4.5 Article

Comparative genomics analysis of a series of Yarrowia lipolytica WSH-Z06 mutants with varied capacity for α-ketoglutarate production

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 76-82

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.10.008

关键词

Yarrowia lipolytica; alpha-Ketoglutarate; High-throughput screening; Carboxylic acid; Keto acid; Genomics sequencing

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2015AA021003, 2015AA021005]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31130043, 21276109]
  3. Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of PR China (FANEDD) [201256]
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-12-0876]
  5. 111 Project [111-2-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Yarrowia lipolytica is one of the most intensively investigated alpha-ketoglutaric acid (alpha-KG) producers, and metabolic engineering has proven effective for enhancing production. However, regulation of alpha-KG metabolism remains poorly understood. Genetic engineering of new strains is accompanied by potential safety concerns in some countries and regions. A series of mutants with varied capacity for alpha-KG production were obtained using random mutagenesis of Y. lipolytica WSH-206. Comparative genomics analysis was implemented to identify genes candidates associated with alpha-KG production. Manipulation of genes regulating mitochondrial biogenesis and energy metabolism could improve alpha-KG production, while genes involved in regulating transformation between keto acids and amino acids may decrease production. One gene associated with cell cycle control well represented in all mutants, whereas this gene involved in cell concentration do not appear to influence alpha-KG production. The results shed light on alpha-KG production in eukaryotic cells, and pave the way for a high-throughput screening and random mutagenesis method for enhancing alpha-KG production. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据