Expressing intrinsically-disordered tardigrade proteins has positive effects on acute but not chronic stress tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Mario León López; Ian Wheeldon; Joshua T. Morgan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325682

Abstract

The production of high value and commodity chemicals, biopharmaceuticals and biofuels using Saccharomyces cerevisiae is hindered by various stress factors that affect yield and efficiency. Tardigrades, known for their remarkable stress tolerance, express unique proteins responsible for their resilience. This study evaluates the impact of expressing the tardigrade proteins CAHS3, MAHS, and RvLEAM on stress tolerance in S. cerevisiae. Our results show that high yields of these proteins do not impede yeast growth, except for CAHS3, which reduces proliferation. Expression of MAHS enhances acute heat tolerance, while MAHS and RvLEAM confer increased tolerance to acute hyperosmotic stress. Both CAHS3 and RvLEAM improve desiccation survival. However, these proteins do not provide benefits under chronic stress conditions such as prolonged exposure to high temperature, hyperosmotic stress, or solvents. These findings highlight the potential utility of tardigrade proteins for transient stress protection in industrial bioprocesses and suggest future engineering approaches for improved stress tolerance in yeast.

Citation: León López M, Wheeldon I, Morgan JT (2025) Expressing intrinsically-disordered tardigrade proteins has positive effects on acute but not chronic stress tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS One 20(6): e0325682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682

Editor: Bashir Sajo Mienda, Federal University Dutse, NIGERIA

Received: December 1, 2024; Accepted: May 18, 2025; Published: June 6, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 León López et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

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

Funding: This work was supported by a 2023-2024 Opportunities to Advance Sustainability, Innovation, and Social Inclusion Internal Funding Award (OASIS-IFA) by the University of California, Riverside Office of Research and Economic Development. This work was supported in part by the American Heart Association (19IPLOI34760636). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Heart Association.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is widely recognized for its industrial applications, particularly in the production of biofuels, biochemicals, heterologous proteins, and substances of biopharmaceutical interest [1–3]. Studies highlight its use as a heterologous host for natural products, capitalizing on its robustness, ease of genetic engineering, and vast research background, features that contribute to its success as a cell factory [4–6]. As one prominent example, the yeast’s efficiency in bioethanol synthesis addresses the global demand for renewable and sustainable fuels, presenting an attractive alternative to conventional fossil fuels [7–9]. The biosynthesis process aligns with broader initiatives for renewable fuels and chemicals, crucial for addressing environmental concerns and reducing dependence on non-renewable petroleum-based fuels [7,10,11].

In the context of industrial processes such as biochemical production or heterologous protein expression, stress tolerance becomes a critical aspect. For example, biofuel and biochemical production involve stressors, such as high heat, hyperosmotic stress and formation of alcohol byproducts (e.g., glycerol or acetic acid), to which wildtype S. cerevisiae is not resistant at high concentrations. In terms of heat tolerance, the optimal temperature for the growth of S. cerevisiae is between 28°C and 35°C, while some of the enzymes used for the breakdown of (ligno-)cellulose have an optimal temperature between 45°C and 55°C; a thermotolerant yeast species that thrive at temperatures of 40°C or higher are desired to increase efficiency and reduce the cooling expenses and the associated risk of contamination [12,13]. Biofuel and biochemical production also involves hyperosmotic pressure, due to high concentrations of sodium salts used during the pretreatment of the (ligno-)cellulosic material or due to elevated sugar concentrations required for high gravity fermentation [13]. Alcohol products of biofuel production, such as propanol, n-butanol, isopentanol and ethanol, are toxic for yeast through various mechanisms; one key mechanism is solvent mediated membrane disruption [14]. These stressors hinder the bioethanol and biofuel production capabilities of S. cerevisiae thus prompting systems biology and metabolic engineering research to address these challenges [13–15]. These approaches integrate traditional methods with synthetic biology, aiming to enhance stress tolerance in S. cerevisiae strains [16,17]. Notably, the engineering of S. cerevisiae for efficient fermentation of cellulose in biofuel production is a significant research area [8]. Processes involving biomass pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis of polysaccharides, and fermentation of resulting sugars, especially in consolidated bioprocess, showcase the yeast’s robustness and adaptability [18]. Challenges remain in heterologous expression of cellulolytic enzymes and co-fermentation of different sugar types, underscoring the importance of stress tolerance in optimizing these processes for industrial viability [10,19,20].

Tardigrades (“water bears”) are microscopic animals that possess extraordinary stress tolerance, including extended survival during complete desiccation and freezing [21,22]. While tardigrade physiology is not completely understood, recent research has identified proteins contributing to their resistance. A number of tardigrade-unique proteins, including tardigrade-specific desiccation-associated proteins (TDAPs) and Late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins, have been linked to their ability to resist the stress of total desiccation, and are speculated to stabilize protein and membrane structure [23–25]. There are tardigrade variants which accumulate in the cytosol (cytosolic abundant heat soluble; CAHS), localize to the mitochondria (mitochondria abundant heat soluble protein (MAHS) and Ramazzottius varieornatus mitochondrial LEA; RvLEAM), as well as other sites [23,26,27]. Several studies have shown TDAP localization is preserved in other species [26–33]. CAHS has been shown to perform a chaperone-like role in maintaining protein structure and function in vitro and, in bacteria and/or yeast systems, although these studies focused specifically on desiccation tolerance [23]. Both MAHS and RvLEAM increase human cell survival after hyperosmotic stress [27]. Further, MAHS has been shown to increase human cell solvent tolerance [34], while CAHS expression increases solvent tolerance of cyanobacterium [35].

Here, we evaluate the hypothesis that tardigrade proteins, specifically CAHS3, MAHS, and RvLEAM, protect proliferating yeast against relevant stressors when constitutively expressed. We present data showing constitutive expression of CAHS3, MAHS, and RvLEAM results in expected localization in yeast and does not halt proliferation. Further, we show MAHS protects against acute (but not chronic) heat stress, while both MAHS and RvLEAM protect against acute osmotic stress. Finally, we confirm prior results of CAHS3 improving desiccation tolerance in yeast while extending these results to RvLEAM. In aggregate, these data demonstrate that tardigrade proteins provide context dependent protection in yeast, meriting further investigation.

Results

Tardigrade proteins localize as expected in S. cerevisiae

GFP-tagged tardigrade proteins were cloned into an existing 2μ pRS426 backbone with expression under a constitutive yeast (PGK1) promoter (shown schematically in Fig 1A), similar to prior work [36]. Tardigrade-protein-expressing yeast were imaged to assess cellular localization. In other systems, CAHS3 localizes to the cytosol, while MAHS and RvLEAM localize to the mitochondria. In representative images we show similar localization in S. cerevisiae (Fig 1B). MAHS and RvLEAM colocalized with Tetramethylrhodamine ethyl ester perchlorate (TMRE), a mitochondrial stain, while CAHS3 localized throughout the cell. In some cases, we observed CAHS3 localizing in puncta (Fig 1B), with this more frequent with higher expression (Fig S1 in S1 File).

Download:

Fig 1. Expression of tardigrade transgenes in S. cerevisiae.

(A) DNA constructs used in the expression and localization of GFP-fused tardigrade proteins. (B) Representative fluorescence microscopy images of S. cerevisiae expressing AcGFP1 as a cytosolic control, MAHS-AcGFP1, CAHS3-AcGFP1 and RvLEAM-AcGFP1 (green). Mitochondria are identified with TMRE (red), which stains live mitochondria. Images were taken using a 100x objective and merged images of green fluorescence, red fluorescence, and brightfield contrast (blue) are shown. Colocalization of red and green fluorescence shows in yellow.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.g001

S. cerevisiae remains proliferative after expression of tardigrade proteins

Yeast containing an empty vector (pControl), plasmid expressing MAHS (pMAHS), CAHS3 (pCAHS3) or RvLEAM (pRvLEAM) (Fig 2A) were grown at 30°C to determine the effect of the heterologous proteins in the growth of our yeast strains. Culture OD₆₀₀ was measured at 0 h, 11 h and 13 h, and then every hour to 24 h point (to capture the log phase of growth) with a last measurement at 35 h. Growth curves were fit to a modified Gompertz model as previously described [37,38]; maximum growth μ was used to statistically compare growth rates. pControl was used as a control (μ = 0.342 ± 0.013) and significance was assessed via one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc test. pRvLEAM grew faster (μ = 0.383 ± 0.001; p = 0.0002) than pControl while both pMAHS (μ = 0.321 ± 0.005; p = 0.014) and pCAHS3 (μ = 0.273 ± 0.003; p < 0.0001) grew significantly slower (Fig 2B).

Download:

Fig 2. Plasmid constructs used and the effect of the tardigrade proteins on cell growth.

(A) Graphic illustration of the transcriptional units assembled in the 2μ plasmid that were used for stress tolerance testing. (B) Growth curves of the yeast strains, three of them expressing tardigrade proteins (pRvLEAM, pMAHS, pCAHS3) and one carrying an empty vector (pControl).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.g002

MAHS expression increases S. cerevisiae acute heat tolerance

We then proceeded to determine the impact of tardigrade gene expression on stress tolerance in S. cerevisiae. Two biological replicates of each protein-expressing yeast were heat shocked at temperatures ranging from 30°C (control condition) to 50°C for 1 h prior to making serial dilutions and plating on 3 plates of selective media (Fig S2 in S1 File; representative images shown in Fig 3A). Consistent with the growth curve results, pCAHS3 expression resulted in reduced population in all test conditions. pMAHS and pRvLEAM performed equivalently to or more robustly than pControl at 30°C, 37°C, and 48°C; however, only pMAHS expressing cultures exhibited improved survival at 50°C. To confirm these findings, the 50°C heat shock was repeated with pControl and pMAHS expressing cultures, followed by a Live/Dead assay (Fig 3B). pMAHS demonstrated significantly higher viability than pControl (p = 0.0003) after 50°C heat shock.

Download:

Fig 3. Effect of the tardigrade proteins on cell viability after heat shock.

(A) Representative images of a 3-day growth of the different plasmid-carrying yeast strains spot-plated after 1 h heat stress in a 5-fold dilution starting at an OD₆₀₀ of 0.5. Showing pMAHS as the lone survivor at 50°C. (B) Live/Dead cytometry assay for pMAHS and pControl analyzed using two-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni correction (n = 3).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.g003

RvLEAM or MAHS expression improves while CAHS3 expression impairs S. cerevisiae hyperosmolarity tolerance

In order to test the effect of tardigrade gene expression on tolerance to desiccation and hyperosmolarity, our strains were grown overnight from an OD₆₀₀ of 0.1 (0.2 for pCAHS3) and diluted in water to a consistent OD₆₀₀ of 0.5 in 1 mL prior to centrifuging for 5 min at 3000 × g. After centrifuging, the supernatant was discarded, and the pellets were resuspended in 1mL of mSC -Ura media for the control, or in 15% NaCl mSC -Ura media for hyperosmotic stress. For desiccation, the pellets were left to dry in open tubes covered with a 3M micropore tape. All three conditions were incubated then in a shaking incubator at 30°C for 21 h. Expression of CAHS3 significantly reduced viability under basal (0 h/0% NaCl Control) and hyperosmotic (15% NaCl) conditions (Fig 4, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0498, respectively); but had no significant difference compared to control for desiccation. This is consistent with the growth curve and heat shock data shown previously in Fig 2B and Fig 3A. Expression of MAHS improved 15% NaCl hyperosmotic stress tolerance (p = 0.0024) but did not increase viability after complete desiccation. On the other hand, RvLEAM conferred significant tolerance to both 15% NaCl hyperosmotic stress (p < 0.0001) and desiccation (p = 0.0007).

Download:

Fig 4. Effect of tardigrade proteins in desiccation and hyperosmolarity acute stress.

Yeast expressing CAHS3, MAHS or RvLEAM, as well as BY4741 containing an empty vector (pCAHS3, pMAHS, pRvLEAM and pControl respectively) were subjected to desiccation and hyperosmolarity stress prior to Live/Dead assay. Stress conditions were performed simultaneously and shared the control condition. Live/Dead assay showed significant stress tolerance improvement for pRvLEAM in both stress conditions and improvement for pMAHS under hyperosmolarity stress (n = 3).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.g004

Selected tardigrade proteins do not confer tolerance to chronic stressors in S. cerevisiae

While the prior results indicate tardigrade gene expression may provide benefit to acute stress, we wished to determine the benefits under chronic conditions relevant to the bioethanol and biofuel industry. pControl and tardigrade protein expressing strains were subjected to chronic thermal, hyperosmotic, or solvent stressors. In all cases cells were grown overnight to log phase, and then serially diluted 5-fold in a 96-well plate. Dilutions were transferred onto an mSC -Ura plate with a 96-well pin replicator. For heat stress, the plates were incubated at 30°C, 37°C and 40°C for 2 days. Cells grew to some degree on every temperature except 40°C, but none of them grew better than the control, pControl (Fig 5A; 40°C data shown in Fig S3B in S1 File).

Download:

Fig 5. Spot plate growth under chronic stress.

(A) Representative images of the different plasmid-carrying yeast strains spot-plated in a 5-fold serial dilution starting at an OD₆₀₀ of 0.5 after 2 days of growth at 30°C and 37°C. (B) Representative images of the different plasmid-carrying yeast strains spot-plated as in (A) after 6 days of growth in 7.5% NaCl, and after 9 days of growth in 10% NaCl. (C) Representative images of the yeast on ButOH after 5 days in 1% ButOH, and after 8 days in 1.5% ButOH exhibiting lack of better growth in the tardigrade protein expressing strains than the control pControl.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.g005

For hyperosmotic stress, cells were transferred onto mSC -Ura containing a range of NaCl concentrations of 2.5% increments from 5% to 12.5%. In Fig 5B, 7.5% and 10% NaCl were chosen as representative images showing some effect on growth, pCAHS3 did not grow starting at 7.5% NaCl, and nothing grew at a NaCl percentage higher than 10%, which took 9 days to grow. When testing for solvent tolerance, cells were transferred onto mSC -Ura plates containing n-butanol (ButOH) at concentrations that ranged between 0.5% and 2.5% at 0.5% increments, 1% and 1.5% ButOH were chosen as representatives of the experiment result. As shown in Fig 5B, none of the tardigrade proteins provided an enhanced solvent tolerance in presence of ButOH, and cells would not grow at 2% ButOH or higher. pCAHS3 did not grow well past 0.5% ButOH (Fig S3C in S1 File).

Discussion

Here, we have demonstrated that expressing tardigrade proteins can offer protection in S. cerevisiae to some acute stresses and desiccation, but not to chronic presentation of stress. This adds to prior data on the expression of tardigrade proteins in yeast for desiccation [23], and further demonstrates acute tolerance to stressors associated with bioproduction. First, we show that GFP-tagged versions of CAHS3, MAHS, and RvLEAM localize as expected in S. cerevisiae. Second, we demonstrate that expressing MAHS and RvLEAM does not halt S. cerevisiae proliferation, although CAHS3 significantly decreases it. Third, we demonstrate that MAHS expression is protective against acute heat shock. Fourth, we demonstrate that MAHS and RvLEAM expression provide protection to acute salt, desiccation and heat shock. Finally, we demonstrate that expressing CAHS3, MAHS, or RvLEAM does not provide any benefits to chronic exposure to heat, salt, or solvent (ButOH) stress. These studies motivate further investigations into extremophile protein mediated stress tolerance in production cell strains.

An important consideration when interpreting these results is the choice of backbone. The tardigrade proteins were expressed with a PGK1pr on a 2μ plasmid, resulting in high overall expression; high expression of tardigrade proteins might have had detrimental behavior due to excess protein. Specifically, we observed that higher levels of CAHS3 protein correlated with the formation of fluorescent structures in the cells (Fig S1 in S1 File). CAHS3 has been shown to polymerize and bind to actin in mammalian cells [28,29], this may contribute to aggregate formation or the observed proliferation defect. Overall, CAHS3 expression exhibited toxicity when compared to the expression control, future studies would benefit from assessing expression level with regard to CAHS3. Beyond possible interactions with the cytoskeleton, CAHS3’s aggregates may also affect core metabolic processes. By altering cytoplasmic organization, CAHS3 could hinder diffusion-limited metabolic reactions, passively sequester key metabolic enzymes, or interfere with organelle and vesicle intracellular trafficking. Additionally, its interaction with actin may also impair mitochondrial positioning, potentially reducing energy distribution efficiency. These combined effects could contribute to the observed proliferation defect. Future studies using metabolomics or flux analysis may help clarify these potential impacts.

The distinction between acute and chronic expression of stress in this study has relevance for bioproduction. To use biofuel production as an example, there is benefit to yeast that can ferment at higher temperatures [13], salt concentrations [13], as well as resist solvents produced during fermentation [14,39,40]. Unfortunately, our current results suggest that tardigrade protein expression in yeast is not a solution to these challenges, although CAHS has shown benefit in other model organisms [35]. However, tolerance to acute heat and salt stress may provide benefits in ethanol production after heat shock, which has been proven to increase glycerol and ethanol yields [41,42]; or during high ethanol productivity in a two-stage bioreactor that requires high salt concentrations [43].

The mechanisms of protection of CAHS3, MAHS, and RvLEAM is incompletely understood; mechanism is not directly addressed in this work. However, tardigrade transgenes have been demonstrated as functional protection in yeast, bacteria, mammalian cells, and in vitro [23,24,27,30,44]; however, the results are not uniformly positive [45]. Specifically, MAHS and RvLEAM have previously been demonstrated to confer hyperosmotic tolerance [27], which is related to desiccation tolerance. Further, it has been hypothesized that MAHS may protect mitochondria through increasing oxidative stress tolerance, reducing oxidative stress, or maintaining mitochondrial membrane integrity [25]. Importantly, MAHS possesses an α-helix sequence similar to PsLEAM a plant LEA protein, which is known to stabilize membranes [46]. RvLEAM also possesses a similar sequence, suggesting it may work via membrane stabilization as well [27]. This could be related to the effect RvLEAM has on the size and shape of the mitochondria, making them appear bigger and somewhat spherical (Fig 1B and Fig S1 in S1 File), although this was not quantified. This shape has been suggested to be potentially linked to a loss of membrane potential [47], which could be caused by an increase in the positive charges in the mitochondrial matrix due to the charge of RvLEAM at physiological conditions (pI ~ 9.7). It has been shown previously that mitochondria attracts cationic proteins, such as K-Ras and Ras-like proteins, due to an increase in their negative charge during early apoptosis [48–50]. Therefore, we hypothesize that a more electropositive mitochondria, along with a more stable membrane, might delay apoptosis under acute stress. While not directly tested in these studies, our findings are consistent with these hypothesized mechanisms. This may help explain why mitochondrial-targeted proteins such as MAHS and RvLEAM have a more pronounced protective effect than cytosolic proteins like CAHS3. Mitochondria are essential for cellular energy production and cell survival because mitochondrial damage often triggers apoptosis and leads to irreversible cell death [47,48]. Especially under acute stress, maintaining mitochondrial integrity may be particularly critical for overall cell viability, as proteins that preserve mitochondrial function can confer a disproportionately greater benefit to cell survival than those acting in the cytosol.

As mentioned above, the protective mechanisms of CAHS are incompletely understood. CAHS has been shown to vitrify and may contribute to the stable vitrification of tardigrades during desiccation [51], although it remains unclear if this is the dominant mechanism of anhydrobiosis [51,52]. Further, CAHS has been shown to reversibly form supportive filamentous networks under hyperosmotic stress, increasing cell stiffness and potentially improving survival through mechanical stabilization of the cell [29]. Importantly, CAHS proteins are a relatively broad family that is conserved within tardigrades [26], several CAHS proteins have been demonstrated to individually increase the desiccation tolerance of yeast and bacteria [23]. Of these, we only investigated CAHS3 from R. varieornatus, CAHS variants likely have some diversity of function. A recent study of several CAHS variants of another tardigrade species (H. exemplaris) demonstrated that the protective effect of several CAHS variants are synergistic with trehalose, and CAHS alone offered limited protection to desiccation stress [53]. Trehalose-6-phosphate synthase is expressed by R. varieornatus [54]; however, it is unknown if trehalose has synergistic activity with CAHS3 specifically. If so, it is possible that the addition or synthesis of trehalose would augment the effects of CAHS3 expression in yeast.

There are several limitations of these studies to keep in mind. A key limitation of the study is that the experiments were largely conducted at mid-log phase since cells become highly tolerant to stress during stationary phase [55–57]. In bioproduction, cells are not restricted to log phase, a larger experimental design would assess these proteins at stationary phase as well. While amenable to genetic studies, the strain used (BY4741) is a derivative of S288C, which has a mutated copy of HAP1, a gene that locates to the mitochondria under stress [58]. Further, these studies only expressed a single transgene at a time; in native tardigrade these genes and others are co-expressed and may require other tardigrade proteins to function. Indeed, it has previously been speculated that MAHS and RvLEAM may have complimentary function [27]. Finally, the significant reduction in proliferation of CAHS3 expressing cells (Fig 2) impacts the assessment of our screening. While all experiments have consistent OD₆₀₀ values and were initiated in the log phase, qualitative assessment based on colony size may be impacted by altered proliferation, although not the quantitative Live/Dead studies (Fig 4).

Overall, we have demonstrated stable expression and localization CAHS3, MAHS, and RvLEAM in a representative production cell line, S. cerevisiae. Further, we demonstrated modified stress tolerance of S. cerevisiae via transgenic extremophile protein expression in specific contexts. Importantly, resistance to acute heat shock was demonstrated with MAHS expression, not previously shown with yeast. As an important limitation to this approach, we showed CAHS3 expression negatively impacts proliferation and viability. Future studies testing expression level, inducible expression, and multiple gene expression are warranted. Further, as expression of heterologous transgenes may impact cell phenotype in unexpected ways, testing in production environments will be critical.

Materials and methods

Strains and culture conditions

Strains used are shown in Table 1. Escherichia coli (E. coli; NEB10β; New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA) was used for cloning which were grown in Lysogeny Broth (LB) with ampicillin (5 g/L yeast extract, 10 g/L tryptone, 10 g/L NaCl, 100 mg/L ampicillin; Research Products International (RPI), Mount Prospect, IL, USA). S. cerevisiae strains without plasmids were grown in YPD media containing 20 g/L peptone, 10 g/L yeast extract (RPI, Mount Prospect, IL, USA) and 20 g/L glucose (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) in a container adequate for each experiment. S. cerevisiae strains containing plasmids were grown in Synthetic Complete medium minus uracil (SC -Ura) which contained 1.7 g/L Yeast Nitrogen Base without Amino Acids and Ammonium Sulfate (YNB; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), 5 g/L Ammonium Sulfate (RPI, Mount Prospect, IL, USA), 2 g/L of handmade synthetic dropout mix without uracil (0.25 g Adenine, 1 g Alanine, 1 g Arginine, 1 g Asparagine, 1 g Aspartic acid, 1 g Cysteine, 1 g Glutamine, 1 g Glutamic acid, 1 g Glycine, 1 g Histidine, 1 g Inositol, 1 g Isoleucine, 5 g Leucine, 1 g Lysine, 1 g Methionine, 0.1 g para-Aminobenzoic acid, 1 g Phenylalanine, 1 g Proline, 1 g Serine, 1 g Threonine, 1 g Tryptophan, 1 g Tyrosine, 1 g Valine; RPI, Mount Prospect, IL, USA), and 20 g/L glucose (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). When necessary, solid media were prepared as above with 20–30 g/L agar (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). All transformed yeast cultures were grown at 30 °C, while E. coli cultures for molecular cloning were grown at 37°C.

Download:

Table 1. Strains used for molecular biology and stress testing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.t001

Plasmid and strain construction, and plasmid sequencing

pIW14 (pRS426-P_PGK1-T_PGK1), a high copy (2μ) plasmid generated in our laboratory previously, was used as a template for the cloning of the tardigrade genes. Q5^® High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase (M0491; New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA) was used for all PCR amplifications. pIW14 was PCR amplified in order to reconstitute the full-length PGK1 promoter and insert the tardigrade genes and/or AcGFP1 by performing a Gibson assembly following the instructions of NEBuilder® HiFi DNA Assembly Master Mix and NEBuilder® Protocol Calculator (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA). The inserts were PCR amplified from plasmids obtained from Addgene using the primers shown in Table 2. pAcGFP1-N1-CAHS3 was a gift from Takekazu Kunieda (Addgene plasmid # 90031; http://n2t.net/addgene:90031; RRID: Addgene_90031). pAcGFP1-N1-MAHS was a gift from Takekazu Kunieda (Addgene plasmid # 90034; http://n2t.net/addgene:90034; RRID: Addgene_90034). pAcGFP1-N1-RvLEAM was a gift from Takekazu Kunieda (Addgene plasmid # 90035; http://n2t.net/addgene:90035; RRID: Addgene_90035).

Download:

Table 2. Primers and plasmids used.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.t002

The assembly products were transformed into E. coli by heat shock at 42ºC for 30s. Plasmids were extracted from E. coli with ZR Plasmid Miniprep – Classic (Zymo Research Corp., Irvine, CA, USA). DNA concentration was measured using Biodrop Duo+ (Biochrom US, Holliston, MA, USA). DNA sequences were verified by whole plasmid sequencing performed by Plasmidsaurus (Eugene, OR, USA). Plasmids were transformed into BY4741 using a standard LiAc/SS carrier DNA/PEG protocol [59]. Full sequences of all plasmids are in Supporting Information in S1 File.

Growth curve

pControl, pCAHS3, pMAHS and pRvLEAM were plated on a SC -Ura plate for 3 days and three colonies of each strain were picked and grown in 5 mL of SC -Ura media overnight, in a shaking incubator (INCU-SHAKER™ 10LR; Benchmark Scientific, Sayreville, NJ, USA) at 30°C and 200 rpm. Then, the OD₆₀₀ of each sample was measured using Biodrop Duo+ (Biochrom US, Holliston, MA, USA)and the cells were diluted to an 0.05 OD₆₀₀ in 6 mL of SC -Ura and 1 mL was used to measure the OD₆₀₀ ending with a 5 mL culture for each strain. The OD₆₀₀ was measured in triplicate for every sample obtaining in this way nine data points for each of the four strains at time 0 h, after 11 h, and measured every hour from the 13 h to the 24 h time point with a last measurement after 35 h to measure the OD₆₀₀ at stationary phase.

Stress tolerance phenotyping

When performing stress tolerance experiments and controls, yeast cultures were grown at 30°C in a minimal media version of SC -Ura (mSC -Ura) containing 1.7 g/L YNB, 5 g/L Ammonium Sulfate, 0.683 g/L minimal Dropout mix without uracil (0.25 g Adenine, 1 g Histidine, 1 g Inositol, 5 g Leucine, 1 g Methionine, 0.1 g para-Aminobenzoic acid) and 20 g/L glucose, and 2–3% agar when required. For the phenotyping under hyperosmotic stress tolerance mSC -Ura medium contained 5%, 7.5%, 10% or 12% NaCl and 3% agar. For the stress tolerance phenotyping under chronic thermal stress experiments, we used mSC -Ura medium at 37°C and 40°C with 20 g/L glucose. For butanol stress tolerance phenotyping, mSC -Ura medium contained 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% (v/v) butanol and 2% (w/v) agar. Glucose and NaCl solutions were autoclaved separate from each other and the rest of the media preparations.

Strains containing plasmids were grown overnight at 200 rpm in 14 mL tubes (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with 5 mL of mSC -Ura media at 30°C starting with a single colony for 2 days until they reached stationary phase. The night before the experiments, 50 μL of the liquid cultures (100 μL of pCAHS3) were sub-cultured into new 14 mL tubes with 5 mL of mSC -Ura having an initial OD₆₀₀ of ~0.1 (OD₆₀₀ of ~0.2 for pCAHS3) until they reached log phase (OD₆₀₀ between 3 and 7). While in log phase, each strain was diluted to a consistent OD₆₀₀ of 0.5 in 500 μL of water in a 1.5mL tube. For the phenotyping under chronic hyperosmotic (NaCl) stress, butanol-induced stress, and chronic thermal stress, 250 μL of each strain solution were transferred to a well on the first column of a 96-well plate, 200 μL of water was added to the wells on columns 2–6. 5-fold dilutions of each strain were performed by pipetting 50 μL out of the first column with a multichannel pipet and adding it to the next column to the right, samples were mixed by pipetting up and down, this was repeated up/down to the sixth column where 50 μL were discarded after mixing the samples, so every well had the same volume of solution (200 μL). Using a pin replicator, the solutions in the 96-well plate were transferred to the required type of plate in triplicate.

For acute stress tolerance phenotyping, the procedure was carried out as above with the following differences. For heat stress tolerance, the 1.5 mL tubes were placed on a heat block (myBlock™ HL Mini Dry Bath with Heated Lid; Benchmark Scientific, Sayreville, NJ, USA) at 30°C (control), 37°C, 48°C and 50°C for 1 h prior to performing the process described for the other stress conditions above. In this case, 250 μL of each strain control cultured at 30°C was transferred to a well on the first column of a 96-well plate, and 250 μL of each strain subjected to each heat stress condition was transferred to the wells on column 7 (one 96-well plate per condition). 200 μL of water was added to the wells on columns 2–6 and 8–12. 5-fold dilutions of each strain were performed as mentioned above for each half of the 96-well plate (columns 1–6 and 7–12). Control plates were grown for 2 days prior to imaging (ChemiDoc MP, Bio-Rad). Other conditions took up to 10 days before imaging. For acute hyperosmotic and desiccation stress, cells were centrifuged at 3000 × g for 5 min and supernatant was discarded, the tubes with the samples for desiccation were left open with 3M Micropore™ Surgical Paper Tape (3M, St. Paul, MN) taped on the aperture and, the cells in the tubes for hyperosmotic stress were resuspended in 1 mL of 15% NaCl mSC -Ura. Both, hyperosmotic and desiccation stress samples were kept at 30ºC in a shaking incubator for 21 h, which were then allowed to recover in mSC -Ura medium for 30 min prior to cell staining and flow cytometry.

Live/Dead assay and flow cytometry

Plasmid-containing strains were grown overnight as done previously in 14 mL tubes with 5 mL of mSC -Ura media at 200 rpm and 30°C starting at an OD₆₀₀ of 0.1 (and 0.2 for pCAHS3), diluted to a consistent OD₆₀₀ of 0.5 in 1 mL water in 1.5 mL tubes, The tubes were then subjected to a 1-hour incubation at 30°C or 50°C. After the incubation, the tubes were centrifuged at 3000 × g for 5 min to minimize cell death due to centrifuging, and the pellet was resuspended in 1 mL of PBS. Cells were incubated at room temperature (RT) for 30 minutes right after adding 1 μL Live-or-Dye™ 640/662 (CAT# 32007, Biotium, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA) and 1 μL 10 mM Thiazole Orange (CAT# 40077, Biotium, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA) to each tube. The samples were then centrifuged, and the supernatant was discarded. The samples were washed with 1 mL PBS once by centrifuging at 13000 × g for 30 s, resuspended in 500 μL PBS (OD₆₀₀ of 1) and run through a flow cytometer BD Accuri C6 Plus (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) at medium speed (35 μL/min) with the goal of counting 2 x 10⁵ events for each sample, non-fluorescent events were gated out during the flow cytometer run. Cells containing Live-or-Dye were identified as dead when the intensity was higher than 10⁴ using a FL4 filter (661/16 nm; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), everything else was considered to be alive as long as they were identified as fluorescent with an intensity between 10³ and 10⁵ using FL1 filter (530/30 nm; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA).

Cell staining and fluorescence microscopy

Strains containing GFP plasmids were grown from a single colony overnight in 14 mL tubes (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with 5 mL of SC -Ura media at 30°C. The following day, 1 mL of each strain was transferred into a 14 mL culture tube with 4 mL of 2x SC -Ura and 5 μL of 2 mM TMRE and they were grown overnight. The day of imaging, 1 mL of each strain was centrifuged at 3000 × g for 5 min and washed once with 0.5 mL of PBS, then the cells were centrifuged at 10000 × g for 30 s and the pellet was resuspended in 1 mL SPC buffer [60]. 10 μL of each strain was then transferred onto a glass slide and a 22x22 mm coverslip was placed on top of the droplet. Cell imaging was conducted utilizing an Olympus BX51 microscope equipped with an UPlanFL 100 x 1.30 oil-immersion objective lens and a mercury lamp. Fluorescence micrographs were captured using a Q-Imaging Retiga Exi CCD camera. Processing of the images was carried out employing CellSens Dimension 1.7 software (Olympus America, Center Valley, PA) or Adobe Photoshop. Each experiment involved the analysis of a minimum of three distinct cell populations, with representative images selected for representation, as done previously [61].

Statistical analysis

For graph making and data analysis, GraphPad Prism version 10.3.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, Boston, MA, USA) was used. For the statistical analysis of the growth curves, data was fit to a modified Gompertz equation: [37,38]. For each growth curve, μ was determined through least squares fitting (MATLAB 2022a; Mathworks, Natick, MA). One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test was used to determine growth difference from control (n = 3). For the statistical analysis of the data related to heat shock (n = 3), a Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test was performed. When analyzing the Live/Dead data obtained from the 4 strains under control, hyperosmotic and desiccation conditions; a Two-way ANOVA was performed followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test. All data presented in the figures is provided in Supporting Information in S2 File.

Supporting information

S1 File. This file contains Fig S1, Fig S2, and Fig S3 referenced in the text, as well as the full sequences of all plasmids referenced in the text.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.s001

(PDF)

S2 File. This file contains the raw data used to generate figures and run statistics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325682.s002

(XLSX)

References

1. Wang G, Huang M, Nielsen J. Exploring the potential of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for biopharmaceutical protein production. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2017;48:77–84. pmid:28410475
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Vieira Gomes AM, Souza Carmo T, Silva Carvalho L, Mendonça Bahia F, Parachin NS. Comparison of Yeasts as Hosts for Recombinant Protein Production. Microorganisms. 2018;6(2):38. pmid:29710826
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Parapouli M, Vasileiadis A, Afendra A-S, Hatziloukas E. Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its industrial applications. AIMS Microbiol. 2020;6(1):1–31. pmid:32226912
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Love KR, Dalvie NC, Love JC. The yeast stands alone: the future of protein biologic production. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2018;53:50–8. pmid:29277062
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Peng B, Esquirol L, Lu Z, Shen Q, Cheah LC, Howard CB, et al. An in vivo gene amplification system for high level expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):2895. pmid:35610221
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Otto M, Liu D, Siewers V. Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a Heterologous Host for Natural Products. Methods Mol Biol. 2022;2489:333–67. pmid:35524059
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Kroukamp H, den Haan R, van Zyl J, van Zyl WH. Rational strain engineering interventions to enhance cellulase secretion by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2018;12(1):108–24.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Lambertz C, Garvey M, Klinger J, Heesel D, Klose H, Fischer R, et al. Challenges and advances in the heterologous expression of cellulolytic enzymes: a review. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014;7(1):135. pmid:25356086
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Zhang H, Zhang P, Wu T, Ruan H. Bioethanol Production Based on Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Opportunities and Challenges. Fermentation. 2023;9(8):709.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Zaki AM, Wimalasena TT, Greetham D. Phenotypic characterisation of Saccharomyces spp. for tolerance to 1-butanol. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;41(11):1627–36. pmid:25242291
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Cagnin L, Gronchi N, Basaglia M, Favaro L, Casella S. Selection of Superior Yeast Strains for the Fermentation of Lignocellulosic Steam-Exploded Residues. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:756032. pmid:34803979
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Thorwall S, Schwartz C, Chartron JW, Wheeldon I. Stress-tolerant non-conventional microbes enable next-generation chemical biosynthesis. Nat Chem Biol. 2020;16(2):113–21. pmid:31974527
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Deparis Q, Claes A, Foulquié-Moreno MR, Thevelein JM. Engineering tolerance to industrially relevant stress factors in yeast cell factories. FEMS Yeast Res. 2017;17(4):fox036. pmid:28586408
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Wang S, Sun X, Yuan Q. Strategies for enhancing microbial tolerance to inhibitors for biofuel production: A review. Bioresour Technol. 2018;258:302–9. pmid:29567023
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Liu Y, Lin Y, Guo Y, Wu F, Zhang Y, Qi X, et al. Stress tolerance enhancement via SPT15 base editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2021;14(1):155. pmid:34229745
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Kavšček M, Stražar M, Curk T, Natter K, Petrovič U. Yeast as a cell factory: current state and perspectives. Microb Cell Fact. 2015;14:94. pmid:26122609
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Hande Tekarslan-Sahin S. Metabolic Engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for Industrial Biotechnology. Saccharomyces. IntechOpen; 2021. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96030
18. Lee S-M, Jellison T, Alper HS. Directed evolution of xylose isomerase for improved xylose catabolism and fermentation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(16):5708–16. pmid:22685138
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Smith MD, Pingali SV, Elkins JG, Bolmatov D, Standaert RF, Nickels JD, et al. Solvent-induced membrane stress in biofuel production: molecular insights from small-angle scattering and all-atom molecular dynamics simulations. Green Chem. 2020;22(23):8278–88.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Wu Y, Li B, Miao B, Xie C, Tang Y-Q. Saccharomyces cerevisiae employs complex regulation strategies to tolerate low pH stress during ethanol production. Microb Cell Fact. 2022;21(1):247. pmid:36419096
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Schokraie E, Warnken U, Hotz-Wagenblatt A, Grohme MA, Hengherr S, Förster F, et al. Comparative proteome analysis of Milnesium tardigradum in early embryonic state versus adults in active and anhydrobiotic state. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45682. pmid:23029181
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Guidetti R, Altiero T, Bertolani R, Grazioso P, Rebecchi L. Survival of freezing by hydrated tardigrades inhabiting terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Zoology (Jena). 2011;114(2):123–8. pmid:21429723
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Boothby TC, Tapia H, Brozena AH, Piszkiewicz S, Smith AE, Giovannini I, et al. Tardigrades Use Intrinsically Disordered Proteins to Survive Desiccation. Mol Cell. 2017;65(6):975-984.e5. pmid:28306513
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Boothby TC, Pielak GJ. Intrinsically Disordered Proteins and Desiccation Tolerance: Elucidating Functional and Mechanistic Underpinnings of Anhydrobiosis. Bioessays. 2017;39(11):10.1002/bies.201700119. pmid:28901557
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Hesgrove C, Boothby TC. The biology of tardigrade disordered proteins in extreme stress tolerance. Cell Commun Signal. 2020;18(1):178. pmid:33148259
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Yamaguchi A, Tanaka S, Yamaguchi S, Kuwahara H, Takamura C, Imajoh-Ohmi S, et al. Two novel heat-soluble protein families abundantly expressed in an anhydrobiotic tardigrade. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e44209. pmid:22937162
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Tanaka S, Tanaka J, Miwa Y, Horikawa DD, Katayama T, Arakawa K, et al. Novel mitochondria-targeted heat-soluble proteins identified in the anhydrobiotic Tardigrade improve osmotic tolerance of human cells. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0118272. pmid:25675104
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Yagi-Utsumi M, Aoki K, Watanabe H, Song C, Nishimura S, Satoh T, et al. Desiccation-induced fibrous condensation of CAHS protein from an anhydrobiotic tardigrade. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):21328. pmid:34737320
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Tanaka A, Nakano T, Watanabe K, Masuda K, Honda G, Kamata S, et al. Stress-dependent cell stiffening by tardigrade tolerance proteins that reversibly form a filamentous network and gel. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(9):e3001780. pmid:36067153
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Hashimoto T, Horikawa DD, Saito Y, Kuwahara H, Kozuka-Hata H, Shin-I T, et al. Extremotolerant tardigrade genome and improved radiotolerance of human cultured cells by tardigrade-unique protein. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12808. pmid:27649274
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Mínguez-Toral M, Cuevas-Zuviría B, Garrido-Arandia M, Pacios LF. A computational structural study on the DNA-protecting role of the |tardigrade-unique Dsup protein. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):13424. pmid:32770133
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Chavez C, Cruz-Becerra G, Fei J, Kassavetis GA, Kadonaga JT. The tardigrade damage suppressor protein binds to nucleosomes and protects DNA from hydroxyl radicals. Elife. 2019;8:e47682. pmid:31571581
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Ricci C, Riolo G, Marzocchi C, Brunetti J, Pini A, Cantara S. The Tardigrade Damage Suppressor Protein Modulates Transcription Factor and DNA Repair Genes in Human Cells Treated with Hydroxyl Radicals and UV-C. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(10):970. pmid:34681069
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Rolsma JL, Darch W, Higgins NC, Morgan JT. The tardigrade-derived mitochondrial abundant heat soluble protein improves adipose-derived stem cell survival against representative stressors. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):11834. pmid:38783150
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Zhang H, Liu Q, Liang Q, Wang B, Chen Z, Wang J. Expression of tardigrade disordered proteins impacts the tolerance to biofuels in a model cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1091502. pmid:36687595
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Loebs AK. Understanding and engineering ester biosynthesis pathways in the yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus. University of California, Riverside; 2018. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2112358812/abstract/EB98F4BD2BAC4312PQ/1
37. Dengremont E, Membré JM. Statistical approach for comparison of the growth rates of five strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61(12):4389–95. pmid:8534102
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Zwietering MH, Jongenburger I, Rombouts FM, van ’t Riet K. Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990;56(6):1875–81. pmid:16348228
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Fischer CR, Klein-Marcuschamer D, Stephanopoulos G. Selection and optimization of microbial hosts for biofuels production. Metab Eng. 2008;10(6):295–304. pmid:18655844
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Steen EJ, Chan R, Prasad N, Myers S, Petzold CJ, Redding A, et al. Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the production of n-butanol. Microb Cell Fact. 2008;7:36. pmid:19055772
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Kajiwara Y, Ogawa K, Takashita H, Omori T. Enhanced glycerol production in Shochu yeast by heat-shock treatment is due to prolonged transcription of GPD1. J Biosci Bioeng. 2000;90(1):121–3. pmid:16232830
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Aldiguier AS, Alfenore S, Cameleyre X, Goma G, Uribelarrea JL, Guillouet SE, et al. Synergistic temperature and ethanol effect on Saccharomyces cerevisiae dynamic behaviour in ethanol bio-fuel production. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2004;26(4):217–22. pmid:15098119
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Ben Chaabane F, Aldiguier AS, Alfenore S, Cameleyre X, Blanc P, Bideaux C, et al. Very high ethanol productivity in an innovative continuous two-stage bioreactor with cell recycle. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2006;29(1):49–57. pmid:16598511
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Piszkiewicz S, Gunn KH, Warmuth O, Propst A, Mehta A, Nguyen KH, et al. Protecting activity of desiccated enzymes. Protein Sci. 2019;28(5):941–51. pmid:30868674
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Escarcega RD, Patil AA, Meyer MD, Moruno-Manchon JF, Silvagnoli AD, McCullough LD, et al. The Tardigrade damage suppressor protein Dsup promotes DNA damage in neurons. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2023;125:103826. pmid:36858083
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Tolleter D, Hincha DK, Macherel D. A mitochondrial late embryogenesis abundant protein stabilizes model membranes in the dry state. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1798(10):1926–33. pmid:20637181
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Jenkins BC, Neikirk K, Katti P, Claypool SM, Kirabo A, McReynolds MR, et al. Mitochondria in disease: changes in shapes and dynamics. Trends Biochem Sci. 2024;49(4):346–60. pmid:38402097
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Carmona-Gutierrez D, Eisenberg T, Büttner S, Meisinger C, Kroemer G, Madeo F. Apoptosis in yeast: triggers, pathways, subroutines. Cell Death Differ. 2010;17(5):763–73. pmid:20075938
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Heit B, Yeung T, Grinstein S. Changes in mitochondrial surface charge mediate recruitment of signaling molecules during apoptosis. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2011;300(1):C33-41. pmid:20926778
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Hall A, Wu L-P, Parhamifar L, Moghimi SM. Differential Modulation of Cellular Bioenergetics by Poly(L-lysine)s of Different Molecular Weights. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16(7):2119–26. pmid:26053306
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Boothby TC. Water content influences the vitrified properties of CAHS proteins. Mol Cell. 2021;81(3):411–3. pmid:33545054
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Arakawa K, Numata K. Reconsidering the “glass transition” hypothesis of intrinsically unstructured CAHS proteins in desiccation tolerance of tardigrades. Mol Cell. 2021;81(3):409–10. pmid:33545053
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Nguyen K, Kc S, Gonzalez T, Tapia H, Boothby TC. Trehalose and tardigrade CAHS proteins work synergistically to promote desiccation tolerance. Commun Biol. 2022;5(1):1046. pmid:36182981
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Yoshida Y, Koutsovoulos G, Laetsch DR, Stevens L, Kumar S, Horikawa DD, et al. Comparative genomics of the tardigrades Hypsibius dujardini and Ramazzottius varieornatus. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7):e2002266. pmid:28749982
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Elliott B, Futcher B. Stress resistance of yeast cells is largely independent of cell cycle phase. Yeast. 1993;9(1):33–42. pmid:8442385
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Narayanan V, Schelin J, Gorwa-Grauslund M, van Niel EW, Carlquist M. Increased lignocellulosic inhibitor tolerance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell populations in early stationary phase. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017;10:114. pmid:28484514
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Saad S, Cereghetti G, Feng Y, Picotti P, Peter M, Dechant R. Reversible protein aggregation is a protective mechanism to ensure cell cycle restart after stress. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(10):1202–13. pmid:28846094
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Gaisne M, Bécam AM, Verdière J, Herbert CJ. A “natural” mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains derived from S288c affects the complex regulatory gene HAP1 (CYP1). Curr Genet. 1999;36(4):195–200. pmid:10541856
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Gietz RD, Schiestl RH. High-efficiency yeast transformation using the LiAc/SS carrier DNA/PEG method. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(1):31–4. pmid:17401334
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Pemberton LF. Preparation of yeast cells for live-cell imaging and indirect immunofluorescence. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1205:79–90. pmid:25213240
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Zhu J, Schwartz C, Wheeldon I. Controlled intracellular trafficking alleviates an expression bottleneck in S. cerevisiae ester biosynthesis. Metab Eng Commun. 2018;8:e00085. pmid:30622894
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Wang G, Huang M, Nielsen J. Exploring the potential of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for biopharmaceutical protein production. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2017;48:77–84. pmid:28410475
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Vieira Gomes AM, Souza Carmo T, Silva Carvalho L, Mendonça Bahia F, Parachin NS. Comparison of Yeasts as Hosts for Recombinant Protein Production. Microorganisms. 2018;6(2):38. pmid:29710826
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Parapouli M, Vasileiadis A, Afendra A-S, Hatziloukas E. Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its industrial applications. AIMS Microbiol. 2020;6(1):1–31. pmid:32226912
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Love KR, Dalvie NC, Love JC. The yeast stands alone: the future of protein biologic production. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2018;53:50–8. pmid:29277062
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Peng B, Esquirol L, Lu Z, Shen Q, Cheah LC, Howard CB, et al. An in vivo gene amplification system for high level expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):2895. pmid:35610221
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Otto M, Liu D, Siewers V. Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a Heterologous Host for Natural Products. Methods Mol Biol. 2022;2489:333–67. pmid:35524059
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Kroukamp H, den Haan R, van Zyl J, van Zyl WH. Rational strain engineering interventions to enhance cellulase secretion by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2018;12(1):108–24.
View Article
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Lambertz C, Garvey M, Klinger J, Heesel D, Klose H, Fischer R, et al. Challenges and advances in the heterologous expression of cellulolytic enzymes: a review. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014;7(1):135. pmid:25356086
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] PubMed/NCBI

[31] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Zhang H, Zhang P, Wu T, Ruan H. Bioethanol Production Based on Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Opportunities and Challenges. Fermentation. 2023;9(8):709.
View Article
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Zaki AM, Wimalasena TT, Greetham D. Phenotypic characterisation of Saccharomyces spp. for tolerance to 1-butanol. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;41(11):1627–36. pmid:25242291
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] PubMed/NCBI

[38] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Cagnin L, Gronchi N, Basaglia M, Favaro L, Casella S. Selection of Superior Yeast Strains for the Fermentation of Lignocellulosic Steam-Exploded Residues. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:756032. pmid:34803979
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Thorwall S, Schwartz C, Chartron JW, Wheeldon I. Stress-tolerant non-conventional microbes enable next-generation chemical biosynthesis. Nat Chem Biol. 2020;16(2):113–21. pmid:31974527
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] PubMed/NCBI

[46] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Deparis Q, Claes A, Foulquié-Moreno MR, Thevelein JM. Engineering tolerance to industrially relevant stress factors in yeast cell factories. FEMS Yeast Res. 2017;17(4):fox036. pmid:28586408
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] PubMed/NCBI

[50] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Wang S, Sun X, Yuan Q. Strategies for enhancing microbial tolerance to inhibitors for biofuel production: A review. Bioresour Technol. 2018;258:302–9. pmid:29567023
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] PubMed/NCBI

[54] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Liu Y, Lin Y, Guo Y, Wu F, Zhang Y, Qi X, et al. Stress tolerance enhancement via SPT15 base editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2021;14(1):155. pmid:34229745
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] PubMed/NCBI

[58] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Kavšček M, Stražar M, Curk T, Natter K, Petrovič U. Yeast as a cell factory: current state and perspectives. Microb Cell Fact. 2015;14:94. pmid:26122609
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] PubMed/NCBI

[62] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Hande Tekarslan-Sahin S. Metabolic Engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for Industrial Biotechnology. Saccharomyces. IntechOpen; 2021. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96030

[ref18] 18. Lee S-M, Jellison T, Alper HS. Directed evolution of xylose isomerase for improved xylose catabolism and fermentation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(16):5708–16. pmid:22685138
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Smith MD, Pingali SV, Elkins JG, Bolmatov D, Standaert RF, Nickels JD, et al. Solvent-induced membrane stress in biofuel production: molecular insights from small-angle scattering and all-atom molecular dynamics simulations. Green Chem. 2020;22(23):8278–88.
View Article
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Wu Y, Li B, Miao B, Xie C, Tang Y-Q. Saccharomyces cerevisiae employs complex regulation strategies to tolerate low pH stress during ethanol production. Microb Cell Fact. 2022;21(1):247. pmid:36419096
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Schokraie E, Warnken U, Hotz-Wagenblatt A, Grohme MA, Hengherr S, Förster F, et al. Comparative proteome analysis of Milnesium tardigradum in early embryonic state versus adults in active and anhydrobiotic state. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45682. pmid:23029181
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Guidetti R, Altiero T, Bertolani R, Grazioso P, Rebecchi L. Survival of freezing by hydrated tardigrades inhabiting terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Zoology (Jena). 2011;114(2):123–8. pmid:21429723
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Boothby TC, Tapia H, Brozena AH, Piszkiewicz S, Smith AE, Giovannini I, et al. Tardigrades Use Intrinsically Disordered Proteins to Survive Desiccation. Mol Cell. 2017;65(6):975-984.e5. pmid:28306513
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Boothby TC, Pielak GJ. Intrinsically Disordered Proteins and Desiccation Tolerance: Elucidating Functional and Mechanistic Underpinnings of Anhydrobiosis. Bioessays. 2017;39(11):10.1002/bies.201700119. pmid:28901557
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Hesgrove C, Boothby TC. The biology of tardigrade disordered proteins in extreme stress tolerance. Cell Commun Signal. 2020;18(1):178. pmid:33148259
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Yamaguchi A, Tanaka S, Yamaguchi S, Kuwahara H, Takamura C, Imajoh-Ohmi S, et al. Two novel heat-soluble protein families abundantly expressed in an anhydrobiotic tardigrade. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e44209. pmid:22937162
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Tanaka S, Tanaka J, Miwa Y, Horikawa DD, Katayama T, Arakawa K, et al. Novel mitochondria-targeted heat-soluble proteins identified in the anhydrobiotic Tardigrade improve osmotic tolerance of human cells. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0118272. pmid:25675104
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Yagi-Utsumi M, Aoki K, Watanabe H, Song C, Nishimura S, Satoh T, et al. Desiccation-induced fibrous condensation of CAHS protein from an anhydrobiotic tardigrade. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):21328. pmid:34737320
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Tanaka A, Nakano T, Watanabe K, Masuda K, Honda G, Kamata S, et al. Stress-dependent cell stiffening by tardigrade tolerance proteins that reversibly form a filamentous network and gel. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(9):e3001780. pmid:36067153
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] PubMed/NCBI

[110] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Hashimoto T, Horikawa DD, Saito Y, Kuwahara H, Kozuka-Hata H, Shin-I T, et al. Extremotolerant tardigrade genome and improved radiotolerance of human cultured cells by tardigrade-unique protein. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12808. pmid:27649274
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] PubMed/NCBI

[114] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Mínguez-Toral M, Cuevas-Zuviría B, Garrido-Arandia M, Pacios LF. A computational structural study on the DNA-protecting role of the |tardigrade-unique Dsup protein. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):13424. pmid:32770133
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] PubMed/NCBI

[118] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Chavez C, Cruz-Becerra G, Fei J, Kassavetis GA, Kadonaga JT. The tardigrade damage suppressor protein binds to nucleosomes and protects DNA from hydroxyl radicals. Elife. 2019;8:e47682. pmid:31571581
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Ricci C, Riolo G, Marzocchi C, Brunetti J, Pini A, Cantara S. The Tardigrade Damage Suppressor Protein Modulates Transcription Factor and DNA Repair Genes in Human Cells Treated with Hydroxyl Radicals and UV-C. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(10):970. pmid:34681069
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Rolsma JL, Darch W, Higgins NC, Morgan JT. The tardigrade-derived mitochondrial abundant heat soluble protein improves adipose-derived stem cell survival against representative stressors. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):11834. pmid:38783150
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] PubMed/NCBI

[130] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Zhang H, Liu Q, Liang Q, Wang B, Chen Z, Wang J. Expression of tardigrade disordered proteins impacts the tolerance to biofuels in a model cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1091502. pmid:36687595
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Loebs AK. Understanding and engineering ester biosynthesis pathways in the yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus. University of California, Riverside; 2018. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2112358812/abstract/EB98F4BD2BAC4312PQ/1

[ref37] 37. Dengremont E, Membré JM. Statistical approach for comparison of the growth rates of five strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61(12):4389–95. pmid:8534102
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Zwietering MH, Jongenburger I, Rombouts FM, van ’t Riet K. Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990;56(6):1875–81. pmid:16348228
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Fischer CR, Klein-Marcuschamer D, Stephanopoulos G. Selection and optimization of microbial hosts for biofuels production. Metab Eng. 2008;10(6):295–304. pmid:18655844
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Steen EJ, Chan R, Prasad N, Myers S, Petzold CJ, Redding A, et al. Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the production of n-butanol. Microb Cell Fact. 2008;7:36. pmid:19055772
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Kajiwara Y, Ogawa K, Takashita H, Omori T. Enhanced glycerol production in Shochu yeast by heat-shock treatment is due to prolonged transcription of GPD1. J Biosci Bioeng. 2000;90(1):121–3. pmid:16232830
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Aldiguier AS, Alfenore S, Cameleyre X, Goma G, Uribelarrea JL, Guillouet SE, et al. Synergistic temperature and ethanol effect on Saccharomyces cerevisiae dynamic behaviour in ethanol bio-fuel production. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2004;26(4):217–22. pmid:15098119
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Ben Chaabane F, Aldiguier AS, Alfenore S, Cameleyre X, Blanc P, Bideaux C, et al. Very high ethanol productivity in an innovative continuous two-stage bioreactor with cell recycle. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2006;29(1):49–57. pmid:16598511
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Piszkiewicz S, Gunn KH, Warmuth O, Propst A, Mehta A, Nguyen KH, et al. Protecting activity of desiccated enzymes. Protein Sci. 2019;28(5):941–51. pmid:30868674
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Escarcega RD, Patil AA, Meyer MD, Moruno-Manchon JF, Silvagnoli AD, McCullough LD, et al. The Tardigrade damage suppressor protein Dsup promotes DNA damage in neurons. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2023;125:103826. pmid:36858083
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Tolleter D, Hincha DK, Macherel D. A mitochondrial late embryogenesis abundant protein stabilizes model membranes in the dry state. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1798(10):1926–33. pmid:20637181
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] PubMed/NCBI

[175] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Jenkins BC, Neikirk K, Katti P, Claypool SM, Kirabo A, McReynolds MR, et al. Mitochondria in disease: changes in shapes and dynamics. Trends Biochem Sci. 2024;49(4):346–60. pmid:38402097
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] PubMed/NCBI

[179] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Carmona-Gutierrez D, Eisenberg T, Büttner S, Meisinger C, Kroemer G, Madeo F. Apoptosis in yeast: triggers, pathways, subroutines. Cell Death Differ. 2010;17(5):763–73. pmid:20075938
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] PubMed/NCBI

[183] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Heit B, Yeung T, Grinstein S. Changes in mitochondrial surface charge mediate recruitment of signaling molecules during apoptosis. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2011;300(1):C33-41. pmid:20926778
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[185] View Article

[186] PubMed/NCBI

[187] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Hall A, Wu L-P, Parhamifar L, Moghimi SM. Differential Modulation of Cellular Bioenergetics by Poly(L-lysine)s of Different Molecular Weights. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16(7):2119–26. pmid:26053306
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[189] View Article

[190] PubMed/NCBI

[191] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Boothby TC. Water content influences the vitrified properties of CAHS proteins. Mol Cell. 2021;81(3):411–3. pmid:33545054
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[193] View Article

[194] PubMed/NCBI

[195] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Arakawa K, Numata K. Reconsidering the “glass transition” hypothesis of intrinsically unstructured CAHS proteins in desiccation tolerance of tardigrades. Mol Cell. 2021;81(3):409–10. pmid:33545053
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] PubMed/NCBI

[199] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Nguyen K, Kc S, Gonzalez T, Tapia H, Boothby TC. Trehalose and tardigrade CAHS proteins work synergistically to promote desiccation tolerance. Commun Biol. 2022;5(1):1046. pmid:36182981
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] PubMed/NCBI

[203] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Yoshida Y, Koutsovoulos G, Laetsch DR, Stevens L, Kumar S, Horikawa DD, et al. Comparative genomics of the tardigrades Hypsibius dujardini and Ramazzottius varieornatus. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7):e2002266. pmid:28749982
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[205] View Article

[206] PubMed/NCBI

[207] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Elliott B, Futcher B. Stress resistance of yeast cells is largely independent of cell cycle phase. Yeast. 1993;9(1):33–42. pmid:8442385
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[209] View Article

[210] PubMed/NCBI

[211] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Narayanan V, Schelin J, Gorwa-Grauslund M, van Niel EW, Carlquist M. Increased lignocellulosic inhibitor tolerance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell populations in early stationary phase. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017;10:114. pmid:28484514
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[213] View Article

[214] PubMed/NCBI

[215] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Saad S, Cereghetti G, Feng Y, Picotti P, Peter M, Dechant R. Reversible protein aggregation is a protective mechanism to ensure cell cycle restart after stress. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(10):1202–13. pmid:28846094
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[217] View Article

[218] PubMed/NCBI

[219] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Gaisne M, Bécam AM, Verdière J, Herbert CJ. A “natural” mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains derived from S288c affects the complex regulatory gene HAP1 (CYP1). Curr Genet. 1999;36(4):195–200. pmid:10541856
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[221] View Article

[222] PubMed/NCBI

[223] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Gietz RD, Schiestl RH. High-efficiency yeast transformation using the LiAc/SS carrier DNA/PEG method. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(1):31–4. pmid:17401334
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[225] View Article

[226] PubMed/NCBI

[227] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Pemberton LF. Preparation of yeast cells for live-cell imaging and indirect immunofluorescence. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1205:79–90. pmid:25213240
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[229] View Article

[230] PubMed/NCBI

[231] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Zhu J, Schwartz C, Wheeldon I. Controlled intracellular trafficking alleviates an expression bottleneck in S. cerevisiae ester biosynthesis. Metab Eng Commun. 2018;8:e00085. pmid:30622894
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[233] View Article

[234] PubMed/NCBI

[235] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Results

Tardigrade proteins localize as expected in S. cerevisiae

S. cerevisiae remains proliferative after expression of tardigrade proteins

MAHS expression increases S. cerevisiae acute heat tolerance

RvLEAM or MAHS expression improves while CAHS3 expression impairs S. cerevisiae hyperosmolarity tolerance

Selected tardigrade proteins do not confer tolerance to chronic stressors in S. cerevisiae

Discussion

Materials and methods

Strains and culture conditions

Plasmid and strain construction, and plasmid sequencing

Growth curve

Stress tolerance phenotyping

Live/Dead assay and flow cytometry

Cell staining and fluorescence microscopy

Statistical analysis

Supporting information

S1 File. This file contains Fig S1, Fig S2, and Fig S3 referenced in the text, as well as the full sequences of all plasmids referenced in the text.

S2 File. This file contains the raw data used to generate figures and run statistics.

References