that were sensitive to both 8% ethanol and 1 M NaCl were found in the functional categories ‘metabolism of phenylalanine,’‘metabolism of tyrosine,’‘metabolism of tryptophan,’‘isoprenoid biosynthesis,’ and ‘budding, cell polarity, and filament formation’ (Table 8). The ‘metabolism of phenylalanine,’‘metabolism of tyrosine,’ and ‘metabolism of tryptophan’ categories include ARO1, ARO2, and ARO7, whose products are involved in the biosynthesis of the precursors of aromatic amino acids. However, unlike ethanol stress, TRP2-5 deletion strains were not sensitive to osmotic stress (Fig. 3). This finding was consistent with those of González et al. (2007). Thus, the osmotic sensitivity of the ARO1 and ARO2 deletion strains was not due to the absence of tryptophan biosynthesis. The Aro7 protein is involved in tyrosine and phenylalanine biosynthesis; thus, the simultaneous loss of tyrosine and phenylalanine biosynthesis might be associated with the osmotic sensitivity of the ARO1, ARO2, and ARO7 deletion strains. The products of the genes including ERG2, ERG3, and ERG6 categorized into the ‘isoprenoid biosynthesis’ category are involved in ergosterol biosynthesis; further, strains with a deletion of these genes were sensitive to 8% ethanol and 1 M NaCl. Ergosterol is one of the major components of the cellular membrane and is associated with plasma membrane fluidity. This result indicated that ergosterol is important for stress tolerance, which supports previous findings such as a higher ergosterol content in strains that are tolerant to ethanol stress (del Castillo Agudo, 1992) and that the ERG3 and ERG6 deletion strains adapt over time to osmotic stress (Warringer et al., 2003; Fernandez-Ricaud et al., 2005).
|MIPS functional category number||MIPS functional category||P-value||No. of genes in selected genes (87)||No. of genes in all genes (4138)|
|01.01.09.04||Metabolism of phenylalanine||1.72E−03||3||12|
|01.01.09.05||Metabolism of tyrosine||1.31E−03||3||11|
|01.01.09.06||Metabolism of tryptophan||2.74E−04||4||16|
|10.03.01.01.09||G2/M transition of mitotic cell cycle||7.90E−03||3||20|
|14.04||Protein targeting, sorting, and translocation||4.07E−03||9||151|
|20.09.07.05||Intra Golgi transport||4.93E−03||3||17|
|32.01.03||Osmotic and salt stress response||9.36E−03||4||40|
|43.01.03.05||Budding, cell polarity, and filament formation||9.20E−04||12||202|
|43.01.03.09||Development of asco-, basidio-, or zygospore||8.66E−03||7||112|
We also found that the functional categories in which osmotic stress-specific sensitive genes were over-represented comprised ‘phosphate utilization,’‘G1/S transition of mitotic cell cycle,’ and ‘stress response’ (Table 9). Under osmotic stress, the HOG1 gene product controls cell cycle progression and is involved in cell cycle arrest at the G1 and G2 phases (Bellíet al., 2001; Escotéet al., 2004; Clotet et al., 2006). We found that deletion strains of the genes classified into the ‘G2/M transition of mitotic cell cycle’ category were sensitive to both ethanol and osmotic stress, whereas deletion strains of the genes classified into ‘G1/S transition of mitotic cell cycle’ were specifically sensitive to osmotic stress, suggesting the importance of cell cycle regulation for growth under osmotic stress.
|MIPS functional category number||MIPS functional category||P-value||No. of genes in selected genes (242)||No. of genes in all genes (4138)|
|01.01.06.04.01||Biosynthesis of threonine||9.83E−03||2||3|
|10.03.01.01.03||G1/S transition of mitotic cell cycle||4.15E−04||7||25|
|10.03.04.01||Centromere/kinetochore complex maturation||9.83E−03||2||3|
|32.01.01||Oxydative stress response||5.98E−03||8||48|
Of the genes classified into the ‘phosphate utilization’ category, those important for the response to osmotic stress – such as STE20, SSK2, PBS2, and HOG1, which are related to the signal transduction pathway for osmotic stress response [the high-osmolarity glycerol (HOG) pathway; Hohmann, 2002] – were included. The growth of all of these mutants was severely defective under osmotic stress.
Deletion strains specifically tolerant to ethanol or osmotic stress
With respect to the stress-tolerant strains, two deletion strains of CYB5 and YOR139C were specifically ethanol-tolerant, and 10 deletion stains of ALD6, HOC1, PRO1, SCP160, SKY1, TIP41, UBP6, YKL161C, YNR004W, and YNR036C were specifically NaCl-tolerant (Table 10). No deletion strains exhibited a resistance to both ethanol and NaCl.
|CYB5||Cytochrome b5, involved in the sterol and lipid biosynthesis pathways|
|YOR139C||Dubious open reading frame; partially overlaps SFL1|
|ALD6||Cytosolic aldehyde dehydrogenase|
|HOC1||Alpha-1,6-mannosyltransferase involved in cell wall mannan biosynthesis|
|PRO1||γ-Glutamyl kinase that catalyzes the first step in proline biosynthesis|
|SCP160||Essential RNA-binding G protein effector of mating response pathway|
|SKY1||SR protein kinase involved in mRNA metabolism and cation homeostasis|
|TIP41||Negatively regulates the TOR signaling pathway|
|YKL161C||Protein kinase implicated in the Slt2p mitogen-activated (MAP) kinase signaling pathway|
|YNR004W||Putative protein of unknown function|
Among the two genes whose deletions specifically showed ethanol tolerance, YOR139C is a dubious ORF that is located at the complementary strand of SFL1, which is involved in the repression of flocculation-related genes (Robertson & Fink, 1998). CYB5 is involved in sterol and lipid biosynthesis (Lamb et al., 1999); these processes are known to be important for ethanol tolerance (del Castillo Agudo, 1992; You et al., 2003). A more detailed analysis of these genes will provide useful information for understanding the mechanisms of ethanol tolerance.
In the 10 genes whose deletions exhibited osmotic tolerance, the ALD6 and SKY1 deletion strains are known as osmotic-tolerant strains (Forment et al., 2002; Fernandez-Ricaud et al., 2005), suggesting that this list was thought to contain valuable information for osmotic tolerance. PRO1 is involved in proline biosynthesis and its deletion causes proline auxotrophy. The PRO1 deletion strain was reported to be tolerant to NaCl and FK506 (Butcher & Schreiber, 2004). The osmotic tolerance of the proline overproduction strain (Sekine et al., 2007) and the osmotic sensitivity of the PRO2 deletion strain in the present study, which was also required for proline biosynthesis, suggested the importance of proline in the osmotic stress response. The relationship of seven other genes with osmotic tolerance was not identified and further analyses would be required to elucidate the same. Interestingly, six of the 10 osmotolerant strains, i.e. the ALD6, HOC1, PRO1, SCP160, SKY1, and YNR004W deletion strains, exhibited sensitivity to ethanol; however, we could not find any common biological features among these genes. This difference and the absence of overlapping in the tolerant strains between ethanol and osmotic stress suggested different response mechanisms to these stresses in yeast.
Here, we developed a high-resolution culture system and quantified the growth of individual strains with a single gene deletion under nonstress, 8% ethanol, and 1 M NaCl stress conditions. This collection of strains allows the analysis of phenotypic changes caused by a single gene deletion under specific conditions. Quantitative data revealed that genes in the functional categories of ‘peroxisome’ were required for growth under ethanol stress, which was not known previously. The identification of these functional categories in strains cultured on agar plates and measurements of colony sizes produced by deletion strains are difficult because the differences in growth rates between standard and ethanol-sensitive strains are small. However, with our method, we obtained precise growth data under osmotic stress, and screened strains that were specifically sensitive to ethanol stress. Quantitative analysis of the growth of deletion strains will help to generate ethanol-tolerant yeast strains for the bioproduction of useful chemical compounds such as bioethanol. In addition, we identified some deletion strains that tolerated two stress conditions. Further analysis of these strains should reveal the mechanisms of ethanol tolerance.
- Top of page
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Supporting Information
This work was supported by Grant-in-Aids for Young Scientists (B) to C.F. (20700270) and T.H. (19780061), respectively, from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan and a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Fellows from JSPS. This work was also supported in part by a grant from the Global COE (Centers of Excellence) Program and a grant of special coordination funds for the promotion of science and technology, Yuragi Project, in Osaka University from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
- Top of page
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Supporting Information
- 1985) Role of mitochondria in ethanol tolerance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Arch Microbiol 142: 389–392. & (
- 2001) Pex12p of Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a component of a multi-protein complex essential for peroxisomal matrix protein import. Eur J Cell Biol 80: 257–270. , , & (
- 2004) A genome-wide screen for Saccharomyces cerevisiae deletion mutants that affect telomere length. P Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 8658–8663. , , , , , , , & (
- 1997) Stress tolerance: the key to effective strains of industrial baker's yeast. Nat Biotechnol 15: 1351–1357. (
- 1986) Molecular cloning and characterization of ARO7-OSM2, a single yeast gene necessary for chorismate mutase activity and growth in hypertonic medium. Mol Gen Genet 205: 326–330. , , , & (
- 2001) Osmotic stress causes a G1 cell cycle delay and downregulation of Cln3/Cdc28 activity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Microbiol 39: 1022–1035. , , & (
- 2005) Structural and functional analysis of the interaction of the AAA-peroxins Pex1p and Pex6p. FEBS J 272: 47–58. , , & (
- 2005) Protein transport from the late Golgi to the vacuole in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochim Biophys Acta 1744: 438–454. & (
- 2002) Loss of compartmentalization causes misregulation of lysine biosynthesis in peroxisome-deficient yeast cells. Eukaryot Cell 1: 978–986. , , & (
- 1997) Pex14p is a member of the protein linkage map of Pex5p. EMBO J 16: 5491–5500. , , & (
- 2003) Peroxisome biogenesis and the role of protein import. J Cell Mol Med 7: 388–400. & (
- 2004) Identification of Ald6p as the target of a class of small-molecule suppressors of FK506 and their use in network dissection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 7868–7873. & (
- 2006) Phosphorylation of Hsl1 by Hog1 leads to a G2 arrest essential for cell survival at high osmolarity. EMBO J 25: 2338–2346. , , , , , , & (
- 2005) A genome-wide screen for Saccharomyces cerevisiae nonessential genes involved in mannosyl phosphate transfer to mannoprotein-linked oligosaccharides. Fungal Genet Biol 42: 773–790. , & (
- 1992) Lipid content of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with different degrees of ethanol tolerance. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 37: 647–651. (
- 1989) Isolation of peroxisome-deficient mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. P Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 5419–5423. , , & (
- 2004) Hog1 mediates cell-cycle arrest in G1 phase by the dual targeting of Sic1. Nat Cell Biol 6: 997–1002. , , & (
- 2005) PROPHECY – a database for high-resolution phenomics. Nucleic Acids Res 33: D369–D373. , , , , , & (
- 2002) The yeast SR protein kinase Sky1p modulates salt tolerance, membrane potential and the Trk1,2 potassium transporter. Biochim Biophys Acta 1565: 36–40. , , & (
- 2006) The genome-wide screening of yeast deletion mutants to identify the genes required for tolerance to ethanol and other alcohols. FEMS Yeast Res 6: 744–750. , , & (
- 2005) ERS1 encodes a functional homologue of the human lysosomal cystine transporter. FEBS J 272: 2497–2511. , , & (
- 2007) Yeast responses to stresses associated with industrial brewery handling. FEMS Microbiol Rev 31: 535–569. , , , & (
- 2002) Transformation of yeast by lithium acetate/single-stranded carrier DNA/polyethylene glycol method. Methods Enzymol 350: 87–96. & (
- 2007) Use of the TRP1 auxotrophic marker for gene disruption and phenotypic analysis in yeast: a note of warning. FEMS Yeast Res 8: 2–5. , , & (
- 2000) Saccharomyces cerevisiae pex3p and pex19p are required for proper localization and stability of peroxisomal membrane proteins. EMBO J 19: 223–233. , , , & (
- 2007) Identification of target genes conferring ethanol stress tolerance to Saccharomyces cerevisiae based on DNA microarray data analysis. J Biotechnol 131: 34–44. , , , , , , & (
- 2002) Osmotic stress signaling and osmoadaptation in yeasts. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 66: 300–372. (
- 1998) Pex17p of Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a novel peroxin and component of the peroxisomal protein translocation machinery. J Cell Biol 140: 49–60. , , , , & (
- 2007) Formation of cytoplasmic P-bodies in sake yeast during Japanese sake brewing and wine making. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 71: 2800–2807. , , , & (
- 1988) Yeast cell viability under conditions of high temperature and ethanol concentrations depends on the mitochondrial genome. Curr Genet 13: 461–469. & (
- 1999) Pex22p of Pichia pastoris, essential for peroxisomal matrix protein import, anchors the ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, Pex4p, on the peroxisomal membrane. J Cell Biol 146: 99–112. , , , , , & (
- 2004) Effect of ethanol on cell growth of budding yeast: genes that are important for cell growth in the presence of ethanol. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 68: 968–972. , , , , , , , , & (
- 1999) Biodiversity of the P450 catalytic cycle: yeast cytochrome b5/NADH cytochrome b5 reductase complex efficiently drives the entire sterol 14-demethylation (CYP51) reaction. FEBS Lett 462: 283–288. , , , & (
- 1978) Effect of mutation in the aromatic amino acid pathway on sporulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 136: 55–62. , , , & (
- 2000) Internal trehalose protects endocytosis from inhibition by ethanol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 66: 4456–4461. , , & (
- 1995) The heat shock and ethanol stress responses of yeast exhibit extensive similarity and functional overlap. FEMS Microbiol Lett 134: 121–127. (
- 2000) Pex8p, an intraperoxisomal peroxin of Saccharomyces cerevisiae required for protein transport into peroxisomes binds the PTS1 receptor pex5p. J Biol Chem 275: 3593–3602. , , , , , , , & (
- 1998) The three yeast A kinases have specific signaling functions in pseudohyphal growth. P Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 13783–13787. & (
- 1996) Intracellular acidification does not account for inhibition of Saccharomyces cerevisiae growth in the presence of ethanol. FEMS Microbiol Lett 135: 271–274. & (
- 2004) The FunCat, a functional annotation scheme for systematic classification of proteins from whole genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 32: 5539–5545. , , et al. (
- 2004) The uses of genome-wide yeast mutant collections. Genome Biol 5: 229. & (
- 2007) Desensitization of feedback inhibition of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae gamma-glutamyl kinase enhances proline accumulation and freezing tolerance. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 4011–4019. , , & (
- 2005) Effect of l-proline on sake brewing and ethanol stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 8656–8662. , , & (
- 2004) Stress response in yeast mRNA export factor: reversible changes in Rat8p localization are caused by ethanol stress but not heat shock. J Cell Sci 117: 4189–4197. , & (
- 2006) Genome-wide identification of genes required for growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae under ethanol stress. Yeast 23: 351–359. , , , & (
- 2003) High-resolution yeast phenomics resolves different physiological features in the saline response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 15724–15729. , , , & (
- 1999) Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 285: 901–906. , , et al. (
- 2003) Ethanol tolerance in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is dependent on cellular oleic acid content. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 1499–1503. , & (
- Top of page
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Supporting Information
Table S1. Specific growth rates of single gene deletion strains. Specific growth rates of all deletion strains at first and second culture under non-stress, 5% ethanol, 8% ethanol and 1M NaCl were listed. In the columns of growth behavior, 0, 1 and 2 represent sensitive, no-change and tolerance respectively for each deletion strain.
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
|FYR_456_sm_tableS1.xls||1367K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.