STRESS RESPONSIVE YEAST CELLS

How did we end up working with both E. coli and S. cerevisiae?

Upon a suggestion by Professor Maerkl, we decided to take a look at the High Osmolarity Glycerol(HOG) pathway in S. cerevisiae and see whether we could expand our project into yeast cells. Similarly to the CpxR pathway, it is responsive to not only osmotic stress but also heat shock, nitrogen starvation and oxidative stress¹. The HOG pathway is activated mainly by two membrane proteins Sho1 and Sln1, of which Sho1's role is thought to be monitoring turgor during cell growth². From this we hypothesized that by tagging downstream proteins of the pathway, PBS2 and HOG1, with split constructs we would be able to create a touch responsive system. PBS2 and HOG1 are part of a Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase(MapK) pathway, and PBS2 is a MAPKK and HOG1 is a MAPK so PBS2 phosphorylates HOG1 upon activation.

PBS2 Map kinase kinase of the HOG pathway localized in the cytoplasm and with 2160 molecules/cell3. Typical MapKK structure with C-terminal protein kinase domain and N-terminal upstream protein interacting domain. HOG1 Map kinase of the HOG pathway localized in the cytoplasm and with 6780 molecules/cell³. Typical MapK composed only of a protein kinase domain which localizes to the nucleus upon activation.

What are the advantages of using yeast to implement our project?

In synthetic biology, the most used organism is undoubtedly E. coli. The easy nature of its manipulation makes it ideal especially when the time for the project is limited to a few months. However, studies in bacteria are not always applicable to all cells, and an extension to a eukaryotic species adds another dimension to our project. Especially in the case of the HOG pathway, there is a very similar pair of proteins in mammalian cells, MEK5 and ERK5, meaning that the project could be extended even further⁴.

[to be completed] Using S. cerevisiae and homologous recombination, we could also address other problems. In bacteria, inserting plasmids can disrupt the equilibrium of the pathway and activate it or deactivate it constitutively because the copy number will be changed whereas in yeast, you can use homologous recombination to insert any DNA sequence (a tag, a promotor...) where you want it to be in the genome. You can put in frame with a protein of interest and express a fusion protein without changing the expression of the gene of origin. It was really important for our experiments since the number of copies of each proteins of the HOG pathway should be conserved to keep the response fast and controlled. Also the project consisted in attaching a split construct to a homodimerising protein so if we had chosen episomal expression of our proteins (cloning with a plasmid), there would be many interactions which would not produce the signal due to the presence of native CPXR proteins encoded in the genomic DNA.
However, there weren't only advantages in choosing to work with yeast. First, we had no idea how to work with yeast cells and neither did our assistants; we had to do a lot of research on basic protocols. Also, we could not find a study which had already tested the interaction between two proteins in the pathway using split constructs so we were making a small gamble. And last but not least, working with yeasts takes a lot longer due to the slower doubling time.

Why did we chose Hog1 and Pbs2?

As mentioned above, we were unable to find a set of proteins which had already been assayed by split complementation. This meant that we would not be sure whether the split constructs would be able to interact once fused to the proteins and which orientation to use. We chose PBS2 because this is where the stress signal converges in the pathway from different membrane sensory proteins. And we chose HOG1 as the other protein because it is phosphorylated directly by PBS2 while there is a scaffold for the upstream interactions. For the orientation, there was no doubt that we had to use the C-terminal for PBS2 because the kinase domain interacting with HOG1 is on the C-terminal and the N-terminus is physically very far. We would have liked to test both orientations on HOG1 but due to limitation of time and people to invest on this part, we decided on the C-terminus. This choice was backed by the fact kinases have their regulation tail on the N-terminus and we did not want to risk disrupting its activation.

Learning how to handle and work with yeast: a challenge?

Having had several courses where yeast had been mentioned, we initially thought that we would not have too much trouble understanding how to take on the project. Little did we realise how much we were wrong. It took a whole month to fully understand what we had to do in terms of the design of the gene insert and order the plasmids we needed while we prepared everything we needed. Not knowing that the number of base pairs needed for homologous recombination varies between different species of yeast confused us, and then we were confused whether we should transform with a plasmid or linear fragments. In the end, we found plasmids specifically designed for GFP-tagging in yeast on AddGene and we consulted the professor Simanis and his assistant Andrea Krapp who helped us confirm our design.

How did we make our DNA constructs and transform our cells?

After the long discussion mentioned above, the plasmids we found were the plasmids pFA6a-link-yoSuperfolderGFP-Kan (44901) and pFA6a-link-yoSuperfolderGFP-Ura (44873)⁵ which are for GFP tagging via homologous recombination in yeast. They differ by the yeast selection marker they encode: Kan or Ura. We did all the constructs linked to Pbs2 with the kan resistance gene while Hog1 related constructs were coupled to the Ura3 selection marker.

We replaced the GFP tag by using overlap PCR and created split Renilla Luciferase, split GFP and whole Renilla Luciferase tags to finally produce linear fragments of the form below. The figure below illustrates how the modified Genome would look like and what proteins it would express (we took the example of the GFP tagged Hog1.

It took us many PCRs to produce the 8 different linear fragments we wished to use and after a failed transformation, we hypothesized that it was due to the bad quality of the products and took our time to optimize the reactions. We preferred to do subsequent transformations but due to a lack of time we also ended up trying the co-transformation while waiting for the verification of the first successful transformations.

Our strains and DNA constructs

In the table below, we present you the eigth DNA parts and the six corresponding yeast strains we aimed to obtain.

We were able to get all our transformants in time however we didn't finish the characterization of all our constructs before the wiki freeze. We still achieved to tag Pbs2 with both the yeast sfGFP and the Renilla Luciferase, which proves that we managed to do homolgous recombination in S. Cerevisiae and that our gene of interest was expressed in the cells. Moreover we were able to demonstrate that the split sfGFP we designed worked as expected: in response to an osmotic stress, while Pbs2 links and phosphorylates Hog1, the full sfGFP is re-assembled and fluorescence is emitted!

It means that the BioPad could actually be implemented with yeast cells and fulfills the various functions we have been thinking of. The sfGFP could of course be replaced by another fluorescent protein such as the IFP.

	Transformation?	Characterisation?
HOG1-sfGFP	Done	Not completed
HOG1-RLuc	Done	Not completed
PBS2-sfGFP	Done	Characterised
PBS2-RLuc	Done	Characterised
Split sfGFP	Done	Characterised
Split RLuc	Done	Not completed