Optimization of glutathione production in batch and fed-batch cultures by the wild-type and recombinant strains of the methylotrophic yeast Hansenula polymorpha DL-1

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tripeptide glutathione (gamma-glutamyl-L-cysteinyl-glycine) is the most abundant non-protein thiol that protects cells from metabolic and oxidative stresses and is widely used as medicine, food additives and in cosmetic industry. The methylotrophic yeast <it>Hansenula polymorpha </it>is regarded as a rich source of glutathione due to the role of this thiol in detoxifications of key intermediates of methanol metabolism. Cellular and extracellular glutathione production of <it>H. polymorpha </it>DL-1 in the wild type and recombinant strains which overexpress genes of glutathione biosynthesis (<it>GSH2</it>) and its precursor cysteine (<it>MET4</it>) was studied.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Glutathione producing capacity of <it>H. polymorpha </it>DL-1 depending on parameters of cultivation (dissolved oxygen tension, pH, stirrer speed), carbon substrate (glucose, methanol) and type of overexpressed genes of glutathione and its precursor biosynthesis during batch and fed-batch fermentations were studied. Under optimized conditions of glucose fed-batch cultivation, the glutathione productivity of the engineered strains was increased from ~900 up to ~ 2300 mg of Total Intracellular Glutathione (TIG) or GSH+GSSG_in, per liter of culture medium. Meantime, methanol fed-batch cultivation of one of the recombinant strains allowed achieving the extracellular glutathione productivity up to 250 mg of Total Extracellular Glutathione (TEG) or GSH+GSSG_ex, per liter of the culture medium.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p><it>H. polymorpha </it>is an competitive glutathione producer as compared to other known yeast and bacteria strains (<it>Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida utilis, Escherichia coli, Lactococcus lactis </it>etc.) with good perspectives for further improvement especially for production of extracellular form of glutathione.</p

The light-oxygen effect in biological cells enhanced by highly localized surface plasmon-polaritons

Here at the first time we suggested that the surface plasmon-polariton phenomenon which it is well described in metallic nanostructures could also be used for explanation of the unexpectedly strong oxidative effects of the low-intensity laser irradiation in living matters (cells, tissues, organism). We demonstrated that the narrow-band laser emitting at 1265 nm could generate significant amount of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) in both HCT116 and CHO-K1 cell cultures. Such cellular ROS effects could be explained through the generation of highly localized plasmon-polaritons on the surface of mitochondrial crista. Our experimental conditions, the low-intensity irradiation, the narrow spectrum band (<4 nm) of the laser and comparably small size bio-structures (~10 μm) were shown to be sufficient for the plasmon-polariton generation and strong laser field confinement enabling the oxidative stress observed

Alcoholic fermentation by wild-type Hansenula polymorpha and Saccharomyces cerevisiae versus recombinant strains with an elevated level of intracellular glutathione.

The ability of baker's yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and of the thermotolerant methylotrophic yeast Hansenula polymorpha to produce ethanol during alcoholic fermentation of glucose was compared between wild-type strains and recombinant strains possessing an elevated level of intracellular glutathione (GSH) due to overexpression of the first gene of GSH biosynthesis, gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase, or of the central regulatory gene of sulfur metabolism, MET4. The analyzed strains of H. polymorpha with an elevated pool of intracellular GSH were found to accumulate almost twice as much ethanol as the wild-type strain during glucose fermentation, in contrast to GSH1-overexpressing S. cerevisiae strains, which also possessed an elevated pool of GSH. The ethanol tolerance of the GSH-overproducing strains was also determined. For this, the wild-type strain and transformants with an elevated GSH pool were compared for their viability upon exposure to exogenous ethanol. Unexpectedly, both S. cerevisiae and H. polymorpha transformants with a high GSH pool proved more sensitive to exogenous ethanol than the corresponding wild-type strains.JOURNAL ARTICLESCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field