Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 27;15(7):e0236294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236294

Metabolic engineering considerations for the heterologous expression of xylose-catabolic pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Deokyeol Jeong 1,#, Eun Joong Oh 2,#, Ja Kyong Ko 3, Ju-Ock Nam 1, Hee-Soo Park 1, Yong-Su Jin 4,5, Eun Jung Lee 6,*, Soo Rin Kim 1,*
Editor: Enrico Baruffini7
PMCID: PMC7384654  PMID: 32716960

Abstract

Xylose, the second most abundant sugar in lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates, can be fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae expressing one of two heterologous xylose pathways: a xylose oxidoreductase pathway and a xylose isomerase pathway. Depending on the type of the pathway, its optimization strategies and the fermentation efficiencies vary significantly. In the present study, we constructed two isogenic strains expressing either the oxidoreductase pathway (XYL123) or the isomerase pathway (XI-XYL3), and delved into simple and reproducible ways to improve the resulting strains. First, the strains were subjected to the deletion of PHO13, overexpression of TAL1, and adaptive evolution, but those individual approaches were only effective in the XYL123 strain but not in the XI-XYL3 strain. Among other optimization strategies of the XI-XYL3 strain, we found that increasing the copy number of the xylose isomerase gene (xylA) is the most promising but yet preliminary strategy for the improvement. These results suggest that the oxidoreductase pathway might provide a simpler metabolic engineering strategy than the isomerase pathway for the development of efficient xylose-fermenting strains under the conditions tested in the present study.

Introduction

Global climate change has accelerated efforts to find eco-friendly alternatives for fossil fuels. One idea is to use wood wastes and agricultural residues called lignocellulosic biomass, which does not interfere with food or the environment [1]. Lignocellulosic biomass, mainly composed of cellulose and hemicellulose, is hydrolyzed into glucose, xylose, and other simple and minor sugars, which can be transformed into biofuels and chemicals by microbial fermentation [2].

The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is an industrial microorganism with superior sugar fermentation capabilities and stress tolerance. However, this yeast cannot metabolize xylose, requiring the introduction of a heterologous xylose pathway [3,4] as summarized in Fig 1A. The first step is to introduce either the NAD(P)H-specific xylose reductase/NAD+-specific xylitol dehydrogenase (oxidoreductase, XR/XDH) pathway derived from Pichia stipitis or the xylose isomerase (XI) pathway derived from various anaerobic microorganisms, both of which convert xylose to xylulose. Next, xylulose is converted into xylulose-5-phosphate by xylulokinase either by endogenous but overexpressed S. cerevisiae XKS1 or P. stipitis XYL3. Finally, xylulose-5-phosphate is metabolized into ethanol through the native pentose phosphate (PP) pathway connected to glycolysis in S. cerevisiae. In engineered strains of S. cerevisiae expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway, the rate of xylose consumption and ethanol productivity are relatively high, but xylitol, glycerol, and acetate are accumulated as byproducts [3,5]. This byproduct accumulation is mainly due to an unbalanced cofactor preference of the xylose oxidoreductase pathway, leading to a shortage of NAD+ [3]. On the other hand, the xylose isomerase pathway is cofactor-independent, the expression of which in S. cerevisiae can lead to a high ethanol yield with minimal byproduct accumulation even under anaerobic conditions [6]. However, slow growth and xylose consumption were commonly observed in the engineered S. cerevisiae strains expressing the xylose isomerase pathway compared to those expressing xylose oxidoreductase pathway [5,7,8].

Fig 1. Construction of isogenic S. cerevisiae strains expressing a different type of xylose pathways.

Fig 1

(A) Two different xylose pathways. (B) Strain construction using a precise Cas9-based genome integration strategy.

Adaptive evolution have been the most commonly used and the most effective approach to improve both the strains expressing the oxidoreductase pathway [3,9,10] and the strains expressing the isomerase pathway [1113]. Some of the evolved strains were subjected to genome sequencing to identify genetic changes responsible for the improved phenotypes. In prior studies, the loss of function mutation of the PHO13 gene encoding phosphatase with a broad substrate spectrum was identified as a key mutation of an evolved strain expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway [3,14,15]. Deletion of the PHO13 gene (pho13Δ) now provides simple, effective, and transferrable to different strain backgrounds expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway [3,1416]. Moreover, it was further confirmed that pho13Δ leads to transcriptional and metabolic shifts toward efficient xylose fermentation [17,18]. However, it has not been clearly understood how strains expressing the isomerase pathway can be simply improved, although there have been several attempts of genome sequencing of the evolved strains expressing the isomerase pathway [1924].

In this study, we constructed two isogenic strains expressing either the xylose oxidoreductase pathway or the xylose isomerase pathway through a precise Cas9-based genome integration strategy [25,26]. Deletion of the PHO13 gene, adaptive evolution, the upregulation of the PP pathway, and some other strategies were performed to identify the most critical and simple factor to improve the strain expressing the xylose isomerase pathway.

Materials and methods

Culture conditions

The S. cerevisiae strains were routinely grown on yeast extract-peptone (YP) medium (10 g/L yeast extract, 20 g/L peptone) containing 20 g/L of glucose (YPD) at 30°C for fermentation experiments. The medium used for yeast transformation was YPD agar plate supplemented with antibiotics (100 μg/mL nourseothricin sulfate, 300 μg/mL hygromycin B, 300 μg/mL G418 sulfate). Escherichia coli TOP10 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) was used to amplify plasmid DNA. E. coli was cultured in Luria-Bertani (LB) medium (5 g/L yeast extract, 10 g/L tryptone, 10 g/L NaCl) at 37°C and, if necessary, 100 μg/mL ampicillin (LBA) or 50 μg/mL kanamycin (LBK) was added.

Plasmid construction and strain engineering

The strains and plasmids used in this study are summarized in Table 1 and S1 Table, respectively. The detailed materials and methods for plasmid and strain construction are available in the online supplementary information (S1 Text).

Table 1. Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains used in this study.

Strains Description/relevant genotype Reference
D452-2 Matα leu2 his3 ura3 [27]
XYL12 D452-2 ald6::TDH3P-XYL1-TDH3T-PGK1P-XYL21)-PGK1T This study
XYL123 XYL12 int#1::TEF1P-XYL3-TEF1T; DY01 [25]
XYL123 pho13Δ XYL12 pho13::TEF1P-XYL3-TEF1T; DY02 [25]
XYL123e XYL123 evolved in 40 g/L xylose This study
XI D452-2 ald6::TDH3P-xylA-TDH3T This study
XI-XYL3 XI int#1::TEF1P-XYL3-TEF1T This study
XI-XYL3 pho13Δ XI pho13::TEF1P-XYL3-TEF1T This study
XI-XYL3 TAL1 XI-XYL3 with insertion of a TEF2 promoter in front of TAL1 gene This study
XI-XYL3e XI-XYL3 evolved in 100 g/L xylose This study
XI-XYL3 pho13Δe XI-XYL3 pho13Δ evolved in 100 g/L xylose This study
XI-XYL3 gre3Δ XI-XYL3 gre3::KanMX This study
XI-XYL3 sor1Δ XI-XYL3 with SOR1 deletion This study
(XI)2-XYL3 XI-XYL3 int#6::TDH3P-xylA-TDH3T This study
XI-(XYL3)2 XI-XYL3 int#9::TEF1P-XYL3-TEF1T This study
(XI)2-XYL3 pho13Δ XI-XYL3 int#6::TDH3P-xylA-TDH3T This study
δ(XI)-XYL3 XI-XYL3 leu2::LEU2 pYS-δXI This study
δ(XI)-XYL3 pho13Δ XI-XYL3 leu2::LEU2 pYS-δXI with PHO13 deletion This study

XYL1, XYL2, and XYL3 originated from Pichia stipitis; xylA originated from Orpinomyces sp.

Flask fermentation experiments

After pre-cultivation in YP medium with 20 g/L of glucose for 24 hours at 250 rpm, yeast cells were harvested by centrifugation at 3,134 ×g, at 4°C for 5 min, and washed with distilled water. The initial cell concentration was adjusted to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 1.0 or 50.0, which corresponds to initial cell density of 0.5 and 25 g DCW/L, respectively, and the cell pellet was inoculated into 20 mL of YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose. Oxygen-limited cultivation was performed at 30°C in a 100-mL Erlenmeyer flask using a rotary shaker at 80 rpm. Anaerobic cultivation was performed at 30°C in 125-mL serum bottles using a rotary shaker at 130 rpm. To remove oxygen, the serum bottles were flushed with nitrogen that had passed through a heated, reduced copper column. All experiments were performed in biological triplicate.

Volumetric growth rate analysis at various xylose concentrations

To compare growth rate after PHO13 gene deletion, all strains were pre-cultured in 10 mL of YP medium containing 20 g/L of glucose, and the pre-cultured cells were harvested at mid-exponential phase and inoculated into 3 mL of YP medium containing various concentrations of xylose after washing twice with sterilized water. Growth rate analysis was performed in 14-mL Round-Bottom Tubes (SPL, Pocheon, Korea) at 30°C and 250 rpm with a low initial cell density (0.5 g DCW/L). The control (XYL123 and XI-XYL3) and pho13Δ (XYL123 pho13Δ and XI-XYL3 pho13Δ) strains were compared at 1–200 g/L xylose. Volumetric growth rates (g/L-h) were calculated based on the starting and ending points of the exponential phase. All experiments were performed in biological triplicate.

Transcriptional analysis by RT-qPCR

RT-qPCR was performed by extracting RNA from cells of the exponential phase as previously described [18]. All of the strains were grown in YP media containing 20 g/L glucose or 40 g/L xylose. The cDNA solution, prepared from 1 μg of RNA using the ReverTra Ace® qPCR RT Master Mix (TOYOBO, Osaka, Japan), was used directly with primers and iQTM SYBR Green Supermix (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) for quantitative PCR (qPCR). qPCR was performed using a CFX ConnectTM Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). The primers used for RT-qPCR are described in S2 Table. All of the measurements were performed in three technical replicates for each biological triplicate.

Adaptive laboratory evolution

After pre-cultivation in YP medium containing 20 g/L of glucose for 24 hours at 250 rpm, yeast cells were harvested by centrifugation at 15,928 ×g, at 4°C for 1 min. The pre-cultured cells were washed with distilled water, and the cell pellet was inoculated into 20 mL of YP medium containing 40 g/L or 100 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm). The initial cell densities were adjusted to 0.5 g DCW/L. Growth adaption was performed at 30°C in a 100-mL Erlenmeyer flask using a rotary shaker at 80 rpm. The cells were transferred to fresh medium when they reached exponential phase. The growth adaption was continued for about 90 days. To confirm that the strains had evolved, three independent colonies were isolated from the YPD agar plate and evaluated by fermentation performances under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm).

HPLC analysis

Quantitation of xylose, xylitol, glycerol, acetate, and ethanol in the culture was analyzed by a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; Agilent Technologies, 1260 series, USA) equipped with a Rezex-ROA Organic Acid H+ (8%) (150 mm × 4.6 mm) column (Phenomenex Inc., Torrance, CA, USA). Columns were eluted with 0.005 N H2SO4 at 50°C, and the flow rate was set at 0.6 mL/min, as described previously [28]. Acetate was not detected in all fermentations, and the results were omitted from the figures and tables.

Intracellular metabolite extraction and derivatization

Metabolite extraction was carried out with some modification of the previously described method [29]. Briefly, 5 mL of cell cultures at mid-exponential growth phase were quenched by quick injection into 25 mL of 60% (v/v) cold methanol (HEPES, 10 mM; pH 7.1) at -40°C. The cells were centrifuged at 3,134 ×g at -20°C for 5 min, then discard supernatant thoroughly. Subsequently, 1 mL of 75% (v/v) boiling ethanol (HEPES, 10 mM; pH 7.1) was added to the quenched cell pellet, then make sure that cell pellet should be suspended well with boiling ethanol solution. The mixture was then vortexed for 30 s in a max force, incubated at 80°C for 5 min. The cell residues were separated from the extract by centrifugation at 15,928 ×g at 4°C for 1 min. The supernatant was then vacuum-dried for 5 h using a speed vacuum concentrator (Labconco, Kansas City, MO, USA).

The vacuum-dried samples were derivatized by methoxyamination and trimethylsilylation as previously described with some modifications [29]. For methoxyamination, 40 μL of methoxyamine hydrochloride in pyridine (40 mg/mL; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added to the samples and incubated at 30°C for 90 min. For trimethylsilylation, 40 μL of N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added to the samples and incubated at 37°C for 30 min.

Intracellular metabolite analysis using GC/MS

GC/MS analysis was conducted using an Agilent 6890 GC equipped with an Agilent 5973 MSD as described previously with some modifications [17]. A 1 μL aliquot of derivatized samples was injected into the GC in a split mode (10:1) and separated on an RTX-5Sil MS column (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25-μm film thickness; Restek, Bellefonte, PA, USA). The initial oven temperature was set at 75°C for 1 min, and then ramped at 15°C/min to a final temperature of 300°C, held for 2 min. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 0.7 mL/min. The temperatures of ion source and transfer line were set at 230°C and 280°C, respectively. An electron impact of 70 eV was used for ionization. The mass selective detector was operated in scan mode with a mass range of 50–550 m/z.

Results

Construction and comparison of two isogenic strains expressing xylose oxidoreductase pathway or xylose isomerase pathway

Two isogenic strains expressing either a xylose oxidoreductase pathway (XYL1-XYL2) or the xylose isomerase pathway (xylA) were constructed as follows (Fig 1B). For the origin of the genes, XYL1 and XYL2 from yeast P. stipitis [28] and xylA from anaerobic fungus Orpinomyces sp. (GenBank No. MK335957) were used which are known to have the highest catalytic activities among the same group of enzymes tested [30,31]. Because acetaldehyde dehydrogenase encoded by the ALD6 gene plays a major role in acetate accumulation [32], and because acetate is detrimental to xylose metabolism of the oxidoreductase strains [3] as well as the isomerase strains [33,34], the ALD6 gene was often selected as knockout target for xylose strains [35,36]. In the present study, therefore, the xylose pathway genes, XYL1-XYL2 or xylA, were genome-integrated by replacing the ALD6 gene by a Cas9-based genome integration strategy, resulting in the XYL12 (ald6::XYL1-XYL2) and the XI (ald6::xylA) strains, respectively. Next, the XYL3 gene encoding xylulokinase, of which overexpression is required for both pathways, was genome-integrated at an intergenic region (int#1, Fig 1B), resulting in the XYL123 and XI-XYL3 strains, respectively.

When fermenting 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions with a low initial cell density (0.5 g DCW/L), the resulting strains showed different phenotypes; while the XYL123 strain consumed over 90% xylose and produced ethanol within 72 h (Fig 2A), the XI-XYL3 strain consumed 10% xylose in the same time period and no ethanol was detected (Fig 2B and Table 2). The difference in the rate of xylose metabolism is primarily due to the thermodynamic advantage of the oxidoreductase pathway compared to the isomerase pathway, as previously reported [37]. Ethanol production by the XI-XYL3 strain was only possible to detect under anaerobic conditions with a high initial cell density (25 g DCW/L) (Table 3). The accumulation of significant amount of xylitol by the XI-XYL3 strain (5.0 g/L) compared to the XYL123 strain (0.6 g/L) was likely due to endogenous non-specific xylose reductase activities (Gre3), which is more significant when the rate of xylose metabolism is slow [38].

Fig 2. Effect of PHO13 deletion on xylose fermentation by two xylose-metabolizing strains.

Fig 2

(A) The XYL123 strain expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway and (B) the XI-XYL3 strain expressing the xylose isomerase pathway were compared to their corresponding pho13Δ mutants (C and D, respectively). (E, F) Volumetric growth rates (g/L-h) and product yields (g/g) of the xylose fermentations. Fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm), with a low initial cell density (0.5 g DCW/L). Asterisks denote statistically significant differences (Student's t-test, p < 0.05). n. d.; Not detected.

Table 2. Fermentation profiles of engineered S. cerevisiae expressing heterologous xylose fermentation pathways.

Strain Growth rate (g/L-h) Xylose consumed (g/L) Xylose consumption rate (g/L-h) Product titers (g/L) YXylitol YGlycerol YEthanol PEthanol*
Xylitol Glycerol Ethanol
XYL123 0.06 ± 0.00 39.9 ± 1.0 0.53 ± 0.02 0.6 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.1 10.6 ± 0.4 0.01 ± 0.00 0.09 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.01
XYL123 pho13Δ 0.10 ± 0.01 41.1 ± 1.4 0.93 ± 0.04 3.7 ± 0.2 1.6 ± 0.4 11.9 ± 0.5 0.09 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 0.29 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.01
XI-XYL3 0.04 ± 0.01 14.7 ± 0.5 0.06 ± 0.00 5.0 ± 0.3 n. d. n. d. 0.34 ± 0.01 n. d. n. d. n. d.
XI-XYL3 pho13Δ 0.03 ± 0.00 15.1 ± 1.2 0.07 ± 0.00 5.8 ± 0.1 n. d. n. d. 0.36 ± 0.00 n. d. n. d. n. d.
(XI)2-XYL3 0.08 ± 0.01 23.2 ± 1.5 0.10 ± 0.01 6.7 ± 0.1 n. d. n. d. 0.29 ± 0.02 n. d. n. d. n. d.
(XI)2-XYL3 pho13Δ 0.06 ± 0.01 21.0 ± 1.0 0.09 ± 0.01 7.8 ± 0.4 n. d. n. d. 0.37 ± 0.00 n. d. n. d. n. d.
δ(XI)-XYL3 0.10 ± 0.01 27.7 ± 0.2 0.15 ± 0.01 10.5 ± 0.2 0.4 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.0 0.34 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.00 0.16 ± 0.01 < 0.00
δ(XI)-XYL3 pho13Δ 0.11 ± 0.01 32.0 ± 0.6 0.16 ± 0.00 9.2 ± 0.5 n. d. 1.6 ± 0.0 0.29 ± 0.00 n. d. 0.20 ± 0.01 < 0.00

All strains were cultured in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm) with a low initial cell density (0.5 g DCW/L). All parameters were calculated when either more than 90% of xylose was consumed or fermented for up to 240 h. Acetate was not detected during the xylose fermentation.

Parameters: YXylitol, Xylitol yield (g xylitol/g xylose); YGlycerol, Glycerol yield (g glycerol/g xylose); YEthanol, Ethanol yield (g ethanol/g xylose); PEthanol*, Specific ethanol productivity (g/g cell/h); n. d., not detected.

Table 3. Fermentation profiles of S. cerevisiae strains expressing the xylose isomerase pathway derived from Orpinomyces sp.

Name Background Genotype Conditions Initial cell (g DCW/L) Xylose consumed (g/L) Ethanol titer (g/L) μmax rXylose YXylitol YEthanol Reference
XYL123 pho13Δ D452-2 XYL1, XYL2, XYL3, ald6Δ, pho13Δ AN, YPX(40) 25.0 39.4 10.5 0.24 5.93 0.2 0.27 This study
XI-XYL3 D452-2 xylA*, XYL3, ald6Δ OL, YPX(40) 25.0 30.3 - 0.20 0.15 0.40 - This study
AN, YPX(40) 25.0 24.8 9.1 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.37 This study
XI-XYL3 pho13Δ D452-2 xylA*, XYL3, ald6Δ, pho13Δ OL, YPX(40) 25.0 28.1 - 0.20 0.13 0.42 - This study
AN, YPX(40) 25.0 19.4 7.3 0.14 0.08 0.18 0.37 This study
YΔGP/XK/XI YPH499 xylA (n = 15), XKS1, gre3Δ, pho13Δ OL, YPX(50) 50 g wet cells/L ~50 ~22.5 - 2.08 0.02 0.45 [39]
LVY34.4 LVYA1 xylA* (n = 36), gre3Δ, RPE1, RKI1, TKL1, TAL1, 2×XKS1, Evolved O, YPX(30) 0.25 < 30.0 < 13.8 0.21 1.32 0.005 0.46 [22]
ADAP8 INVSc1 xylA, SUT1, XKS1, Evolved AN, YPX(20) 5.0 10.8 3.4 0.13 0.09 0.26 0.32 [40]
YCOA2E NAPX37 xylA*, XKS1, HXT7, BGL1, GXS1, Δgre3, Δhxt16, Evolved OL, YPX(20) 0.05 16.6 6.7 0.09 1.66 - 0.41 [41]
O7E15 NAPX37 xylA*(n = unknown), XKS1, HXT7, BGL1, GXS1, Δgre3, Δhxt16, Evolved OL, YPX(40) 0.2 29.7 13.0 - 0.62 - 0.44 [42]

Parameters: xylA*, codon optimized Orpinomyces sp. xylA, DCW, Dried cell weight; O, Oxygen conditions; OL, Oxygen-limited conditions; AN, Anaerobic conditions; μmax, Volumetric growth rate (g/L-h); rXylose, Xylose consumption rate (g xylose/L/h); YXylitol, Xylitol yield (g xylitol/g xylose); YEthanol, Ethanol yield (g ethanol/g xylose).

Effects of the PHO13 deletion on xylose fermentation by two xylose-metabolizing strains

To determine the effects of PHO13 deletion, the XYL3 gene was genome-integrated by replacing the PHO13 gene of the XYL12 and XI strains, resulting in the XYL123 pho13Δ and XI-XYL3 pho13Δ strains (Fig 1B). When 40 g/L of xylose was provided, the XYL123 pho13Δ strain consumed xylose completely in 48 h, resulting in the fermentation time being reduced by 33%, and the growth rate being increased by 1.54-fold as compared to those of the XYL123 strain (Fig 2C and 2D). In addition, the XYL123 pho13Δ strain exhibited 1.76-fold higher specific ethanol productivity and a 6.33-fold increase in xylitol yield as a by-product, than that seen in the XYL123 strain (Fig 2E and Table 2). These results confirmed that pho13Δ improved the xylose fermentation rate in a strain expressing a heterologous xylose oxidoreductase pathway as previously described [3,18,43,44]. However, pho13Δ did not affect xylose consumption or by-product yields in the XI-XYL3 strain expressing the xylose isomerase pathway (Fig 2F and Table 2). Under anaerobic conditions with a high initial cell density (25 g DCW/L), pho13Δ rather decreased ethanol production by 20% (Table 3).

PHO13 deletion-induced transcriptional and metabolic changes in two xylose-metabolizing strains

It has been reported that pho13Δ induces significant changes at both transcriptional and metabolic levels in the strains expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway. First, pho13Δ increases the expression levels of TAL1, which encodes sedoheptulose-7-phosphate:D-glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate transaldolase in the PP pathway, under both glucose [18,39] and xylose conditions [18], which was confirmed in the XYL123 strain of the present study as well (Fig 3A). Also, pho13Δ leads to the reduction in intracellular sedoheptulose-7-phosphate (S7P) and sedoheptulose levels during xylose metabolism [17], as confirmed in Fig 3B. However, in the XI-XYL3 strain, the TAL1 activation by pho13Δ was observed only under glucose conditions (7.3-fold increase, Fig 3A) but not under xylose conditions. Moreover, S7P was not accumulated in the XI-XYL3 strain during xylose metabolism (Fig 3B). Therefore, it was concluded that pho13Δ does not contribute to xylose metabolism of the XI-XYL3 strain neither at the transcription levels nor at the metabolic levels under the conditions we tested. It is hypothesized that some metabolic conditions are required for PHO13 deletion-induced transcriptional activation of TAL1, which is independent from the type of a metabolizing sugar. Because the XI-XYL3 strain metabolizes xylose very slowly, a lack of ATP and/or a low level of some metabolic intermediates could be associated with undesirable conditions for the TAL1 activation.

Fig 3. PHO13 deletion-induced transcriptional and metabolic changes in two xylose-metabolizing strains.

Fig 3

(A) Fold changes in the mRNA levels of the TAL1 gene in the pho13Δ mutants of the XYL123 and the XI-XYL3 strains growing on glucose or xylose. The dashed line is 1, referring to the PHO13 wild type. (B) The intracellular concentrations of sedeheptulose-7-phospahte in the PHO13 wild types (control) and the pho13Δ mutants of the XYL123 and the XI-XYL3 strains growing on xylose. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences (Student's t-test, p < 0.05).

Adaptive evolution of two xylose-metabolizing strains

Concentration of xylose higher than 10 g/L inhibits the growth of S. cerevisiae strains expressing a xylose oxidoreductase pathway, which provides driving force for adaptive evolution as described previously [3]. The XYL123 strains constructed in the present study also showed decrease in the growth rates when the xylose concentration exceeded 10 g/L (Fig 4A). Also, when the XYL123 strain was subjected to serial sub-cultures on 40 g/L xylose, gradual increase in the growth rate of the culture was observed, suggesting the progress of adaptive evolution (Fig 4C). In fact, some selected mutants isolated from the evolved cultures showed improved xylose fermentation capabilities that were comparable to the XYL123 pho13Δ strain (S1 and S2 Figs and S3 Table). It is interesting to note that the growth of the XYL123 pho13Δ strain was not inhibited up to 70 g/L xylose (Fig 3A), and it did not undergo adaptive evolutionary process until 65 generations (S3 Fig).

Fig 4. Adaptive evolution of two xylose-metabolizing strains on xylose.

Fig 4

For adaptive evolution on xylose, growth rates of the XYL123 strains (A) and the XI-XYL3 strains (B) were evaluated under different xylose concentrations. Under growth-liming concentrations of xylose, 40 g/L (C) and 100 g/L (D), the strains were serially subcultured until the described generation numbers.

In the XI-XYL3 strain, however, the growth rate gradually increased up to 50 g/L xylose, and there was no initial growth observed at 100 g/L xylose (Fig 4B). At 40 g/L xylose, therefore, serial sub-cultures of the XI-XYL3 strain would not provide high selection pressure for better growers. In fact, until 110 generations, the culture of the XI-XYL3 strain did not show improvement in the growth rates (Fig 4C). At 100 g/L, meanwhile, serial sub-cultures of the XI-XYL3 strain did show slight improvement in the growth rates (Fig 4D); however, the isolated mutants did not have advantages in xylose fermentation (S1 and S4 Figs and S3 Table). Also, it was confirmed again that pho13Δ in the XI-XYL3 strain was not as critical as in the XYL123 strain regardless of xylose concentrations (Fig 4B), and during serial subcultures on 40 g/L and 100 g/L xylose (S3 Fig). Therefore, it was confirmed that either pho13Δ or evolutionary engineering could be an efficient strategy to improve strains expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway; however, the strategy of either pho13Δ or evolutionary engineering to improve strain expressing the xylose isomerase pathway did not have more dramatic results than the strain expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway.

Additional copies of xylA improves xylose consumption significantly

Several pathway-targeted approaches have been reported for the improvement of the xylose isomerase pathway (Table 3 and Fig 5A). First, the deletion of GRE3 encoding aldose reductase and/or the deletion of SOR1 encoding sorbitol (xylitol) dehydrogenase were proposed to reduce xylitol accumulation [45,46]. Also, extra copies of xylA and/or XYL3 [22,39,42] were often accompanied with the overexpression of the PP pathway genes such as TAL1 to improve xylose consumption rates. In Fig 5B, the necessity and contribution of each factors above were evaluated. Although some mutants showed statistically significant increases in growth rate and decreases in xylitol accumulation, none of the single factors contributed to ethanol production from xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (Table 2 and S3 Table). In fact, the most significant improvement was made by the expression of an additional copy of xylA in the (XI)2-XYL3 strain with the xylose consumption rate of 0.10 g/L-h. When multiple copies of the xylA gene were integrated at δ sequences (Ty2 transposable element) (S5 Fig), one of the 26 resulting strains (δ(XI)-XYL3) was confirmed for the improved phenotypes (S6 Fig) and for the increased expression levels of the xylA gene (35-fold increase, S7 Fig). The δ(XI)-XYL3 strain showed the highest xylose consumption rate (0.15 g/L-h) with detectable amount of ethanol (Fig 5C and Table 2). In addition, with the improved level of xylose consumption, pho13Δ was shown to contribute to ethanol yield of the δ(XI)-XYL3 strain while its xylose consumption was not affected (Fig 5C, S6 Fig). However, the xylose consumption rate of the δ(XI)-XYL3 pho13Δ strain was still lower than that of the XYL123 pho13Δ strain (0.93 g/L-h) as well as those of the previously reported strains with 15–36 copies of the xylA gene (1.32–2.08 g/L-h, Table 3) [22,39]. The result suggested that the expression level of the xylA gene is one of the most critical factor for efficient xylose consumption, and the δ(XI)-XYL3 strain may have not reached to an optimal level of the xylA expression.

Fig 5. Pathway-targeted approaches to improve strains expressing the xylose isomerase pathway.

Fig 5

(A) The target genes to be deleted (gre3Δ, sor1Δ) and the target genes to be overexpressed by integration of a duplicated copy (xylA, XYL3, TAL1). (B) Relative changes in growth rates (g/L-h) on xylose of the engineered strains compared to the XI-XYL3 strain. (C) Comparison of fermentation profiles of the XI-XYL3, (XI)2-XYL3, and δ(XI)-XYL3 strains, and their pho13Δ mutants. All fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm), with a low initial cell density (0.5 g DCW/L). Different letters represent significant differences across strains within fermentation parameters (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). n. d.; Not detected.

Discussion

There have been numerous attempts to develop S. cerevisiae strains fermenting xylose efficiently for decades [37,47,48]. Broadening the substrate range of S. cerevisiae is required not only to support cellulosic bioprocesses but also to extend product spectrum and efficiency with alternative substrates other than glucose [26,49]. In fact, metabolic engineering for xylose fermentation is a preliminary step toward strain development for desired products. However, the approaches to design efficient S. cerevisiae strains expressing the xylose isomerase pathway varied greatly, and adaptive evolution was essential in most prior studies (Table 3) [11,13,20,22,5052]. It is contradictory to the fact that the optimization of strains expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway can be reproducibly achieved by two factors: the constitutive expression of XYL1, XYL2, and XYL3 from P. stipitis and the deletion of the PHO13 gene (pho13Δ) [3]. Although a prior study presented a reduction in the lag phase by pho13Δ in the strain expressing the xylose isomerase pathway, the improvement was not as significant as those achieved by adaptive evolution in the same study [11]. The other study, which reported an 8% increase in the ethanol yield by pho13Δ in the xylose isomerase strain, used an extreme condition with an initial OD of 40 [39]. Consistent with previous findings, we also found that pho13Δ improved ethanol yield but it was only in the strain expressing multiple copies of xylA but not in the single copy xylA strain (Fig 5). Also, the xylose consumption rate remained constant in both strains, suggesting the conditional and limited effect of pho13Δ in the xylose isomerase strains.

One of the most recent studies reported that nine different expression cassettes of Piromyces sp. xylA, the overexpression of both XKS1 and six non-oxidative PP genes (RPE1, RKI1, TAL1, NQM1, TKL1, TKL2), and deletion of the GRE3 gene are required to construct a xylose-assimilating S. cerevisiae strain [50]. The resulting strain was able to produce ethanol after adaptive evolution, in which the loss of function mutation in the PMR1 gene was critical [50]. In another recent study, two copies of a mutant version of Piromyces sp. xylA (E15D, E114G, E129D, T142S, A177T, and V433I), the overexpression of XKS1 and TAL1, pho13Δ and GRE3 as well as laboratory evolution were required for xylose fermentation [51,52]. The study concluded that the laboratory evolution was partially contributed by the loss of function mutations in the PMR1 and ASC1 genes [51]. Although the metabolic engineering approaches are complicated and different between the two studies, the studies shared the idea that the xylose isomerase step is the most limiting; therefore, 1) either multiple integration or protein engineering of xylose isomerase is required, and 2) the homeostasis of its inorganic cofactor has to be modified (pmr1Δ). The expression of approximately 36 copies of Orpinomyces sp. xylA [22] and the mutation in ASK10 for proper folding of isomerase [20] were also proposed to overcome the limitation in xylose isomerase. The above results from recent studies are all consistent with the findings of the present study that the copy number increase in the xylose isomerase gene is the most critical and primarily required (Table 3). However, the optimal level of the copy number of the xylA gene varies greatly among studies with the same xylA gene derived from Orpinomyces sp (Table 3).

It should be noted that the comparison of the two pathways in the present study was limited to the genes originated from P. stipitis and Orpinomyces sp. for the oxidoreductase and the isomerase pathways, respectively. Considering that the xylA gene was originated from strictly anaerobic fungus Orpinomyces sp., its functional expression in yeast could have been limited compared to other xylA genes originated from bacteria and other fungi [53]. Also, we only compared fermentation properties under oxygen-limited conditions with a low initial cell density. Indeed, under anaerobic conditions with a high initial cell density, where the limited growth of the XI-XYL3 strain can be compensated, the XI-XYL3 strain could produce ethanol at a higher yield (0.37 g/g xylose) than those achieved in the XYL123 strain (0.27 g/g xylose) (Table 3). Nevertheless, engineering an efficient xylose-fermenting strain using the xylose isomerase pathway remains challenging because of the difficulties in reproducing adaptive evolution successfully and achieving optimal copy numbers of the xylA gene, as previously reported.

The present study aimed to develop a simple method to optimize S. cerevisiae expressing the xylose isomerase pathway: a genome-integrated heterologous xylose isomerase gene (xylA) under a strong promoter. We found that adaptive evolution as well as some of the pathway-targeted approaches (gre3Δ, XYL3, TAL1) did not work as efficiently as previously reported. One the other hand, significant improvement in xylose fermentation was achieved by sor1Δ as well as multiple integration of the xylA gene with or without pho13Δ. However, the improved strain was still inferior to an isogenic strain expressing xylose oxidoreductase pathway: xylose reductase (XYL1) and xylitol dehydrogenase (XYL2). Because the above mentioned approaches for the xylose isomerase pathway were successfully demonstrated in other studies, we think that other unknown factors are required such as different source of the xylA gene [53,54], different strain backgrounds [55,56], and/or other metabolic engineering designs. Although recent studies successfully discovered several knockout targets (ISU1, HOG1, GRE3, IRA2, SSK2) to improve the xylose isomerase pathway, they still required a strain background with the overexpression of the genes in the pentose phosphate pathway and/or the expression of multiple copies of the xylA gene [22,24]. With the current level of knowledge regarding xylose isomerase and its functional expression in S. cerevisiae, therefore, the xylose oxidoreductase pathway provides a more reproducible strategy to engineer xylose-fermenting strains.

Supporting information

S1 Text. Supplementary materials and methods.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig

Growth rate comparison of the evolved colonies of the XYL123 (A), XI-XYL3 (B), and XI-XYL3 pho13Δ (C) strains. Two-three most promising colonies were selected from each group, and denoted to XYL123e, XI-XYL3e, and XI-XYL3 pho13Δe, respectively. Strains were cultured in YP medium containing either 40 g/L xylose (A) or 100 g/L xylose (B, C) under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm). Volumetric growth rates were calculated at the exponential phase.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Fermentation profiles of the evolved strains expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway (the XYL123e strains).

The XYL123 and XYL123 pho13Δ strains were used as the controls. Cell density (A), xylose concentrations (B), and fermentation parameters (C) were compared. Fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm) with a starting OD600 of 1.0. Different letters (a, b, and c) represent significant differences (p < 0.05, ANOVA method). n. d.; Not detected.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Adaptive evolution of the pho13Δ mutants of the XYL123 and the XI-XYL3 strains on xylose.

Under growth-liming concentrations of xylose, 40 g/L (A) and 100 g/L (A), the strains were serially subcultured until the described generation numbers.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Fermentation profiles of the evolved S. cerevisiae strains expressing the isomerase pathway on 100 g/L xylose fermentation.

(A, B, C) The XI-XYL3 strain and its evolved strains (XI-XYL3e1, XI-XYL3e2). (C, D, E) The XI-XYL3 pho13Δ strain and its evolved strains (XI-XYL3 pho13Δe1, XI-XYL3 pho13Δe2). The strains were evaluated in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm) with a starting OD600 of 1.0. Different letters (a, b, and c) represent significant differences (p < 0.05, ANOVA method). n. d.; Not detected.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Fermentation profiles of 26 mutants overexpressing the xylA gene by δ-integration on xylose fermentation.

The XI-XYL3 strain and 26 mutants were evaluated the consumed xylose (g/L) (A) and the produced ethanol (g/L) (B) under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm). Six-mutants, which can produce ethanol, were selected and evaluated the xylose consumption rate (g xylose/L/h) and ethanol yield (g ethanol/g xylose) under oxygen-limited conditions (C) and anaerobic conditions (D). Fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose, with a starting OD600 of 1.0. The dashed line refer to the XI-XYL3 strain.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Fermentation profiles of the XI-XYL3, δ(XI)-XYL3 and δ(XI)-XYL3 pho13Δ strains on 40 g/L xylose fermentation under two different oxygen conditions.

The strains were evaluated in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm, A-C) and anaerobic condition (D-F) with a starting OD600 of 1.0.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Comparison of transcriptional levels of xylA gene increased by δ-integration in two xylose isomerase pathway strains (XI-XYL3 and δ(XI)-XYL3 strains).

Increased transcriptional levels of the xylA gene in the XI-XYL3 and the xylA overexpressed strain (δ(XI)-XYL3) by δ-integration was confirmed by RT-qPCR. Fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L (YPX40) or 100 g/L (YPX100) xylose, with a starting OD600 of 1.0. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences (Student's t-test, p < 0.05).

(TIF)

S1 Table. Plasmids used in this study.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Primers and guide RNAs used in this study.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Fermentation profiles of evolved S. cerevisiae expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea funded by the Korea government (NRF-2018R1A2B2007426). This work was also supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2019R1F1A1062633).

References

  • 1.Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408: 184 10.1038/35041539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, et al. (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource technology 96: 673–686. 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim SR, Skerker JM, Kang W, Lesmana A, Wei N, et al. (2013) Rational and evolutionary engineering approaches uncover a small set of genetic changes efficient for rapid xylose fermentation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PloS one 8: e57048 10.1371/journal.pone.0057048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Banerjee S, Mishra G, Roy A (2019) Metabolic engineering of bacteria for renewable bioethanol production from cellulosic biomass. Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering 24: 713–733. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hahn-Hagerdal B, Karhumaa K, Jeppsson M, Gorwa-Grauslund MF (2007) Metabolic engineering for pentose utilization in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology 108: 147–177. 10.1007/10_2007_062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cai Z, Zhang B, Li Y (2012) Engineering Saccharomyces cerevisiae for efficient anaerobic xylose fermentation: Reflections and perspectives. Biotechnology Journal 7: 34–46. 10.1002/biot.201100053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li X, Park A, Estrela R, Kim SR, Jin YS, et al. (2016) Comparison of xylose fermentation by two high-performance engineered strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology reports 9: 53–56. 10.1016/j.btre.2016.01.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Karhumaa K, Garcia Sanchez R, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Gorwa-Grauslund M-F (2007) Comparison of the xylose reductase-xylitol dehydrogenase and the xylose isomerase pathways for xylose fermentation by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbial cell factories 6: 5–5. 10.1186/1475-2859-6-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sonderegger M, Sauer U (2003) Evolutionary engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for anaerobic growth on xylose. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69: 1990–1998. 10.1128/aem.69.4.1990-1998.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Scalcinati G, Otero JM, Van Vleet JRH, Jeffries TW, Olsson L, et al. (2012) Evolutionary engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for efficient aerobic xylose consumption. FEMS Yeast Research 12: 582–597. 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2012.00808.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lee S-M, Jellison T, Alper HS (2014) Systematic and evolutionary engineering of a xylose isomerase-based pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for efficient conversion yields. Biotechnology for biofuels 7: 122 10.1186/s13068-014-0122-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shen Y, Chen X, Peng B, Chen L, Hou J, et al. (2012) An efficient xylose-fermenting recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain obtained through adaptive evolution and its global transcription profile. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 96: 1079–1091. 10.1007/s00253-012-4418-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhou H, Cheng JS, Wang BL, Fink GR, Stephanopoulos G (2012) Xylose isomerase overexpression along with engineering of the pentose phosphate pathway and evolutionary engineering enable rapid xylose utilization and ethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metabolic Engineering 14: 611–622. 10.1016/j.ymben.2012.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Van Vleet JH, Jeffries TW, Olsson L (2008) Deleting the para-nitrophenyl phosphatase (pNPPase), PHO13, in recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae improves growth and ethanol production on D-xylose. Metabolic Engineering 10: 360–369. 10.1016/j.ymben.2007.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ni H, Laplaza JM, Jeffries TW (2007) Transposon mutagenesis to improve the growth of recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae on D-xylose. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 2061–2066. 10.1128/AEM.02564-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fujitomi K, Sanda T, Hasunuma T, Kondo A (2012) Deletion of the PHO13 gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae improves ethanol production from lignocellulosic hydrolysate in the presence of acetic and formic acids, and furfural. Bioresource technology 111: 161–166. 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Xu H, Kim S, Sorek H, Lee Y, Jeong D, et al. (2016) PHO13 deletion-induced transcriptional activation prevents sedoheptulose accumulation during xylose metabolism in engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metabolic Engineering 34: 88–96. 10.1016/j.ymben.2015.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kim SR, Xu H, Lesmana A, Kuzmanovic U, Au M, et al. (2015) Deletion of PHO13, encoding haloacid dehalogenase type IIA phosphatase, results in upregulation of the pentose phosphate pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 81: 1601–1609. 10.1128/AEM.03474-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ko JK, Um Y, Lee SM (2016) Effect of manganese ions on ethanol fermentation by xylose isomerase expressing Saccharomyces cerevisiae under acetic acid stress. Bioresource technology 222: 422–430. 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hou J, Jiao C, Peng B, Shen Y, Bao X (2016) Mutation of a regulator Ask10p improves xylose isomerase activity through up-regulation of molecular chaperones in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metabolic Engineering 38: 241–250. 10.1016/j.ymben.2016.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Reider Apel A, d'Espaux L, Wehrs M, Sachs D, Li RA, et al. (2016) A Cas9-based toolkit to program gene expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic acids research 45: 496–508. 10.1093/nar/gkw1023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.dos Santos LV, Carazzolle MF, Nagamatsu ST, Sampaio NMV, Almeida LD, et al. (2016) Unraveling the genetic basis of xylose consumption in engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Scientific Reports 6: 38676 10.1038/srep38676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Parreiras LS, Breuer RJ, Narasimhan RA, Higbee AJ, La Reau A, et al. (2014) Engineering and two-stage evolution of a lignocellulosic hydrolysate-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for anaerobic fermentation of xylose from AFEX pretreated corn stover. PloS one 9: e107499 10.1371/journal.pone.0107499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sato TK, Tremaine M, Parreiras LS, Hebert AS, Myers KS, et al. (2016) Directed evolution reveals unexpected epistatic interactions that alter metabolic regulation and enable anaerobic xylose use by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS genetics 12: e1006372 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ye S, Jeong D, Shon JC, Liu K-H, Kim KH, et al. (2019) Deletion of PHO13 improves aerobic l-arabinose fermentation in engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 46: 1725–1731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jeong D, Ye S, Park H, Kim SR (2020) Simultaneous fermentation of galacturonic acid and five-carbon sugars by engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresource Technology 295: 122259 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hosaka K, Nikawa J-i, Kodaki T, Yamashita S (1992) A dominant mutation that alters the regulation of INO1 expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The Journal of Biochemistry 111: 352–358. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a123761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kim SR, Ha S-J, Kong II, Jin Y-S (2012) High expression of XYL2 coding for xylitol dehydrogenase is necessary for efficient xylose fermentation by engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metabolic Engineering 14: 336–343. 10.1016/j.ymben.2012.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kim S, Lee DY, Wohlgemuth G, Park HS, Fiehn O, et al. (2013) Evaluation and optimization of metabolome sample preparation methods for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Analytical chemistry 85: 2169–2176. 10.1021/ac302881e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hector RE, Dien BS, Cotta MA, Mertens JA (2013) Growth and fermentation of D-xylose by Saccharomyces cerevisiae expressing a novel D-xylose isomerase originating from the bacterium Prevotella ruminicola TC2-24. Biotechnology for biofuels 6: 84 10.1186/1754-6834-6-84 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kim B, Du J, Eriksen DT, Zhao H (2013) Combinatorial design of a highly efficient xylose-utilizing pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the production of cellulosic biofuels. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 79: 931–941. 10.1128/AEM.02736-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Saint-Prix F, Bönquist L, Dequin S (2004) Functional analysis of the ALD gene family of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during anaerobic growth on glucose: the NADP+-dependent Ald6p and Ald5p isoforms play a major role in acetate formation. Microbiology 150: 2209–2220. 10.1099/mic.0.26999-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bellissimi E, van Dijken JP, Pronk JT, van Maris AJA (2009) Effects of acetic acid on the kinetics of xylose fermentation by an engineered, xylose-isomerase-based Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain. FEMS Yeast Research 9: 358–364. 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2009.00487.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ko JK, Um Y, Lee S-M (2016) Effect of manganese ions on ethanol fermentation by xylose isomerase expressing Saccharomyces cerevisiae under acetic acid stress. Bioresource Technology 222: 422–430. 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sonderegger M, Schümperli M, Sauer U (2004) Metabolic engineering of a phosphoketolase pathway for pentose catabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and environmental microbiology 70: 2892–2897. 10.1128/aem.70.5.2892-2897.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhang Y, Lane S, Chen J-M, Hammer SK, Luttinger J, et al. (2019) Xylose utilization stimulates mitochondrial production of isobutanol and 2-methyl-1-butanol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology for Biofuels 12: 223 10.1186/s13068-019-1560-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kim SR, Park Y-C, Jin Y-S, Seo J-H (2013) Strain engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for enhanced xylose metabolism. Biotechnology advances 31: 851–861. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kim SR, Kwee NR, Kim H, Jin Y-S (2013) Feasibility of xylose fermentation by engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae overexpressing endogenous aldose reductase (GRE3), xylitol dehydrogenase (XYL2), and xylulokinase (XYL3) from Scheffersomyces stipitis. FEMS Yeast Research 13: 312–321. 10.1111/1567-1364.12036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bamba T, Hasunuma T, Kondo A (2016) Disruption of PHO13 improves ethanol production via the xylose isomerase pathway. AMB Express 6: 4 10.1186/s13568-015-0175-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Madhavan A, Tamalampudi S, Srivastava A, Fukuda H, Bisaria VS, et al. (2009) Alcoholic fermentation of xylose and mixed sugars using recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae engineered for xylose utilization. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 82: 1037–1047. 10.1007/s00253-008-1818-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li YC, Li GY, Gou M, Xia ZY, Tang YQ, et al. (2016) Functional expression of xylose isomerase in flocculating industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for bioethanol production. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 121: 685–691. 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2015.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Li YC, Zeng WY, Gou M, Sun ZY, Xia ZY, et al. (2017) Transcriptome changes in adaptive evolution of xylose-fermenting industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with delta-integration of different xylA genes. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 101: 7741–7753. 10.1007/s00253-017-8494-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kobayashi Y, Sahara T, Suzuki T, Kamachi S, Matsushika A, et al. (2017) Genetic improvement of xylose metabolism by enhancing the expression of pentose phosphate pathway genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae IR-2 for high-temperature ethanol production. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 44: 879–891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lian J, Bao Z, Hu S, Zhao H (2018) Engineered CRISPR/Cas9 system for multiplex genome engineering of polyploid industrial yeast strains. Biotechnology and bioengineering 115: 1630–1635. 10.1002/bit.26569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Traff KL, Otero Cordero RR, van Zyl WH, Hahn-Hagerdal B (2001) Deletion of the GRE3 aldose reductase gene and its influence on xylose metabolism in recombinant strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae expressing the xylA and XKS1 genes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67: 5668–5674. 10.1128/AEM.67.12.5668-5674.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Toivari MH, Salusjärvi L, Ruohonen L, Penttilä M (2004) Endogenous xylose pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70: 3681–3686. 10.1128/AEM.70.6.3681-3686.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Li X, Chen Y, Nielsen J (2019) Harnessing xylose pathways for biofuels production. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 57: 56–65. 10.1016/j.copbio.2019.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kwak S, Jo JH, Yun EJ, Jin Y-S, Seo J-H (2018) Production of biofuels and chemicals from xylose using native and engineered yeast strains. Biotechnology advances. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kwak S, Jin Y-S (2017) Production of fuels and chemicals from xylose by engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a review and perspective. Microbial cell factories 16: 82 10.1186/s12934-017-0694-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Verhoeven MD, Lee M, Kamoen L, van den Broek M, Janssen DB, et al. (2017) Mutations in PMR1 stimulate xylose isomerase activity and anaerobic growth on xylose of engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae by influencing manganese homeostasis. Scientific Reports 7: 46155 10.1038/srep46155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tran Nguyen Hoang P, Ko JK, Gong G, Um Y, Lee S-M (2018) Genomic and phenotypic characterization of a refactored xylose-utilizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for lignocellulosic biofuel production. Biotechnology for biofuels 11: 268 10.1186/s13068-018-1269-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lee SM, Jellison T, Alper HS (2012) Directed evolution of xylose isomerase for improved xylose catabolism and fermentation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78: 5708–5716. 10.1128/AEM.01419-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brat D, Boles E, Wiedemann B (2009) Functional expression of a bacterial xylose isomerase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and environmental microbiology 75 8: 2304–2311. 10.1128/AEM.02522-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Seike T, Kobayashi Y, Sahara T, Ohgiya S, Kamagata Y, et al. (2019) Molecular evolutionary engineering of xylose isomerase to improve its catalytic activity and performance of micro-aerobic glucose/xylose co-fermentation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology for Biofuels 12: 139 10.1186/s13068-019-1474-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Feng Q, Liu ZL, Weber SA, Li S (2018) Signature pathway expression of xylose utilization in the genetically engineered industrial yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PloS one 13: e0195633 10.1371/journal.pone.0195633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cunha JT, Soares PO, Romaní A, Thevelein JM, Domingues L (2019) Xylose fermentation efficiency of industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast with separate or combined xylose reductase/xylitol dehydrogenase and xylose isomerase pathways. Biotechnology for Biofuels 12: 20 10.1186/s13068-019-1360-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Enrico Baruffini

7 May 2020

PONE-D-20-07014

Metabolic engineering considerations for the heterologous expression of xylose-catabolic pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

PLOS ONE

Dear Kim,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two of the three reviewer found partial merit in your paper. However, before it could be considered for acceptance in PLOS ONE, major revisions are needed. Plese follow the reviewers' suggestion and reply to all the comments from the three reviewers, with whom I essentially agree.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 21 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Enrico Baruffini, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study the authors compare two well-established strategies of generating a xylose fermenting strain of S. cerevisiae – introduction of the oxidoreductase pathway or the xylose isomerase pathway. Establishing a xylose fermenting yeast strain is important because xylose ifs the major non-glucose component of much plant biomass, and it would be useful to be able to turn it into ethanol along with the glucose in a single fermentation reaction.

Various approaches to optimize these pathways have been investigated in the past, this study builds on these observations, and compares them in the two essentially isogenic strains engineered to have the two pathways. The main conclusions are the oxidoreductase pathway responds to changes in Pho13 and Tal1 and to the adaptive evolution protocol implemented, while the isomerase strain responded to increasing the isomerase levels, and that the direct comparison suggests the oxidoreductase pathway may provide the more attractive strategy for generating the xylose fermenting S. cerevisiae strain.

This manuscript seems to fall between a research paper and a review. The majority of the work is essentially repeating a set of previously identified strain modifications in a pair of strains identical except for the added xylose metabolic enzymes; fundamentally consolidating information without providing anything new. The stated goal was to establish the framework for improved production using the isomerase modified strain, but this was not successful – the improvements were limited to increasing levels of the heterologous enzyme. Thus the paper really fails in its ultimate aim, and provides little new in this process. Providing a clear picture of why modifications that work in one framework fail in the other would be useful, but the current format is of very limited value.

Reviewer #2: The authors of the manuscript under review have constructed and compared yeast strains expressing two different pathways for xylose utilization. Some findings reported in the manuscript differ from those reported in earlier studies, and merit a thorough discussion.

Lines 83-86 and 299-303: Prior studies have shown that deleting the PHO13 gene increases xylose uptake and ethanol production in xylose isomerase-expressing strains (for example, Biotechnol Biofuels 2014 7:122; AMB Express 2016 6:4).

Lines 198-200: Details about the integration site should be provided.

Lines 201 ff: Why did XYL123 and XI-XYL3 exhibit different xylose fermentation patterns? This should be discussed.

Lines 233-235: Transcriptional profiling of a pho13 mutant has been shown to upregulate the PP pathway irrespective of the sugar substrate used (Appl Environ Microbiol 2015 81:1601-1609; see Table 4 for TAL1 overexpression). As the results obtained by the authors differ from these findings, this merits a thorough discussion.

Lines 236-240 and 260-267: The authors should discuss why deletion of PHO13 has different effects in strains expressing different xylose assimilation pathways. This is especially important because the results obtained by the authors differ from those reported by other researchers (for example, Biotechnol Biofuels 2014 7:122; AMB Express 2016 6:4). The probable reason for this difference should be discussed.

Lines 288-291 and 321-322: What is the desired expression level of xylA? An earlier report has demonstrated that two copies of a mutant xylose isomerase are sufficient to achieve high xylose consumption and ethanol production rates (Biotechnol Biofuels 2014 7:122).

Lines 323-325: Do the authors expect that different results would be obtained when genes involved in xylose assimilation from other yeast species are overexpressed? Why would that be the case?

Lines 325-328: The interplay of cell density and dissolved oxygen is crucial in determining strain performance. The authors should discuss why the XI-expressing strain performs better under anaerobic conditions.

Lines 341-344: The beneficial effect of PHO13 in XI-expressing strains has been shown to be independent of strain background (Appl Environ Microbiol 2015 81:1601-1609). Expression of xylA from different sources has not been found to affect transcription profiles in yeast (Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2019 189:1007-1019).

Lines 350-352: This is a highly subjective conclusion. The XI pathway is cofactor-independent, and several studies have used the XI pathway to construct efficient xylose-fermmenting strains (for example, BMC Biotechnol 2013 13:110; PLoS Genet 2015 11:e1005010; Front Microbiol 2015 6:1165; Bioresour Bioprocess 2016 3:51).

A note on methods employed: Sufficient details should be provided in the manuscript to enable readers to understand procedures employed without referring to earlier published work. For example, how was cDNA synthesized (line 135)? Which column was used for HPLC analysis (line 155)?

A note on genetic nomenclature: Gene deletions in yeast should be designated by use of lower case letters in italics alone.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript by Jeong et al. compares the use of the oxidoreductase and the isomerase pathways for xylose utilization by S. cerevisiae and concludes that the oxidoreductase pathway provides simpler metabolic engineering strategies. This conclusion is oversimplified and is not supported by the results. This work has sound and interesting experimental results but its presentation and discussion present several flaws and misconceptions. Authors used metabolic engineering strategies previously reported to be successful in XR/XDH engineered strains and confirm its validity for XR/XDH and verify that those are not successful in XI. This should not be surprising as these pathways will affect cell metabolism in a different way. In my opinion, instead of comparing the two pathways directly and choose one that provides simper metabolic engineering strategies, authors should discuss the results obtained for the two pathways and relate those with cell metabolism. One important reference related to this topic is Cunha et al 2019 Biotechnol Biofuels 12(20) that should be introduced in the introduction section and discussed. Some guidelines are given below on how to redirect results discussion.

1) The integration site chosen for both pathways is the ALD6 gene. Are there any evidences that the deletion of this gene affects equally both pathways? As ALD6 codes for a cytosolic aldehyde dehydrogenase that utilizes NADP+ as the preferred coenzyme, besides increasing the flux to ethanol which will consume NADH and produce NAD+, I doubt. As the authors refer in the introduction the XI pathway is cofactor-independent while XR/XDH is cofactor-dependent, presenting a shortage of NAD+. Thus, the comparison might be bias from the very beginning. The decision of deleting ALD6 in the host of the two pathways should be better explained or authors may consider to not delete ALD6.

2) The two strains show completely different physiology on xylose containing media with the strain harbouring the XI pathway presenting xylitol accumulation. Authors attribute the significant accumulation of xylitol by the XI-XYL3 strain to endogeneous enzymes like the non-specific aldose reductase code by GRE3. This has to be better explained as both hosts have the same endogeneous enzymes but only one presents accumulation of xylitol. This could also be related with the point I raised before.

3) On the discussion section, authors state that there is no clear and simple approach to design efficient S. cerevisiae strain with XI pathway. This sentence and the following one, makes no sense as there are several works in literature that use this pathway (XI) together with other modifications. For instance, Cunha et al. 2019 Biotechnol Biofuels 12(20).

4) The authors refer that the copy number increase in xylose isomerase gene is the most critical for XI pathway. What about the enzyme itself? The enzyme efficiency?

5) On page 16, lines 326-327, authors state that under anaerobic conditions with high initial cell density were the XI-XYL3 strain produces ethanol at higher yield than strains with XR/XDH pathway. These comparison makes no sense. Authors compare the XI-XYL3 strain with 25 gDCW/L inoculum with the XYL123 strain with 0.5 gDCW/L.

6) Page 16, lines 329-332: Makes no sense. The XI pathway needs other additional modifications not necessarily the same that function with XR/XDH. Authors should also look into papers that have successful strategies with XI pathway.

7) Pg. 16, line 336, SOR1 deletion has significantly increased growth rate; these results should be better discussed. Again, from the results one may consider that the deletion of ALD6 could be detrimental for XI expression.

8) On M&M, in the section of HPLC analysis, the column and conditions should be given here

9) Pg. 12, Line 243, high? Replace by Concentrations of xylose higher than 10 g/L…

10) Pg. 14, line289, what are these desired expression levels? Some achieved in other studies referred in Table 3 using this xylA gene?

11) Pg. 16 line 345, it is not true as an initial deletion of ALD6 has been made

12) Pg. 17 line 351-352, conclusion not supported by data

13) Table 2, no results on acetate quantification are given, if it was not detected, this information is missing.

14) Table 1, XYL123 is not presented in the table

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 27;15(7):e0236294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236294.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Jun 2020

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: The revised manuscript has been formatted to meet the journal's requirements.

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Response: The ORCID iD has been validated in Editorial Manager.

Reviewer #1

In this study the authors compare two well-established strategies of generating a xylose fermenting strain of S. cerevisiae – introduction of the oxidoreductase pathway or the xylose isomerase pathway. Establishing a xylose fermenting yeast strain is important because xylose is the major non-glucose component of much plant biomass, and it would be useful to be able to turn it into ethanol along with the glucose in a single fermentation reaction.

Various approaches to optimize these pathways have been investigated in the past, this study builds on these observations, and compares them in the two essentially isogenic strains engineered to have the two pathways. The main conclusions are the oxidoreductase pathway responds to changes in Pho13 and Tal1 and to the adaptive evolution protocol implemented, while the isomerase strain responded to increasing the isomerase levels, and that the direct comparison suggests the oxidoreductase pathway may provide the more attractive strategy for generating the xylose fermenting S. cerevisiae strain.

This manuscript seems to fall between a research paper and a review. The majority of the work is essentially repeating a set of previously identified strain modifications in a pair of strains identical except for the added xylose metabolic enzymes; fundamentally consolidating information without providing anything new. The stated goal was to establish the framework for improved production using the isomerase modified strain, but this was not successful – the improvements were limited to increasing levels of the heterologous enzyme. Thus the paper really fails in its ultimate aim, and provides little new in this process. Providing a clear picture of why modifications that work in one framework fail in the other would be useful, but the current format is of very limited value.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the critical evaluation of the value of the present manuscript. In addition to what has been addressed by the reviewer, we would like to highlight that this collective confirmation study can provide a useful standard of the current status of this field, in which there is the overflow of metabolic engineering strategies and their multiple combinations aiming to engineer xylose strains.

Reviewer #2

The authors of the manuscript under review have constructed and compared yeast strains expressing two different pathways for xylose utilization. Some findings reported in the manuscript differ from those reported in earlier studies, and merit a thorough discussion.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments from the reviewer. Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, the manuscript was revised, and our point-by-point responses are listed below.

1. Lines 83-86 and 299-303: Prior studies have shown that deleting the PHO13 gene increases xylose uptake and ethanol production in xylose isomerase-expressing strains (for example, Biotechnol Biofuels 2014 7:122; AMB Express 2016 6:4).

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the two important prior studies, which were discussed in the revised manuscript in Lines 379-387.

2. Lines 198-200: Details about the integration site should be provided.

Response: The integration site was added in the revised manuscript (Line 213).

3. Lines 201 ff: Why did XYL123 and XI-XYL3 exhibit different xylose fermentation patterns? This should be discussed.

Response: The following discussion was added to the revised manuscript:

Lines 225-227: The difference in the rate of xylose metabolism is primarily due to the thermodynamic advantage of the oxidoreductase pathway compared to the isomerase pathway, as previously reported [33].

4. Lines 233-235: Transcriptional profiling of a pho13 mutant has been shown to upregulate the PP pathway irrespective of the sugar substrate used (Appl Environ Microbiol 2015 81:1601-1609; see Table 4 for TAL1 overexpression). As the results obtained by the authors differ from these findings, this merits a thorough discussion.

Response: The following discussion was added to the revised manuscript:

Lines 281-286: It is hypothesized that some metabolic conditions are required for PHO13 deletion-induced transcriptional activation of TAL1, which is independent from the type of a metabolizing sugar. Because the XI-XYL3 strain metabolizes xylose very slowly, a lack of ATP and/or a low level of some metabolic intermediates could be associated with undesirable conditions for the TAL1 activation.

5. Lines 236-240 and 260-267: The authors should discuss why deletion of PHO13 has different effects in strains expressing different xylose assimilation pathways. This is especially important because the results obtained by the authors differ from those reported by other researchers (for example, Biotechnol Biofuels 2014 7:122; AMB Express 2016 6:4). The probable reason for this difference should be discussed.

Response: To address the reviewer's concern regarding the different conclusion of the present study, we performed an additional experiment, and finally reached to the same conclusion with others. The detailed results and discussions are as follows:

Lines 348-353: In addition, with the improved level of xylose consumption, pho13∆ was shown to contribute to ethanol yield of the δ(XI)-XYL3 strain while its xylose consumption was not affected (Fig 5C, S6 Fig). However, the xylose consumption rate of the δ(XI)-XYL3 pho13∆ strain was still lower than that of the XYL123 pho13∆ strain (0.93 g/L-h) as well as those of the previously reported strains with 15-36 copies of the xylA gene (1.32-2.08 g/L-h, Table 3) [22,39].

Revised Fig 5.

Lines 379-387: Although a prior study presented a reduction in the lag phase by pho13∆ in the strain expressing the xylose isomerase pathway, the improvement was not as significant as those achieved by adaptive evolution in the same study [11]. The other study, which reported an 8% increase in the ethanol yield by pho13∆ in the xylose isomerase strain, used an extreme condition with an initial OD of 40 [39]. Consistent with previous findings, we also found that pho13∆ improved ethanol yield but it was only in the strain expressing multiple copies of xylA but not in the single copy xylA strain (Fig 5). Also, the xylose consumption rate remained constant in both strains, suggesting the conditional and limited effect of pho13∆ in the xylose isomerase strains.

6. Lines 288-291 and 321-322: What is the desired expression level of xylA? An earlier report has demonstrated that two copies of a mutant xylose isomerase are sufficient to achieve high xylose consumption and ethanol production rates (Biotechnol Biofuels 2014 7:122).

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the prior study. Its original work (Appl Environ Microbiol 2012 78:5708) was carefully discussed in Lines 393-395 to address the fact that the desired expression level of xylA varies greatly among studies (2-36 copies), as summarized below:

Line 405-407: However, the optimal level of the copy number of the xylA gene varies greatly among studies with the same xylA gene derived from Orpinomyces sp (Table 3).

7. Lines 323-325: Do the authors expect that different results would be obtained when genes involved in xylose assimilation from other yeast species are overexpressed? Why would that be the case?

Response: Yes. To address what the reviewer pointed out, the following sentence was added in the revised manuscript:

Lines 410-412: Considering that the xylA gene was originated from strictly anaerobic fungus Orpinomyces sp., its functional expression in yeast could have been limited compared to other xylA genes originated from bacteria and other fungi [48].

8. Lines 325-328: The interplay of cell density and dissolved oxygen is crucial in determining strain performance. The authors should discuss why the XI-expressing strain performs better under anaerobic conditions.

Response: To address the reviewer’s suggestion, the following sentence was revised in the revised manuscript:

Lines 414-415: Indeed, under anaerobic conditions with a high initial cell density, where the limited growth of the XI-XYL3 strain can be compensated,

9. Lines 341-344: The beneficial effect of PHO13 in XI-expressing strains has been shown to be independent of strain background (Appl Environ Microbiol 2015 81:1601-1609). Expression of xylA from different sources has not been found to affect transcription profiles in yeast (Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2019 189:1007-1019).

Response: To address the reviewer’s concern, several references were cited to support the following:

Lines 432-433: we think that other unknown factors are required such as different source of the xylA gene [48,49], different strain backgrounds [50,51],

48. Brat D, Boles E, Wiedemann B (2009) Functional expression of a bacterial xylose isomerase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and environmental microbiology 75 8: 2304-2311.

49. Seike T, Kobayashi Y, Sahara T, Ohgiya S, Kamagata Y, et al. (2019) Molecular evolutionary engineering of xylose isomerase to improve its catalytic activity and performance of micro-aerobic glucose/xylose co-fermentation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology for Biofuels 12: 139.

50. Feng Q, Liu ZL, Weber SA, Li S (2018) Signature pathway expression of xylose utilization in the genetically engineered industrial yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PloS one 13: e0195633.

51. Cunha JT, Soares PO, Romaní A, Thevelein JM, Domingues L (2019) Xylose fermentation efficiency of industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast with separate or combined xylose reductase/xylitol dehydrogenase and xylose isomerase pathways. Biotechnology for Biofuels 12: 20.

10. Lines 350-352: This is a highly subjective conclusion. The XI pathway is cofactor-independent, and several studies have used the XI pathway to construct efficient xylose-fermmenting strains (for example, BMC Biotechnol 2013 13:110; PLoS Genet 2015 11:e1005010; Front Microbiol 2015 6:1165; Bioresour Bioprocess 2016 3:51).

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. Therefore, we revised the conclusion to only highlight the convenience of the strain construction as follows:

Lines 437-439: With the current level of knowledge regarding xylose isomerase and its functional expression in S. cerevisiae, therefore, the xylose oxidoreductase pathway provides a more reproducible strategy to engineer xylose-fermenting strains.

11. A note on methods employed: Sufficient details should be provided in the manuscript to enable readers to understand procedures employed without referring to earlier published work. For example, how was cDNA synthesized (line 135)?

Response: The manuscript was revised as follows:

Lines 148-149: The cDNA solution, prepared from 1 µg of RNA using the ReverTra Ace® qPCR RT Master Mix (TOYOBO, Osaka, Japan),

12. Which column was used for HPLC analysis (line 155)?

Response: The manuscript was revised as follows:

Lines 170-172: analyzed by a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; Agilent Technologies, 1260 series, USA) equipped with a Rezex-ROA Organic Acid H+ (8%) (150 mm × 4.6 mm) column (Phenomenex Inc., Torrance, CA, USA). Columns were eluted with 0.005 N H2SO4 at 50oC, and the flow rate was set at 0.6 mL/min, as described previously [28].

13. A note on genetic nomenclature: Gene deletions in yeast should be designated by use of lower case letters in italics alone.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. However, all of the strain names were designated with “pho13∆”; therefore, for consistency throughout the texts, “pho13∆” was used instead of “pho13.”

Reviewer #3

The manuscript by Jeong et al. compares the use of the oxidoreductase and the isomerase pathways for xylose utilization by S. cerevisiae and concludes that the oxidoreductase pathway provides simpler metabolic engineering strategies. This conclusion is oversimplified and is not supported by the results. This work has sound and interesting experimental results but its presentation and discussion present several flaws and misconceptions. Authors used metabolic engineering strategies previously reported to be successful in XR/XDH engineered strains and confirm its validity for XR/XDH and verify that those are not successful in XI. This should not be surprising as these pathways will affect cell metabolism in a different way. In my opinion, instead of comparing the two pathways directly and choose one that provides simper metabolic engineering strategies, authors should discuss the results obtained for the two pathways and relate those with cell metabolism. One important reference related to this topic is Cunha et al 2019 Biotechnol Biofuels 12(20) that should be introduced in the introduction section and discussed. Some guidelines are given below on how to redirect results discussion.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments from the reviewer. Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, the manuscript was revised, and our point-by-point responses are listed below.

1) The integration site chosen for both pathways is the ALD6 gene. Are there any evidences that the deletion of this gene affects equally both pathways? As ALD6 codes for a cytosolic aldehyde dehydrogenase that utilizes NADP+ as the preferred coenzyme, besides increasing the flux to ethanol which will consume NADH and produce NAD+, I doubt. As the authors refer in the introduction the XI pathway is cofactor-independent while XR/XDH is cofactor-dependent, presenting a shortage of NAD+. Thus, the comparison might be bias from the very beginning. The decision of deleting ALD6 in the host of the two pathways should be better explained or authors may consider to not delete ALD6.

Response: As the reviewer suggested, a rational of the deletion of the ALD6 gene for both strains was further explained in the revised manuscript as follows:

Lines 211-215: Because acetaldehyde dehydrogenase encoded by the ALD6 gene plays a major role in acetate accumulation [32], and because acetate is detrimental to xylose metabolism of the oxidoreductase strains [3] as well as the isomerase strains [33,34], the ALD6 gene was often selected as knockout target for xylose strains [35,36].

2) The two strains show completely different physiology on xylose containing media with the strain harbouring the XI pathway presenting xylitol accumulation. Authors attribute the significant accumulation of xylitol by the XI-XYL3 strain to endogeneous enzymes like the non-specific aldose reductase code by GRE3. This has to be better explained as both hosts have the same endogeneous enzymes but only one presents accumulation of xylitol. This could also be related with the point I raised before.

Response: As the reviewer suggested, xylitol production by the XI-XYL3 strain was further explained as follows:

Lines 228-231: The accumulation of significant amount of xylitol by the XI-XYL3 strain (5.0 g/L) compared to the XYL123 strain (0.6 g/L) was likely due to endogenous non-specific xylose reductase activities (Gre3), which is more significant when the rate of xylose metabolism is slow [38].

3) On the discussion section, authors state that there is no clear and simple approach to design efficient S. cerevisiae strain with XI pathway. This sentence and the following one, makes no sense as there are several works in literature that use this pathway (XI) together with other modifications. For instance, Cunha et al. 2019 Biotechnol Biofuels 12(20).

Response: We thank the reviewer for the critical comment. The above-mentioned reference has been discussed for the possible contribution of industrial strain background on xylose fermentation capability in Lines 430-431 of the revised manuscript. Also, the discussion section has been revised as follows:

Lines 374-377: However, the approaches to design efficient S. cerevisiae strains expressing the xylose isomerase pathway varied greatly, and adaptive evolution was essential in most prior studies [11,13,20,22,50,51,52].

4) The authors refer that the copy number increase in xylose isomerase gene is the most critical for XI pathway. What about the enzyme itself? The enzyme efficiency?

Response: We agree with the reviewer that the origin of xylose isomerase gene and its functional expression are also critical factors for efficient xylose fermentation. However, Table 3 simply demonstrates that xylose consumption rates (rxylose) of the strains with the xylA gene derived from Orpinomyces sp. can vary greatly depending on the copy number of the genes. To address this point concisely, the following sentence was added in the revised manuscript.

Lines 405-407: However, the optimal level of the copy number of the xylA gene varies greatly among studies with the same xylA gene derived from Orpinomyces sp (Table 3).

5) On page 16, lines 326-327, authors state that under anaerobic conditions with high initial cell density were the XI-XYL3 strain produces ethanol at higher yield than strains with XR/XDH pathway. These comparison makes no sense. Authors compare the XI-XYL3 strain with 25 gDCW/L inoculum with the XYL123 strain with 0.5 gDCW/L.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that the comparison was unfair. To address the issue, we performed an additional experiment with the XYL123 pho13∆ strain with a high OD. The result was added to Table 3 in the revised manuscript, and the numbers were modified in Line 415-416.

6) Page 16, lines 329-332: Makes no sense. The XI pathway needs other additional modifications not necessarily the same that function with XR/XDH. Authors should also look into papers that have successful strategies with XI pathway.

Response: Based on the reviewer's suggestion, the sentence was removed. Instead, we specified the difficulties in improving the strains expressing a xylose isomerase pathway.

Lines 417-420: Nevertheless, engineering an efficient xylose-fermenting strain using the xylose isomerase pathway remains challenging because of the difficulties in reproducing adaptive evolution successfully and achieving optimal copy numbers of the xylA gene, as previously reported.

7) Pg. 16, line 336, SOR1 deletion has significantly increased growth rate; these results should be better discussed. Again, from the results one may consider that the deletion of ALD6 could be detrimental for XI expression.

Response: As reported previously [36], ald6Δ is not detrimental to a strain expressing the xylose isomerase pathway, and it has been described in Lines 209-213 of the revised manuscript. Based on the reviewer's suggestion, we revised the discussion part of sor1Δ as follows:

Lines 425-426: One the other hand, significant improvement in xylose fermentation was achieved by sor1Δ as well as multiple integration of the xylA gene with or without pho13Δ.

36. Zhang Y, Lane S, Chen J-M, Hammer SK, Luttinger J, et al. (2019) Xylose utilization stimulates mitochondrial production of isobutanol and 2-methyl-1-butanol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnology for Biofuels 12: 223.

8) On M&M, in the section of HPLC analysis, the column and conditions should be given here

Response: The manuscript was revised as follows:

Lines 170-172: analyzed by a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; Agilent Technologies, 1260 series, USA) equipped with a Rezex-ROA Organic Acid H+ (8%) (150 mm × 4.6 mm) column (Phenomenex Inc., Torrance, CA, USA). Columns were eluted with 0.005 N H2SO4 at 50oC, and the flow rate was set at 0.6 mL/min, as described previously [28].

9) Pg. 12, Line 243, high? Replace by Concentrations of xylose higher than 10 g/L…

Response: The manuscript was revised as the reviewer suggested (Line 298).

10) Pg. 14, line289, what are these desired expression levels? Some achieved in other studies referred in Table 3 using this xylA gene?

Response: Yes. For clarity, the text has been revised as follows:

Lines 170-172: However, the xylose consumption rate of the δ(XI)-XYL3 strain was still lower than that of the XYL123 pho13∆ strain (0.93 g/L-h) as well as those of the previously reported strains with 15-36 copies of the xylA gene (1.32-2.08 g/L-h, Table 3) [22,39]. The result suggested that the expression level of the xylA gene is one of the most critical factor for efficient xylose consumption, and the δ(XI)-XYL3 strain may have not reached to an optimal level of the xylA expression.

11) Pg. 16 line 345, it is not true as an initial deletion of ALD6 has been made

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's critical comment. The sentence was removed from the revised manuscript.

12) Pg. 17 line 351-352, conclusion not supported by data

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's critical comment. The conclusion has been revised as follows:

Lines 435-438: With the current level of knowledge regarding xylose isomerase and its functional expression in S. cerevisiae, therefore, the xylose oxidoreductase pathway provides a more reproducible strategy to engineer xylose-fermenting strains.

13) Table 2, no results on acetate quantification are given, if it was not detected, this information is missing.

Response: Yes, acetate was not detected, as described below:

Lines 172-173: Acetate was not detected in all fermentations, and the results were omitted from the figures and tables.

14) Table 1, XYL123 is not presented in the table

Response: Table 1 was revised for clarity.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Enrico Baruffini

6 Jul 2020

Metabolic engineering considerations for the heterologous expression of xylose-catabolic pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

PONE-D-20-07014R1

Dear Dr. Kim,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Enrico Baruffini, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

After the first revision, the reviewers found merit in your work, which can now be accepted by PLOS ONE.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the comments raised on the earlier manuscript, and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Enrico Baruffini

16 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-07014R1

Metabolic engineering considerations for the heterologous expression of xylose-catabolic pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Dear Dr. Kim:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Enrico Baruffini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Text. Supplementary materials and methods.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig

    Growth rate comparison of the evolved colonies of the XYL123 (A), XI-XYL3 (B), and XI-XYL3 pho13Δ (C) strains. Two-three most promising colonies were selected from each group, and denoted to XYL123e, XI-XYL3e, and XI-XYL3 pho13Δe, respectively. Strains were cultured in YP medium containing either 40 g/L xylose (A) or 100 g/L xylose (B, C) under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm). Volumetric growth rates were calculated at the exponential phase.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Fermentation profiles of the evolved strains expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway (the XYL123e strains).

    The XYL123 and XYL123 pho13Δ strains were used as the controls. Cell density (A), xylose concentrations (B), and fermentation parameters (C) were compared. Fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm) with a starting OD600 of 1.0. Different letters (a, b, and c) represent significant differences (p < 0.05, ANOVA method). n. d.; Not detected.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Adaptive evolution of the pho13Δ mutants of the XYL123 and the XI-XYL3 strains on xylose.

    Under growth-liming concentrations of xylose, 40 g/L (A) and 100 g/L (A), the strains were serially subcultured until the described generation numbers.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Fermentation profiles of the evolved S. cerevisiae strains expressing the isomerase pathway on 100 g/L xylose fermentation.

    (A, B, C) The XI-XYL3 strain and its evolved strains (XI-XYL3e1, XI-XYL3e2). (C, D, E) The XI-XYL3 pho13Δ strain and its evolved strains (XI-XYL3 pho13Δe1, XI-XYL3 pho13Δe2). The strains were evaluated in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm) with a starting OD600 of 1.0. Different letters (a, b, and c) represent significant differences (p < 0.05, ANOVA method). n. d.; Not detected.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Fermentation profiles of 26 mutants overexpressing the xylA gene by δ-integration on xylose fermentation.

    The XI-XYL3 strain and 26 mutants were evaluated the consumed xylose (g/L) (A) and the produced ethanol (g/L) (B) under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm). Six-mutants, which can produce ethanol, were selected and evaluated the xylose consumption rate (g xylose/L/h) and ethanol yield (g ethanol/g xylose) under oxygen-limited conditions (C) and anaerobic conditions (D). Fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose, with a starting OD600 of 1.0. The dashed line refer to the XI-XYL3 strain.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Fermentation profiles of the XI-XYL3, δ(XI)-XYL3 and δ(XI)-XYL3 pho13Δ strains on 40 g/L xylose fermentation under two different oxygen conditions.

    The strains were evaluated in YP medium containing 40 g/L xylose under oxygen-limited conditions (80 rpm, A-C) and anaerobic condition (D-F) with a starting OD600 of 1.0.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Comparison of transcriptional levels of xylA gene increased by δ-integration in two xylose isomerase pathway strains (XI-XYL3 and δ(XI)-XYL3 strains).

    Increased transcriptional levels of the xylA gene in the XI-XYL3 and the xylA overexpressed strain (δ(XI)-XYL3) by δ-integration was confirmed by RT-qPCR. Fermentations were performed in YP medium containing 40 g/L (YPX40) or 100 g/L (YPX100) xylose, with a starting OD600 of 1.0. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences (Student's t-test, p < 0.05).

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Plasmids used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Primers and guide RNAs used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Fermentation profiles of evolved S. cerevisiae expressing the xylose oxidoreductase pathway.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES