Next Article in Journal
Effect of Caffeine and Flavonoids on the Binding of Tigecycline to Human Serum Albumin: A Spectroscopic Study and Molecular Docking
Previous Article in Journal
The Boron Advantage: The Evolution and Diversification of Boron’s Applications in Medicinal Chemistry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceuticals
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/ph15030265
pharmaceuticals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

From Sharks to Yeasts: Squalene in the Development of Vaccine Adjuvants

by
Adélia Mendes
*,
João Azevedo-Silva
and
João C. Fernandes
Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina (CBQF), Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Amyris Bio Products Portugal, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15(3), 265; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15030265
Submission received: 19 January 2022 / Revised: 11 February 2022 / Accepted: 16 February 2022 / Published: 22 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Medicinal Chemistry)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Squalene is a natural linear triterpene that can be found in high amounts in certain fish liver oils, especially from deep-sea sharks, and to a lesser extent in a wide variety of vegeTable oils. It is currently used for numerous vaccine and drug delivery emulsions due to its stability-enhancing properties and biocompatibility. Squalene-based vaccine adjuvants, such as MF59 (Novartis), AS03 (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals), or AF03 (Sanofi) are included in seasonal vaccines against influenza viruses and are presently being considered for inclusion in several vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and future pandemic threats. However, harvesting sharks for this purpose raises serious ecological concerns that the exceptional demand of the pandemic has exacerbated. In this line, the use of plants to obtain phytosqualene has been seen as a more sustainable alternative, yet the lower yields and the need for huge investments in infrastructures and equipment makes this solution economically ineffective. More recently, the enormous advances in the field of synthetic biology provided innovative approaches to make squalene production more sustainable, flexible, and cheaper by using genetically modified microbes to produce pharmaceutical-grade squalene. Here, we review the biological mechanisms by which squalene-based vaccine adjuvants boost the immune response, and further compare the existing sources of squalene and their environmental impact. We propose that genetically engineered microbes are a sustainable alternative to produce squalene at industrial scale, which are likely to become the sole source of pharmaceutical-grade squalene in the foreseeable future.

1. Introduction

The isoprenoid family, comprising more than 50,000 molecules, is involved in major cellular processes that include respiration, signaling, photosynthesis, and sterol and vitamin generation [1,2]. This evolutionarily conserved group of hydrocarbons derives from the 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 4-phosphate (MEP) pathway, in prokaryotes, and the mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway, in eukaryotes [3]. Squalene (2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyltetracosa-2,6,10,14,18,22-hexaene; C30H50), a naturally occurring triterpene from the isoprenoid family, is an intermediate of cholesterol, phytosterol, and ergosterol synthesis in animals, plants, and fungi, respectively (Figure 1) [4]. Humans also synthesize squalene in the liver, which peaks around the second decade of life [5]. Skin and adipose tissues are the major sites for squalene storage in humans, where it accounts for up to 12% of all skin surface lipids [5,6,7].
Squalene was initially identified as a component of shark liver oil in the beginning of the twentieth century [8]. Since then, its bioactive properties have been extensively recognized. In vitro and in vivo studies unraveled squalene’s antioxidant properties by reducing stress-induced intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) [9]. In the skin, squalene further functions as an emollient and UV-protective agent [10,11]. Moreover, squalene decreases cytokine secretion and leads to an overall reduction in pro-inflammatory genes in immune cells, which suggests a protective role against uncontrolled inflammatory response [9,12,13]. Furthermore, as squalene is a naturally occurring oil, it has been regarded as a biocompatible drug carrier [10,14,15]. Here, squalene-gemcitabine conjugates and squalene-adenosine-α-tocopherol nanoparticles are two examples of squalene-containing formulations that, respectively, target cancer cells to enhance chemotherapy (gemcitabine) delivery and mitigate stress-induced hyperinflammation [14,15]. Still, the most widely established application of squalene in pharmaceutical formulations is in the field of vaccine adjuvants. The squalene-based oil-in-water (o/w) emulsions MF59 (Novartis), AS03 (GlaxoSmithKline, GSK), and AF03 (Sanofi) have been used as adjuvants in vaccines against influenza virus [16]. These formulations function as antigen delivery systems and potentiators of innate and adaptive immune responses (Table 1; [17,18]). In cosmetics, fully saturated squalane (C30H62), generated through squalene hydrogenation, is a valued ingredient due to its emollient, moisturizing, and antioxidant properties (Figure 1, [19,20,21]). Squalane easily penetrates human skin, hence serving as a liquid vehicle that facilitates the absorption of other bioactive molecules [22,23]. Leading cosmetic brands, such as L‘Oréal Paris and Garnier, currently include squalane in routine skin care products, such as hydrating serums and oils, and even in hair conditioner formulations.
The largest squalene natural source is the liver oil of certain fish, especially deep-sea sharks, from which it derives its name (Squalus spp.). Shark-derived squalene has been supplying global market demands for years since its initial discovery. However, intensive fishing had a devastating impact on marine ecosystems and endangered the populations of squalene producing shark species [19,24]. Plants also synthesize squalene (phytosqualene), albeit at lower levels than sharks. Here, oils from olive and amaranth seeds stand out as major phytosqualene providers. Nowadays, olive oil-derived squalene represents 55% of the global market, which is still insufficient to completely replace shark-derived squalene [3,22,25,26,27]. Squalene yield from plant seeds and oils is minimal (Table 2), and industrial production of phytosqualene requires expensive oil refining methods [28]. This created a market demand for alternative sources to produce squalene in a more sustainable and economically viable manner. Several microorganisms, such as bacteria, algae, and yeasts, synthesize and store squalene. When compared to sharks and plants, these microorganisms produce minimal quantities of squalene (reviewed in [3]). However, their easy maintenance, rapid life cycle and the possibility to genetically engineer and optimize their metabolism, make them appealing sources of metabolites with commercial value, such as squalene [7,21,29,30,31]. Here, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) emerges as the standard model organism for the optimization of the isoprenoid synthetic pathway, via genetic engineering and metabolic manipulation [29,31,32].
In 2025, the squalene/squalane market is projected to value 184 million dollars (USD), with major demands expected from cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries [24]. The current pandemic context adds to squalene global needs, given the urgency to produce sufficient anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to immunize the world population. This raises concerns about the sustainability of the massive production of pandemic vaccines, as shark-derived squalene has been traditionally used as an adjuvant [33]. In recent years, genetic and metabolic manipulation of microorganisms significantly improved the production of commercially appealing biomolecules, including squalene [3,21,28]. Such advances represent major breakthroughs in the supply chain of highly demanded biomolecules, potentially meeting global needs in a sustainable manner in the foreseeable future.

2. Squalene-Based Formulations as Vaccine Adjuvants

Vaccines are a major achievement of modern science, having saved millions of lives from infectious diseases. Vaccines are composed by pathogen components, such as protein fragments, or by live attenuated or inactivated viruses, as in influenza seasonal vaccines [16]. More recently, pathogen mRNA fragments have been used as antigens, as in the case of some anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccines recently developed [34]. Antigens are expensive to produce due to limited feedstock and to strict good manufacturing practices (GMPs) required to market a licensed antigen [35]. Additionally, the use of safer and easier to produce peptide-based subunits or nucleic acid antigens produce a relatively weak immune response and thus require the use of immunostimulants for optimal efficacy. To overcome such limitations, vaccines usually include adjuvants that enhance immunogenicity, thus ensuring an efficient immune response, using minimal quantities of antigen [18,36]. Roughly, adjuvants fall into one of three categories: (1) delivery systems that concentrate and target the antigen to antigen presenting cells (APCs); (2) immunomodulatory molecules that activate innate immunity, and (3) molecules and/or formulations combine both functions [16].
Immunocompromised populations, such as patients undergoing haemodialysis or chemotherapy, benefit the most from the inclusion of adjuvants in vaccines, as these boost their inherently weak immune response. HIV-positive patients and people in the extremes of age—the very old and the very young—have also shown significantly faster and higher antibody titers to adjuvanted vaccines than to non-adjuvanted ones [37,38]. Potassium aluminium sulphate salt (KAl(SO4)2·12H2O; Alum) was the first vaccine adjuvant, developed in the 1920s, and remained the sole formulation used for this purpose for more than 70 years. Nowadays, the list of licenced adjuvants continues to grow to include new molecules and formulations, such as the glycosylated triterpenes saponins, bacteria derived adjuvants, which boost innate immunity (such as the Toll-like receptor, TLRs, agonists monophosphoryl lipid A, MPLA, or CpG oligodeoxynucleotides), mineral salts, and oil emulsions such as squalene-based o/w emulsions [18,39,40].
Squalene is a naturally occurring oil in human tissues, thus it can be perceived as a secure choice to include in pharmaceutical formulations. MF59 (Novartis), AS03 (GSK), and AF03 (Sanofi) are o/w emulsions that contain squalene droplets, stabilized by non-ionic surfactants [16,18]. All three are approved for use in both seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines (Table 1). Studies in mice and non-human primates showed that, besides their role as antigen carriers, squalene-based adjuvants enhance both innate and adaptive immune responses [17,41,42]. The biological mechanisms by which squalene-based vaccine adjuvants boost innate and adaptive immune responses have been mostly studied for MF59, the first developed squalene adjuvant. Given the similar composition of all squalene-based adjuvants, it has been generally accepted that, to some extent, both AS03 and AF03 follow an identical action mechanism to MF59 [43].

2.1. MF59 (Novartis)

MF59 (squalene, polysorbate 80, and sorbitan tioleate) functions as an antigen delivery vehicle and immunomodulator [17,44,45]. Despite no evidence of depot effect, MF59 muscular injection promotes local increase in chemokines and cytokines, which in turn leads to rapid immune cell recruitment [17]. The chemokine pattern induced by MF59 is distinct from other non-squalene-based adjuvants, with specific enrichment of the monocyte chemoattractant CCL2 and the neutrophil chemoattractants CCL3 and CXCL8 [45]. Despite its role as enhancer of innate immunity, MF59-induced antibody responses are activated independently of TLR and inflammasomes, via myeloid differentiation primary response 88 (MyD88; [46,47]). Innate immune responses induced by MF59 include the activation of antiviral gamma interferon (IFN-γ) signaling-related genes, with the consequent activation of monocyte and dendritic cell responses [47]. Adaptive immunity is also stimulated by MF59. In this context, studies show that the release of extracellular ATP, induced by MF59 at the site of injection, is essential for the activation of CD4+ T-cells [48]. Remarkably, MF59 promotes IgG isotype switch even in the absence of CD4+ T-cells and can induce CD8+ and long-lived antibody-secreting cells [44]. Compared to Alum, MF59 induces higher CD11+ cell recruitment, and higher neutrophil load to draining lymph nodes (dLNs; [17]). Moreover; microarray data analyses showed that MF59 induces significantly more changes in gene expression than alum and CpG adjuvants, supporting the observations that MF59 is more efficient than the latter in boosting immune response [42].

2.2. AS03 (GSK)

The AS03 adjuvant has a similar composition as MF59, plus α-tocopherol (Vitamin E), an enhancer of cytokine secretion and positive modulator of innate immunity [49]. AS03 is used in pandemic influenza vaccines (Table 1) and is currently under investigation for several recombinant spike protein COVID-19 vaccines [49]. Although the molecular mechanisms of AS03-induced immunity are yet to be fully disclosed, it is known to have a dose sparing effect, attributed to α-tocopherol. In the case of influenza vaccines, AS03-adjuvanted vaccines require lower antigen load than other squalene-based adjuvanted counterparts [50]. AS03 has been shown to co-localize with antigens and to induce transient innate immune responses. Locally, α-tocopherol stimulates the production of monocyte and neutrophil chemoattractants, such as CCL2 and CCL3, respectively [51]. In mice, AS03 promotes the expression of IL-6 and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), via induction of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-stress related pathway [52]. This, in turn, leads to increased cell recruitment and antibody titers in dLNs [22]. Like MF59, AS03 further stimulates adaptive immunity. AS03-adjuvanted vaccines induced higher activation of CD4+ T-cell response when compared to non-adjuvanted counterparts. AS03-mediated CD4+ T-cell activation is accompanied by higher induction IFNγ signaling and enhanced antigen presentation in dendritic cells [53,54,55]. Strikingly, interferon upregulation by AS03 correlated with increased antibody titers 56 days after inoculation [54].

2.3. AF03 (Sanofi)

The AF03 adjuvant, developed by Sanofi Pasteur, is an o/w emulsion containing squalene, polyoxyethylene cetostearyl ether, mannitol, and sorbitan oleate (Table 1; [56]). The AF03 adjuvant was included in the Humenza pandemic vaccine against influenza which has, however, never been marketed [57]. The molecular mechanisms underlying AF03 immune stimulation are still largely unknown, likely due to the lack of studies on AF03-adjuvanted vaccines. To date, it has been reported AF03 potentiates IL-5 and IFN-γ immune response in mice, and that there is an increase in influenza virus neutralizing antibodies in animals inoculated with distinct AF03-adjuvanted vaccines [58,59,60]. More recently, it was reported that AS03- and AF03-adjuvanted anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccines induced higher antibody titers when compared to non-adjuvanted counterparts [61].
Today, the list of vaccine adjuvants has evolved to include a wide range of delivery vehicles, immuno-modulators, and even small molecules that target key mediators of immune response, such as TLR agonists [49]. The recent COVID-19 outbreak uncovered an inconvenient reality: traditional feedstock sources, such as shark liver oil and plant oils, are not sufficient to provide vaccines to the entire world population in a sustainable manner. The need to supply COVID-19 vaccines worldwide is expected to greatly enhance the demand for squalene, putting ecosystems at risk and increasing its cost [19,24].
Table
Table 1. Squalene-based adjuvants composition and possible mechanisms of action.
Table 1. Squalene-based adjuvants composition and possible mechanisms of action.
AdjuvantVaccinesTrade NameHemagglutinin
(HA) Dose		Possible Mechanism of ActionReferences
MF59 (Novartis)
Squalene
Polysorbate 80
Sorbitan trioleate 		A/H1N1 influenzaFocetria®
Celtura®		7.5 μg/0.5 mL
3.75 μg/0.5 mL		Transient increase in local cytokines chemokines
Activation of innate immunity independent of TLRs b
CD4+ T-cell activation (dependent of extracellular ATP)
Cell recruitment (neutrophils, eosinophils, and monocytes)
Increase antibody titers in neutrophils in dLNs c
IgG Isotype switch		[41,44,45,48]
Seasonal influenzaFLUAD®
FLUAD Pediatric™		15 μg/0.5 mL a
7.5 μg/0.5 mL a
AS03 (GSK)
Squalene
Polysorbate 80
α-tocopherol		A/H1N1 influenza Pandemrix®
Arepandix®		3.75 μg/0.5 mLSpatio-temporal colocalization with antigen
Direct activation of TLRs
Transient increase in local cytokines chemokines
Increase antibody titers in monocytes in dLNs		[51,62]
AF03 (Sanofi)
Squalene
Polyoxyethylene cetostearyl ether
Mannitol
Sorbitan oleate		A/H1N1 influenza Humenza dNot determinedCell recruitment to the injection site
Immune response mediated by IFN-γ and IL-5		[60]
a FLUAD® is a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. HA numbers refer to the dose of each influenza strain surface antigen; b TLRs–Toll-like receptors; c dLNs–draining lymph nodes; and d Currently not in use.

3. Squalene Sources

Traditionally, squalene has been extracted from animal and plant sources [40]. Increasing demand, namely from cosmetic (squalane) and pharmaceutical industries, has endangered species and ecosystems [18,25]. The lack of sustainability of the squalene market fueled the search for alternatives. Genetic engineering of microorganisms, as well as the optimization of culture conditions at the industrial level, allowed several biotechnology-based companies to increase squalene feedstock in an eco-friendly and economically viable manner [25,27].

3.1. Squalene from Shark Liver Oil

Sharks store most of their lipid content in the liver, where the unsaponifiable matter represents around 50–80% of this organ’s weight. Most of this matter is made up of squalene [28]. Extracting squalene from shark liver oil implicates lower financial costs and it is a fairly simple process: a single distillation under vacuum at 200–300 °C is sufficient to recover more than 98% of pure squalene from shark liver oil [22]. Nevertheless, around 3000 animals are required to produce 1 ton of squalene [20]. This, together with the long reproductive cycle and slow growth rate of sharks led to a massive depletion of wild sharks, endangering some species of extinction [3,22]. Another limitation to the use of shark-derived squalene is the presence of contaminants. These include persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), organochlorine pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, and heavy metals, all of which are bioconcentrated in the liver [3,21,28]. Moreover, the possible presence of pathogens in the liver that might be transmitted to, and infect, humans raises additional concerns about the use of shark-derived squalene [63]. Therefore, squalene purification prior to its inclusion in consumer products is essential, hence increasing its final cost. There is an increasing pressure on industry to move from shark-derived squalene to more sustainable versions, such as phytosqualene and squalene from genetically engineered organisms, such as yeast and bacteria [3,21,28]. In recent decades, several campaigns against harvesting sharks for squalene extraction have been conducted by diverse environmentally friendly organizations. In 2013, a campaign from the Environmental Justice Foundation exposed the illegal sales of shark-derived squalane, being passed off as, or blended with, olive-oil derived squalane [64].

3.2. Squalene from Plants

Phytosqualene, i.e., squalene obtained from plants, presents several benefits over shark-derived squalene: enhanced stability, non-greasy texture, lack of color and odor, and lighter consistency [11]. Moreover, the use of phytosqualene eliminates the risk of transmission of potentially harmful pathogens from sharks to humans. Consequently, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries are turning to plant-based squalene to include in skin and health-care topical formulations [20]. This may be further converted to its saturated version, squalane, for enhanced stability, spreadability onto the skin, and extended shelf-life when compared to squalene [65].
Unrefined plant oils contain minor squalene amounts. Olive oil, for example, contains up to 0.5% of squalene. However, its deodorizer distillate (DD), a by-product of the oil refining process, is enriched in bioactive molecules, such as squalene, tocopherols, phytosterols, and fatty acids [66]. Around 80% of the olive oil DD (OODD) is made up of squalene, making it a more valuable source of squalene than crude olive oil [3,28]. Among plants, the highest squalene concentration is found in the oil of Amaranthus species (Table 1; [28,67]). However, as the total lipid content in amaranth seeds oil is inferior to that of olive oil, the latter is still used as the main source of phytosqualene for commercial purposes [20,25,68]. Currently, research efforts are being directed towards the optimization of the extraction of high-pure squalene from amaranth seeds oil, making it a potential source for industry [68,69].
Traditional oil refining methods using organic solvents such as petroleum ether and hexane have been progressively abandoned in favor of more eco-friendly techniques [25,70]. In this context, supercritical fluid extraction using carbon dioxide (ScCO2) emerged as an efficient method for squalene extraction from plant oils [69,71]. The major advantage of ScCO2 is the ability to isolate squalene at low temperatures, thus reducing the risk of chemical modification of squalene or other oil components. Moreover, the ScCO2 method leaves no traces of organic solvents in the final product and results in higher squalene yield when compared to organic solvent extraction [71]. Nevertheless, using ScCO2 for lipid isolation implicates long processing periods and the management of complex operating parameters, such as temperature and pressure, which results in high financial costs for industries [25,28]. Consequently, some industries use a mixture of animal and plant-derived squalene, which are sometimes fraudulently labelled as vegeTable-origin squalene. Strict surveillance measures are currently enforced by the European Union to limit the fishing of endangered deep-sea animals and to precisely ascertain the origin of squalene included in distinct final consumer products [72,73].
The use of phytosqualene is not only limited by extensive and laborious oil refining processes. The seasonal nature of plant sources and geographic variations in temperature, soil composition, humidity, and pest control are major drawbacks to the mass-scale production of phytosqualene. It has been estimated that a hectare of land planted with olive trees would yield up to 50 kg of squalene [22]. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify economically viable methods to obtain squalene [20,66,74]. New squalene sources, as well as extraction methods should ensure more than 99% pure squalene (current purity level of squalene derived from shark liver oil), must be scalable for global mass production and, of upmost importance, must be eco-friendly and safeguard the sustainability of the entire extraction, purification, and production processes.

3.3. Microorganisms as Sustainable Sources of Squalene

Microorganisms, from yeasts to archaea, are natural sources of squalene (Table 1). Their high growth rate, together with the possibility to enhance squalene yield using genetic engineering and growing environment optimization, instigates their use as industrial sources of bioactive molecules. Squalene production by different microorganisms has been documented (Table 2). Among them, marine protists Thraustochytrids are reported as major lipid and fatty acid producers [3,75]. In particular, Aurantiochytium sp. can produce up to 317 mg/g dry cell weight (DCW) of squalene, the highest yield by any wild type (wt) microorganism (Table 2; [76]). Other microorganisms, such as the marine bacteria Rubritalea squalenifaciens sp. nov. (15 mg/g DCW), the archaea Halobacterium cutirubrum (1 mg/g DCW), and the oleaginous yeast strain Pseudozyme sp. (70.32 mg/g DCW), can also produce and store squalene [77,78,79]. The list of microorganisms capable of squalene production is increasingly widespread and diverse [3]. However, the tools to manipulate and genetically engineer much of these strains are limited, thus hampering their use in industrial context. In contrast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) and Escherichia coli (E. coli), are preferred experimental models for genetic manipulation, molecular and synthetic biology. Genome editing and metabolic optimization studies have generated strains that are increasingly efficient in producing commercially valuable bioactive molecules, including terpenoids such as squalene [29,30,31,32,80,81].

3.4. Genetic Manipulation and Metabolic Rewiring to Increase Squalene Production

S. cerevisiae uses 4.76 mol of glucose to produce 1 mol of β-farnesene, a direct squalene precursor [21]. In 2016, Meadows and colleagues used this yeast strain to modify the isoprenoid pathway so that it yielded 25% more β-farnesene than the native counterpart, using only 3.5 mol glucose. Replacement of NADPH-dependent HGMR by a NADH-dependent counterpart, together with the modification of key enzymes of acetyl-CoA and glucose metabolism, was central to improve pathway efficiency (Figure 1B). As a result, yeast metabolism was rewired so that it required lower ATP, decreased CO2-emiting reactions, and improved redox balance, using 75% less oxygen than the wild-type strain. Importantly, the engineered strain showed steady β-farnesene production at industrial scale, in 200,000-L bioreactors, thus becoming a viable, cost-effective approach for large-scale production of acetyl-CoA-derived biomolecules [29]. Adaptive evolution of S. cerevisiae, in the presence of the isoprenoid pathway inhibitor terbinafine, has recently generated squalene-hyperproducing strains suiTable for industrial scale [31]. The evolved strains presented more than 100 single nucleotide variations (SNVs) in metabolism-related genes, including a point mutation in the ERG1 gene that encodes squalene epoxidase, responsible for the conversion of squalene into squalene epoxide [31,82]. The approach resulted in a maximum squalene production of 193 mg/L, higher than that of S. cerevisiae BY4741 which is commonly used as a source of bioactive molecules in the industrial setting (Table 2; [7,80]). Still, newly introduced triterpenoid-related modifications must compete with the endogenous ergosterol pathway, as yeast uses most of its products in its endogenous metabolism. For example, yeast uses squalene epoxide as a building block of the fungal plasma membrane [83]. Sterol-reduced strains of S. cerevisiae have been generated to divert isoprenoid synthesis towards target products [84]. However, excessive blocking MVA pathway, via genetic manipulation, or directed evolution with terbinafine, is toxic and results in cell death. In this context, E. coli appears as an appealing model for the manipulation of the isoprenoid pathway, as it lacks any natural downstream pathways or targets for further terpenoid conversion.
Genetic manipulation of E. coli has focused on the introduction of key MEP enzymes (such as squalene synthase, SQS) from other squalene-producing microorganisms, via plasmid insertion [85,86]. Further optimization was achieved by the introduction of the full MVA pathway, with modified SQS and HGMR enzymes, from S. cerevisiae into E. coli, yielding up to 230 mg/L of squalene [86]. Thus far, strategies to generate E. coli strains with hyperproduction of squalene have been limited to experimental studies [3,81]. Limitations, such as the need of antibiotics to select transformants, which increases production costs, have hampered the potential of this model as squalene source. Hence, efficient scale-up strategies are required to leverage E. coli use in the industrial setting.
Table
Table 2. Squalene concentration in different natural sources.
Table 2. Squalene concentration in different natural sources.
SourceSqualene (mg/100 g)References
Natural oils
Amaranth1040–60,000[3,87,88]
Olive80–1245[89,90,91]
Hazelnut9.3–39.2[92]
Peanut27.4–132.9[89,93]
Corn10–33.8[89,94,95]
Grape seed [89,96]
Soybean3–22[93,94,97]
Distillates
Olive10,000–30,000[94]
Sunflower4300–4500[98]
Soybean1800–5500[94,99,100]
Canola3000–3500[98]
(mg/g DCW)
Yeast
S. cerevisiae (wt)0.04–1.6 a[101]
S. cerevisiae
S. cerevisiae BY4741		1.38 b
28.4		[101]
Torulaspora delbrueckii0.24[32]
Aspergilus nidulans0.3[78]
Kluyveromyces lactis0.6 mg/109 cells[102]
Saccharomyces uvarum14.3[103]
(Chang et al., 2008)70.32[42]
Archea a
Halobacterium cutirubrum1[78]
Bacteria/Protists a
Rubritalea squalenifaciens15[79]
Pseudomonas sp.0.10–0.76[78]
Methylomonas methanolica1.16
Methylococcus capsulatus5.5
Schizochytrium mangrovei0.16[104]
Aurantiochytrium sp. 18 W-13a198[105]
Aurantiochytrium sp. Yonez 5–1317.74[76]
Aurantiochytrium sp. BR-MP4-A10.57[104]
a Squalene production in aerobic conditions; b Squalene production upon fermentation optimization.

4. Conclusions

The global demand for bioactive ingredients has significantly expanded in the last decades. Cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries are major consumers of biomolecules and must constantly strive improve standard and innovative formulations.
Squalene (C30H50), a triterpene from the isoprenoid family of hydrocarbons, was originally isolated from shark liver oil and, since then, its bioactive properties have been immensely explored. Squalene is a biocompatible oil with anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory properties. Squalane (C30H62), its fully saturated version, has moisturizing, antioxidant, and UV-protective properties. Due to the lack of double bonds, squalane has more enhanced stability than squalene, and is used in cosmetics as an ingredient to increase the delivery of additional bioactive molecules and products’ shelf-life. Squalene-based oil-in-water formulations are used as vaccine adjuvants that boost immune responses to antigens. To date, three adjuvants containing squalene droplets stabilized by ionic surfactants, MF59, AS03, and AF03, have been included in licenced influenza vaccines, and are now under research for future anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccines. All three adjuvants show immunomodulatory properties and activate both innate and adaptive immunity.
Shark overfishing for squalene extraction has significantly impacted marine ecosystems, leading to the imposition of restrictive environemental regulations to avoid their massive devastation. VegeTable squalene sources appeared as more sustainable alternatives. Nowadays, distillates of olive oil represent up to 40% of global squalene feedstock. However, the need for laborious oil refining processing, extensive culture areas, and geographical variation in weather and soil conditions significantly limit the use of phytosqualene.
Biotechnology advances in recent decades provide a wide range of tools to manipulate the growth and metabolic output of several microorganisms, as well as the ability to maintain large populations in inductrial bioreactors. S. cerevisiae and E. coli have been used as model organisms in research and industrial settings as sources of bioactive ingredients. Nowadays, S. cerevisiae is used to produce squalene at industrial levels. Genetic manipulation of key enzymes of the isoprenoid synthesis pathway, together with optimization of the fermentation process, have been key to generating several hyperproductive strains. The potential of E. coli as a squalene source has been recently demonstrated. Although this bacteria strain does not exhibit an endogenous isoprenoid pathway, key related enzymes have been successfully introduced into its genome, resulting in efficient squalene production. Still, it remains to be clarified how industries can benefit from E. coli as a putative commercial source of squalene, adding to the already established S. cerevisiae. With current and future increasing squalene demands from pharma and cosmetic industries, broadening the range of sources will be key to produce squalene in a competitive yet sustainable and eco-friendly manner.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M. and J.C.F.; writing—A.M., J.A.-S. and J.C.F.; supervision, J.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Funds from FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through project UID/Multi/50016/2019 and from ANI-Agência de Inovação through project Alchemy (POCI-01-0247-FEDER-027578).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chandran, S.S.; Kealey, J.T.; Reeves, C.D. Microbial Production of Isoprenoids. Process Biochem. 2011, 46, 1703–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dairi, T. 1.22—Isoprenoid in Actinomycetes. In Comprehensive Natural Products II; Liu, H.-W., Mander, L., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 789–814. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gohil, N.; Bhattacharjee, G.; Khambhati, K.; Braddick, D.; Singh, V. Engineering Strategies in Microorganisms for the Enhanced Production of Squalene: Advances, Challenges and Opportunities. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Micera, M.; Botto, A.; Geddo, F.; Antoniotti, S.; Bertea, C.M.; Levi, R.; Gallo, M.P.; Querio, G. Squalene: More than a Step toward Sterols. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Liu, G.C.K.; Ahrens, E.H.; Schreibman, P.H.; Crouse, J.R. Measurement of Squalene in Human Tissues and Plasma: Validation and Application. J. Lipid Res. 1976, 17, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kohno, Y.; Egawa, Y.; Itoh, S.; Nagaoka, S.I.; Takahashi, M.; Mukai, K. Kinetic Study of Quenching Reaction of Singlet Oxygen and Scavenging Reaction of Free Radical by Squalene in N-Butanol. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Lipids Lipid Metab. 1995, 1256, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Paramasivan, K.; Rajagopal, K.; Mutturi, S. Studies on Squalene Biosynthesis and the Standardization of Its Extraction Methodology from Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 187, 691–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tsujimoto, M. About Kuroko-Zame Shark Oil. J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 1916, 9, 953–958. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cárdeno, A.; Aparicio-Soto, M.; Montserrat-de la Paz, S.; Bermudez, B.; Muriana, F.J.G.; Alarcón-de-la-Lastra, C. Squalene Targets Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Mediators and Pathways to Modulate over-Activation of Neutrophils, Monocytes and Macrophages. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 14, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kim, S.-K.; Karadeniz, F. Biological Importance and Applications of Squalene and Squalane. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2012, 65, 223–233. [Google Scholar]
  11. Popa, I.; Băbeanu, N.; Niță, S.; Popa, O. Squalene-Natural Resources and Applications. Farmacia 2014, 62, 840–862. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sánchez-Fidalgo, S.; Villegas, I.; Rosillo, M.Á.; Aparicio-Soto, M.; de la Lastra, C.A. Dietary Squalene Supplementation Improves DSS-Induced Acute Colitis by Downregulating P38 MAPK and NFkB Signaling Pathways. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2015, 59, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Skorkowska-Telichowska, K.; Hasiewicz-Derkacz, K.; Gębarowski, T.; Kulma, A.; Moreira, H.; Kostyn, K.; Gębczak, K.; Szyjka, A.; Wojtasik, W.; Gąsiorowski, K. Emulsions Made of Oils from Seeds of GM Flax Protect V79 Cells against Oxidative Stress. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2016, 2016, 7510759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Flavio, D.; Romain, B.; Catherine, C.; Franceline, R.; Arnaud, P.; Amandine, G.; Julie, M.; Françoise, G.; Mariana, V.; Patrick, C. Squalene-Based Multidrug Nanoparticles for Improved Mitigation of Uncontrolled Inflammation in Rodents. Sci. Adv. 2021, 6, eaaz5466. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sobot, D.; Mura, S.; Yesylevskyy, S.O.; Dalbin, L.; Cayre, F.; Bort, G.; Mougin, J.; Desmaële, D.; Lepetre-Mouelhi, S.; Pieters, G.; et al. Conjugation of Squalene to Gemcitabine as Unique Approach Exploiting Endogenous Lipoproteins for Drug Delivery. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nguyen-Contant, P.; Sangster, M.Y.; Topham, D.J. Squalene-Based Influenza Vaccine Adjuvants and Their Impact on the Hemagglutinin-Specific B Cell Response. Pathogens 2021, 10, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Calabro, S.; Tortoli, M.; Baudner, B.C.; Pacitto, A.; Cortese, M.; O’Hagan, D.T.; De Gregorio, E.; Seubert, A.; Wack, A. Vaccine Adjuvants Alum and MF59 Induce Rapid Recruitment of Neutrophils and Monocytes That Participate in Antigen Transport to Draining Lymph Nodes. Vaccine 2011, 29, 1812–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tregoning, J.S.; Russell, R.F.; Kinnear, E. Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccines. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2018, 14, 550–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ahuja, K.; Singh, S. Squalene Market Size by Source (Shark Liver, VegeTable, Synthetic), by Application (Cosmetic, Supplements, Pharmaceuticals), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Application Potential, Price Trends, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2015–2022. 2014. Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4033349/squalene-market-by-source-shark-liver (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  20. Ducos, L.; Guillonneau, V.; Manach, F.L.; Nouvian, C. Beauty and the Beast: Shark in Our Beauty Creams. 2015. Available online: https://www.bloomassociation.org/en/beauty-and-the-beast-shark-in-our-beauty-creams/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  21. McPhee, D.; Pin, A.; Kizer, L.; Perelman, L. Deriving Renewable Squalane from Sugarcane. Cosmet. Toilet. Mag. 2014, 129, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ciriminna, R.; Pandarus, V.; Béland, F.; Pagliaro, M. Catalytic Hydrogenation of Squalene to Squalane. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2014, 18, 1110–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kelly, G.S. Squalene and Its Potential Clinical Uses. Altern. Med. Rev. 1999, 4, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  24. Markets and Markets. Squalene Market by Source Type (Animal Source (Shark Liver Oil), VegeTable Source (Olive Oil, Palm Oil, Amaranth Oil), Biosynthetic (GM Yeast]), End-Use Industry (Cosmetics, Food, and Pharmaceuticals), and Region—Global Forecast to 2025; Markets and Markets: Tung Choi St., Mong Kok, Hong Kong, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lozano-Grande, M.A.; Gorinstein, S.; Espitia-Rangel, E.; Dávila-Ortiz, G.; Martínez-Ayala, A.L. Plant Sources, Extraction Methods, and Uses of Squalene. Int. J. Agron. 2018, 2018, 1829160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Market Reports World. Global Squalene Market Size, Manufacturers, Supply Chain, Sales Channel and Clients, 2021–2027. 2021. Available online: https://rivercountry.newschannelnebraska.com/story/45517817/Global-Squalene (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  27. Mlakar, S.G.; Turinek, M.; Jakop, M.; Bavec, M.; Bavec, F. Grain Amaranth as an Alternative and Perspective Crop in Temperate Climate. J. Geogr. 2010, 5, 135–145. [Google Scholar]
  28. Popa, O.; Bəbeanu, N.E.; Popa, I.; Niţə, S.; Dinu-Pârvu, C.E. Methods for Obtaining and Determination of Squalene from Natural Sources. Biomed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 367202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Meadows, A.L.; Hawkins, K.M.; Tsegaye, Y.; Antipov, E.; Kim, Y.; Raetz, L.; Dahl, R.H.; Tai, A.; Mahatdejkul-Meadows, T.; Xu, L.; et al. Rewriting Yeast Central Carbon Metabolism for Industrial Isoprenoid Production. Nature 2016, 537, 694–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Pan, J.-J.; Solbiati, J.O.; Ramamoorthy, G.; Hillerich, B.S.; Seidel, R.D.; Cronan, J.E.; Almo, S.C.; Poulter, C.D. Biosynthesis of Squalene from Farnesyl Diphosphate in Bacteria: Three Steps Catalyzed by Three Enzymes. ACS Cent. Sci. 2015, 1, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Paramasivan, K.; Gupta, N.; Mutturi, S. Adaptive Evolution of Engineered Yeast for Squalene Production Improvement and Its Genome-Wide Analysis. Yeast 2021, 38, 424–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bhattacharjee, P.; Shukla, V.B.; Singhal, R.S.; Kulkarni, P.R. Studies on Fermentative Production of Squalene. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 17, 811–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bomgardner, M. On the Hunt for Alternatives to Shark Squalene for Vaccines. 2020. Available online: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/hunt-alternatives-shark-squalene-vaccines/98/i47 (accessed on 18 January 2022).
  34. Fathizadeh, H.; Afshar, S.; Masoudi, M.R.; Gholizadeh, P.; Asgharzadeh, M.; Ganbarov, K.; Köse, Ş.; Yousefi, M.; Kafil, H.S. SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) Vaccines Structure, Mechanisms and Effectiveness: A Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 188, 740–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. World Health Organization. Annex 2: WHO Good Manufacturing Practices for Biological Products; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  36. Vajo, Z.; Balaton, G.; Vajo, P.; Kalabay, L.; Erdman, A.; Torzsa, P. Dose Sparing and the Lack of a Dose-Response Relationship with an Influenza Vaccine in Adult and Elderly Patients—A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2017, 83, 1912–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Dikow, R.; Eckerle, I.; Ksoll-Rudek, D.; Hampel, H.; Schwenger, V.; Zeier, M.; Schnitzler, P.; Sommerer, C. Immunogenicity and Efficacy in Hemodialysis Patients of an AS03(A)-Adjuvanted Vaccine for 2009 Pandemic Influenza A(H1N1): A Nonrandomized Trial. Am. J. Kidney Dis. Off. J. Natl. Kidney Found. 2011, 57, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Siegrist, C.-A.; Aspinall, R. B-Cell Responses to Vaccination at the Extremes of Age. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2009, 9, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Chilton, P.M.; Hadel, D.M.; To, T.T.; Mitchell, T.C.; Darveau, R.P. Adjuvant Activity of Naturally Occurring Monophosphoryl Lipopolysaccharide Preparations from Mucosa-Associated Bacteria. Infect. Immun. 2013, 81, 3317–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Kensil, C.R. Saponins as Vaccine Adjuvants. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 1996, 13, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Dupuis, M.; McDonald, D.M.; Ott, G. Distribution of Adjuvant MF59 and Antigen GD2 after Intramuscular Injection in Mice. Vaccine 1999, 18, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mosca, F.; Tritto, E.; Muzzi, A.; Monaci, E.; Bagnoli, F.; Iavarone, C.; O’Hagan, D.; Rappuoli, R.; De Gregorio, E. Molecular and Cellular Signatures of Human Vaccine Adjuvants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 10501–10506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Awate, S.; Babiuk, L.A.; Mutwiri, G. Mechanisms of Action of Adjuvants. Front. Immunol. 2013, 4, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ko, E.-J.; Lee, Y.-T.; Kim, K.-H.; Jung, Y.-J.; Lee, Y.; Denning, T.L.; Kang, S.-M. Effects of MF59 Adjuvant on Induction of Isotype-Switched IgG Antibodies and Protection after Immunization with T-Dependent Influenza Virus Vaccine in the Absence of CD4+ T Cells. J. Virol. 2016, 90, 6976–6988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Seubert, A.; Monaci, E.; Pizza, M.; O’Hagan, D.T.; Wack, A. The Adjuvants Aluminum Hydroxide and MF59 Induce Monocyte and Granulocyte Chemoattractants and Enhance Monocyte Differentiation toward Dendritic Cells. J. Immunol. 2008, 180, 5402–5412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kawasaki, T.; Kawai, T. Toll-Like Receptor Signaling Pathways. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Nakaya, H.I.; Clutterbuck, E.; Kazmin, D.; Wang, L.; Cortese, M.; Bosinger, S.E.; Patel, N.B.; Zak, D.E.; Aderem, A.; Dong, T.; et al. Systems Biology of Immunity to MF59-Adjuvanted versus Nonadjuvanted Trivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in Early Childhood. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 1853–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Vono, M.; Taccone, M.; Caccin, P.; Gallotta, M.; Donvito, G.; Falzoni, S.; Palmieri, E.; Pallaoro, M.; Rappuoli, R.; Di Virgilio, F.; et al. The Adjuvant MF59 Induces ATP Release from Muscle That Potentiates Response to Vaccination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 21095–21100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Pulendran, B.; Arunachalam, P.S.; O’Hagan, D.T. Emerging Concepts in the Science of Vaccine Adjuvants. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021, 20, 454–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Wilkins, A.L.; Kazmin, D.; Napolitani, G.; Clutterbuck, E.A.; Pulendran, B.; Siegrist, C.-A.; Pollard, A.J. AS03- and MF59-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccines in Children. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Morel, S.; Didierlaurent, A.; Bourguignon, P.; Delhaye, S.; Baras, B.; Jacob, V.; Planty, C.; Elouahabi, A.; Harvengt, P.; Carlsen, H.; et al. Adjuvant System AS03 Containing α-Tocopherol Modulates Innate Immune Response and Leads to Improved Adaptive Immunity. Vaccine 2011, 29, 2461–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Givord, C.; Welsby, I.; Detienne, S.; Thomas, S.; Assabban, A.; Lima Silva, V.; Molle, C.; Gineste, R.; Vermeersch, M.; Perez-Morga, D.; et al. Activation of the Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Sensor IRE1α by the Vaccine Adjuvant AS03 Contributes to Its Immunostimulatory Properties. NPJ Vaccines 2018, 3, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Couch, R.B.; Bayas, J.M.; Caso, C.; Mbawuike, I.N.; López, C.N.; Claeys, C.; El Idrissi, M.; Hervé, C.; Laupèze, B.; Oostvogels, L.; et al. Superior Antigen-Specific CD4+ T-Cell Response with AS03-Adjuvantation of a Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in a Randomised Trial of Adults Aged 65 and Older. BMC Infect. Dis. 2014, 14, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Howard, L.M.; Hoek, K.L.; Goll, J.B.; Samir, P.; Galassie, A.; Allos, T.M.; Niu, X.; Gordy, L.E.; Creech, C.B.; Prasad, N.; et al. Cell-Based Systems Biology Analysis of Human AS03-Adjuvanted H5N1 Avian Influenza Vaccine Responses: A Phase I Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0167488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Moris, P.; van der Most, R.; Leroux-Roels, I.; Clement, F.; Dramé, M.; Hanon, E.; Leroux-Roels, G.G.; Van Mechelen, M. H5N1 Influenza Vaccine Formulated with AS03 A Induces Strong Cross-Reactive and Polyfunctional CD4 T-Cell Responses. J. Clin. Immunol. 2011, 31, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Klucker, M.-F.; Dalençon, F.; Probeck, P.; Haensler, J. AF03, an Alternative Squalene Emulsion-Based Vaccine Adjuvant Prepared by a Phase Inversion Temperature Method. J. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 101, 4490–4500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. European Medicines Agency. Humenza (Pandemic Influenza Vaccine—H1N1—Split Virion, Inactivated, Adjuvanted; Withdrawal of the Marketing Authorisation in the European Union: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  58. Allen, J.D.; Ray, S.; Ross, T.M. Split Inactivated COBRA Vaccine Elicits Protective Antibodies against H1N1 and H3N2 Influenza Viruses. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0210043. [Google Scholar]
  59. Darricarrère, N.; Qiu, Y.; Kanekiyo, M.; Creanga, A.; Gillespie, R.A.; Moin, S.M.; Saleh, J.; Sancho, J.; Chou, T.-H.; Zhou, Y.; et al. Broad Neutralization of H1 and H3 Viruses by Adjuvanted Influenza HA Stem Vaccines in Nonhuman Primates. Sci. Transl. Med. 2021, 13, eabe5449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. European Medicines Agency. Assessment Report: Humenza; European Medicines Agency: London, UK, 2010.
  61. Goepfert, P.A.; Fu, B.; Chabanon, A.-L.; Bonaparte, M.I.; Davis, M.G.; Essink, B.J.; Frank, I.; Haney, O.; Janosczyk, H.; Keefer, M.C.; et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant Protein Vaccine Formulations in Healthy Adults: Interim Results of a Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 1–2, Dose-Ranging Study. Lancet. Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 1257–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sarkar, I.; Garg, R.; van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk, S. Selection of Adjuvants for Vaccines Targeting Specific Pathogens. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2019, 18, 505–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Naziri, E.; Mantzouridou, F.; Tsimidou, M.Z. Squalene Resources and Uses Point to the Potential of Biotechnology. Lipid Technol. 2011, 23, 270–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Patel, A.; Mu, L.; Shi, Y.; Rova, U.; Christakopoulos, P.; Matsakas, L. Novel Biorefinery Approach Aimed at Vegetarians Reduces the Dependency on Marine Fish Stocks for Obtaining Squalene and Docosahexaenoic Acid. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 8803–8813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lean, G.; Gray, L. Hay Festival 2013: Supermodel Lily Cole: Ban Cruel Shark Liver from Make Up. Daily Telegr. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sethi, A.; Kaur, T.; Malhotra, S.K.; Gambhir, M.L. Moisturizers: The Slippery Road. Indian J. Dermatol. 2016, 61, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gullón, P.; Gullón, B.; Astray, G.; Carpena, M.; Fraga-Corral, M.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J. Valorization of By-Products from Olive Oil Industry and Added-Value Applications for Innovative Functional Foods. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. León-Camacho, M.; García-González, D.L.; Aparicio, R. A Detailed and Comprehensive Study of Amaranth (Amaranthus Cruentus L.) Oil Fatty Profile. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2001, 213, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lozano-Grande, M.A.; Dávila-Ortiz, G.; García-Dávila, J.; Ríos-Cortés, G.; Espitia-Rangel, E.; Martínez-Ayala, A.L. Optimisation of Microwave-Assisted Extraction of Squalene from Amaranthus spp. Seeds. J. Microw. Power Electromagn. Energy 2019, 53, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kraujalis, P.; Venskutonis, P.R. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction of Squalene and Tocopherols from Amaranth and Assessment of Extracts Antioxidant Activity. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2013, 80, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Parasuraman, S.; Sujithra, J.; Syamittra, B.; Yeng, W.Y.; Ping, W.Y.; Muralidharan, S.; Raj, P.V.; Dhanaraj, S.A. Evaluation of Sub-Chronic Toxic Effects of Petroleum Ether, a Laboratory Solvent in Sprague-Dawley Rats. J. Basic Clin. Pharm. 2014, 5, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Krulj, J.; Brlek, T.; Pezo, L.; Brkljača, J.; Popović, S.; Zeković, Z.; Bodroža Solarov, M. Extraction Methods of Amaranthus sp. Grain Oil Isolation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 3552–3558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Deep-Sea Fisheries: Increased Protection for Deep-Sea Species; Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
  74. Science Business Publishing International SRL. IASMA: New Method for Identifying Oil from Sharks; Science Business Publishing International SRL: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  75. Abbattista, R.; Ventura, G.; Calvano, C.D.; Cataldi, T.R.I.; Losito, I. Bioactive Compounds in Waste By-Products from Olive Oil Production: Applications and Structural Characterization by Mass Spectrometry Techniques. Foods 2021, 10, 1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Heggeset, T.M.B.; Ertesvåg, H.; Liu, B.; Ellingsen, T.E.; Vadstein, O.; Aasen, I.M. Lipid and DHA-Production in Aurantiochytrium sp.—Responses to Nitrogen Starvation and Oxygen Limitation Revealed by Analyses of Production Kinetics and Global Transcriptomes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 19470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nakazawa, A.; Kokubun, Y.; Matsuura, H.; Yonezawa, N.; Kose, R.; Yoshida, M.; Tanabe, Y.; Kusuda, E.; Van Thang, D.; Ueda, M.; et al. TLC Screening of Thraustochytrid Strains for Squalene Production. J. Appl. Phycol. 2014, 26, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chang, M.-H.; Kim, H.-J.; Jahng, K.-Y.; Hong, S.-C. The Isolation and Characterization of Pseudozyma sp. JCC 207, a Novel Producer of Squalene. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 78, 963–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Goldberg, I.; Shechter, I. Occurrence of Squalene in Methanol-Grown Bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 1978, 135, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Kasai, H.; Katsuta, A.; Sekiguchi, H.; Matsuda, S.; Adachi, K.; Shindo, K.; Yoon, J.; Yokota, A.; Shizuri, Y. Rubritalea Squalenifaciens sp. nov., a Squalene-Producing Marine Bacterium Belonging to Subdivision 1 of the Phylum “Verrucomicrobia”. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 1630–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Espinosa, M.I.; Williams, T.C.; Pretorius, I.S.; Paulsen, I.T. Benchmarking Two Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Laboratory Strains for Growth and Transcriptional Response to Methanol. Synth. Syst. Biotechnol. 2019, 4, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Xu, W.; Yao, J.; Liu, L.; Ma, X.; Li, W.; Sun, X.; Wang, Y. Improving Squalene Production by Enhancing the NADPH/NADP+ Ratio, Modifying the Isoprenoid-Feeding Module and Blocking the Menaquinone Pathway in Escherichia Coli. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2019, 12, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Jandrositz, A.; Turnowsky, F.; Högenauer, G. The Gene Encoding Squalene Epoxidase from Saccharomyces Cerevisiae: Cloning and Characterization. Gene 1991, 107, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gnamusch, E.; Ryder, N.S.; Paltauf, F. Effect of Squalene on the Structure and Function of Fungal Membranes. J. Dermatolog. Treat. 1992, 3, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Souza, C.M.; Schwabe, T.M.E.; Pichler, H.; Ploier, B.; Leitner, E.; Guan, X.L.; Wenk, M.R.; Riezman, I.; Riezman, H. A STable Yeast Strain Efficiently Producing Cholesterol Instead of Ergosterol Is Functional for Tryptophan Uptake, but Not Weak Organic Acid Resistance. Metab. Eng. 2011, 13, 555–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Furubayashi, M.; Li, L.; Katabami, A.; Saito, K.; Umeno, D. Construction of Carotenoid Biosynthetic Pathways Using Squalene Synthase. FEBS Lett. 2014, 588, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Katabami, A.; Li, L.; Iwasaki, M.; Furubayashi, M.; Saito, K.; Umeno, D. Production of Squalene by Squalene Synthases and Their Truncated Mutants in Escherichia Coli. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2015, 119, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Lyon, C.K.; Becker, R. Extraction and Refining of Oil from Amaranth Seed. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1987, 64, 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wejnerowska, G.; Heinrich, P.; Gaca, J. Separation of Squalene and Oil from Amaranthus Seeds by Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2013, 110, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Frega, N.; Bocci, F.; Lercker, G. Direct Gas Chromatographic Analysis of the Unsaponifiable Fraction of Different Oils with a Polar Capillary Column. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1992, 69, 447–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lanzón, A.; Albi, T.; Cert, A.; Gracián, J. The Hydrocarbon Fraction of Virgin Olive Oil and Changes Resulting from Refining. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1994, 71, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Grigoriadou, D.; Androulaki, A.; Psomiadou, E.; Tsimidou, M.Z. Solid Phase Extraction in the Analysis of Squalene and Tocopherols in Olive Oil. Food Chem. 2007, 105, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bada, J.C.; León-Camacho, M.; Prieto, M.; Alonso, L. Characterization of Oils of Hazelnuts from Asturias, Spain. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2004, 106, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pokkanta, P.; Sookwong, P.; Tanang, M.; Setchaiyan, S.; Boontakham, P.; Mahatheeranont, S. Simultaneous Determination of Tocols, γ-Oryzanols, Phytosterols, Squalene, Cholecalciferol and Phylloquinone in Rice Bran and VegeTable Oil Samples. Food Chem. 2019, 271, 630–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Tuberoso, C.I.G.; Kowalczyk, A.; Sarritzu, E.; Cabras, P. Determination of Antioxidant Compounds and Antioxidant Activity in Commercial Oilseeds for Food Use. Food Chem. 2007, 103, 1494–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wen, X.; Zhu, M.; Hu, R.; Zhao, J.; Chen, Z.; Li, J.; Ni, Y. Characterisation of Seed Oils from Different Grape Cultivars Grown in China. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3129–3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Maguire, L.S.; O’Sullivan, S.M.; Galvin, K.; O’Connor, T.P.; O’Brien, N.M. Fatty Acid Profile, Tocopherol, Squalene and Phytosterol Content of Walnuts, Almonds, Peanuts, Hazelnuts and the Macadamia Nut. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2004, 55, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Naz, S.; Sherazi, S.T.H.; Talpur, F.N.; Kara, H.; Sirajuddin, S.; Khaskheli, A.R. Chemical Characterization of Canola and Sunflower Oil Deodorizer Distillates. Polish J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2014, 64, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Dumont, M.-J.; Narine, S.S. Characterization of Flax and Soybean Soapstocks, and Soybean Deodorizer Distillate by GC-FID. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2007, 84, 1101–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gunawan, S.; Kasim, N.S.; Ju, Y.-H. Separation and Purification of Squalene from Soybean Oil Deodorizer Distillate. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2008, 60, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mantzouridou, F.; Tsimidou, M.Z. Observations on Squalene Accumulation in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Due to the Manipulation of HMG2 and ERG6. FEMS Yeast Res. 2010, 10, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Drozdíková, E.; Garaiová, M.; Csáky, Z.; Obernauerová, M.; Hapala, I. Production of Squalene by Lactose-Fermenting Yeast Kluyveromyces Lactis with Reduced Squalene Epoxidase Activity. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 61, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Blagović, B.; Rupvcić, J.; Mesarivc, M.; Georgiú, K.; Marić, V. Lipid Composition of Brewer’s Yeast. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2001, 39, 175–181. [Google Scholar]
  104. Li, Q.; Chen, G.-Q.; Fan, K.-W.; Lu, F.-P.; Aki, T.; Jiang, Y. Screening and Characterization of Squalene-Producing Thraustochytrids from Hong Kong Mangroves. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 4267–4272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Kaya, K.; Nakazawa, A.; Matsuura, H.; Honda, D.; Inouye, I.; Watanabe, M.M. Thraustochytrid Aurantiochytrium sp. 18W-13a Accummulates High Amounts of Squalene. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2011, 75, 2246–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Pharmaceuticals 15 00265 g001 550
Figure 1. (A). Squalene and squalane. Structure and biosynthesis Squalene (2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyltetracosa-2,6,10,14,18,22-hexaene; C30H50) hydrocarbon chain (top); squalene in its cyclized form (bottom left); and fully saturated squalane (bottom right). (B). Simplified representation of the mevalonate (MVA) pathway in eukaryotes. Acetyl-Coa: Acetyl coenzyme A; HGM-CoA: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA; HGMR: HGM-CoA reductase; MVA: Mevalonate; FPP: Farnesyl pyrophosphate; SQS: Squalene synthase; and NADPH: Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate. Full arrow: single step reaction; dashed arrows: simplified representation of multistep reactions.
Figure 1. (A). Squalene and squalane. Structure and biosynthesis Squalene (2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyltetracosa-2,6,10,14,18,22-hexaene; C30H50) hydrocarbon chain (top); squalene in its cyclized form (bottom left); and fully saturated squalane (bottom right). (B). Simplified representation of the mevalonate (MVA) pathway in eukaryotes. Acetyl-Coa: Acetyl coenzyme A; HGM-CoA: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA; HGMR: HGM-CoA reductase; MVA: Mevalonate; FPP: Farnesyl pyrophosphate; SQS: Squalene synthase; and NADPH: Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate. Full arrow: single step reaction; dashed arrows: simplified representation of multistep reactions.
Pharmaceuticals 15 00265 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mendes, A.; Azevedo-Silva, J.; Fernandes, J.C. From Sharks to Yeasts: Squalene in the Development of Vaccine Adjuvants. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15030265

AMA Style

Mendes A, Azevedo-Silva J, Fernandes JC. From Sharks to Yeasts: Squalene in the Development of Vaccine Adjuvants. Pharmaceuticals. 2022; 15(3):265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15030265

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mendes, Adélia, João Azevedo-Silva, and João C. Fernandes. 2022. "From Sharks to Yeasts: Squalene in the Development of Vaccine Adjuvants" Pharmaceuticals 15, no. 3: 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15030265

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop