Citation: Wanda C Reygaert. An overview of the antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of bacteria[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(3): 482-501. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.482
[1] | Alexandra Soares, Ana Azevedo, Luciana C. Gomes, Filipe J. Mergulhão . Recombinant protein expression in biofilms. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(3): 232-250. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.3.232 |
[2] | Kenta Yamauchi, Shinji Kondo, Makiko Hamamoto, Yutaka Suzuki, Hiromi Nishida . Genome-wide maps of nucleosomes of the trichostatin A treated and untreated archiascomycetous yeast Saitoella complicata. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(1): 69-91. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.1.69 |
[3] | Mojtaba Moosavian, Mina Moradzadeh, Ataollah Ghadiri, Morteza Saki . Isolation and Identification of Legionella spp. in environmental water sources based on macrophage infectivity potentiator (mip) gene sequencing in southwest Iran. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(3): 223-231. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.3.223 |
[4] | Inês Barros, Hugo Froufe, George Marnellos, Conceição Egas, Jennifer Delaney, Michele Clamp, Ricardo Serrão Santos, Raul Bettencourt . Metatranscriptomics profile of the gill microbial community during Bathymodiolus azoricus aquarium acclimatization at atmospheric pressure. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(2): 240-260. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.240 |
[5] | Larissa Y. Waré, Augustini P. Nikièma, Jean C. Meile, Saïdou Kaboré, Angélique Fontana, Noël Durand, Didier Montet, Nicolas Barro . Microbiological safety of flours used in follow up for infant formulas produced in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(2): 347-361. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.347 |
[6] | Luciana De Vero, Tommaso Bonciani, Alexandra Verspohl, Francesco Mezzetti, Paolo Giudici . High-glutathione producing yeasts obtained by genetic improvement strategies: a focus on adaptive evolution approaches for novel wine strains. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 155-170. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.155 |
[7] | Jordyn Bergsveinson, Emily Ewen, Vanessa Friesen, Barry Ziola . Transcriptional activity and role of plasmids of Lactobacillus brevis BSO 464 and Pediococcus claussenii ATCC BAA-344T during growth in the presence of hops. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(4): 460-478. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.4.460 |
[8] | Thomas Bintsis . Yeasts in different types of cheese. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(4): 447-470. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021027 |
[9] | Leckranee Simothy, Fawzi Mahomoodally, Hudaa Neetoo . A study on the potential of ants to act as vectors of foodborne pathogens. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(2): 319-333. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.319 |
[10] | Merja Lusa, Jukka Lehto, Malin Bomberg . The uptake of Ni2+ and Ag+ by bacterial strains isolated from a boreal nutrient-poor bog. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(2): 120-137. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.2.120 |
4VG | 4-vinyl guaiacol | HMF | 5-hydroxymethylfurfural |
ALA | α-linoleic acid | DMSO | dimethyl sulfoxide |
EDA | eicosadienoic acid | ETA | eicosatrienoic acid |
hyg | hygromycin B | HR | homologous recombination |
ORI | origin of replication | NHEJ | nonhomologous end joining |
XDH | xylitol dehydrogenase | ARS | autonomous replicating sequence |
CLA | conjugated linoleic acid | CSEH | corn stover enzymatic hydrolysates |
MMEJ | microhomology mediated end joining | ||
ATMT | Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation | ||
GPD | Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase |
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in engineering oleaginous yeast (those with natural lipid accumulation of over 20% of their weight) to produce lipids for biodiesel and various other oleochemicals. The accumulation of lipids in these yeast is triggered by nutrient limitation, typically nitrogen, but also phosphate and sulfate limitation. Most notable amongst these yeast is Yarrowia lipolytica, which has been the focus of intense work over the past decade. This progress has largely been enabled by the growing number and precision of genetic engineering tools. Other yeast that have seen increased genetic engineering and use in biotechnology include Rhodosporidium toruloides and Lipomyces starkeyii. As there are several excellent reviews of these yeast [1,2,3,4,5], here we focus instead on two of the emerging oleaginous yeast with fascinating and useful properties: Debaryomyces hansenii and Trichosporon oleaginosus. In the following sections of this review, we discuss recent work characterizing these yeast, their advantageous phenotypes in comparison to better studied oleaginous yeast, each yeast's substrate and product types, and the state of the art for genetic engineering tools for each yeast. Finally, we will conclude with our perspective on the future outlook of these yeast.
Debaryomyces hansenii is a nonpathogenic, extremophilic, oleaginous ascomycete originally isolated from sea water and commonly found in high osmotic and saline environments [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Debaryomyces hansenii is most notably known for its association with the fermentation of meats and cheeses, as well as the production of fine chemicals, such as xylitol and riboflavin [6,7]. Academic interest in D. hansenii has centered around its osmotolerance and halotolerance as well as its extremophilic and oleaginous nature [6,7,10,13].
In the last several years there has been considerable focus on the phylogenetic classification of D. hansenii. Prior to advanced genomic studies, D. hansenii was often misidentified as other yeast species when based purely on phylogenetic data. Debaryomyces hansenii and Candida famata were once thought to be different organisms; however, research in this area has shown D. hansenii is the teleomorph of C. famata var. famata, and C. famata has been renamed D. hansenii [14,15]. Thus, in work published prior to 2011, C. famata and D. hansenii are cautiously regarded as the same organism [16]. Debaryomyces hansenii was also once thought to exist in two varieties: D. hansenii var. hansenii and D. hansenii var. fabryi; however, D. hansenii var. fabryi has been renamed Debaryomyces fabryi. In this review, D. hansenii refers to strains of D. hansenii var. hansenii.
As an extremophilic yeast, D. hansenii exhibits tolerance in various environmental conditions relevant in research and industry. For example, D. hansenii exhibits halotolerance and is able to grow in 10-25% NaCl [17]. Debaryomyces hansenii also exhibits osmotolerance and xerotolerance, indicating it can grow in conditions of high osmotic pressure and conditions of low-water activity, respectively [10]. Debaryomyces hansenii grows optimally in the temperature range of 20-25 ℃, but can sustain growth up to 35 ℃ [10,18]. Debaryomyces hansenii has been known to exhibit cryotolerance [19]. Growth in temperatures as low as 0 ℃ has been reported, and one strain has been isolated from a lagoon in Antarctica (Table 1) [10,15]. This yeast can also grow in a wide pH range of 3.0-10.0 [6]. Furthermore, this yeast exhibits resistance to a variety of inhibitory compounds including chlorine dioxide (up to 0.3 mg/L), penconazole, benomyl, and cycloheximide [6,20]. Collectively, these traits give D. hansenii a genetic advantage over other yeast species for use in biomanufacturing processes. While D. hansenii is typically regarded as an aerobic organism, there are some D. hansenii strains in which anaerobic fermentation is possible, although poor growth is observed [12].
Yeast Strain | NCYC 2572 | NCYC 9 | NCYC 3045 | NCYC 793 | NCYC 3981 |
Substrate | |||||
Glucose | + | + | + | + | + |
Galactose | + | + | + | + | + |
Sorbose | + | - | + | + | + |
Sucrose | + | + | + | + | + |
Maltose | + | + | + | + | + |
Cellobiose | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Trehalose | + | + | + | + | + |
Lactose | + | - | + | + | - |
Melibiose | + | + | + | W/L | - |
Raffinose | + | + | + | + | - |
Melizitose | + | + | + | + | - |
Inulin | - | - | - | - | - |
Soluble Starch | + | - | + | - | - |
Xylose | + | W/L | + | + | + |
L-Arabinose | + | W/L | - | + | + |
D-Arabinose | - | - | - | - | - |
Ribose | + | - | W/L | - | - |
Rhamnose | + | - | + | + | + |
Ethanol | + | + | + | + | + |
Glycerol | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Erythritol | + | W/L | + | W/L | + |
Ribitol | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Galactitol | - | - | - | W/L | - |
Mannitol | + | + | + | + | + |
Sorbitol | + | + | + | + | + |
AMD Glucoside | + | + | + | + | - |
Salicin | + | - | + | + | L |
Lactic Acid | + | - | + | - | W/S |
Succinic Acid | - | + | + | - | + |
Citric Acid | - | W/L | - | U | + |
Inositol | - | - | + | - | - |
Gluconolactone | + | - | + | U | + |
Glucosamine | - | - | + | U | - |
Methanol | - | - | - | U | - |
Xylitol | + | W/L | + | U | + |
(+) growth observed, (-) growth not observed, (W/L) Weak/Latent, (W/S) Weak/Slow, (L) Latent, (U) Unknown. |
Debaryomyces hansenii can grow in environments with high substrate concentrations, including media with 5% glucose or 18% glycerol [17,21]. Table 1 illustrates the wide-range of substrates readily consumed by five D. hansenii strains [18,22]. Strain NCYC 2572 is the type strain of Debaryomyces hansenii. In addition to substrates listed in Table 1, D. hansenii has also been known to assimilate n-alkanes as well as various nitrogen sources such as inorganic ammonium and nitrite[18,23,24].
Although D. hansenii readily consumes many substrates, efforts have been made to optimize its nutrient usage for improved metabolism and production in biomanufacturing processes. Debaryomyces hansenii has a large number of overexpressed transporters facilitating the use of diverse substrates [19]. The ability of D. hansenii to utilize D-xylose has been studied extensively for the production of xylitol, an industrial sweetener [25,26,27]. Multiple studies have analyzed various hemicellulosic hydrolysates from multiple biomass sources and spent brewing grains as substrates. Hydrolysates from Eucalyptus globulus were used to produce xylitol with high product yields of 0.80 g/g, 0.84 g/g, and 0.81 g/g for raw, sulfite-treated, and charcoal-treated hydrolysates, respectively [28]. Barley bran hydrolysates were used as a substrate for D. hansenii resulting in optimal xylitol productivity of 2.53 g/L/h when implementing cell recycle [29], and later, spent brewer's grain was used to obtain a yield and productivity of 0.55 g/g and 0.36 g/L/h, respectively [30].
Hemicellulose hydrolysates have also been examined as substrates for ethanol production in D. hansenii. For example, Kurian et al. investigated using a sweet sorghum bagasse as a source of D-xylose, and reported a maximum ethanol concentration of approximately 22 g/L produced by D. hansenii [31]. Media containing 1% (w/v) D-fructose, sucrose, L-arabinose, glycerol, or sodium acetate and 1% (w/v) glucose was used for D-arabitol production [32].
Due to the oleaginous nature of D. hansenii, lipase production in this yeast has been studied for its biotechnological applications. Under optimized media conditions for this process a maximum lipase activity of 7.44 U/mL (1U = 1 mmol free fatty acid per minute) in media at a pH of 3.8 was obtained. The media contained rich nitrogen sources (yeast extract and peptone) with olive oil as the carbon source [33].
The conversion of ferulic acid to 4-vinyl guaiacol (4VG) is a valuable chemical process in the brewing industry, and 4VG can be further converted to vanillic acid and other metabolites. The process constraints which yielded the highest conversion of ferulic acid to 4VG were 1 g/L glucose, 20 g/L peptone, and 5.1 g/L yeast extract. The process conditions that yielded the highest vanillic acid concentration were 10.5 g/L glucose, 2 g/L peptone, and 0.2 g/L yeast extract. These varying conditions result from metabolic distributions that favor 4VG or vanillic acid production [34].
Debaryomyces hansenii is known to produce polyols such as xylitol and trehalose [6,7,35]. Certain polyols, glycerol in particular, serve as compatible solutes, or osmolytes, and may be involved in futile cycles with this yeast [36]. In fact, glycerol metabolism is considered a main contributor to osmoregulation in D. hansenii [37]. Life cycle stage is also a factor influencing product formation. This yeast produces glycerol during the growth stage while producing D-arabitol during the stationary phase [32,37,38]. As an oleaginous yeast, D. hansenii is known to accumulate significant amounts of lipids [39], described as up to 50% w/w for neutral lipids when grown on glycerol [40]. Accordingly, D. hansenii is a flavogenic yeast and excretes riboflavin, vitamin B2, when experiencing iron starvation [41]. Debaryomyces hansenii naturally produces many of the other essential fat-soluble vitamins. For example, D. hansenii produces ergosterol, a vitamin D precursor, in its plasma membrane [42].
Debaryomyces hansenii is known for being used in meat and cheese fermentation. The aromatic volatile compounds produced by D. hansenii serve as flavor additives in meat products [43], and this yeast serves as starter cultures in dry fermented sausages because of its production of 3-methylbutanol, 3-methylbutanal, 2-propanone [44], terpenes and ethyl esters [45]. Debaryomyces hansenii has good potential as a starter culture for cheese due to its osmotolerance, its consumption of lactic and citric acids, and its consumption of lactose and galactose [46].
The genome of D. hansenii was fully sequenced in 2004 as part of the Génolevures project and is known for its heterogenicity [7,47,48]. Unlike most yeast genomes in which the CUG codon codes for leucine, CUG codes for serine in D. hansenii [21,49]. This is particularly characteristic of Candida and related species. The alternative yeast codon usage in D. hansenii has implications in heterologous gene expression. The genome of D. hansenii is reported as having 11.6 × 106 base pairs and a 6, 290 mean protein count [48,50,51]. Out of 1119 genes analyzed in D. hansenii, 12 contained introns according to a bioinformatics study by Bon et al. In that same study, the introns were reported on average to be 129.5 nucleotides in length, with the exception of ribosomal protein introns at 255.2 nucleotides in length [52]. Debaryomyces hansenii has osmotic pressure dependent linear plasmids, previously designated as pDHL1, pDHL2, pDHL3, pDHL1A and pDHL1B [53,54]. However, at 25 ℃ these linear plasmids were osmotic pressure independent [55]. Therefore, D. hansenii cultures not grown in the optimal temperature range might require additional components in the media such as salt or glycerol in order to maintain plasmid stability [54].
Three different transformation methods for D. hansenii have been established: spheroplast transformation, electroporation, and TRAFO protocol. Spheroplast and electroporation methods were developed by Voronovsky et al. and selections were accomplished by complementation of leucine deficiency and riboflavin deficiency [41]. Dmytruk et al. used the electroporation method for random insertion mutagenesis via an integrative plasmid having the S. cerevisiae-derived LEU2 gene for selection, obtaining transformation efficiencies of 40-200 transformants/μg DNA [56]. It should be noted that the organism utilized in the research conducted by Vornovosky et al. and Dmytruk et al. has been classified as D. fabryi rather than D. hansenii [16]. Electroporation methods for D. hansenii have utilized hygomycin B (hyg) resistance and uracil prototrophy [57], as well as gene disruption with selection by histidine auxotrophy complementation [58]. Other researchers have incorporated the TRAFO protocol, which produces competent cells using ethylene glycol and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and subjects them to heat shock for transformations with an efficiency of 104 transformants/μg DNA [59,60]. Table 2 provides a comparison of transformation efficiencies for the research discussed in this section.
Strain | Plasmid | Promoter/ Terminator | Transformation Method | Efficiency (trans/μg DNA) | Vector Type | Ref |
NRRL Y-7426 | pMR95 (HR) | ScCYC1 | E | 240 ± 142 | EP | [57]. |
pMR96 (HR) | 280 ± 75 | |||||
pMR96 (UP) | 2643 ± 305 | |||||
*VKM Y-9 (LDM) | pCfARS6 | lacZ | S | 6.3 × 104 | I | [41]. |
pCfARS16 | E | 1 × 105 | ||||
NRRL Y-7426 | pRGMA | ScADH2 | E | Not reported | EP | [61]. |
pRGMC | ScCYC1 | |||||
pRGMG | ScGPD1 | |||||
pRGMGd | DhGPD1d | |||||
pRGMH | ScHSP12 | |||||
pRGMS | ScSME1 | |||||
H158 | pAL-HPH-TEF-GFP | AaTEF1 | TRAFO | 0.9-1.0 × 104 | I | [59,60,62,63]. |
*VKM Y-9 (LDM) | pTb | DhTEF1 | E | 40-200 | I | [56]. |
CBS767 | pDhARS2, 3, 9 | DhTEF | E | 3-4 × 104 | I | [58]. |
*Identification as D. fabryi, (LDM) leucine deficient mutant, (HR) hygromyocin resistance, (UP) uracil prototrophy, (Sc) S. cerevisiae, (Dh) D. hansenii, (Aa) A. adeninivorans, (E) Electroporation, (S) Spheroplast, (TRAFO) TRAFO Protocol, (EP) Episomal, (I) Integrative. |
Several plasmids have been constructed for D. hansenii. Plasmids pMR95 and pMR96 were constructed with autonomously replicating sequences (ARS) native to D. hansenii identified by a genomic library screen in S. cerevisiae [64]. Plasmid pMR95 was constructed by incorporating an autonomous replication system (ARS), a bacterial hygromycin B (hyg) resistance gene, and a S. cerevisiae-derived CYC1 promoter and terminator. Plasmid pMR96 had the addition of S. cerevisiae URA3 gene as a prototrophic marker. The transformation efficiency for pMR95 for hygromycin resistance was 240 ± 142 transformants/μg DNA. Transformation efficiencies for pMR96 were lower for hygromycin resistance than for uracil prototrophy, 280 ± 75 transformants/μg DNA and 2643 ± 305 transformants/μg DNA, respectively [57].
Although Voronovsky et al. and Dmytruk et al. utilized strain VKM Y-9, later classified as D. fabryi, the research could still be analyzed for applicability to research with D. hansenii. Plasmids YEp13 and PRpL2 were used to transform leucine deficient mutants. Plasmid PRpL2 was constructed with a bla gene, and an origin of replication (ORI), the S. cerevisiae-derived LEU2 gene, and a Pichia guilliermondii-derived ARS [24,65,66]. Plasmids, pCfARS6 and pCfARS16, containing D. fabryi ARS sequences were used to transform a leucine deficient mutant (L20105) resulting in high transformation efficiencies of 6.3 × 104 transformants/μg DNA for the spheroplast method and 1 × 105 transformants/μg DNA for the electroporation method [41]. Dmytruk et al. used the linearized plasmid, pTb, to express genes for riboflavin synthesis using a D. fabryi TEF1 promoter and a phleomycin selection marker [56].
Six episomal expression vectors for D. hansenii were constructed with a S. cerevisiae-derived terminator, five of the six vectors were constructed with inducible heterologous promoters from S. cerevisiae, and the final vector was constructed with a D. hansenii endogenous promoter. All of the vectors had an E. coli ORI, bla gene, a URA3 uracil auxotrophic marker, an ARS from D. hansenii, and reporter GFPm3.1 [61]. The highest levels of GFP expression were achieved with the GPD1 promoter from D. hansenii in media with 6% NaCl resulting in 60% GFP positive cells, and 25% of cells expressing GFP from the SME1 promoter under normal growth conditions. This group reported that expression in D. hansenii was osmotic-pressure dependent [61].
An integrative expression vector initially developed for Arxula adeninivorans was applied to transform multiple yeast species, including D. hansenii. The vector consisted of a conserved A. adeninivorans-derived 25S rDNA sequence for targeting, an A. adeninivorans-derived TEF1 promoter for expression of the reporter gene (GFP), and an E. coli-derived gene for hygromycin B resistance for selection [63]. While gene integration was successful, D. hansenii exhibited some of the weakest GFP expression signals [63]. This research highlights the need for additional optimization and expansion of the genetic toolkit for D. hansenii.
Histidine auxotrophic mutants were isolated and complemented by DhHIS4. Two plasmids, pGEM-HIS4 and pDhARS2, were constructed based on using ARS from D. hansenii. Plasmid pDhARS2 was used as a basis to construct eight plasmids with different ARS, three of which, pDhARS2, pDhARS3, and pDhARS9 had high transformation efficiencies (4 × 104 transformants/μg DNA). Two plasmids, pDH4 and pDH11, were constructed with the DhHIS4 gene as well as a D. hansenii-derived ARS. Plasmid pDH11 had the addition of a red fluorescent protein (RFP) gene as a reporter under the control of D. hansenii-derived TEF1 promoter [58]. Table 2 provides a summary of the various promoters and terminators as well as the transformation efficiencies for the research discussed thus far.
Advances in genetic engineering research include emerging genome editing tools such as zinc-finger nucleases, TALENS, Cre-lox, meganucleases, and CRISPR-Cas9 systems. To date, there have been no reports of genome editing tools applied to D. hansenii. As such, there is urgent need for the development of these systems to enhance natural production or to introduce new metabolic pathways.
Debaryomyces hansenii is able to naturally consume a wide range of substrates and tolerate a variety of harsh chemical conditions compared to other yeast. Given the availability of genetic engineering tools, it is surprising that so few instances of engineering improved substrate utilization in strains of D. hansenii have been reported. While significant work has been dedicated to developing and optimizing transformation methods for D. hansenii, a small number of reports apply these technologies to improve product formation. Pal et al. optimized process constraints for the production of xylitol using a xylitol dehydrogenase (XDH) disrupted mutants and reported a 2.5-fold increase over the wild-type strain, CBS767 [67].
Metabolic and genetic engineering of D. hansenii could lead to an expanded substrate palette or better substrate utilization rates. While D. hansenii has been utilized to improve biomanufacturing processes for its natural products, little work has been done to genetically engineer this yeast for heterologous chemical production.
Debaryomyces hansenii has several characteristics that may be exploited in a variety of biotechnological applications. As an oleaginous yeast, the ability of D. hansenii to produce a significant amount of lipids makes it attractive for production of oleochemicals and fatty acid derivatives, in the same way as Y. lipolytica, L. starkeyii, and R. toruloides. Its ability to consume a wide range of substrates provides significant flexibility in the feedstock utilization. In fact, its transport and enzyme systems have been exploited in heterologous xylose utilization in other yeast species [68,69]. Its ability to grow in a wide range of pH is a considerable advantage in preventing bacterial contamination. However, its most important advantage comes from its growth in saline environments. Its halotolerance and resistance to certain harsh chemical treatments, such as chlorine dioxide, can be exploited for non-sterile production processes which could, in turn, increase product yields and reduce operation costs. Additionally, growth in saline environments could make use of desalination effluents. Finally, the halotolerance of D. hansenii could make it the ideal organism for conversion of lignocellulosic substrates produced using ionic liquids, reducing the burden of ionic liquid removal and its general microbial toxicity.
In order to take advantage of D. hansenii properties, there are challenges that need to be addressed or at least considered in genetic engineering. For example, the alternative yeast codon usage is a barrier that is easy to overcome with modern gene synthesis. While transformation procedures have been established along with some vector systems, further development of these systems is required. Plasmid designs could be improved by the discovery of centromere sequences enabling symmetric segregation of episomal plasmids. High copy number plasmids, similar to S. cerevisiae 2 μ plasmids could be advantageous for metabolic engineering. Similarly, finely tuned and inducible promoter systems will be needed to provide precise control over gene transcription required for pathway engineering.
Tools for rapid and reliable genome editing are increasingly used for metabolic engineering; however, genome editing tools are likewise lacking for D. hansenii. CRISPR-Cas9 systems have been developed in other oleaginous yeast [70], and would be beneficial for strain engineering. The development of such systems benefits from an understanding of the relative contributions of different DNA repair mechanisms, such as nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), homologous recombination (HR), and microhomology mediated end joining (MMEJ). Standard integration sites exhibiting predictable, stable, and high expression and are also advantageous for strain engineering [71].
Trichosporon oleaginosus is an oleaginous yeast in the basidomycete phylum [72,73]. Trichosporon oleaginosus was first isolated from cheese plant floors and floor drains at Iowa State University and characterized as highly lipid accumulating on lactose [74,75]. It has been reclassified and renamed many times, previously known as Cryptococcus curvatus, Candida curvata, Cutaneotrichosporon oleaginosus, and Apriotrichum curvatum. Throughout this review, we simply refer to Trichosporon oleaginosus. A survey of yeast found that T. oleaginosus could accumulate up to 60% of its biomass as lipids, and many have optimized media conditions to accumulate over 70% of its biomass as lipids [76,77,78,79]. Its lipid profile is similar to that of plants, such as palm oil [80], and cocoa butter [73,81,82]. This yeast can metabolize and tolerate a wide variety of recalcitrant feedstocks of different composition (Tables 3 and 4), allowing its growth in variable and harsh conditions found in wastewater streams.
Single Substrate | Conc. (g/L) | % Lipid (w/w) | Reference |
Acetate | 30 | 73.4 | [76] |
14 | 60.0 | [84] | |
10 | 50.9 | [85] | |
Glucose | 30 | 57.0 | [96] |
30 | 50.0 | [78] | |
30 | 29.5 | [97] | |
Xylose | 30 | 48.0 | [96] |
30 | 50.0 | [78] | |
30 | 26.4 | [97] | |
N-acetyl-glucosamine | 70 | 54.2 | [82] |
20 | N.D. | [78] | |
Glycerol | 80 | 43.0 | [99] |
30 | 27.3 | [97] | |
Sweet sorghum hydrolysates | 15 | 53.0 | [93] |
45 | 50.8 | [94] | |
Volatile fatty acids | 28 | 61.0 | [79] |
Pretreated waste active sludge supernatant | 30 | 25.7 | [100] |
Municipal wastewater (sterile); COD = 0.370 g/L | N.D. | 11.1 | [89] |
Municipal wastewater (nonsterile); COD = 0.326 g/L | N.D. | 9.1 | [89] |
Acidic-thermal pre-treated sludge | 30 | 37.1 | [87] |
Thermal pre-treated sludge | 30 | 35.2 | [87] |
Alkaline pre-treated sludge | 30 | 38.8 | [87] |
Multi Substrate | Conc. (g/L) | % Lipid (w/w) | Reference |
Corn Stover | 52.3 | [76]. | |
--glucose | 19.2 | ||
--xylose | 9.2 | ||
--acetate | 15.9 | ||
Dark fermentation HPE & acetic acid | 20 g/L | 75.0 | [77] |
NDLH | |||
--glucose | 3.7 | 33.5 | [90]. |
--xylose | 19.6 | ||
--arabinose | 4.7 | ||
--galactose | 1.2 | ||
--acetic acid | 4.0 | ||
--furfural | 0.44 | ||
--HMF | 0.05 | ||
Glu 40Xyl 20 | 40/20 | 40.7 ± 0.6 | [97]. |
Glu 40Xyl 20Gly 30 | 40/20/30 | 48.7 ± 1.1 | |
Xyl 30Gly 30 | 30/30 | 38.8 ± 0.7 | |
CSEH (Glu/Xyl) | 18.8/14.5 | 39.4 ± 0.5 | |
CSEH + Gly 30 | 30 | 49.7 ± 0.5 |
Trichosporon oleaginosus typically grows as a yeast, but can exhibit a pseudohyphal phenotype [72]. Its optimal growth conditions are 28-30 ℃ and a pH between 5.4 and 5.8 [74,83]. The doubling time for this organism has not been clearly identified; however, when grown in more traditional carbon sources such as glucose or xylose, cells can be expected to enter exponential phase around 12 hours and enter stationary phase between 24 and 48 hours, depending on the concentration of feedstock added [84,85,86]. Trichosporon oleaginosus can grow in the presence of many compounds that are toxic to other microorganisms. Its ability to grow in wastewater streams [87,88,89], already proves its potential to remediate waste effluent and toxic byproducts of industrial processes. Additionally, it has been shown to tolerate several byproducts of lignocellulose pretreatments including acetic acid [85,90], acetate [84], furfural, 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) [90], and ammonia [91]. From an engineering standpoint, microorganisms able to tolerate these byproducts are economically favorable industrial hosts as there are significant costs associated with toxic compound removal from feedstocks.
Trichosporon oleaginosus has robust growth in many mono-and disaccharides [86]. Recently, T. oleaginosus has been shown to grow on a variety of heterogeneous and recalcitrant feedstocks. The robustness and metabolic flexibility of T. oleaginosus has been demonstrated consistently (Table 4). Several groups have demonstrated preferential sugar metabolism in T. oleaginosus [92,93,94]. Glucose and fructose can both be metabolized, with glucose being the primary substrate [92]. In more complex mixtures of monosaccharides, glucose is the preferred carbon source, with xylose and arabinose simultaneously utilized when glucose concentrations drop below 10.7 g/L [93]. The same phenomena were observed for a mixture of glucose, fructose, and sucrose [94]. On the contrary, other studies have shown co-utilization of glucose and xylose at 15 g/L each, with neither sugar being preferred [95].
Xylose metabolism has been extensively studied in T. oleaginosus. Early studies show lipid accumulation of up to 49% of dry cell weight from 30 g/L of xylose. In T. oleaginosus, xylose is metabolized through the phosphoketolase pathway, instead of the pentose phosphate pathway [95]. Trichosporon oleaginosus is also notable for its higher production of lipids when xylose is used as a single carbon source compared to glucose [95,96].
Co-utilization of sugars has been shown to enhance lipid production in T. oleaginosus. Combining lignocellulosic hydrolysates with biodiesel-derived glycerol results in higher cell yield and productivity [97]. The highest lipid accumulation achieved on a single carbon source was 29.5% from 30 g/L glucose. However, synergistic effects were seen when cells were grown on mixed substrate carbon sources. Only glycerol and xylose did not have an improved effect; however, there was no detrimental effect. The highest lipid accumulation on a mixed substrate medium was 49.7% for cells grown on corn stover enzymatic hydrolysates (CSEH) and 30 g/L glycerol. In mixed substrate media, cell mass, lipid titer, lipid content, lipid yield, and rate of substrate consumption were all improved when biodiesel-derived glycerol was mixed with other substrates. These results suggest that co-utilization triggers multiple pathways that promote lipid accumulation, and improved carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of the mixed media attribute to the enhanced growth and lipid accumulation in a multiple substrate medium.
Typically, oleaginous yeasts accumulate high titers of lipids when under nitrogen starvation conditions; however, when T. oleaginosus cells are grown with 30 g/L acetate, low nitrogen conditions are not necessary [76]. In this study, T. oleaginosus cells had the highest lipid accumulation at 73.4% when grown on 30 g/L acetic acid in nitrogen-rich medium that had a C/N ratio of 1.76. The nitrogen-limited medium had a C/N ratio of 35.5 and resulted in a maximum lipid accumulation of 66.4%. This is the only report for this organism to claim maximum lipid accumulation in nitrogen-rich medium [98]. The iron-free medium (C/N ratio of 3.5) had no significant change when compared to the nitrogen limitation medium (C/N ratio of 32.4) in biomass concentration, biomass yield, biomass formation, or rate of glucose consumption. However, the overall lipid yield, rate of lipid synthesis, and final lipid accumulation per dry cell weight was higher in the nitrogen limitation medium. This finding was supported by recent work showing only 4% (w/w) lipids of the total biomass [78]. The nitrogen limitation media (NLM) used had a C/N ratio of 365.5 and result in 50% lipids per dry cell weight; however, phosphate limitation did not significantly alter lipid accumulation, resulting in 15% (w/w) lipid accumulation [78].
Not only can T. oleaginosus metabolize several carbon sources, it also tolerates toxic processing components such as acetic acid [76,84,85,90], furfural, HMF [90], and ammonia [91]. Trichosporon oleaginosus was able to use the non-detoxified hydrolysate as a feedstock to accumulate 33.5% of its biomass as lipids [90]. Surprisingly, this was a higher accumulation than cells grown on detoxified hydrolysates (27%). The effect of furfural and HMF is particularly inhibitory to most yeasts; however, T. oleaginosus was found to tolerate furfural up to 1 g/L and HMF to 3 g/L [90]. The inhibitory effect of high ammonium content was tested because of its relevance to wastewater streams. Trichosporon oleaginosus grown in glucose was not affected by 0.785 g/L nitrogen derived from ammonium, but cell biomass derived from acetate is significantly affected [91]. The difference in tolerance is predicted to be due to differences in enzyme sensitivity to ammonium.
The fully sequenced T. oleaginosus genome [78,101] is deposited as Trichosporon oleaginosus IBC0246 v1.0 in the JGI Genome Portal [22]. The draft genome was a total of 19.9 Mbp with an overall G + C content of 60.7% [78]. Based on sequencing data, 80.4% of genes contain introns, and there is an average of 3 introns per gene. The total repeat content of the genome is 2.85%, and repeats longer than 200 bp only comprise 0.3% of the genome. The whole genome has a predicted 8, 320 proteins. The codon usage of T. oleaginosus is very different from that of S. cerevisiae. For example, the basidiomycetes prefer CAG, TGC, and GAG for glutamine, cysteine, and glutamic acid, whereas S. cerevisiae prefers CAA, TGT, and GAA [102]. Trichosporon oleaginosus also has a strong preference for C and avoids A as the third position of codons. The chromosome number and ploidy level have not yet been described for this organism.
The first successful transformation system for T. oleaginosus used Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated genomic integration for the production of modified fatty acids [96]. Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation (ATMT) have been reported for several filamentous fungi and yeasts [103,104,105,106]. A screen of transformation efficiency using the yellow fluorescence protein (YFP) showed a wide distribution of YFP fluorescence strength, attributed to randomness of gene integration and gene copy number that arises from ATMT. Transformation efficiencies were not reported.
A plasmid developed for gene deletion using homologous recombination in filamentous fungus Fusarium graminearum (pRF-HU2) [106] was modified for ATMT of T. oleaginosus (pRF-HU2-GPD) [96]. The T-DNA contains the gene of interest as well as the hygromycin B resistance gene (hyg) from E. coli. The original pRF-HU2 promoter (pTrpC) upstream of hph was replaced with a truncated 390 bp fragment of the native T. oleaginosus promoter for the glycer-aldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GPD) gene. This promoter was chosen for its strong, constitutive expression, as judged based on transcriptomic data [78]. The original tryptophan terminator from Aspergillus nidulans was kept for the hyg gene. This plasmid was tested with a codon-optimized yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) as a reporter protein (pRF-HU2-GPD-YFP). YFP required expression using the full 800 bp T. oleaginosus GPD promoter. The 600 bp native T. oleaginosus GPD terminator was likewise used.
There have been no reports of engineered substrate utilization. The organism is still being rigorously characterized so that the foundation is developed for engineering applications. The natural ability for T. oleaginosus to grow on a variety of single and multi-carbon feedstocks is promising for novel engineered substrate utilization.
Only one example of improving production formation using genetic engineering has been reported. The native pathway for fatty acid biosynthesis (solid lines) has been extended by ATMT of heterologous enzymes (dashed lines) (Figure 1). The endogenous pathway is shown in solid lines and produces oleic acid in large amounts (35.7% total fatty acids (TFA) content) compared to α-linoleic acid (ALA) (2.8%). To increase ALA titer, a bi-functional ∆12/ω3 fatty acid desaturase (Fm1) from filamentous fungi Fusarium moniliforme was integrated into the genome. This increased production of ALA from < 3% to 21%. Separately, conversion to eicosadienoic acid (EDA) and eicosatrienoic acid (ETA) from ALA was mediated by a ∆9 elongase (IgASE2) from Isochrysis galbana H29. This strain accumulated 1.3% ALA, 16.8% of EDA, and 1.0% ETA each after cultivation in YPD for three days. These two genes were simultaneously integrated and two strains were chosen for analysis. Strain Ⅰ accumulated 17% ALA, 9.7% EDA, and 8.9% ETA. Strain Ⅱ accumulated 28.5% ALA, 0.9% EDA, and 9.0% ETA. The phenotypic differences between the two strains showcase the differences in genotype due to the randomness of gene integration using ATMT. Trichosporon oleaginosus was additionally engineered to produce conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) from linoleic acid by linoleic acid isomerase (PAI) from Propionibacterium acnes. This strain accumulated 1.3% ALA and 2.6% CLA. All enzymes used in this study were codon optimized based on the preferred codon usage table for GPD (Genbank AF126158.1) [96].
Trichosporon oleaginosus can metabolize many recalcitrant, heterogeneous feedstocks and tolerate many toxic compounds. It can generate high lipid content from crude glycerol, acetate, lignocellulosic hydrolysates, and wastewater streams. Its tolerance to typically toxic compounds decreases processing complexity, as feedstocks do not require extensive purification and detoxification. These factors combined showcase this yeast's potential in oleochemical production from raw, unprocessed waste streams. The fast growth rate of yeast has a clear advantage over more complex organisms such as white-rot fungi that can also break down recalcitrant feedstocks and produce complex enzymes, but grow extremely slowly. Recent transformation and genetic tool developments by Görner et al. are promising and have opened the door to industrializing this organism as a microbial platform for converting trash to treasure. Establishing effective transformation methods, expression cassettes, and selection markers will provide the tools required for genetic amenability of T. oleaginosus and enable targeted engineering of its genome and metabolic pathways for improved and tailored oleochemical production.
To date, there continues to be only one publication discussing the genomic engineering of T. oleaginosus [96]. While significant, only one promoter, terminator, and transformation method has been developed. The ATMT method, due to its randomness in integration site and copy number, is an inconsistent transformation method. Improvements in recombinant gene expression could improve product formation and predictability in strain engineering.
Yeast with the ability to grow rapidly on a variety of mixed and waste substrates, such as D. hansenii and T. oleaginosus, hold great potential for biochemical production. Tolerance to a variety of lignocellulosic inhibitors provide significant advantages in relieving the need for costly detoxification processes; and tolerance to high ionic conditions make it possible to use saline waters in bioprocessing and non-sterile fermentations. The lessons learned from taming Yarrowia lipolytica as a bioproduction host include focusing on building a significant number of genetic engineering tools coupled with a growing understanding of its genetics and metabolism. As new oleaginous yeasts are discovered with more advantageous properties for certain applications, a pipeline of genetic engineering tools should be developed to enable rapid strain development activities. This tool development should focus on promoters, terminators, standardized integration sites, episomal vectors, and CRISPR-based systems needed to hasten the development of strains capable of utilizing a broader range of substrates and converting them into a wider variety of products. Taming these nascent systems may lead to improvements in and industrial adoption of these new biochemical production platforms.
This work was supported in part by a Sun Grant Award from USDA-NIFA (2014-38502-22598) to MAB.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | World Health Organization (2014) World Health Statistics 2014. |
[2] | World Health Organization (2015) Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. |
[3] |
Griffith M, Postelnick M, Scheetz M (2012) Antimicrobial stewardship programs: methods of operation and suggested outcomes. Expert Rev Anti-Infe 10: 63–73. doi: 10.1586/eri.11.153
![]() |
[4] |
Yu VL (2011) Guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and health-care-associated pneumonia: a vulnerability, a pitfall, and a fatal flaw. Lancet Infect Dis 11: 248–252. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70005-6
![]() |
[5] | Goossens H (2009) Antibiotic consumption and link to resistance. Clin Microbiol Infec 15 3:12–15. |
[6] |
Pakyz AL, MacDougall C, Oinonen M, et al. (2008) Trends in antibacterial use in US academic health centers: 2002 to 2006. Arch Intern Med 168: 2254–2260. doi: 10.1001/archinte.168.20.2254
![]() |
[7] |
Tacconelli E (2009) Antimicrobial use: risk driver of multidrug resistant microorganisms in healthcare settings. Curr Opin Infect Dis 22: 352–358. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32832d52e0
![]() |
[8] |
Landers TF, Cohen B, Wittum TE, et al. (2012) A review of antibiotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential. Public Health Rep 127: 4–22. doi: 10.1177/003335491212700103
![]() |
[9] | Wegener HC (2012) Antibiotic resistance-Linking human and animal health, In: Improving food safety through a One Health approach, Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 331–349. |
[10] | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013) Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013, U.S, Department of Health and Human Services, CS239559-B. |
[11] |
Maragakis LL, Perencevich EN, Cosgrove SE (2008) Clinical and economic burden of antimicrobial resistance. Expert Rev Anti-Infe 6: 751–763. doi: 10.1586/14787210.6.5.751
![]() |
[12] |
Filice GA, Nyman JA, Lexau C, et al. (2010) Excess costs and utilization associated with methicillin resistance for patients with Staphylococcus aureus infection. Infect Cont Hosp Ep 31: 365–373. doi: 10.1086/651094
![]() |
[13] |
Hübner C, Hübner NO, Hopert K, et al. (2014) Analysis of MRSA-attributed costs of hospitalized patients in Germany. Eur J Clin Microbiol 33: 1817–1822. doi: 10.1007/s10096-014-2131-x
![]() |
[14] |
Macedo-Viñas M, De Angelis G, Rohner P, et al. (2013) Burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections at a Swiss University hospital: excess length of stay and costs. J Hosp Infect 84: 132–137. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2013.02.015
![]() |
[15] |
Pakyz A, Powell JP, Harpe SE, et al. (2008) Diversity of antimicrobial use and resistance in 42 hospitals in the United States. Pharmacotherapy 28: 906–912. doi: 10.1592/phco.28.7.906
![]() |
[16] |
Sandiumenge A, Diaz E, Rodriguez A, et al. (2006) Impact of diversity of antibiotic use on the development of antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemoth 57: 1197–1204. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkl097
![]() |
[17] |
Wood TK, Knabel SJ, Kwan BW (2013) Bacterial persister cell formation and dormancy. Appl Environ Microbiol 79: 7116–7121. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02636-13
![]() |
[18] |
Keren I, Kaldalu N, Spoering A, et al. (2004) Persister cells and tolerance to antimicrobials. FEMS Microbiol Lett 230: 13–18. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00856-5
![]() |
[19] | Coculescu BI (2009) Antimicrobial resistance induced by genetic changes. J Med Life 2: 114–123. |
[20] |
Martinez JL (2014) General principles of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Drug Discov Today 11: 33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2014.02.001
![]() |
[21] |
Cox G, Wright GD (2013) Intrinsic antibiotic resistance: mechanisms, origins, challenges and solutions. Int J Med Microbiol 303: 287–292. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2013.02.009
![]() |
[22] |
Fajardo A, Martinez-Martin N, Mercadillo M, et al. (2008) The neglected intrinsic resistome of bacterial pathogens. PLoS One 3: e1619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001619
![]() |
[23] |
Davies J, Davies D (2010) Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 74: 417–433. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00016-10
![]() |
[24] | Reygaert WC (2009) Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): molecular aspects of antimicrobial resistance and virulence. Clin Lab Sci 22: 115–119. |
[25] |
Blázquez J, Couce A, Rodríguez-Beltrán J, et al. (2012) Antimicrobials as promoters of genetic variation. Curr Opin Microbiol 15: 561–569. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2012.07.007
![]() |
[26] |
Chancey ST, Zähner D, Stephens DS (2012) Acquired inducible antimicrobial resistance in Gram-positive bacteria. Future Microbiol 7: 959–978. doi: 10.2217/fmb.12.63
![]() |
[27] | Mahon CR, Lehman DC, Manuselis G (2014) Antimicrobial agent mechanisms of action and resistance, In: Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology, St. Louis: Saunders, 254–273. |
[28] |
Blair JM, Richmond GE, Piddock LJ (2014) Multidrug efflux pumps in Gram-negative bacteria and their role in antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol 9: 1165–1177. doi: 10.2217/fmb.14.66
![]() |
[29] |
Kumar A, Schweizer HP (2005) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: active efflux and reduced uptake. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 57: 1486–1513. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2005.04.004
![]() |
[30] |
Lambert PA (2002) Cellular impermeability and uptake of biocides and antibiotics in gram-positive bacteria and mycobacteria. J Appl Microbiol 92: 46S–54S. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.92.5s1.7.x
![]() |
[31] |
Bébéar CM, Pereyre S (2005) Mechanisms of drug resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Curr Drug Targets 5: 263–271. doi: 10.2174/1568005054880109
![]() |
[32] |
Miller WR, Munita JM, Arias CA (2014) Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in enterococci. Expert Rev Anti-Infe 12: 1221–1236. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2014.956092
![]() |
[33] | Gill MJ, Simjee S, Al-Hattawi K, et al. (1998) Gonococcal resistance to β-lactams and tetracycline involves mutation in loop 3 of the porin encoded at the penB locus. Antimicrob Agents Ch 42: 2799–2803. |
[34] |
Cornaglia G, Mazzariol A, Fontana R, et al. (1996) Diffusion of carbapenems through the outer membrane of enterobacteriaceae and correlation of their activities with their periplasmic concentrations. Microb Drug Resist 2: 273–276. doi: 10.1089/mdr.1996.2.273
![]() |
[35] |
Chow JW, Shlaes DM (1991) Imipenem resistance associated with the loss of a 40 kDa outer membrane protein in Enterobacter aerogenes. J Antimicrob Chemoth 28: 499–504. doi: 10.1093/jac/28.4.499
![]() |
[36] |
Thiolas A, Bornet C, Davin-Régli A, et al. (2004) Resistance to imipenem, cefepime, and cefpirome associated with mutation in Omp36 osmoporin of Enterobacter aerogenes. Biochem Bioph Res Co 317: 851–856. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.03.130
![]() |
[37] |
Mah TF (2012) Biofilm-specific antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol 7: 1061–1072. doi: 10.2217/fmb.12.76
![]() |
[38] |
Soto SM (2013) Role of efflux pumps in the antibiotic resistance of bacteria embedded in a biofilm. Virulence 4: 223–229. doi: 10.4161/viru.23724
![]() |
[39] |
Van Acker H, Van Dijck P, Coenye T (2014) Molecular mechanisms of antimicrobial tolerance and resistance in bacterial and fungal biofilms. Trends Microbiol 22: 326–333. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.02.001
![]() |
[40] |
Beceiro A, Tomás M, Bou G (2013) Antimicrobial resistance and virulence: a successful or deleterious association in the bacterial world? Clin Microbiol Rev 26: 185–230. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00059-12
![]() |
[41] |
Randall CP, Mariner KR, Chopra I, et al. (2013) The target of daptomycin is absent form Escherichia coli and other gram-negative pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Ch 57: 637–639. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02005-12
![]() |
[42] |
Yang SJ, Kreiswirth BN, Sakoulas G, et al. (2009) Enhanced expression of dltABCD is associated with development of daptomycin nonsusceptibility in a clinical endocarditis isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 200: 1916–1920. doi: 10.1086/648473
![]() |
[43] |
Mishra NN, Bayer AS, Weidenmaier C, et al. (2014) Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of daptomycin-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains: relative roles of mprF and dlt operons. PLoS One 9: e107426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107426
![]() |
[44] |
Stefani S, Campanile F, Santagati M, et al. (2015) Insights and clinical perspectives of daptomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: a review of the available evidence. Int J Antimicrob Agents 46: 278–289. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.05.008
![]() |
[45] | Kumar S, Mukherjee MM, Varela MF (2013) Modulation of bacterial multidrug resistance efflux pumps of the major facilitator superfamily. Int J Bacteriol. |
[46] |
Roberts MC (2003) Tetracycline therapy: update. Clin Infect Dis 36: 462–467. doi: 10.1086/367622
![]() |
[47] |
Roberts MC (2004) Resistance to macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin, ketolide, and oxazolidinone antibiotics. Mol Biotechnol 28: 47–62. doi: 10.1385/MB:28:1:47
![]() |
[48] | Hawkey PM (2003) Mechanisms of quinolone action and microbial response. J Antimicrob Chemoth 1: 28–35. |
[49] |
Redgrave LS, Sutton SB, Webber MA, et al. (2014) Fluoroquinolone resistance: mechanisms, impact on bacteria, and role in evolutionary success. Trends Microbiol 22: 438–445. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.04.007
![]() |
[50] |
Huovinen P, Sundström L, Swedberg G, et al. (1995) Trimethoprim and sulfonamide resistance. Antimicrob Agents Ch 39: 279–289. doi: 10.1128/AAC.39.2.279
![]() |
[51] | Vedantam G, Guay GG, Austria NE, et al. (1998) Characterization of mutations contributing to sulfathiazole resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Ch 42: 88–93. |
[52] |
Blair JM, Webber MA, Baylay AJ, et al. (2015) Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol 13: 42–51. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3380
![]() |
[53] |
Ramirez MS, Tolmasky ME (2010) Aminoglycoside modifying enzymes. Drug Resist Update 13: 151–171. doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2010.08.003
![]() |
[54] |
Robicsek A, Strahilevitz J, Jacoby GA, et al. (2006) Fluoroquinolone-modifying enzyme: a new adaptation of a common aminoglycoside acetyltransferase. Nat Med 12: 83–88. doi: 10.1038/nm1347
![]() |
[55] |
Schwarz S, Kehrenberg C, Doublet B, et al. (2004) Molecular basis of bacterial resistance to chloramphenicol and florfenicol. FEMS Microbiol Rev 28: 519–542. doi: 10.1016/j.femsre.2004.04.001
![]() |
[56] |
Pfeifer Y, Cullik A, Witte W (2010) Resistance to cephalosporins and carbapenems in Gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Int J Med Microbiol 300: 371–379. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2010.04.005
![]() |
[57] | Bush K, Bradford PA (2016) β-Lactams and β-lactamase inhibitors: an overview. CSH Perspect Med 6: a02527. |
[58] |
Bush K, Jacoby GA (2010) Updated functional classification of β-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Ch 54: 969–976. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01009-09
![]() |
[59] | Schultsz C, Geerlings S (2012) Plasmid-mediated resistance in Enterobacteriaceae. Drugs 72: 1–16. |
[60] |
Bush K (2013) Proliferation and significance of clinically relevant β-lactamases. Ann NY Acad Sci 1277: 84–90. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12023
![]() |
[61] | Reygaert WC (2013) Antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of Staphylococcus aureus, In: Microbial pathogens and strategies for combating them: science, technology and education, Spain: Formatex, 297–310. |
[62] |
Toth M, Antunes NT, Stewart NK, et al. (2016) Class D β-lactamases do exist in Gram-positive bacteria. Nat Chem Biol 12: 9–14. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1950
![]() |
[63] |
Jacoby GA (2009) AmpC β-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev 22: 161–182. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00036-08
![]() |
[64] |
Thomson KS (2010) Extended-spectrum-β-lactamase, AmpC, and carbapenemase issues. J Clin Microbiol 48: 1019–1025. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00219-10
![]() |
[65] |
Lahlaoui H, Khalifa ABH, Mousa MB (2014) Epidemiology of Enterobacteriaceae producing CTX-M type extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL). Med Maladies Infect 44: 400–404. doi: 10.1016/j.medmal.2014.03.010
![]() |
[66] |
Bevan ER, Jones AM, Hawkey PM (2017) Global epidemiology of CTX-M β-lactamases: temporal and geographical shifts in genotype. J Antimicrob Chemoth 72: 2145–2155. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx146
![]() |
[67] | Bajaj P, Singh NS, Virdi JS (2016) Escherichia coli β-lactamases: what really matters. Front Microbiol 7: 417. |
[68] |
Friedman ND, Tomkin E, Carmeli Y (2016) The negative impact of antibiotic resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 22: 416–422. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.002
![]() |
[69] |
Zhanel GG, Lawson CD, Adam H, et al. (2013) Ceftazidime-Avibactam: a novel cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitor combination. Drugs 73: 159–177. doi: 10.1007/s40265-013-0013-7
![]() |
[70] |
Bush K (2018) Game changers: new β-lactamase inhibitor combinations targeting antibiotic resistance in gram-negative bacteria. ACS Infect Dis 4: 84–87. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00243
![]() |
[71] |
Docquier JD, Mangani S (2018) An update on β-lactamase inhibitor discovery and development. Drug Resist Update 36: 13–29. doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2017.11.002
![]() |
[72] |
Villagra NA, Fuentes JA, Jofré MR, et al. (2012) The carbon source influences the efflux pump-mediated antimicrobial resistance in clinically important Gram-negative bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemoth 67: 921–927. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkr573
![]() |
[73] |
Piddock LJ (2006) Clinically relevant chromosomally encoded multidrug resistance efflux pumps in bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev 19: 382–402. doi: 10.1128/CMR.19.2.382-402.2006
![]() |
[74] |
Poole K (2007) Efflux pumps as antimicrobial resistance mechanisms. Ann Med 39: 162–176. doi: 10.1080/07853890701195262
![]() |
[75] |
Tanabe M, Szakonyi G, Brown KA, et al. (2009) The multidrug resistance efflux complex, EmrAB from Escherichia coli forms a dimer in vitro. Biochem Bioph Res Co 380: 338–342. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.01.081
![]() |
[76] |
Jo I, Hong S, Lee M, et al. (2017) Stoichiometry and mechanistic implications of the MacAB-TolC tripartite efflux pump. Biochem Bioph Res Co 494: 668–673. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.10.102
![]() |
[77] |
Jonas BM, Murray BE, Weinstock GM (2001) Characterization of emeA, a norA homolog and multidrug resistance efflux pump, in Enterococcus faecalis. Antimicrob Agents Ch 45: 3574–3579. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.12.3574-3579.2001
![]() |
[78] |
Truong-Bolduc QC, Dunman PM, Strahilevitz J, et al. (2005) MgrA is a multiple regulator of two new efflux pumps in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 187: 2395–2405. doi: 10.1128/JB.187.7.2395-2405.2005
![]() |
[79] |
Kourtesi C, Ball AR, Huang YY, et al. (2013) Microbial efflux systems and inhibitors: approaches to drug discovery and the challenge of clinical implementation. Open Microbiol J 7: 34–52. doi: 10.2174/1874285801307010034
![]() |
[80] |
Costa SS, Viveiros M, Amaral L, et al. (2013) Multidrug efflux pumps in Staphylococcus aureus: an update. Open Microbiol J 7: 59–71. doi: 10.2174/1874285801307010059
![]() |
[81] |
Lubelski J, Konings WN, Driessen AJ (2007) Distribution and physiology of ABC-type transporters contributing to multidrug resistance in bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71: 463–476. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00001-07
![]() |
[82] |
Putman M, van Veen HW, Konings WN (2000) Molecular properties of bacterial multidrug transporters. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64: 672–693. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.64.4.672-693.2000
![]() |
[83] |
Kuroda T, Tsuchiya T (2009) Multidrug efflux transporters in the MATE family. BBA-Proteins Proteom 1794: 763–768. doi: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2008.11.012
![]() |
[84] |
Rouquette-Loughlin, C, Dunham SA, Kuhn M, et al. (2003) The NorM efflux pump of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Neisseria meningitidis recognizes antimicrobial cationic compounds. J Bacteriol 185: 1101–1106. doi: 10.1128/JB.185.3.1101-1106.2003
![]() |
[85] |
Bay DC, Rommens KL, Turner RJ (2008) Small multidrug resistance proteins: a multidrug transporter family that continues to grow. BBA-Biomembranes 1778: 1814–1838. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2007.08.015
![]() |
[86] |
Yerushalmi H, Lebendiker M, Schuldiner S (1995) EmrE, an Escherichia coli 12-kDa multidrug transporter, exchanges toxic cations and H+ and is soluble in organic solvents. J Biol Chem 270: 6856–6863. doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.12.6856
![]() |
[87] |
Collu F, Cascella M (2013) Multidrug resistance and efflux pumps: insights from molecular dynamics simulations. Curr Top Med Chem 13: 3165–3183. doi: 10.2174/15680266113136660224
![]() |
[88] |
Martinez JL, Sánchez MB, Martinez-Solano L, et al. (2009) Functional role of bacterial multidrug efflux pumps in microbial natural ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33: 430–449. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00157.x
![]() |
[89] | Deak D, Outterson K, Powers JH, et al. (2016) Progress in the fight against multidrug-resistant bacteria? A review of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved antibiotics, 2010-2015. Ann Intern Med 165: 363–372. |
1. | Catherine Madzak, 2021, 9780128214770, 345, 10.1016/B978-0-12-821477-0.00009-X | |
2. | Dania Awad, Samer Younes, Matthias Glemser, Franz M. Wagner, Gerhard Schenk, Norbert Mehlmer, Thomas Brueck, Towards high-throughput optimization of microbial lipid production: from strain development to process monitoring, 2020, 4, 2398-4902, 5958, 10.1039/D0SE00540A | |
3. | Nhung Pham, Maarten Reijnders, Maria Suarez-Diez, Bart Nijsse, Jan Springer, Gerrit Eggink, Peter J. Schaap, Genome-scale metabolic modeling underscores the potential of Cutaneotrichosporon oleaginosus ATCC 20509 as a cell factory for biofuel production, 2021, 14, 1754-6834, 10.1186/s13068-020-01838-1 | |
4. | Allison L. Yaguchi, Stephen J. Lee, Mark A. Blenner, Synthetic Biology towards Engineering Microbial Lignin Biotransformation, 2021, 01677799, 10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.02.003 | |
5. | Celina K. Yamakawa, Laura Kastell, Mikkel R. Mahler, José L. Martinez, Solange I. Mussatto, Exploiting new biorefinery models using non-conventional yeasts and their implications for sustainability, 2020, 309, 09608524, 123374, 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123374 | |
6. | D. Z. Nazmutdinov, N. N. Poroshina, N. I. Petukhova, Debaryomyces Hansenii D-43-1 - New Halotolerant Phenol Destructor, 2018, 25, 0869-8406, 57, 10.17122/bcj-2018-2-57-63 | |
7. | Daria S. Spasskaya, Mikhail I. Kotlov, Dmitriy S. Lekanov, Vera V. Tutyaeva, Anastasiya V. Snezhkina, Anna V. Kudryavtseva, Vadim L. Karpov, Dmitry S. Karpov, CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Genome Engineering Reveals the Contribution of the 26S Proteasome to the Extremophilic Nature of the Yeast Debaryomyces hansenii, 2021, 10, 2161-5063, 297, 10.1021/acssynbio.0c00426 | |
8. | Allison Yaguchi, Alana Robinson, Erin Mihealsick, Mark Blenner, Metabolism of aromatics by Trichosporon oleaginosus while remaining oleaginous, 2017, 16, 1475-2859, 10.1186/s12934-017-0820-8 | |
9. | Clara Navarrete, José L. Martínez, Non-conventional yeasts as superior production platforms for sustainable fermentation based bio-manufacturing processes, 2020, 7, 2375-1495, 289, 10.3934/bioeng.2020024 | |
10. | Allison Yaguchi, Michael Spagnuolo, Mark Blenner, Engineering yeast for utilization of alternative feedstocks, 2018, 53, 09581669, 122, 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.12.003 | |
11. | Amit H. Batghare, Kuldeep Roy, Kaustubh C. Khaire, Vijayanand S. Moholkar, Mechanistic investigations in ultrasound-induced intensification of fermentative riboflavin production, 2020, 9, 2589014X, 100380, 10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100380 | |
12. | Allison Yaguchi, Nicole Franaszek, Kaelyn O’Neill, Stephen Lee, Irnayuli Sitepu, Kyria Boundy-Mills, Mark Blenner, Identification of oleaginous yeasts that metabolize aromatic compounds, 2020, 47, 1476-5535, 801, 10.1007/s10295-020-02269-5 | |
13. | Felix Bracharz, Teun Beukhout, Norbert Mehlmer, Thomas Brück, Opportunities and challenges in the development of Cutaneotrichosporon oleaginosus ATCC 20509 as a new cell factory for custom tailored microbial oils, 2017, 16, 1475-2859, 10.1186/s12934-017-0791-9 | |
14. | Kyungsoo Lee, Yong Jae Lee, Ho Nam Chang, Ki Jun Jeong, Engineering Trichosporon oleaginosus for enhanced production of lipid from volatile fatty acids as carbon source, 2019, 36, 0256-1115, 903, 10.1007/s11814-018-0229-7 | |
15. | Martina K. Braun, Jan Lorenzen, Mahmoud Masri, Yue Liu, Eszter Baráth, Thomas Brück, Johannes A. Lercher, Catalytic Decomposition of the Oleaginous YeastCutaneotrichosporon Oleaginosusand Subsequent Biocatalytic Conversion of Liberated Free Fatty Acids, 2019, 7, 2168-0485, 6531, 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b04795 | |
16. | Clara Navarrete, Irene Hjorth Jacobsen, José Luis Martínez, Alessandra Procentese, Cell Factories for Industrial Production Processes: Current Issues and Emerging Solutions, 2020, 8, 2227-9717, 768, 10.3390/pr8070768 | |
17. | Renan Eugênio Araujo Piraine, David Gerald Nickens, David J. Sun, Fábio Pereira Leivas Leite, Matthew L. Bochman, Isolation of wild yeasts from Olympic National Park and Moniliella megachiliensis ONP131 physiological characterization for beer fermentation, 2022, 104, 07400020, 103974, 10.1016/j.fm.2021.103974 | |
18. | Victoria Sodré, Nathália Vilela, Robson Tramontina, Fabio Marcio Squina, Microorganisms as bioabatement agents in biomass to bioproducts applications, 2021, 151, 09619534, 106161, 10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106161 | |
19. | Efrain Rodriguez-Ocasio, Ammara Khalid, Charles J Truka, Mark A Blenner, Laura R Jarboe, Survey of nonconventional yeasts for lipid and hydrocarbon biotechnology, 2022, 49, 1367-5435, 10.1093/jimb/kuac010 | |
20. | Pariya Shaigani, Tobias Fuchs, Petra Graban, Sophia Prem, Martina Haack, Mahmoud Masri, Norbert Mehlmer, Thomas Brueck, Mastering targeted genome engineering of GC-rich oleaginous yeast for tailored plant oil alternatives for the food and chemical sector, 2023, 22, 1475-2859, 10.1186/s12934-023-02033-1 | |
21. | Felix Abeln, Christopher J. Chuck, The history, state of the art and future prospects for oleaginous yeast research, 2021, 20, 1475-2859, 10.1186/s12934-021-01712-1 | |
22. | Ayşe Koruyucu, Karlis Blums, Tillmann Peest, Laura Schmack-Rauscher, Thomas Brück, Dirk Weuster-Botz, High-Cell-Density Yeast Oil Production with Diluted Substrates Imitating Microalgae Hydrolysate Using a Membrane Bioreactor, 2023, 16, 1996-1073, 1757, 10.3390/en16041757 | |
23. | Selva Turkolmez, Serhii Chornyi, Sondos Alhajouj, Lodewijk IJlst, Hans R. Waterham, Phil J. Mitchell, Ewald H. Hettema, Carlo W. T. van Roermund, Peroxisomal NAD(H) Homeostasis in the Yeast Debaryomyces hansenii Depends on Two Redox Shuttles and the NAD+ Carrier, Pmp47, 2023, 13, 2218-273X, 1294, 10.3390/biom13091294 | |
24. | Marie-Claire Harrison, Emily J. Ubbelohde, Abigail L. LaBella, Dana A. Opulente, John F. Wolters, Xiaofan Zhou, Xing-Xing Shen, Marizeth Groenewald, Chris Todd Hittinger, Antonis Rokas, Machine learning enables identification of an alternative yeast galactose utilization pathway, 2024, 121, 0027-8424, 10.1073/pnas.2315314121 | |
25. | Martha S. C. Xelhuantzi, Daniel Ghete, Amy Milburn, Savvas Ioannou, Phoebe Mudd, Grant Calder, José Ramos, Peter J. O'Toole, Paul G. Genever, Chris MacDonald, High-resolution live cell imaging to define ultrastructural and dynamic features of the halotolerant yeast Debaryomyces hansenii , 2024, 13, 2046-6390, 10.1242/bio.060519 | |
26. | Sarah J. Weintraub, Zekun Li, Carter L. Nakagawa, Joseph H. Collins, Eric M. Young, Oleaginous Yeast Biology Elucidated With Comparative Transcriptomics, 2024, 0006-3592, 10.1002/bit.28891 | |
27. | Emma E. Tobin, Joseph H. Collins, Celeste B. Marsan, Gillian T. Nadeau, Kim Mori, Anna Lipzen, Stephen Mondo, Igor V. Grigoriev, Eric M. Young, Omics-driven onboarding of the carotenoid producing red yeast Xanthophyllomyces dendrorhous CBS 6938, 2024, 108, 0175-7598, 10.1007/s00253-024-13379-w |
Yeast Strain | NCYC 2572 | NCYC 9 | NCYC 3045 | NCYC 793 | NCYC 3981 |
Substrate | |||||
Glucose | + | + | + | + | + |
Galactose | + | + | + | + | + |
Sorbose | + | - | + | + | + |
Sucrose | + | + | + | + | + |
Maltose | + | + | + | + | + |
Cellobiose | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Trehalose | + | + | + | + | + |
Lactose | + | - | + | + | - |
Melibiose | + | + | + | W/L | - |
Raffinose | + | + | + | + | - |
Melizitose | + | + | + | + | - |
Inulin | - | - | - | - | - |
Soluble Starch | + | - | + | - | - |
Xylose | + | W/L | + | + | + |
L-Arabinose | + | W/L | - | + | + |
D-Arabinose | - | - | - | - | - |
Ribose | + | - | W/L | - | - |
Rhamnose | + | - | + | + | + |
Ethanol | + | + | + | + | + |
Glycerol | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Erythritol | + | W/L | + | W/L | + |
Ribitol | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Galactitol | - | - | - | W/L | - |
Mannitol | + | + | + | + | + |
Sorbitol | + | + | + | + | + |
AMD Glucoside | + | + | + | + | - |
Salicin | + | - | + | + | L |
Lactic Acid | + | - | + | - | W/S |
Succinic Acid | - | + | + | - | + |
Citric Acid | - | W/L | - | U | + |
Inositol | - | - | + | - | - |
Gluconolactone | + | - | + | U | + |
Glucosamine | - | - | + | U | - |
Methanol | - | - | - | U | - |
Xylitol | + | W/L | + | U | + |
(+) growth observed, (-) growth not observed, (W/L) Weak/Latent, (W/S) Weak/Slow, (L) Latent, (U) Unknown. |
Strain | Plasmid | Promoter/ Terminator | Transformation Method | Efficiency (trans/μg DNA) | Vector Type | Ref |
NRRL Y-7426 | pMR95 (HR) | ScCYC1 | E | 240 ± 142 | EP | [57]. |
pMR96 (HR) | 280 ± 75 | |||||
pMR96 (UP) | 2643 ± 305 | |||||
*VKM Y-9 (LDM) | pCfARS6 | lacZ | S | 6.3 × 104 | I | [41]. |
pCfARS16 | E | 1 × 105 | ||||
NRRL Y-7426 | pRGMA | ScADH2 | E | Not reported | EP | [61]. |
pRGMC | ScCYC1 | |||||
pRGMG | ScGPD1 | |||||
pRGMGd | DhGPD1d | |||||
pRGMH | ScHSP12 | |||||
pRGMS | ScSME1 | |||||
H158 | pAL-HPH-TEF-GFP | AaTEF1 | TRAFO | 0.9-1.0 × 104 | I | [59,60,62,63]. |
*VKM Y-9 (LDM) | pTb | DhTEF1 | E | 40-200 | I | [56]. |
CBS767 | pDhARS2, 3, 9 | DhTEF | E | 3-4 × 104 | I | [58]. |
*Identification as D. fabryi, (LDM) leucine deficient mutant, (HR) hygromyocin resistance, (UP) uracil prototrophy, (Sc) S. cerevisiae, (Dh) D. hansenii, (Aa) A. adeninivorans, (E) Electroporation, (S) Spheroplast, (TRAFO) TRAFO Protocol, (EP) Episomal, (I) Integrative. |
Single Substrate | Conc. (g/L) | % Lipid (w/w) | Reference |
Acetate | 30 | 73.4 | [76] |
14 | 60.0 | [84] | |
10 | 50.9 | [85] | |
Glucose | 30 | 57.0 | [96] |
30 | 50.0 | [78] | |
30 | 29.5 | [97] | |
Xylose | 30 | 48.0 | [96] |
30 | 50.0 | [78] | |
30 | 26.4 | [97] | |
N-acetyl-glucosamine | 70 | 54.2 | [82] |
20 | N.D. | [78] | |
Glycerol | 80 | 43.0 | [99] |
30 | 27.3 | [97] | |
Sweet sorghum hydrolysates | 15 | 53.0 | [93] |
45 | 50.8 | [94] | |
Volatile fatty acids | 28 | 61.0 | [79] |
Pretreated waste active sludge supernatant | 30 | 25.7 | [100] |
Municipal wastewater (sterile); COD = 0.370 g/L | N.D. | 11.1 | [89] |
Municipal wastewater (nonsterile); COD = 0.326 g/L | N.D. | 9.1 | [89] |
Acidic-thermal pre-treated sludge | 30 | 37.1 | [87] |
Thermal pre-treated sludge | 30 | 35.2 | [87] |
Alkaline pre-treated sludge | 30 | 38.8 | [87] |
Multi Substrate | Conc. (g/L) | % Lipid (w/w) | Reference |
Corn Stover | 52.3 | [76]. | |
--glucose | 19.2 | ||
--xylose | 9.2 | ||
--acetate | 15.9 | ||
Dark fermentation HPE & acetic acid | 20 g/L | 75.0 | [77] |
NDLH | |||
--glucose | 3.7 | 33.5 | [90]. |
--xylose | 19.6 | ||
--arabinose | 4.7 | ||
--galactose | 1.2 | ||
--acetic acid | 4.0 | ||
--furfural | 0.44 | ||
--HMF | 0.05 | ||
Glu 40Xyl 20 | 40/20 | 40.7 ± 0.6 | [97]. |
Glu 40Xyl 20Gly 30 | 40/20/30 | 48.7 ± 1.1 | |
Xyl 30Gly 30 | 30/30 | 38.8 ± 0.7 | |
CSEH (Glu/Xyl) | 18.8/14.5 | 39.4 ± 0.5 | |
CSEH + Gly 30 | 30 | 49.7 ± 0.5 |
Yeast Strain | NCYC 2572 | NCYC 9 | NCYC 3045 | NCYC 793 | NCYC 3981 |
Substrate | |||||
Glucose | + | + | + | + | + |
Galactose | + | + | + | + | + |
Sorbose | + | - | + | + | + |
Sucrose | + | + | + | + | + |
Maltose | + | + | + | + | + |
Cellobiose | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Trehalose | + | + | + | + | + |
Lactose | + | - | + | + | - |
Melibiose | + | + | + | W/L | - |
Raffinose | + | + | + | + | - |
Melizitose | + | + | + | + | - |
Inulin | - | - | - | - | - |
Soluble Starch | + | - | + | - | - |
Xylose | + | W/L | + | + | + |
L-Arabinose | + | W/L | - | + | + |
D-Arabinose | - | - | - | - | - |
Ribose | + | - | W/L | - | - |
Rhamnose | + | - | + | + | + |
Ethanol | + | + | + | + | + |
Glycerol | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Erythritol | + | W/L | + | W/L | + |
Ribitol | + | W/L | + | + | + |
Galactitol | - | - | - | W/L | - |
Mannitol | + | + | + | + | + |
Sorbitol | + | + | + | + | + |
AMD Glucoside | + | + | + | + | - |
Salicin | + | - | + | + | L |
Lactic Acid | + | - | + | - | W/S |
Succinic Acid | - | + | + | - | + |
Citric Acid | - | W/L | - | U | + |
Inositol | - | - | + | - | - |
Gluconolactone | + | - | + | U | + |
Glucosamine | - | - | + | U | - |
Methanol | - | - | - | U | - |
Xylitol | + | W/L | + | U | + |
(+) growth observed, (-) growth not observed, (W/L) Weak/Latent, (W/S) Weak/Slow, (L) Latent, (U) Unknown. |
Strain | Plasmid | Promoter/ Terminator | Transformation Method | Efficiency (trans/μg DNA) | Vector Type | Ref |
NRRL Y-7426 | pMR95 (HR) | ScCYC1 | E | 240 ± 142 | EP | [57]. |
pMR96 (HR) | 280 ± 75 | |||||
pMR96 (UP) | 2643 ± 305 | |||||
*VKM Y-9 (LDM) | pCfARS6 | lacZ | S | 6.3 × 104 | I | [41]. |
pCfARS16 | E | 1 × 105 | ||||
NRRL Y-7426 | pRGMA | ScADH2 | E | Not reported | EP | [61]. |
pRGMC | ScCYC1 | |||||
pRGMG | ScGPD1 | |||||
pRGMGd | DhGPD1d | |||||
pRGMH | ScHSP12 | |||||
pRGMS | ScSME1 | |||||
H158 | pAL-HPH-TEF-GFP | AaTEF1 | TRAFO | 0.9-1.0 × 104 | I | [59,60,62,63]. |
*VKM Y-9 (LDM) | pTb | DhTEF1 | E | 40-200 | I | [56]. |
CBS767 | pDhARS2, 3, 9 | DhTEF | E | 3-4 × 104 | I | [58]. |
*Identification as D. fabryi, (LDM) leucine deficient mutant, (HR) hygromyocin resistance, (UP) uracil prototrophy, (Sc) S. cerevisiae, (Dh) D. hansenii, (Aa) A. adeninivorans, (E) Electroporation, (S) Spheroplast, (TRAFO) TRAFO Protocol, (EP) Episomal, (I) Integrative. |
Single Substrate | Conc. (g/L) | % Lipid (w/w) | Reference |
Acetate | 30 | 73.4 | [76] |
14 | 60.0 | [84] | |
10 | 50.9 | [85] | |
Glucose | 30 | 57.0 | [96] |
30 | 50.0 | [78] | |
30 | 29.5 | [97] | |
Xylose | 30 | 48.0 | [96] |
30 | 50.0 | [78] | |
30 | 26.4 | [97] | |
N-acetyl-glucosamine | 70 | 54.2 | [82] |
20 | N.D. | [78] | |
Glycerol | 80 | 43.0 | [99] |
30 | 27.3 | [97] | |
Sweet sorghum hydrolysates | 15 | 53.0 | [93] |
45 | 50.8 | [94] | |
Volatile fatty acids | 28 | 61.0 | [79] |
Pretreated waste active sludge supernatant | 30 | 25.7 | [100] |
Municipal wastewater (sterile); COD = 0.370 g/L | N.D. | 11.1 | [89] |
Municipal wastewater (nonsterile); COD = 0.326 g/L | N.D. | 9.1 | [89] |
Acidic-thermal pre-treated sludge | 30 | 37.1 | [87] |
Thermal pre-treated sludge | 30 | 35.2 | [87] |
Alkaline pre-treated sludge | 30 | 38.8 | [87] |
Multi Substrate | Conc. (g/L) | % Lipid (w/w) | Reference |
Corn Stover | 52.3 | [76]. | |
--glucose | 19.2 | ||
--xylose | 9.2 | ||
--acetate | 15.9 | ||
Dark fermentation HPE & acetic acid | 20 g/L | 75.0 | [77] |
NDLH | |||
--glucose | 3.7 | 33.5 | [90]. |
--xylose | 19.6 | ||
--arabinose | 4.7 | ||
--galactose | 1.2 | ||
--acetic acid | 4.0 | ||
--furfural | 0.44 | ||
--HMF | 0.05 | ||
Glu 40Xyl 20 | 40/20 | 40.7 ± 0.6 | [97]. |
Glu 40Xyl 20Gly 30 | 40/20/30 | 48.7 ± 1.1 | |
Xyl 30Gly 30 | 30/30 | 38.8 ± 0.7 | |
CSEH (Glu/Xyl) | 18.8/14.5 | 39.4 ± 0.5 | |
CSEH + Gly 30 | 30 | 49.7 ± 0.5 |