Search

The methanol utilization (Mut) phenotype in the yeast Pichia pastoris (syn. Komagataella spp.) is defined by the deletion of the genes AOX1 and AOX2. The Mut− phenotype cannot grow on methanol as a single carbon source. We assessed the Mut− phenotype for secreted recombinant protein production. The methanol inducible AOX1 promoter (PAOX1) was active in the Mut− phenotype and showed adequate eGFP fluorescence levels and protein yields (YP/X) in small‐scale screenings. Different bioreactor cultivation scenarios with methanol excess concentrations were tested using PAOX1HSA and PAOX1vHH expression constructs. Scenario B comprising a glucose‐methanol phase and a 72‐hr‐long methanol only phase was the best performing, producing 531 mg/L HSA and 1631 mg/L vHH. 61% of the HSA was produced in the methanol only phase where no biomass growth was observed, representing a special case of growth independent production. By using the Mut− phenotype, the oxygen demand, heat output, and specific methanol uptake (q methanol) in the methanol phase were reduced by more than 80% compared with the MutS phenotype. The highlighted improved process parameters coupled with growth independent protein production are overlooked benefits of the Mut− strain for current and future applications in the field of recombinant protein production., Two key genes necessary for methylotrophy in the yeast Pichia pastoris were disrupted. The strain was characterized in terms of bioprocess parameters and recombinant protein production under methanol induction. Different bioprocesses were tested and compared to the commonly used MutS strain and bioprocess. The strain showed reduced heat evolution and oxygen demand as well as the capability of recombinant protein production without a noticeable biomass increase.

Background: Bacterial inclusion bodies (IBs) are non-toxic protein aggregates commonly produced in recombinant bacteria. They are formed by a mixture of highly stable amyloid-like fibrils and releasable protein species with a significant extent of secondary structure, and are often functional. As nano structured materials, they are gaining biomedical interest because of the combination of submicron size, mechanical stability and biological activity, together with their ability to interact with mammalian cell membranes for subsequent cell penetration in absence of toxicity. Since essentially any protein species can be obtained as IBs, these entities, as well as related protein clusters (e.g., aggresomes), are being explored in biocatalysis and in biomedicine as mechanically stable sources of functional protein. One of the major bottlenecks for uses of IBs in biological interfaces is their potential contamination with endotoxins from producing bacteria. - Results: to overcome this hurdle, we have explored here the controlled production of functional IBs in the yeast Pichia pastoris (Komagataella spp.), an endotoxin-free host system for recombinant protein production, and determined the main physicochemical and biological traits of these materials. Quantitative and qualitative approaches clearly indicate the formation of IBs inside yeast, similar in morphology, size and biological activity to those produced in E. coli, that once purified, interact with mammalian cell membranes and penetrate cultured mammalian cells in absence of toxicity. - Conclusions: structurally and functionally similar from those produced in E. coli, the controlled production of IBs in P. pastoris demonstrates that yeasts can be used as convenient platforms for the biological fabrication of self-organizing protein materials in absence of potential endotoxin contamination and with additional advantages regarding, among others, post-translational modifications often required for protein functionality.

Additional file 1: Supplementary Figures. Figures showing the preliminary minimal inhibitory concentration experiment (Fig. S1), 5-CFDA flow cytometry histograms (Fig. S2), 5-CFDA and PI flow cytometry density plots (Fig. S3), growth curve assays determining Imipramine and puromycin concentrations (Fig. S4) and plots illustrating the relationship between cell size and global translation activity (Fig. S5).