Next Article in Journal
Generalization of the Ratiometric Method to Extend pH Range Measurements of the BCECF Probe
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Analysis of microRNA Expression Profile in Roots and Leaves of Three Wheat Cultivars under Water and Drought Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomolecules
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/biom13030441
biomolecules-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

Industrial Production of Proteins with Pichia pastoris—Komagataella phaffii

by
Giovanni Davide Barone
1,*,
Anita Emmerstorfer-Augustin
1,2,3,
Antonino Biundo
4,
Isabella Pisano
4,5,
Paola Coccetti
6,
Valeria Mapelli
6 and
Andrea Camattari
7
1
Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, Graz University of Technology, NAWI Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
2
ACIB—Austrian Centre of Industrial Biotechnology, 8010 Graz, Austria
3
BioTechMed-Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
4
Department of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Via E. Orabona, 4, 70125 Bari, Italy
5
CIRCC—Interuniversity Consortium Chemical Reactivity and Catalysis, Via C. Ulpiani 27, 70126 Bari, Italy
6
Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy
7
GINKGO BIOWORKS, 27 Drydock Avenue, 8th Floor Boston, Boston, MA 02210, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomolecules 2023, 13(3), 441; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom13030441
Submission received: 11 January 2023 / Revised: 23 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 February 2023 / Published: 26 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biomacromolecules: Proteins)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Since the mid-1960s, methylotrophic yeast Komagataella phaffii (previously described as Pichia pastoris) has received increasing scientific attention. The interest for the industrial production of proteins for different applications (e.g., feed, food additives, detergent, waste treatment processes, and textile) is a well-consolidated scientific topic, and the importance for this approach is rising in the current era of environmental transition in human societies. This review aims to summarize fundamental and specific information in this scientific field. Additionally, an updated description of the relevant products produced with K. phaffii at industrial levels by a variety of companies—describing how the industry has leveraged its key features, from products for the ingredients of meat-free burgers (e.g., IMPOSSIBLE™ FOODS, USA) to diabetes therapeutics (e.g., Biocon, India)—is provided. Furthermore, active patents and the typical workflow for industrial protein production with this strain are reported.

1. Introduction

Komagataella phaffii (K. phaffii; previously described as Pichia pastoris) is a yeast strain relevant to the industrial production of proteins. This species is widely applied as a heterologous protein production host, and its utilization has been widely reported in the literature [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. The main advantages of this organism are the possibility to run high-density fermentation according to established protocols, fast-paced and automation-friendly genetic engineering [10], eukaryotic post-translational modifications [11,12], high secretory efficiency and biomass yields [13,14], stable genetic constructs [15], and an increasing collection of publicly available tools [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].
K. phaffii was isolated from the exudates of a chestnut tree in France, and was first named Zygosaccharomyces pastoris [26,27]. Then, Yamada and colleagues categorized this strain as belonging to the genus Komagataella or Pichia [28,29]. Ogata and colleagues explored the potential of K. phaffii and published a related article in 1969 [30]. This methylotrophic yeast was originally selected as a source of single-cell protein for animal feed, leveraging methanol as a carbon and as energy. However, this process turned out to be economically unviable due to the rising cost of oil, from which methanol derives. K. phaffii re-emerged in biotechnology approximately ten years later, when Phillips Petroleum, in collaboration with the Salk Institute Biotechnology/Industrial Associates Inc (SIBIA, La Jolla, CA, USA) exploited this host as a system for the expressing of heterologous proteins [31,32,33]. One of the most important features of this yeast is the possibility of exploiting a strong and tightly regulated promoter—PAOX1 from the alcohol oxidase 1 gene [31,34]. Alcohol oxidase is part of the first enzymatic step of the methanol utilization (MUT) pathway, catalysing the oxidation of methanol to formaldehyde [31,35]; the enzyme encoded by AOX1 belongs to the group of glucose–methanol–choline oxidoreductases [36,37]. Even within methylotrophic organisms, K. phaffii possesses different traits, such as the glycerol-repression of the MUT pathway or the absence of nitrate assimilation [36]. Interestingly, two alcohol oxidase genes are available in the K. phaffii genome: AOX1 and AOX2 [36]. Three types of K. phaffii host strains have been mainly exploited during the last decades, varying in their ability to exploit methanol: (i) the wild type or methanol utilisation plus phenotype (Mut+), able to grow with methanol as the sole source of carbon; those related to the deletions in (ii) the AOX1 gene for alcohol oxidase (AOX), which oxidises methanol to formaldehyde—methanol utilisation slow (Muts), grows slowly on methanol and has low AOX activity; or (iii) both AOX genes for alcohol oxidase (AOX1 and AOX2)—methanol utilisation minus (Mut−) [4,38,39,40]. The research efforts for the industrial production of recombinant proteins with K. phaffii have continued to move forward. Some examples of engineered strains available in literature are reported in Table 1.
On one hand, considerable improvements to the available promoters have been made since 2005 [20,22]. The AOX1 promoter, and to an extent the glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAP) promoter, are the two most utilised for the expression of target proteins [16,50], with the former commonly recognized as a strong promoter of K. phaffii, typically induced by methanol and inhibited by glycerol, ethanol, and glucose [16,51]. The production of target proteins in this strain has often been based on the exploitation of PAOX1, resulting in heterologous protein that comprises up to 30% of the total cell protein upon methanol addition [2]. PGAP is a strong constitutive promoter, and the expression strength is moderately stable: the level of heterologous proteins under its regulation can reach up to the level of g L−1 [16,52]. Considerable expression levels using PAOX2 or a truncated version thereof have been reported [31,53], even if the expression levels with PAOX1 were higher than with PAOX2 [31]. The industrial utilization of K. phaffii as expression system is an achievement based on the efforts of several scientists spanning more than fifty years (Figure 1).
The titer of recombinant protein expressed in K. phaffii is largely affected by its properties, such as its tertiary structure, amino acid sequence, and genome integration site [31,54]. Different biotech companies successfully apply this Crabtree-negative yeast species to satisfy customer demands from different industrial sectors. The in vitro system can be applied to produce proteins that are toxic or difficult to express in vivo [55,56,57]. Different private companies and academic research groups worldwide have developed several new synthetic promoters or customized wildtype strains, which are often protected by European or International patents (Table 2). The secretion sequences, helper proteins, and lipid composition of their membrane have also gained high attention and economic value during the last few decades due to the increase in target heterologous proteins in the cultivation medium (Table 3).
In comparison with the recently advancing attempts to phototrophically produce target proteins with microalgae, interestingly, the space-time yield (STY) utilizing yeasts is generally higher [58,59,60].
Table
Table 2. Exemplary patents protecting inventions for yeast promoters, especially those for K. phaffii. Active patents are listed, excluding those pending, expired, or abandoned. Sources: Espacenet [61], and Google Patent [62].
Table 2. Exemplary patents protecting inventions for yeast promoters, especially those for K. phaffii. Active patents are listed, excluding those pending, expired, or abandoned. Sources: Espacenet [61], and Google Patent [62].
Patent NumberTitleShort DescriptionStatus
CN101654674A
(Granted in 2013)		“Enhanced pichia pastoris AOX1 promoter”The invention provides different enhanced K. phaffii AOX1 promoters.Active
CN106893726A
(Granted in 2020)		“A kind of promoter and restructuring yeast strains”The invention relates to the technical field of genetic engineering, disclosing a promoter and a recombinant yeast strain.Active
EP3332005A1
(Granted in 2021)		“Promoter-variants”The invention describes the isolated and/or artificial pG1-x promoter, a functional variant of the carbon source regulatable pG1 promoter of K. phaffii.Active
US10428123B2
(Granted in 2019)		“Constitutive promoter”The invention relates to an isolated nucleic acid sequence comprising a promoter, which is a native sequence of Pichia pastoris or a functionally active variant and also a method of producing a protein of interest under the control of the promoter. It further relates to a method to identify a constitutive promoter from eukaryotic cells.Active
Table
Table 3. Exemplary patents related to the expression and production of heterologous proteins in yeast. Active patents are listed, excluding those pending, expired, or abandoned. Sources: Espacenet [61], and Google Patent [62].
Table 3. Exemplary patents related to the expression and production of heterologous proteins in yeast. Active patents are listed, excluding those pending, expired, or abandoned. Sources: Espacenet [61], and Google Patent [62].
Patent NumberTitleShort DescriptionStatus
JP2020072697A
(Granted in 2021)		“Recombinant host cell for expressing proteins of interest”The invention is related to the host cell improved in the capacity to express and/or secrete a protein of interest.Active
AU2012300885A1
(Granted in 2017)		“Protein expression”The invention relates to a genetically modified yeast cell comprising at least one recombinant promoter operably linked to at least one gene encoding a polypeptide or protein; a secretion cassette with a recombinant nucleic molecule encoding a protein or polypeptide of interest; and a method for producing a recombinant protein or polypeptide of interest using such a cell.Active
AU2015248815A1
(Granted in 2021)		“Recombinant host cell engineered to overexpress helper proteins”The invention is in the field of protein expression and generally relates to a method of expressing a protein of interest from a host cell—particularly, to improve a host cell’s capacity to express and/or secrete a protein of interest and to use it for protein expression. Furthermore, it uses cell culture technology to produce desired molecules for medical purposes or food products.Active
AU2018241920A1
(Granted in 2022)		“Recombinant host cell with altered membrane lipid composition”The invention generally relates to a method of expressing a protein of interest from a host cell, particularly to improve a host cell’s capacity to express and/or secrete a protein of interest. The invention also relates to cell culture technology and to culture cells that produce desired molecules for medical purposes or food products.Active
US9873746B2
(Granted in 2018)		“Methods of synthesizing heteromultimeric polypeptides in yeast using a haploid mating strategy”Methods are provided for the synthesis and secretion of recombinant proteins, preferably large mammalian proteins or hetero-multimeric proteins at high levels and for a prolonged time in polyploid (preferably diploid yeast). In a preferred embodiment, a first-expression vector is transformed into a first haploid cell; then, a second expression vector is transformed into a second haploid cell. The transformed haploid cells, each individually synthesizing a non-identical polypeptide, are identified and then genetically crossed or fused. The resulting diploid strains are utilized to produce and secrete fully assembled and biologically functional hetero-multimeric protein.Active
WO2021198431A1
(Application filed in 2021)		“Helper factors for expressing proteins in yeast”A method to produce a protein of interest in a yeast host cell that is modified to comprise, within one or more expression cassettes, heterologous nucleic acid molecules that encode for helper factors and a gene of interest.Publication
WO2020200414A1
(Application filed in 2019)		“Protein production in mut-methylotrophic yeast”A method to produce a protein of interest comprising the culturing of a recombinant methanol-utilization-pathway-deficient methylotrophic yeast (Mut−) host cell using methanol as a carbon source. The Mut− cell comprises a heterologous gene of interest expression cassette that comprises an expression cassette promoter operably linked to a gene of interest encoding a protein of interest. The Mut− cell is engineered by one or more genetic modifications to reduce the expression of a first and a second endogenous gene.Publication

2. Market of Recombinant Proteins Production

The increasing demand for recombinant proteins applicable in several biotechnological approaches is stimulating the growth of the market. Commercialization revenues have rapidly grown in the last decade [18,63,64,65]. Regarding enzymes for industrial applications, USD 6.3 billion and an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.7% were predicted in 2021 [18,65]; their global market is expecting to grow from USD 6.3–6.4 billion in 2021 to USD 8.7 billion within 2026, with a CAGR of 6.3% for the years between 2021 and 2026 [66]. The continuous expansion of the market has provided incentives for improving protein production platforms, enabling the manufacturing of novel proteins and the reduction of the manufacturing costs [18,67]. Significant resources have been invested in this scientific topic, even by public entities (e.g., European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme). Despite the increasing utilisation of recombinant proteins in several other industrial sectors during the last thirty years, biopharmaceuticals are still the main driving force for the continuous market growth [68,69]. These have been almost entirely expressed within mammalian hosts (e.g., Chinese hamster ovary, CHO), and this outpouring in the biotherapeutics sector can be explained by the increasing monoclonal antibodies’ dominance, requiring humanized post-translational modifications [70]. CHO cells are considered as a suitable expression platform to produce biopharmaceuticals based on proteins, even if their exploitation at the industrial scale still has considerable costs [68,71]. Regarding industrial enzymes, the production of phytases with K. phaffii is an interesting example of how the production of specific proteins in this yeast can have an important role in industrial biotechnological applications. These biocatalysts catalyse the removal of phosphate from phytic acid and/or salt phytate, a storage source of phosphorus in plants. Native and engineered phytases belonging to several sources (e.g., yeast and bacteria) are used as additives in feed for monogastric animals (e.g., fish, swine, and poultry). The annual market of these enzymes is estimated to be approximately USD 350 million [72].

3. Producing Recombinant Proteins with K. phaffii: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Workflow

Different expression systems can be exploited to produce recombinant proteins (e.g., bacteria, yeasts, fungi, mammals, plants, and insects). When comparing mammalian hosts, microbial expression systems are generally considered as robust, easy to work with, and cost-effective, which are desirable features for biopharmaceutical production [68,73]. The yeast-based expression system is one of the most common approaches for industrial recombinant protein production [4,74]. As an advantageous system to produce recombinant proteins, yeast cells can be grown at high-density fermentation in a shorter amount of time than that of mammalian cells, with the ability to perform (i) proper folding, (ii) proteolytic processing, (iii) disulphide bridge formation, and (iv) glycosylation [4,75] on the product of interest. Compared with insect or mammalian expression systems, K. phaffii is simple to operate, low in cost, and takes an unsophisticated large-scale approach. Post-transcriptional processing and modifications in yeasts are suitable functions for the stable expression of functional heterologous proteins. Glycoengineered K. phaffii strains have been optimized during the last decades to synthesize recombinant protein with humanized and homogenous glycosylation patterns, increasing the interest for this host [76,77,78]. Some disadvantages also characterize these hosts, especially considering their native post-translational modifications, which can be different from those happening in mammalian cells. To overcome this issue, some companies specializing in K. phaffii engineering (e.g., BioGrammatics, VALIDOGEN GmbH, and Bisy GmbH) have developed strains to bypass the main differences between higher eukaryotic cells and yeast. In terms of the production of protein with similar glycosylation to those in mammalian cells, different methods have been applied to engineer the N-glycosylation route. The hyperglycosyl N-glycans native in yeast can be switched to human biantennary complex-type N-glycans. K. phaffii has been genetically modified to form human-like glycoproteins using a glycoengineering strategy—hosting a heterologous enzyme and disrupting the endogenous glycosyltransferase gene [4,79]. The first step of humanizing Pichia glycosylation, or GlycoSwitch® strategy developed by BioGrammatics, is the knockout of the DNA sequence for α-1,6-mannosyltransferase. Then, the co-overexpression of some glycosyltransferases or glycosidase to obtain human-like glycoproteins is the second step [4]. SuperMan5HIS−, SuperMan5, SuperMan5 (aox1−, Muts), SuperMan5pep4−, SuperMan5 (pep4−, sub2−), and SuperMan5 (pep4−, prb1−) are employed Pichia GlycoSwitch® strains. These express target proteins with the mannose-5 structure at the N-linked site [4,48,80]. SuperMan5 is utilized for the expression of vaccine antigens; by introducing a heterologous active enzyme and adding N-acetyl glucose amine, this strain is engineered to create human-like glycoproteins [4]. Promoter regulation and strength are aggregate effects of distinct and short cis-acting deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) motifs, facilitating the binding of the transcriptional machinery [3,81,82].
The typical workflow for the expression of heterologous proteins with K. phaffii is shown in Figure 2. The timelines to accomplish such workflows in an industrial setup are strongly dependent on the capability of the company to perform upstream and downstream processes in parallel by having different specialized teams. By possessing the equipment for both processes having several years of previous working experience, the target protein could nowadays be made at an industrial scale in a matter months.
After the microscale cultivation times/protocols, the most productive strains are usually cultivated in bioreactors. This is the workflow to produce proteins in K. phaffii that is generally performed at the industrial level. Furthermore, the process duration is highly dependent on the substrate and a very critical factor to achieve the highest protein expression level [4,83]. Other investigations have discussed optimal protein expression at 72–96 h [4,84,85]. In addition to microscale screening protocols, bioreactor technology is also available as described in Paragraphs 7 (“7. Main bioreactor-based approaches to produce target protein at industrial scale”).

4. Protein Secretion: Bottlenecks of the Secretory Pathway

The secretory pathway and the correct folding can be the main bottlenecks to secrete high amounts of target protein [4,86,87]. Several researchers have aimed to clarify the molecular mechanics governing the synthesis, post-translational modifications (e.g., proteolytic processing, N- and O-glycosylation, and disulphide bond formation) and secretion of proteins. Folding and secretion capacity strongly influence the productivity of the target protein, which is desired to be secreted in most of the cases. Delic and colleagues highlighted differences between yeast species by comparing their canonical protein secretion pathway with S. cerevisiae [33,88]. In several cases, the secretion yields of the recombinant products by K. phaffii often surpass those achieved with S. cerevisiae, which can also result from higher biomass accumulation [33,89,90,91]. Approximately 10% of the total genes in K. phaffii’s genome is predicted to have a role in the secretory pathway, comprising those marked to (i) ER, (ii) protein folding, (iii) glycosylation, (iv) proteolytic processing, (v) ER-associated degradation (ERAD) pathway, (vi) Golgi apparatus, (vii) SNAREs, and (viii) others involved in vesicle-mediated transport [33,88]. This percentage value of genes involved in secretory pathways has been similarly observed in S. cerevisiae [33]. Generally, the critical parts of the genetic engineering in yeast, and protein secretion in particular, are: (i) the central dogma of the construct—promoter (e.g., PAOX1, PGAP, PGCW14, and PPDF), copy number, codon optimisation of the sequence, and tag (e.g., FLAG); (ii) secretion—secretion signal (e.g., S. cerevisiae α-mating factor pre-pro signal), secretory machinery and auxiliary factors; (iii) proteolysis—protease knockout. The analysis of K. phaffii, Candida glabrata, Candida albicans, Hansenula polymorpha, Kluyveromyces lactis, Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Yarrowia lipolytica reveals that the proteins involved in the secretion steps are more redundant in S. cerevisiae due to the presence of duplicated genes [88]. Slight differences in protein sequence and/or in the regulation of gene expression might lead to dissimilar protein secretion phenotypes, including the cases for homologous genes [88]. The default route of eukaryotic protein secretion is the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–Golgi pathway, starting with the translocation of the protein via the ER membrane; the secretion signal peptide positioned at the N-terminus of the newly synthesized polypeptide is the minimum requirement for this process [88]. These N-terminal signals are present on the nascent polypeptide to export protein and/or deliver it at precise localizations, which are important and essential to maintain the cell’s functions.
As briefly mentioned previously, the differences in N- and O-glycosylation are a particularly relevant aspect for the production of biopharmaceuticals; these modifications impact the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of target proteins [5,33,89]. Furthermore, the N-glycosylation has a very important role in the folding and quality control process of glycosylated proteins [33]. O-glycosylation plays a decisive role in ER quality control; if the correct conformation of the proteins is not achieved for prolonged time periods, they are subjected to O-glycosylation [90]. This augments their solubility and potentially induces (i) their degradation due to the proteasome-dependent ERAD-pathway or (ii) their post-ER degradation after exiting the ER [33,91]. Different intracellular targets have been individualized as potential bottlenecks for the industrial production and secretion of recombinant proteins in K. phaffii (Figure 3).
Eukaryotic cells react to stress induced by an overload of misfolded or unfolded proteins in the ER lumen, activating the Unfolded Protein Response (UPR) pathway and aiming to restore cellular homeostasis (e.g., the genes related to the protein folding and the ERAD are induced) [88]. All along the ERAD, the misfolded secretory proteins are retro-translocated to the ER’s cytoplasmic side, polyubiquitinated, and then dispatched to the proteasome for degradation [88]. The UPR and ERAD have received high attention in the last decades, especially between 2005 and 2010 [92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99]. The beginning of the secretion corresponds to the transfer of a protein via the ER membrane, depending on the hydrophobicity and amino acid composition of the fully translated signal peptide; the translocation of proteins into the ER can arise (i) co-translationally (signal recognition particle (SRP)-dependent)—ribosome-coupled where the translation and the translocation are connected, or (ii) post-translationally (SRP-independent)—ribosome-uncoupled [88,100].
These routes utilize the same translocation channel, which corresponds to the Sec61 complex combined with several channel partners [88]. The ATPase activity of the ER luminal chaperone Kar2 is probably the driving force of the post-translational translocation, ‘pulling’ the nascent protein into the ER via a ‘ratcheting mechanism’ [88,100]. The molecular chaperones are available in the cellular compartments wherever the de novo protein folding occurs (e.g., ER, mitochondria, and cytosol); each section has its own distinctly localized folding machinery [88]. During the translocation, however, chaperones from numerous compartments are involved [88]. The molecular chaperones of the heat shock protein 70 kDa (Hsp70) family are the key members within the chaperone network. Furthermore, their responsibilities are (i) protein folding, (ii) protein degradation, (iii) protein-protein interactions, and (iv) protein translocation [88]. With the cochaperones Hsp70s assisting in the proper folding, these avoid misfolding and aggregation, refold aggregated proteins, assistance in translocation towards mitochondria and ER, and arrange terminally misfolded proteins for degradation [88,101,102]. Aiming to produce proteins in K. phaffii satisfying the industrial standards, the knowledge and the comprehension of these mechanisms have considerable importance for obtaining high STY and productivity.

5. Oxidative Folding for Native Disulphide Bonds

K. phaffii has been widely used for its ability to produce post-translational modifications that allow the correct folding of proteins and their biological activity. Disulphide bond formation requires a sufficiently oxidizing environment and the aid of several enzymes [103]. Proteins directed to the secretion pathway are co-translationally transferred into the oxidizing environment of the ER (E°’ = −0.18 V), facilitating the folding and acquiring native disulphide bonds. The ER of S. cerevisiae has two main proteins present for this activity: sulfhydryl oxidase 1 (Ero1), and protein disulphide isomerase (PDI) [104]. Briefly, Ero1 oxidizes disulphide-containing proteins, and PDI catalyses the following three reactions: the oxidation of thiols and the reduction and isomerization of the disulphide bonds. Many proteins with biological activity possess high amounts of disulphide bonds that enable the correct folding of the protein, thus their activity. The ability of K. phaffii to efficiently and economically produce heterologous proteins and their ability to introduce post-translational modifications have been widely used to produce these specific biologically active proteins. For instance, this property was used for the high-level production of margatoxin, a protein belonging to the peptide toxins [105]. These peptides comprise 20–80 residues plus 3–4 conserved disulphide bonds to stabilize the tertiary structure and the biological activity. In particular, margatoxin derives from scorpion venom and has low availability in the market. The engineering of disulphide bonds can also implement the thermostability of enzymes and their activity in specific conditions. For example, AppA phytase was engineered to increase its thermostability through disulphide bond modification [106].

6. Industrial Approaches for the Synthesis of the Recombinant Proteins with K. phaffii

K. phaffii is applied to manufacture numerous commercial products, including the constantly enlarging list of clinical candidates, feed and food enzymes, and proteins for utilization in academic or private research. A milestone for K. phaffii as a production host in food technology was achieved with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); this strain was awarded the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status and contains recombinant phospholipase C, which is often exploited for the degumming of vegetable oils. The production of engineered Butiauxella sp. phytase yields 22 g L−1 of enzyme in methanol-induced process and 20 g L−1 under methanol-free conditions, resulting in the highest amounts of this interesting phytase through yeasts [72]. One of the strengths of yeasts as a host for protein production includes the widespread use of chemically defined media free of any contaminations and animal derived components. Nowadays, this industrial-based approach is important to satisfy the increasing request of vegan food. For regulatory purposes, no antibiotic selection markers and comprehensive documentation need to be available for the applied strains, and all the used genetic elements must be in a “ready to file” status. The Philips Petroleum Company patented the first regulatory sequence that controlled the expression of the heterologous proteins in K. phaffii [107,108]. For the last few decades, several companies have focused their attention on the delivery and the improvements of engineered K. phaffii strains (e.g., VALIDOGEN GmbH, Bisy GmbH, Ginkgo Bioworks, Lonza, and BioGrammatics) to produce a desired target protein (Table 4, upper part). Other industrial entities (e.g., BOLT THREADS (USA), IMPOSSIBLE™ FOODS (USA), Dyax/Biotage® (USA), Biocon (India), Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma (Japan), Shantha/Sanofi (India), ThromboGenics/Oxurion (Belgium), Ablynx/Sanofi (Belgium), Trillium/Pfizer Inc. (Canada, USA), Verenium/DSM (USA, Netherlands), Roche (Germany), Fibrogen (USA), Merck/Schering Plough Animal Health (USA), Phytex LLC/United Animal Health (USA), and The Nitrate Elimination Co. (USA)) have shown interest in producing and commercializing specific heterologous proteins from K. phaffii (Table 4, middle and bottom part) to instead develop chassis for costumers. Several of those listed biopharmaceutical products have been approved for human utilization by regulatory agencies (e.g., FDA). Table 4 describes products that are in late-stage development or are on the market.
Clone screening procedures for protein expression rely on a cultivation environment that ensures the equal growth and production of all the assessed transformants [15]. Microscale cultivation provides a way to consistently compare the growth and productivity of a high number of transformants [15]. The variation in these experiments is due to the diverging numbers, and also possibly to the genomic locations of integrated constructs; the productivity assessment for many strains is mandatory to select strains set for cultivations in a bioreactor, defining the best-producing clone [15]. Production kinetics in correlation with specific product formation—qP and the specific biomass growth rate μ—are generally treated as critical factors for the efficiency of the bioprocess and as important for the comparison of different fermentation systems [18,109]. Product formation kinetics are subjected to numerous physiological factors and reveal the equilibrium amid different steps down to the secretion of the product [18,32]. Cell factories producing certain target proteins in each fermentation mode have a kinetic profile that is studied for the achievement of an optimum bioprocess production [18,110]. The compromise between productivity and yield is fundamental during the development of a bioprocess, hopefully reaching optimal performance.
Table
Table 4. Non-confidential examples of engineered K. phaffii in different worldwide companies aiming at the production of target proteins. The following public data were taken from the RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES [111] official company websites, white papers, or patents.
Table 4. Non-confidential examples of engineered K. phaffii in different worldwide companies aiming at the production of target proteins. The following public data were taken from the RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES [111] official company websites, white papers, or patents.
CompanyProductDescriptionWebsite
VALIDOGEN GmbH
(Trakt, Grambach, Austria)		UNLOCK PICHIA—Pichia pastoris protein expression systemDevelopment of strains, bioprocesses, protein purification, and enzyme engineeringvalidogen.com/pichia-pastoris/applications (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Bisy GmbH
(Wünschendorf, Austria)		Pichia strains development, vectors, and biocatalystsDevelopment of vectors, strains, recombinant cytochrome P450 or lipasesbisy.at (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Ginkgo
Bioworks (Boston, MA, USA)		Pichia pastoris strain and process development, patented methanol-free technologyGeneration and development of strains; development of HTS/OMICS methods, workflows, fermentation and scale-up for a wide range of applications and industriesginkgobioworks.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Lonza
(Visp, Switzerland)		XS™ Pichia 2.0 Expression and Manufacturing PlatformDevelopment of next generation therapeuticslonza.com/news/2017-11-08-14-20 (accessed on 10 January 2023)
BioGrammatics
(Carlsbad, CA, USA)		DIY Pichia Strain Construction, and Pichia GlycoSwitch TechnologyCustom Pichia expression strainbiogrammatics.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
BOLT THREADS
(Emeryville, CA, USA)		MICROSILK™Sustainably produced textile spun from the proteins of the spider webboltthreads.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
IMPOSSIBLE™ FOODS
(Oakland, CA, USA)		IMPOSSIBLE™ BURGEREngineering K. phaffii to make components for a meat-free burgerimpossiblefoods.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Dyax/Biotage®
(Salem, OR, USA)		Kalbitor®
(DX-88 ecallantide: recombinant kallikrein inhibitor protein)		Hereditary angioedema treatmentbiotage.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Biocon
(Bengaluru, India)		Insugen® (recombinant human insulin)Diabetes therapybiocon.com/products/key-therapeutic-areas/diabetes/ (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma
(Osaka, Japan)		Medway (recombinant human serum albumin)Expansion of the blood volumemt-pharma.co.jp/e/ (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Shantha/Sanofi (Telangana, India)Shanvac ™ (recombinant hepatitis B vaccine)Hepatitis B preventionsanofi.com/en/your-health/vaccines/hepatitis-b (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Shantha/Sanofi (Telangana, India)Shanferon™ (recombinant interferon-alpha 2b)Hepatitis C and cancer treatmentsanofi.in
(indiamart.com/proddetail/shanferon-1700786533.html) (accessed on 10 January 2023)
ThromboGenics/Oxurion
(Leuven, Belgium)		Ocriplasmin (recombinant microplasmin)Vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) treatmentoxurion.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Ablynx/Sanofi
(Gent, Belgium)		Nanobody® ALX-0061 (recombinant anti-IL6 receptor single domain antibody fragment)Rheumatoid arthritis treatmentablynx.com
(sanofi.com/en/science-and-innovation/research-and-development/technology-platforms/nanobody-technology-platform) (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Ablynx/Sanofi
(Gent, Belgium)		Nanobody® ALX00171 (recombinant anti-RSV single domain antibody fragment)Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection treatmentablynx.com
(sanofi.com/en/science-and-innovation/research-and-development/technology-platforms/nanobody-technology-platform) (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Trillium/Pfizer Inc. (Brockville, Canada)Heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor (HB-EGF)Treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) treatmentpfizer.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Verenium/DSM (Heerlen, Netherlands)Purifine (recombinant phospholipase C)Degumming of high phosphorus oilsdsm.com/corporate/home.html (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Roche
(Mannheim, Germany)		Recombinant trypsinDigestion of proteinslifescience.roche.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Fibrogen (San Francisco, CA, USA)Recombinant collagenMedical research reagents/dermal fillerfibrogen.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Merck/Schering Plough Animal Health (San Francisco, CA, USA)AQUAVAC IPN (recombinant infectious pancreatic necrosis virus capsid proteins)Vaccines for infectious pancreatic necrosis in salmonmerck-animal-health.com/contact-us/ (accessed on 10 January 2023)
Phytex, LLC/United Animal Health (Sheridan, IN, USA)Recombinant phytaseAnimal feed additiveunitedanh.com (accessed on 10 January 2023)
The Nitrate Elimination Co. (Lake Linden, MI, USA)Superior Stock recombinant nitrate reductaseEnzyme-based products for water testing and water treatmentnitrate.com/analytical-enzyme-applications/education (accessed on 10 January 2023)
A precise and robust control scheme generally requires multiple online measurements to identify the optimal time profiles of (i) the specific growth rate, (ii) biomass or (iii) substrate concentration [18,112,113,114,115,116].

7. Main Bioreactor-Based Approaches to Produce Target Protein at Industrial Scale

The most immediate parameter when discussing K. phaffii physiology is based on growth rate; in general, recombinant protein production significantly affects cell physiology, and this impact is evident when comparing growth rates for wild type or transformed strains. Recombinant strains may show maximum specific growth rates that are significantly lower than the parental strain. As previously summarized, the recombinant Mut+ and MutS strains are reported to exhibit a μMAX from 0.028 h−1 to 0.154 h−1 0.011 h−1 to 0.035 h−1, respectively, on methanol [117,118,119,120,121]; while on glucose, the μMAX varies from 0.28 h−1 to 0.16 h−1. Since neither the specific glucose uptake rate (qs) nor the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle activity change at different ranges of a specific growth rate, the reduction in growth rate takes place with the advantage of the increase in a specific product (e.g., the desired recombinant protein) accumulation rate [110].
High-cell-density cultivations can be performed as multi-stage bioprocesses that include three phases: (i) a glycerol or glucose batch phase aiming to rapidly accumulate biomass, usually without any particular control on carbon feeding; (ii) a transition phase, usually consisting of a fed-batch performed under different protocols but usually aiming to further increase biomass in a physiologically controlled way, which calibrates the amount of carbon to match on one side the oxygen uptake rate (essential for large scale vessels and often the limiting factor for K. phaffii fermentation), and on the other side the possible metabolic bottlenecks (AOX1 promoter, for example, is repressed by glucose or glycerol at a threshold determined by the abundance of glucose transporters); and (iii) a methanol induction phase [28,107,119,120]. The first patent focussing on a cultivation strategy for K. phaffii was based on the use of methanol as sole carbon source achieving a single-cell protein in a continuous process; the fermentation medium mentioned in this document is still one of the most applied in this scientific field [107,121]. Different approaches with industrial scale bioreactors have been developed. The recent trends in bioprocess engineering have aimed to conceive processes based on the product and the physiology of the host cell, considering the characteristics of the available bioreactor equipment; the upgraded cultivation methods are often rationally designed from the physiological characterization of the producer strains [18,111,122,123,124].
Transient anoxia, nutrient starvation, and hypoxia are highly important for the optimization of the processes [18,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132]. The most selected parameters to maintain consistency between scales for these highly aerobic and high-cell-density systems are volumetric power input, impeller tip speed, volumetric oxygen mass transfer coefficient and its minimum dissolved concentration, and its transfer rates. While the bioprocess engineering developments with constitutive promoters (such as PGAP) are not as advanced as those based on AOX1 promoters (PAOX1), scale-up exploiting PGAP might account for less difficulties due to the utilization of glucose/glycerol-avoiding methanol [18,128]. Still, AOX1 methanol inducible promoter is the most widely used in the industry, having over 30 years of data supporting its use [129]. Six glucose-limit inducible promoters were recently utilized to express the intracellular reporter eGFP and the highest expression levels, in parallel with strong repression in pre-culture, were achieved with PG1 (controlling the gene encoding a high-affinity glucose transporter, GTH1) and PG6 [130]. Furthermore, the same research group showed that engineered PGTH1 variants greatly enhanced the induction properties (more than 2-times higher specific eGFP fluorescence) compared with that of the wild-type promoter [131]. Employing a glucose fed-batch strategy, the developed PGTH1 variants clearly outperformed the methanol fed-batch with the PAOX1 strain with regard to process performance and titer [131]. The glucose-regulated promoter system from Lonza (Lonza Pharma & Biotech), XS® Pichia 2.0, has also been designed to overcome the limitations associated with the toxic effects of methanol that can limit purity and restrict productivity at high growth rates [129].
Activated cell stress responses, established by the knowledge of the host’s physiology, can be successful for the development of bioprocess engineering [18,132]. Similar strategies have shown the increments of cell stress as coupled with recombinant protein overexpression [7,18]. Detailed studies on the proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics regarding the cellular reactions to environmental stress factors were performed with different micro-organisms inclusive of K. phaffii and S. cerevisiae [18,89,133]. The effects of temperature, media osmolality, oxygen, and specific growth rate were compared in K. phaffii cultivations at the transcriptome and proteome levels. Strong regulation of the transcription and expression of the core metabolic genes couple with target protein exploiting PGAP were revealed [18,89,133,134,135,136,137,138]. Dragosits et al. pointed out the strong similarity between the stress response mechanisms for environmental factors and for the presence of recombinant protein [89]. Rebnegger et al. concluded that a high μ positively affects the specific protein secretion rates due to the actions on multiple cellular processes, while very slow growth (μ = 0.015 h−1) affects the gene regulation of glucose sensing and of many transporters [135]. Approximately 3 years later, Rebnegger et al. demonstrated that K. phaffii rescues its energy requirement 3-fold during this last type of growth [134]. The deficiency of homogeneity is problematic in large-scale cultivations, leading to difficulties and a considerable loss of bioprocess efficiency; the dissimilarity in mixing often leads to important differences in mass and heat transfer in the processes [18,137]. Issues regarding pH, dissolved gases, concentration of substrates, or temperature often arise at a large scale, leading to oxygen limitation or nutrient starvation [18,138,139]. Sin et al. evaluated the sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for their usefulness as part of model-building in Process Analytical Technology applications, and three sensitivity methods (Morris and differential analysis, and Standardized Regression Coefficients) were assessed and compared regarding the responsible input parameters for the output uncertainty [140]. Formenti et al., in a review manuscript from 2014, highlighted the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as a promising tool supporting the scaling up and down of bioreactors and as a tool to study the mixing and the occurrence of gradients in tank [138].
As previously mentioned, several processes for protein production based on yeast are performed with fed-batch fermentations, allowing higher biomass as well as product concentration, productivity, and yields, avoiding catabolite repression and substrate inhibition [18,139]. Purification is usually a very high fraction of total cost towards the achievement of the bioproduct, especially for high added value products or high regulatory demands [18,141]. As generally recognised, the separation of biomass from high-density cultures is also a challenging task during downstream processing [18,120]. Several target proteins have been successfully obtained with K. phaffii by exploiting PGAP and PAOX1 in continuous cultures at laboratory bench-scale [18,135,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151]. The variation of operational mode from fed-batch to continuous is considered as a successful strategy to boost the efficiency of the bioprocess; the FDA has even encouraged the development of continuous processing to manufacture biopharmaceuticals [18,152,153,154,155]. On the other hand, important drawbacks (e.g., risk of contamination and limited flexibility to handle multiple products due to time constrains, and losses of productivity caused by genetic instability) must be considered [18,153,155,156,157,158].

8. Emerging Trends of the Biotechnological Applications via K. phaffii

As explained above, a rich portfolio of interesting enzymes can already be produced using K. phaffii at industrial scale by applying a diverse range of engineering approaches, depending on the protein to be produced. In the future, the possibilities of strain engineering will become even more prominent thanks to advanced strain engineering strategies, including CRISPR/Cas9 [159], CRISPRi [160], or the auxin-inducible degron (AID)-technology [161]. Although, CRISPR/Cas9 and related technologies allow for efficient and targeted strain engineering, CRISPRi can be used to either repress or induce a target gene. The AID system enables induced protein degradation, and the addition of auxin to cells leads to the recruitment of the F-box protein TIR1 to proteins fused to an AID-tag, which immediately induces the polyubiquitination and degradation of the respective protein. Primarily, this technology is used for the analysis of conditional mutants, but it bears huge potential for metabolic engineering and the improvement of protein production, e.g., by initiating the degradation of peptidases during fermentation.
Another current trend to improve protein expression and secretion is the preparation and screening of (random) knockout libraries. These strategies include the use of integration cassettes that generate random gene disruptions [162]. The big advantage of these strategies is that they allow for new and sometimes unexpected results that have not been patented yet. The major disadvantage of random knockout strategies is the high screening effort, especially when detection is based on low throughput immunoblot analysis. Additionally, comparative transcriptomic and proteomic studies are still often exploited to discover stress responses caused by recombinant gene expression and protein secretion [163,164,165,166,167,168,169]. However, a new approach is also meant to focus on translation phenomena, which are shown to also be a bottleneck of protein production [165].
Clearly, one of the biggest current challenges in biotechnology is a reduction of the environmental impact and CO2 footprint of industrial processes. This includes, for example, the production of proteins and enzymes needed for the valorisation and degradation of industrial side-streams and the elimination of toxic compounds. K. phaffii has been shown to be more resistant towards several stresses than S. cerevisiae [85], which makes it a better host strain for the direct valorisation of side-streams. In this respect, K. phaffii was used as a production host for fungal lignin peroxidase for the valorisation of industrial linings generated as side products of the pulp and paper industry [166], lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs) needed for the degradation of recalcitrant biomass [167], or pectinases from A. niger for the valorisation of citrus peel waste [168]. The expression and secretion of LPMO posed a special challenge, since this enzyme has to be secreted in its native form lacking the Glu-Ala-Glu-Ala overhang that usually resides at the C-terminus of the proteins secreted by the MFα signal secretion sequence in order to be active. The global problem caused by plastic pollution has boosted the development of engineered enzymes that can be used for the hydrolysis of polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The introduction of post-translational modifications can improve the stability of enzymes in different environments. One of the main studied hydrolases is the Leaf and Branch Compost Cutinase (LCC), which was recently engineered for the degradation of post-consumer PET and its recycling. However, this enzyme has been shown to have a low solubility and to precipitate at room temperature and at a small concentration. Moreover, due to the high PET glass transition temperature (Tg; Tg = 70 °C), academic and industrial researchers have used the yeast K. phaffii to overcome these problems. It was shown that the introduction of putative N-glycosylation sites was able to improve the resistance to aggregate even at high temperature with an increase in hydrolysis activity [169]. Moreover, chimeric structures were also produced in K. phaffii for this goal by the realization of the bifunctional lipase-cutinase of the lipase from Thermomyces lanuginose and the cutinase from Thielavia terrestris NRRL 8126 by end-to-end fusion and overexpression with a more efficient degradation of the aliphatic polyester poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL) [170].
Lately, significant progress has been made in the chemical production of methanol by H2O electrolysis coupled with CO2 hydrogenation; having O2 as the sole side-product, this approach has the advantage of requiring solely CO2, H2O, and renewable electricity as inputs [171]. Since methanol is an excellent carbon source for K. phaffii, it would make sense to directly use CO2 hydrogenation processes and the methanol produced thereof in large-scale bioreactor fermentations, and thereby favour the circular economy concept. In order to help decrease the carbon footprint, the Mattanovich lab even went one step further and generated an autotroph K. phaffii strain capable of growing on CO2 [172]. Due to the supplementation of eight heterologous genes and the deletion of three among those native, the peroxisomal methanol-assimilation route of K. phaffii was engineered into a CO2-fixation pathway reminiscent of the Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle; the resulting strain showed the ability to grow continuously with CO2 as a unique carbon source. The yielding of non-protein targets in biotechnology, such has alkaloids [173], polyketides [174,175] or terpenoids [176,177,178], have been subjected to extensive scientific efforts by several research groups and can also be considered as emerging trends.

9. Conclusions

Research is intensely focussed on the improvement of the producing systems for target proteins. Particularly in the case of pharmaceutical protein, the microbial systems are outperformed by mammalian systems. Even taking this into consideration, the obtainment of heterologous proteins exploiting whole-cell approaches with yeast is still the most applied approach in the biotech companies. S. cerevisiae remains the model yeast and the key target of yeast-based research, especially in academia. On the other hand, K. phaffii is the most important host that produces different heterologous proteins requested by costumers, satisfying industrial standards. This review compared the different achievements and the state-of-the-art of protein production from an industrial biotech point of view. K. phaffii rises to the forefront of this area and, probably alongside cell-free protein synthesis, is still the best competitor with mammalian systems in the production of glycosylated proteins. This host combines the ability to grow to the point of very high cell densities in minimal medium, typically secreting heterologous proteins into the culture supernatant. The number of companies in this scientific field is increasing, and this trend will not stop in the next decades. The further developments of industrial strains can lead to the obtaining of certain target proteins at Gram-scale, which has been limited in some cases in the last forty years.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.B.; writing—original draft preparation, G.D.B.; writing—review and editing, G.D.B., A.E.-A., A.B., I.P., P.C., V.M. and A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This manuscript is supported by Open Access Funding from the Graz University of Technology (TU Graz). This work was financially supported by European Commission, NextGenerationEU, PNRR, MUR Award Number PE00000003, CUP D93C22000890001, project title “ON Foods - Research and innovation network on food and nutrition Sustainability, Safety and Security – Working ON Foods.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

Harald Pichler and Maurizio Bettiga are acknowledged for their useful suggestions, comments, and discussions. The figures (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3) were created with BioRender.com. Open Access Funding by the Graz University of Technology is acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

A.C. is an employee of GINKGO BIOWORKS. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bustos, C.; Quezada, J.; Veas, R.; Altamirano, C.; Braun-Galleani, S.; Fickers, P.; Berrios, J. Advances in Cell Engineering of the Komagataella phaffii Platform for Recombinant Protein Production. Metabolites 2022, 12, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mastropietro, G.; Aw, R.; Polizzi, K.M. Expression of proteins in Pichia pastoris. In Methods in Enzymology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 660, pp. 53–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ergün, B.G.; Berrios, J.; Binay, B.; Fickers, P. Recombinant protein production in Pichia pastoris: From transcriptionally redesigned strains to bioprocess optimization and metabolic modelling. FEMS Yeast Res. 2021, 21, foab057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Karbalaei, M.; Rezaee, S.A.; Farsiani, H. Pichia pastoris: A highly successful expression system for optimal synthesis of heterologous proteins. J. Cell. Physiol. 2020, 235, 5867–5881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De Wachter, C.; Van Landuyt, L.; Callewaert, N. Engineering of Yeast Glycoprotein Expression. In Advances in Glycobiotechnology; Rapp, E., Reichl, U., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 175, pp. 93–135. [Google Scholar]
  6. Corchero, J.L.; Gasser, B.; Resina, D.; Smith, W.; Parrilli, E.; Vázquez, F.; Abasolo, I.; Giuliani, M.; Jäntti, J.; Ferrer, P.; et al. Unconventional microbial systems for the cost-efficient production of high-quality protein therapeutics. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gasser, B.; Prielhofer, R.; Marx, H.; Maurer, M.; Nocon, J.; Steiger, M.; Puxbaum, V.; Sauer, M.; Mattanovich, D. Pichia pastoris: Protein production host and model organism for biomedical research. Futur. Microbiol. 2013, 8, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Damasceno, L.M.; Huang, C.-J.; Batt, C.A. Protein secretion in Pichia pastoris and advances in protein production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 93, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Macauley-Patrick, S.; Fazenda, M.; McNeil, B.; Harvey, L.M. Heterologous protein production using the Pichia pastoris expression system. Yeast 2005, 22, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baghban, R.; Farajnia, S.; Ghasemi, Y.; Mortazavi, M.; Zarghami, N.; Samadi, N. New Developments in Pichia pastoris Expression System, Review and Update. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2018, 19, 451–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Laukens, B.; Jacobs, P.P.; Geysens, K.; Martins, J.; De Wachter, C.; Ameloot, P.; Morelle, W.; Haustraete, J.; Renauld, J.; Samyn, B.; et al. Off-target glycans encountered along the synthetic biology route toward humanized N -glycans in Pichia pastoris. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2020, 117, 2479–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Laukens, B.; De Wachter, C.; Callewaert, N. Engineering the Pichia pastoris N-Glycosylation Pathway Using the GlycoSwitch Technology. In Glyco-Engineering; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Volume 1321, pp. 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Raschmanová, H.; Weninger, A.; Knejzlík, Z.; Melzoch, K.; Kovar, K. Engineering of the unfolded protein response pathway in Pichia pastoris: Enhancing production of secreted recombinant proteins. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 4397–4414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mohammadzadeh, R.; Karbalaei, M.; Soleimanpour, S.; Mosavat, A.; Rezaee, S.A.; Ghazvini, K.; Farsiani, H. Practical Methods for Expression of Recombinant Protein in the Pichia pastoris System. Curr. Protoc. 2021, 1, e155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Weis, R. High-Throughput Screening and Selection of Pichia pastoris Strains. In Recombinant Protein Production in Yeast; Gasser, B., Mattanovich, D., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 1923, pp. 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gao, J.; Jiang, L.; Lian, J. Development of synthetic biology tools to engineer Pichia pastoris as a chassis for the production of natural products. Synth. Syst. Biotechnol. 2021, 6, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Demir, I.; Çalık, P. Hybrid-architectured double-promoter expression systems enhance and upregulate-deregulated gene expressions in Pichia pastoris in methanol-free media. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 8381–8397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. García-Ortega, X.; Cámara, E.; Ferrer, P.; Albiol, J.; Montesinos-Seguí, J.L.; Valero, F. Rational development of bioprocess engineering strategies for recombinant protein production in Pichia pastoris (Komagataella phaffii) using the methanol-free GAP promoter. Where do we stand? New Biotechnol. 2019, 53, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, Q.; Shi, X.; Song, L.; Liu, H.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, M. CRISPR–Cas9-mediated genomic multiloci integration in Pichia pastoris. Microb. Cell Factories 2019, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Vogl, T.; Sturmberger, L.; Fauland, P.C.; Hyden, P.; Fischer, J.E.; Schmid, C.; Thallinger, G.G.; Geier, M.; Glieder, A. Methanol independent induction in Pichia pastoris by simple derepressed overexpression of single transcription factors. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2018, 115, 1037–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Weinhandl, K.; Winkler, M.; Glieder, A.; Camattari, A. Carbon source dependent promoters in yeasts. Microb. Cell Factories 2014, 13, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Vogl, T.; Glieder, A. Regulation of Pichia pastoris promoters and its consequences for protein production. New Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 385–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mattanovich, D.; Callewaert, N.; Rouzé, P.; Lin, Y.-C.; Graf, A.; Redl, A.; Tiels, P.; Gasser, B.; De Schutter, K. Open access to sequence: Browsing the Pichia pastoris genome. Microb. Cell Factories 2009, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Prielhofer, R.; Barrero, J.J.; Steuer, S.; Gassler, T.; Zahrl, R.; Baumann, K.; Sauer, M.; Mattanovich, D.; Gasser, B.; Marx, H. GoldenPiCS: A Golden Gate-derived modular cloning system for applied synthetic biology in the yeast Pichia pastoris. BMC Syst. Biol. 2017, 11, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Van Herpe, D.; Vanluchene, R.; Vandewalle, K.; Vanmarcke, S.; Wyseure, E.; Van Moer, B.; Eeckhaut, H.; Fijalkowska, D.; Grootaert, H.; Lonigro, C.; et al. OPENPichia: Building a free-to-operate Komagataella phaffii protein expression toolkit. bioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guilliermond, A. Zygosaccharomyces pastori, nouvelle espèce de levures à copulation hétérogamique. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr. 1920, 36, 203–211. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zahrl, R.J.; Peña, D.A.; Mattanovich, D.; Gasser, B. Systems biotechnology for protein production in Pichia pastoris. FEMS Yeast Res. 2017, 17, fox068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yamada, Y.; Matsuda, M.; Maeda, K.; Mikata, K. The Phylogenetic Relationships of Methanol-assimilating Yeasts Based on the Partial Sequences of 18S and 26S Ribosomal RNAs: The Proposal of Komagataella Gen. Nov. (Saccharomycetaceae). Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1995, 59, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Naumov, G.I.; Naumova, E.S.; Boundy-Mills, K.L. Description of Komagataella mondaviorum sp. nov., a new sibling species of Komagataella (Pichia) pastoris. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2018, 111, 1197–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ogata, K.; Nishikawa, H.; Ohsugi, M. Acetate Utilization for Yeast Cell Growth as Sole Carbon Source. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1969, 33, 977–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cos, O.; Ramón, R.; Montesinos, J.L.; Valero, F. Operational strategies, monitoring and control of heterologous protein production in the methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris under different promoters: A review. Microb. Cell Factories 2006, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Cereghino, G. Applications of yeast in biotechnology: Protein production and genetic analysis. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 1999, 10, 422–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cregg, J.M.; Vedvick, T.S.; Raschke, W.C. Recent Advances in the Expression of Foreign Genes in Pichia pastoris. Nat. Biotechnol. 1993, 11, 905–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cregg, J.M.; Cereghino, J.L.; Shi, J.; Higgins, D.R. Recombinant Protein Expression in Pichia pastoris. Mol. Biotechnol. 2000, 16, 23–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Harder, W.; Veenhuis, M. Metabolism of one carbon compounds. In The Yeasts; Rose, A.H., Harrison, J.S., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1989; Volume 3, pp. 289–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ata, O.; Ergün, B.G.; Fickers, P.; Heistinger, L.; Mattanovich, D.; Rebnegger, C.; Gasser, B. What makes Komagataella phaffii non-conventional? FEMS Yeast Res. 2021, 21, foab059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ozimek, P.; Veenhuis, M.; Van der Klei, I.J. Alcohol oxidase: A complex peroxisomal, oligomeric flavoprotein. FEMS Yeast Res. 2005, 5, 975–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Cámara, E.; Landes, N.; Albiol, J.; Gasser, B.; Mattanovich, D.; Ferrer, P. Increased dosage of AOX1 promoter-regulated expression cassettes leads to transcription attenuation of the methanol metabolism in Pichia pastoris. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, srep44302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Charoenrat, T.; Khumruaengsri, N.; Promdonkoy, P.; Rattanaphan, N.; Eurwilaichitr, L.; Tanapongpipat, S.; Roongsawang, N. Improvement of recombinant endoglucanase produced in Pichia pastoris KM71 through the use of synthetic medium for inoculum and pH control of proteolysis. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2013, 116, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cregg, J.M.; Madden, K.R.; Barringer, K.J.; Thill, G.P.; Stillman, C.A. Functional characterization of the two alcohol oxidase genes from the yeast Pichia pastoris. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1989, 9, 1316–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brady, J.R.; Whittaker, C.A.; Tan, M.C.; Kristensen, D.L.; Ma, D.; Dalvie, N.C.; Love, K.R.; Love, J.C. Comparative genome-scale analysis of Pichia pastoris variants informs selection of an optimal base strain. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2019, 117, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Li, Z.; Xiong, F.; Lin, Q.; D’Anjou, M.; Daugulis, A.J.; Yang, D.S.; Hew, C.L. Low-Temperature Increases the Yield of Biologically Active Herring Antifreeze Protein in Pichia pastoris. Protein Expr. Purif. 2001, 21, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Cregg, J.M.; Barringer, K.J.; Hessler, A.Y.; Madden, K.R. Pichia pastoris as a host system for transformations. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1985, 5, 3376–3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tschopp, J.F.; Brust, P.F.; Cregg, J.M.; Stillman, C.A.; Gingeras, T.R. Expression of the lacZ gene from two methanol-regulated promoters in Pichia pastoris. Nucleic Acids Res. 1987, 15, 3859–3876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Mohseni, A.H.; Soleimani, M.; Majidzadeh-A, K.; Taghinezhad-S, S.; Keyvani, H. Active Expression of Human Tissue Plasminogen Activator (t-PA) c-DNA from Pulmonary Metastases in the Methylotrophic Yeast Pichia pastoris KM71H Strain. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2017, 18, 2249–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yu, Y.; Zhou, X.; Wu, S.; Wei, T.; Yu, L. High-yield production of the human lysozyme by Pichia pastoris SMD1168 using response surface methodology and high-cell-density fermentation. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2014, 17, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Jian, X.; Mahtar, W.N.A.W.; Chiew, S.P.; Miswan, N.; Yin, K.B. Potential use of Pichia pastoris strain SMD1168H expressing DNA topoisomerase I in the screening of potential anti-breast cancer agents. Mol. Med. Rep. 2019, 19, 5368–5376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ahmad, M.; Hirz, M.; Pichler, H.; Schwab, H. Protein expression in Pichia pastoris: Recent achievements and perspectives for heterologous protein production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 5301–5317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Juturu, V.; Wu, J.C. Heterologous Protein Expression in Pichia pastoris: Latest Research Progress and Applications. Chembiochem 2017, 19, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xu, N.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, Q.; Xing, Y.; Cai, M.; Jiang, T.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, Y. Identification and characterization of novel promoters for recombinant protein production in yeast Pichia pastoris. Yeast 2017, 35, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Yurimoto, H.; Oku, M.; Sakai, Y. Yeast Methylotrophy: Metabolism, Gene Regulation and Peroxisome Homeostasis. Int. J. Microbiol. 2011, 2011, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Zhang, A.-L.; Luo, J.-X.; Zhang, T.-Y.; Pan, Y.-W.; Tan, Y.-H.; Fu, C.-Y.; Tu, F.-Z. Recent advances on the GAP promoter derived expression system of Pichia pastoris. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2008, 36, 1611–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mochizuki, S.; Hamato, N.; Hirose, M.; Miyano, K.; Ohtani, W.; Kameyama, S.; Kuwae, S.; Tokuyama, T.; Ohi, H. Expression and Characterization of Recombinant Human Antithrombin III in Pichia pastoris. Protein Expr. Purif. 2001, 23, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sreekrishna, K.; Brankamp, R.G.; Kropp, K.E.; Blankenship, D.T.; Tsay, J.-T.; Smith, P.L.; Wierschke, J.D.; Subramaniam, A.; Birkenberger, L.A. Strategies for optimal synthesis and secretion of heterologous proteins in the methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris. Gene 1997, 190, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Spice, A.J.; Aw, R.; Polizzi, K.M. Cell-Free Protein Synthesis Using Pichia pastoris. In Cell-Free Gene Expression; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, L.; Liu, W.-Q.; Li, J. Establishing a Eukaryotic Pichia pastoris Cell-Free Protein Synthesis System. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aw, R.; Spice, A.J.; Polizzi, K.M. Methods for Expression of Recombinant Proteins Using a Pichia pastoris Cell-Free System. Curr. Protoc. Protein Sci. 2020, 102, e115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Obaida, B.A.R.M. Yeasts as a Source of Single Cell Protein Production: A Review. Plant Arch. 2021, 21, 324–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Deng, J.; Li, J.; Ma, M.; Zhao, P.; Ming, F.; Lu, Z.; Shi, J.; Fan, Q.; Liang, Q.; Jia, J.; et al. Co-expressing GroEL–GroES, Ssa1–Sis1 and Bip–PDI chaperones for enhanced intracellular production and partial-wall breaking improved stability of porcine growth hormone. Microb. Cell Factories 2020, 19, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Rasala, B.A.; Mayfield, S.P. Photosynthetic biomanufacturing in green algae; production of recombinant proteins for industrial, nutritional, and medical uses. Photosynth. Res. 2014, 123, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. European Patent Office. Available online: https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents.html (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  62. US7736629B2—Red Herbal Dentifrice—Google Patents. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7736629B2/en?oq=US+Pat.+No.+7%2C736%2C629+B2 (accessed on 28 April 2020).
  63. Highsmith, J. Biological Therapeutic Drugs: Technologies and Global Markets; BCC Research: Wellesley, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  64. Walsh, G. Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2014. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 992–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dewan, S.S. Global Markets for Enzymes in Industrial Use; BCC Research: Wellesley, MA, USA, 2017; p. 7215. [Google Scholar]
  66. BCC. Global Markets for Enzymes in Industrial Applications; BCC: Wellesley, MA, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/biotechnology/global-markets-for-enzymes-in-industrial-applications.html (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  67. Rosano, G.L.; Ceccarelli, E.A. Recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli: Advances and challenges. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Rettenbacher, L.A.; Arauzo-Aguilera, K.; Buscajoni, L.; Castillo-Corujo, A.; Ferrero-Bordera, B.; Kostopoulou, A.; Moran-Torres, R.; Núñez-Nepomuceno, D.; Öktem, A.; Palma, A.; et al. Microbial protein cell factories fight back? Trends Biotechnol. 2022, 40, 576–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rader, R.A.; Langer, E.S. Upstream Single-Use Bioprocessing Systems Future Market Trends and Growth Assessment. Bioprocess Int. 2012, 10, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
  70. Walsh, G. Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2018. Nat. Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 1136–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tripathi, N.K.; Shrivastava, A. Recent Developments in Bioprocessing of Recombinant Proteins: Expression Hosts and Process Development. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. VALIDOGEN GmbH White Paper, High Level Methanol-Free Phytase Production in Pichia Pastoris. Available online: https://www.validogen.com/pichia-pastoris/downloads (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  73. Sanchez-Garcia, L.; Martín, L.; Mangues, R.; Ferrer-Miralles, N.; Vázquez, E.; Villaverde, A. Recombinant pharmaceuticals from microbial cells: A 2015 update. Microb. Cell Fact. 2016, 15, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Darby, R.A.J.; Cartwright, S.P.; Dilworth, M.V. Which Yeast Species Shall I Choose? Saccharomyces cerevisiae Versus Pichia pastoris (Review). In Recombinant Protein Production in Yeast: Methods and Protocols; Bill, R.M., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 11–23. [Google Scholar]
  75. Khan, K.H. Gene Expression in Mammalian Cells and its Applications. Adv. Pharm. Bull. 2013, 3, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hamilton, S.R.; Bobrowicz, P.; Bobrowicz, B.; Davidson, R.C.; Li, H.; Mitchell, T.; Nett, J.H.; Rausch, S.; Stadheim, T.A.; Wischnewski, H.; et al. Production of Complex Human Glycoproteins in Yeast. Science 2003, 301, 1244–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wildt, S.; Gerngross, T.U. The humanization of N-glycosylation pathways in yeast. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 3, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hamilton, S.R.; Davidson, R.C.; Sethuraman, N.; Nett, J.H.; Jiang, Y.; Rios, S.; Bobrowicz, P.; Stadheim, T.A.; Li, H.; Choi, B.-K.; et al. Humanization of Yeast to Produce Complex Terminally Sialylated Glycoproteins. Science 2006, 313, 1441–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Jacobs, P.P.; Geysens, S.; Vervecken, W.; Contreras, R.; Callewaert, N. Engineering complex-type N-glycosylation in Pichia pastoris using GlycoSwitch technology. Nat. Protoc. 2008, 4, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Heyland, J.; Fu, J.; Blank, L.M.; Schmid, A. Carbon metabolism limits recombinant protein production in Pichia pastoris. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011, 108, 1942–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ergun, B.G.; Çalık, P. Hybrid-architectured promoter design to engineer expression in yeast. In Methods in Enzymology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; Volume 660, pp. 81–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ergün, B.G.; Demir, I.; Özdamar, T.H.; Gasser, B.; Mattanovich, D.; Çalık, P. Engineered Deregulation of Expression in Yeast with Designed Hybrid-Promoter Architectures in Coordination with Discovered Master Regulator Transcription Factor. Adv. Biosyst. 2020, 4, e1900172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Santoso, A.; Herawati, N.; Rubiana, Y. Effect of Methanol Induction and Incubation Time on Expression of Human Erythropoietin in Methylotropic Yeast Pichia pastoris. Makara J. Technol. 2012, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Farsiani, H.; Mosavat, A.; Soleimanpour, S.; Sadeghian, H.; Eydgahi, M.R.A.; Ghazvini, K.; Sankian, M.; Aryan, E.; Jamehdar, S.A.; Rezaee, S.A. Fc-based delivery system enhances immunogenicity of a tuberculosis subunit vaccine candidate consisting of the ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex. Mol. Biosyst. 2016, 12, 2189–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Soleimanpour, S.; Farsiani, H.; Mosavat, A.; Ghazvini, K.; Eydgahi, M.R.A.; Sankian, M.; Sadeghian, H.; Meshkat, Z.; Rezaee, S.A. APC targeting enhances immunogenicity of a novel multistage Fc-fusion tuberculosis vaccine in mice. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 10467–10480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bernauer, L.; Radkohl, A.; Lehmayer, L.G.K.; Emmerstorfer-Augustin, A. Komagataella phaffii as Emerging Model Organism in Fundamental Research. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 607028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Puxbaum, V.; Mattanovich, D.; Gasser, B. Quo vadis? The challenges of recombinant protein folding and secretion in Pichia pastoris. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 2925–2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Delic, M.; Valli, M.; Graf, A.B.; Pfeffer, M.; Mattanovich, D.; Gasser, B. The secretory pathway: Exploring yeast diversity. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 37, 872–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Tran, A.-M.; Nguyen, T.-T.; Nguyen, C.-T.; Huynh-Thi, X.-M.; Nguyen, C.-T.; Trinh, M.-T.; Tran, L.-T.; Cartwright, S.P.; Bill, R.M.; Tran-Van, H. Pichia pastoris versus Saccharomyces cerevisiae: A case study on the recombinant production of human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. BMC Res. Notes 2017, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Dragosits, M.; Stadlmann, J.; Graf, A.; Gasser, B.; Maurer, M.; Sauer, M.; Kreil, D.P.; Altmann, F.; Mattanovich, D. The response to unfolded protein is involved in osmotolerance of Pichia pastoris. BMC Genom. 2010, 11, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Morton, C.L.; Potter, P.M. Comparison of Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pichia pastoris, Spodoptera frugiperda, and COS7 Cells for Recombinant Gene Expression: Application to a Rabbit Liver Carboxylesterase. Mol. Biotechnol. 2000, 16, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jiao, L.; Zhou, Q.; Yan, Y. Efficient gene disruption by posttransformational directed internal homologous recombination in Pichia pastoris. Anal. Biochem. 2019, 576, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Caramelo, J.J.; Parodi, A.J. Getting In and Out from Calnexin/Calreticulin Cycles. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 10221–10225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Neubert, P.; Halim, A.; Zauser, M.; Essig, A.; Joshi, H.J.; Zatorska, E.; Larsen, I.S.B.; Loibl, M.; Castells-Ballester, J.; Aebi, M.; et al. Mapping the O-Mannose Glycoproteome in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2016, 15, 1323–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Whyteside, G.; Nor, R.M.; Alcocer, M.J.; Archer, D.B. Activation of the unfolded protein response in Pichia pastoris requires splicing of a HAC1 mRNA intron and retention of the C-terminal tail of Hac1p. FEBS Lett. 2011, 585, 1037–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Hoseki, J.; Ushioda, R.; Nagata, K. Mechanism and components of endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation. J. Biochem. 2009, 147, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Kohno, K. Stress-sensing mechanisms in the unfolded protein response: Similarities and differences between yeast and mammals. J. Biochem. 2009, 147, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Vembar, S.S.; Brodsky, J.L. One step at a time: Endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008, 9, 944–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Malhotra, J.D.; Kaufman, R.J. The endoplasmic reticulum and the unfolded protein response. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2007, 18, 716–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Zimmermann, R.; Eyrisch, S.; Ahmad, M.; Helms, V. Protein translocation across the ER membrane. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) -Biomembr. 2011, 1808, 912–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Matlack, K.E.; Misselwitz, B.; Plath, K.; Rapoport, T.A. BiP Acts as a Molecular Ratchet during Posttranslational Transport of Prepro-α Factor across the ER Membrane. Cell 1999, 97, 553–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Kampinga, H.H.; Craig, E.A. The HSP70 chaperone machinery: J proteins as drivers of functional specificity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11, 579–592, Erratum in Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11, 750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Woycechowsky, K.J.; Raines, R.T. Native disulfide bond formation in proteins. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2000, 4, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, L.; Wang, C.-C. Oxidative protein folding fidelity and redoxtasis in the endoplasmic reticulum. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2022, 48, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Naseem, M.U.; Tajti, G.; Gaspar, A.; Szanto, T.G.; Borrego, J.; Panyi, G. Optimization of Pichia pastoris Expression System for High-Level Production of Margatoxin. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Navone, L.; Vogl, T.; Luangthongkam, P.; Blinco, J.-A.; Luna-Flores, C.H.; Chen, X.; von Hellens, J.; Mahler, S.; Speight, R. Disulfide bond engineering of AppA phytase for increased thermostability requires co-expression of protein disulfide isomerase in Pichia pastoris. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2021, 14, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bollok, M.; Resina, D.; Valero, F.; Ferrer, P. Recent patents on the Pichia pastoris expression system: Expanding the toolbox for recombinant protein production. Recent Pat. Biotechnol. 2009, 3, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Cregg, J.M. Method for High-Level Expression of Polypeptides in Yeast of the Genus Pichia. EP0226752, 1 July 1987. [Google Scholar]
  109. Barrigon, J.M.; Valero, F.; Montesinos, J.L. A macrokinetic model-based comparative meta-analysis of recombinant protein production by Pichia pastoris under AOX1 promoter. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015, 112, 1132–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Looser, V.; Bruhlmann, B.; Bumbak, F.; Stenger, C.; Costa, M.; Camattari, A.; Fotiadis, D.; Kovar, K. Cultivation strategies to enhance productivity of Pichia pastoris: A review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 1177–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Pichia.com. Available online: https://pichia.com/science-center/commercialized-products (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  112. Craven, S.; Whelan, J.; Glennon, B. Glucose concentration control of a fed-batch mammalian cell bioprocess using a nonlinear model predictive controller. J. Process. Control. 2014, 24, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kuprijanov, A.; Schaepe, S.; Simutis, R.; Lübbert, A. Model predictive control made accessible to professional automation systems in fermentation technology. Biosyst. Inf. Technol. 2013, 2, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dabros, M.; Schuler, M.M.; Marison, I.W. Simple control of specific growth rate in biotechnological fed-batch processes based on enhanced online measurements of biomass. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2010, 33, 1109–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Veloso, A.C.A.; Rocha, I.; Ferreira, E.C. Monitoring of fed-batch E. coli fermentations with software sensors. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 32, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Soons, Z.; Voogt, J.; van Straten, G.; van Boxtel, A. Constant specific growth rate in fed-batch cultivation of Bordetella pertussis using adaptive control. J. Biotechnol. 2006, 125, 252–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. De Pourcq, K.; De Schutter, K.; Callewaert, N. Engineering of glycosylation in yeast and other fungi: Current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 1617–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Gasser, B.; Saloheimo, M.; Rinas, U.; Dragosits, M.; Rodríguez-Carmona, E.; Baumann, K.; Giuliani, M.; Parrilli, E.; Branduardi, P.; Lang, C.; et al. Protein folding and conformational stress in microbial cells producing recombinant proteins: A host comparative overview. Microb. Cell Factories 2008, 7, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Zhang, P.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, X.; Bai, P.; Cregg, J.M.; Zhang, Y. Catabolite Repression of Aox in Pichia pastoris Is Dependent on Hexose Transporter PpHxt1 and Pexophagy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 6108–6118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Cereghino, G.P.; Cereghino, J.L.; Ilgen, C.; Cregg, J.M. Production of recombinant proteins in fermenter cultures of the yeast Pichia pastoris. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2002, 13, 329–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Wegner, E.H. Biochemical Conversions by Yeast Fermentation at High Cell Dendsities. US4617274, 14 October 1986. [Google Scholar]
  122. Spadiut, O.; Herwig, C. Dynamics in bioprocess development for Pichia pastoris. Bioengineered 2014, 5, 401–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Nocon, J.; Steiger, M.G.; Pfeffer, M.; Sohn, S.B.; Kim, T.Y.; Maurer, M.; Rußmayer, H.; Pflügl, S.; Ask, M.; Haberhauer-Troyer, C.; et al. Model based engineering of Pichia pastoris central metabolism enhances recombinant protein production. Metab. Eng. 2014, 24, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Zhang, W.; Inan, M.; Meagher, M.M. Rational Design and Optimization of Fed-Batch and Continuous Fermentations. In Pichia Protocols; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 389, pp. 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Garcia-Ortega, X.; Valero, F.; Montesinos-Seguí, J.L. Physiological state as transferable operating criterion to improve recombinant protein production in Pichia pastoris through oxygen limitation. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2017, 92, 2573–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Güneş, H.; Boy, E.; Ata, O.; Zerze, G.H.; Çalık, P.; Özdamar, T.H. Methanol feeding strategy design enhances recombinant human growth hormone production by Pichia pastoris. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2014, 91, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Garcia-Ortega, X.; Adelantado, N.; Ferrer, P.; Montesinos, J.L.; Valero, F. A step forward to improve recombinant protein production in Pichia pastoris: From specific growth rate effect on protein secretion to carbon-starving conditions as advanced strategy. Process. Biochem. 2016, 51, 681–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Çalık, P.; Ata, O.; Güneş, H.; Massahi, A.; Boy, E.; Keskin, A.; Öztürk, S.; Zerze, G.H.; Özdamar, T.H. Recombinant protein production in Pichia pastoris under glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase promoter: From carbon source metabolism to bioreactor operation parameters. Biochem. Eng. J. 2015, 95, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Lonza Pharma & Biotech, Tools for successful biologics—XS® Pichia Expression System. Available online: https://pharma.lonza.co.jp/-/media/Lonza/knowledge/Licensing/Pichia-Technical-Note-Update_0121_TSB_XS-TLI.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  130. Prielhofer, R.; Maurer, M.; Klein, J.; Wenger, J.; Kiziak, C.; Gasser, B.; Mattanovich, D. Induction without methanol: Novel regulated promoters enable high-level expression in Pichia pastoris. Microb. Cell Factories 2013, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Prielhofer, R.; Reichinger, M.; Wagner, N.; Claes, K.; Kiziak, C.; Gasser, B.; Mattanovich, D. Superior protein titers in half the fermentation time: Promoter and process engineering for the glucose-regulated GTH1 promoter of Pichia pastoris. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2018, 115, 2479–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  132. Huang, M.; Bao, J.; Nielsen, J. Biopharmaceutical protein production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Current state and future prospects. Pharm. Bioprocess. 2014, 2, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Baumann, K.; Carnicer, M.; Dragosits, M.; Graf, A.B.; Stadlmann, J.; Jouhten, P.; Maaheimo, H.; Gasser, B.; Albiol, J.; Mattanovich, D.; et al. A multi-level study of recombinant Pichia pastoris in different oxygen conditions. BMC Syst. Biol. 2010, 4, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  134. Rebnegger, C.; Vos, T.; Graf, A.B.; Valli, M.; Pronk, J.T.; Daran-Lapujade, P.; Mattanovich, D. Pichia pastoris Exhibits High Viability and a Low Maintenance Energy Requirement at Near-Zero Specific Growth Rates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 4570–4583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Rebnegger, C.; Graf, A.B.; Valli, M.; Steiger, M.G.; Gasser, B.; Maurer, M.; Mattanovich, D. In Pichia pastoris, growth rate regulates protein synthesis and secretion, mating and stress response. Biotechnol. J. 2013, 9, 511–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Baumann, K.; Maurer, M.; Dragosits, M.; Cos, O.; Ferrer, P.; Mattanovich, D. Hypoxic fed-batch cultivation of Pichia pastoris increases specific and volumetric productivity of recombinant proteins. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007, 100, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Takors, R. Scale-up of microbial processes: Impacts, tools and open questions. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 160, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Formenti, L.R.; Nørregaard, A.; Bolic, A.; Hernandez, D.Q.; Hagemann, T.; Heins, A.-L.; Larsson, H.; Mears, L.; Mauricio-Iglesias, M.; Krühne, U.; et al. Challenges in industrial fermentation technology research. Biotechnol. J. 2014, 9, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sin, G.; Gernaey, K.V.; Lantz, A.E. Good modelling practice (GMoP) for PAT applications: Propagation of input uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Biotechnol Prog. 2009, 25, 1043–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Meyer, H.P.; Minas, W.; Schmidhalter, D. Industrial Biotechnology: Products and Processes; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Mattanovich, D.; Branduardi, P.; Dato, L.; Gasser, B.; Sauer, M.; Porro, D. Recombinant protein production in yeasts. In Recombinant Gene Expression; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 824, pp. 329–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Balasundaram, B.; Harrison, S.; Bracewell, D.G. Advances in product release strategies and impact on bioprocess design. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Berrios, J.; Flores, M.-O.; Díaz-Barrera, A.; Altamirano, C.; Martínez, I.; Cabrera, Z. A comparative study of glycerol and sorbitol as co-substrates in methanol-induced cultures of Pichia pastoris: Temperature effect and scale-up simulation. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 44, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Carly, F.; Niu, H.; Delvigne, F.; Fickers, P. Influence of methanol/sorbitol co-feeding rate on pAOX1 induction in a Pichia pastoris Mut+ strain in bioreactor with limited oxygen transfer rate. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 43, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Canales, C.; Altamirano, C.; Berrios, J. Effect of dilution rate and methanol-glycerol mixed feeding on heterologous Rhizopus oryzae lipase production with Pichia pastoris Mut+phenotype in continuous culture. Biotechnol. Prog. 2015, 31, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Liu, Z.W.; Yin, H.X.; Yi, X.P.; Zhang, A.L.; Luo, J.X.; Zhang, T.Y.; Fu, C.Y.; Zhang, Z.H.; Shen, J.C.; Chen, L.P. Constitutive expression of barley α-amylase in Pichia pastoris by high-density cell culture. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2011, 39, 5805–5810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Baumann, K.; Adelantado, N.; Lang, C.; Mattanovich, D.; Ferrer, P. Protein trafficking, ergosterol biosynthesis and membrane physics impact recombinant protein secretion in Pichia pastoris. Microb. Cell Factories 2011, 10, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Jordà, J.; Jouhten, P.; Cámara, E.; Maaheimo, H.; Albiol, J.; Ferrer, P. Metabolic flux profiling of recombinant protein secreting Pichia pastoris growing on glucose:methanol mixtures. Microb. Cell Factories 2012, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Tang, S.; Potvin, G.; Reiche, A.; Zhang, Z. Modeling of Phytase Production by Cultivation of Pichia pastoris Under the Control of the GAP Promoter. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2010, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Khasa, Y.P.; Khushoo, A.; Srivastava, L.; Mukherjee, K. Kinetic studies of constitutive human granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (hGM-CSF) expression in continuous culture of Pichia pastoris. Biotechnol. Lett. 2007, 29, 1903–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Gasser, B.; Maurer, M.; Gach, J.; Kunert, R.; Mattanovich, D. Engineering of Pichia pastoris for improved production of antibody fragments. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2006, 94, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Nasr, M.M.; Krumme, M.; Matsuda, Y.; Trout, B.L.; Badman, C.; Mascia, S.; Cooney, C.L.; Jensen, K.D.; Florence, A.; Johnston, C.; et al. Regulatory Perspectives on Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: Moving from Theory to Practice. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 106, 3199–3206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Gernaey, K.V.; Cervera-Padrell, A.E.; Woodley, J.M. Development of continuous pharmaceutical production processes supported by process systems engineering methods and tools. Futur. Med. Chem. 2012, 4, 1371–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Gernaey, K.V.; Woodley, J.M.; Sin, G. Introducing mechanistic models in Process Analytical Technology education. Biotechnol. J. 2009, 4, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Croughan, M.S.; Konstantinov, K.B.; Cooney, C. The future of industrial bioprocessing: Batch or continuous? Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015, 112, 648–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Walther, J.; Godawat, R.; Hwang, C.; Abe, Y.; Sinclair, A.; Konstantinov, K. The business impact of an integrated continuous biomanufacturing platform for recombinant protein production. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 213, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Seresht, A.K.; Cruz, A.L.; de Hulster, E.; Hebly, M.; Palmqvist, E.A.; van Gulik, W.; Daran, J.-M.; Pronk, J.; Olsson, L. Long-term adaptation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to the burden of recombinant insulin production. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110, 2749–2763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Curvers, S.; Linnemann, J.; Klauser, T.; Wandrey, C.; Takors, R. Recombinant protein production with Pichia pastoris in con-tinuous fermentation—Kinetic analysis of growth and product formation. Eng. Life Sci. 2022, 2, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Weninger, A.; Fischer, J.E.; Raschmanová, H.; Kniely, C.; Vogl, T.; Glieder, A. Expanding the CRISPR/Cas9 toolkit for Pichia pastoris with efficient donor integration and alternative resistance markers. J. Cell. Biochem. 2017, 119, 3183–3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Baumschabl, M.; Prielhofer, R.; Mattanovich, D.; Steiger, M.G. Fine-Tuning of Transcription in Pichia pastoris Using dCas9 and RNA Scaffolds. ACS Synth. Biol. 2020, 9, 3202–3209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Lehmayer, L.; Bernauer, L.; Emmerstorfer-Augustin, A. Applying the auxin-based degron system for the inducible, reversible and complete protein degradation in Komagataella phaffii. Iscience 2022, 25, 104888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Ito, Y.; Ishigami, M.; Terai, G.; Nakamura, Y.; Hashiba, N.; Nishi, T.; Nakazawa, H.; Hasunuma, T.; Asai, K.; Umetsu, M.; et al. A streamlined strain engineering workflow with genome-wide screening detects enhanced protein secretion in Komagataella phaffii. Commun. Biol. 2022, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Alva, T.R.; Riera, M.; Chartron, J.W. Translational landscape and protein biogenesis demands of the early secretory pathway in Komagataella phaffii. Microb. Cell Factories 2021, 20, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Huangfu, J.; Xu, Y.; Li, C.; Li, J. Overexpressing target helper genes enhances secretion and glycosylation of recombinant proteins in Pichia pastoris under simulated microgravity. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 43, 1429–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Staudacher, J.; Rebnegger, C.; Dohnal, T.; Landes, N.; Mattanovich, D.; Gasser, B. Going beyond the limit: Increasing global translation activity leads to increased productivity of recombinant secreted proteins in Pichia pastoris. Metab. Eng. 2022, 70, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Mäkelä, M.R.; Hildén, K.S.; Kuuskeri, J. Fungal Lignin-Modifying Peroxidases and H2O2-Producing Enzymes. In Encyclopedia of Mycology; Zaragoza, Ó., Casadevall, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Rieder, L.; Ebner, K.; Glieder, A.; Sørlie, M. Novel molecular biological tools for the efficient expression of fungal lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases in Pichia pastoris. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2021, 14, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Yang, G.; Tan, H.; Li, S.; Zhang, M.; Che, J.; Li, K.; Chen, W.; Yin, H. Application of engineered yeast strain fermentation for oligogalacturonides production from pectin-rich waste biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 300, 122645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Shirke, A.; White, C.; Englaender, J.A.; Zwarycz, A.S.; Butterfoss, G.L.; Linhardt, R.J.; Gross, R.A. Stabilizing Leaf and Branch Compost Cutinase (LCC) with Glycosylation: Mechanism and Effect on PET Hydrolysis. Biochemistry 2018, 57, 1190–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Liu, M.; Yang, S.; Long, L.; Cao, Y.; Ding, S. Engineering a Chimeric Lipase-cutinase (Lip-Cut) for Efficient Enzymatic Deinking of Waste Paper. Bioresources 2017, 13, 981–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Sarp, S.; Hernandez, S.G.; Chen, C.; Sheehan, S.W. Alcohol Production from Carbon Dioxide: Methanol as a Fuel and Chemical Feedstock. Joule 2020, 5, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Gassler, T.; Sauer, M.; Gasser, B.; Egermeier, M.; Troyer, C.; Causon, T.; Hann, S.; Mattanovich, D.; Steiger, M.G. The industrial yeast Pichia pastoris is converted from a heterotroph into an autotroph capable of growth on CO2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 38, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Urui, M.; Yamada, Y.; Ikeda, Y.; Nakagawa, A.; Sato, F.; Minami, H.; Shitan, N. Establishment of a co-culture system using Escherichia coli and Pichia pastoris (Komagataella phaffii) for valuable alkaloid production. Microb. Cell Factories 2021, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Zuo, Y.; Xiao, F.; Gao, J.; Ye, C.; Jiang, L.; Dong, C.; Lian, J. Establishing Komagataella phaffii as a Cell Factory for Efficient Production of Sesquiterpenoid α-Santalene. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 8024–8031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Wen, J.; Tian, L.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, M. Engineered dynamic distribution of malonyl-CoA flux for improving polyketide biosynthesis in Komagataella phaffii. J. Biotechnol. 2020, 320, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Zirpel, B.; Degenhardt, F.; Zammarelli, C.; Wibberg, D.; Kalinowski, J.; Stehle, F.; Kayser, O. Optimization of Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase production in Komagataella phaffii via post-translational bottleneck identification. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 272–273, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Moser, S.; Strohmeier, G.A.; Leitner, E.; Plocek, T.J.; Vanhessche, K.; Pichler, H. Whole-cell (+)-ambrein production in the yeast Pichia pastoris. Metab. Eng. Commun. 2018, 7, e00077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Wriessnegger, T.; Augustin, P.; Engleder, M.; Leitner, E.; Müller, M.; Kaluzna, I.; Schürmann, M.; Mink, D.; Zellnig, G.; Schwab, H.; et al. Production of the sesquiterpenoid (+)-nootkatone by metabolic engineering of Pichia pastoris. Metab. Eng. 2014, 24, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomolecules 13 00441 g001 550
Figure 1. Timeline of achievements for K. phaffii biotechnology during the last fifty-five years (A) and the principal steps (e.g., designing, building, testing, and learning) plus the main technologies for recombinant protein production (e.g., protein purification, and characterization systems) (B).
Figure 1. Timeline of achievements for K. phaffii biotechnology during the last fifty-five years (A) and the principal steps (e.g., designing, building, testing, and learning) plus the main technologies for recombinant protein production (e.g., protein purification, and characterization systems) (B).
Biomolecules 13 00441 g001
Biomolecules 13 00441 g002 550
Figure 2. General workflow for the production of heterologous proteins and their industrial manufacture with K. phaffii. The main steps are (1) gene synthesis; (2) cloning and transformation using E. coli; (3) K. phaffii electroporation after the verification of the generated construct in the plasmid; (4) microscale cultivation of the colonies in 96-deep-well plates picked from the selective (e.g., antibiotic, or heterotrophic compensation) agar plates; (5) high-throughput screening and evaluation of the productivity (e.g., colorimetric assay, and LabChip® GXII Touch™ protein characterization system); (6) laboratory-scale fermentation (e.g., 3 L, 5 L, and 10 L); (7) large-scale fermentation; (8) final steps: protein (i) purification, (ii) concentration, (iii) formulation, and (iv) delivery. The light blue or green colour of the rectangular-shape text field indicates upstream (light blue) or downstream (green) part.
Figure 2. General workflow for the production of heterologous proteins and their industrial manufacture with K. phaffii. The main steps are (1) gene synthesis; (2) cloning and transformation using E. coli; (3) K. phaffii electroporation after the verification of the generated construct in the plasmid; (4) microscale cultivation of the colonies in 96-deep-well plates picked from the selective (e.g., antibiotic, or heterotrophic compensation) agar plates; (5) high-throughput screening and evaluation of the productivity (e.g., colorimetric assay, and LabChip® GXII Touch™ protein characterization system); (6) laboratory-scale fermentation (e.g., 3 L, 5 L, and 10 L); (7) large-scale fermentation; (8) final steps: protein (i) purification, (ii) concentration, (iii) formulation, and (iv) delivery. The light blue or green colour of the rectangular-shape text field indicates upstream (light blue) or downstream (green) part.
Biomolecules 13 00441 g002
Biomolecules 13 00441 g003 550
Figure 3. Targets for the engineering of K. phaffii for an increase in protein production and secretion. This involves several steps, factors, and cellular components: (1) nucleic acid synthesis in the nucleus; (2) protein synthesis in the cytosol; (3) cytosolic chaperones; (4) ER membrane, including the translocation into the ER and related trafficking (e.g., from ER to Golgi apparatus); (5) ER chaperones; (6) Golgi apparatus; (7) cell wall and membrane. The secretion of the recombinant protein into the medium is generally preferred; therefore, these engineering targets are guided to achieve a high concentration of secreted recombinant protein. ER = endoplasmic reticulum.
Figure 3. Targets for the engineering of K. phaffii for an increase in protein production and secretion. This involves several steps, factors, and cellular components: (1) nucleic acid synthesis in the nucleus; (2) protein synthesis in the cytosol; (3) cytosolic chaperones; (4) ER membrane, including the translocation into the ER and related trafficking (e.g., from ER to Golgi apparatus); (5) ER chaperones; (6) Golgi apparatus; (7) cell wall and membrane. The secretion of the recombinant protein into the medium is generally preferred; therefore, these engineering targets are guided to achieve a high concentration of secreted recombinant protein. ER = endoplasmic reticulum.
Biomolecules 13 00441 g003
Table
Table 1. Examples of K. phaffii host strains for basic and applied studies reported in literature.
Table 1. Examples of K. phaffii host strains for basic and applied studies reported in literature.
StrainGenotypePhenotypeApplicationRef.
Y-11430Wild Type---Highest activity of genes involved in methanol utilization[41]
X-33Wild Type---Selection of Zeocin™—resistant expression vectors[42]
GS115his4Mut+, His−Selection of expression vectors containing his4[43]
KM71his4, aox1:ARG4, arg4MutS, His−Selection of expression vectors containing his4 to generate strains with MutS phenotype[44]
KM71Haox1:ARG4, arg4MutSSelection of Zeocin™-resistant expression vectors to generate strains with MutS phenotype[45]
SMD1168his4, pep4Mut+, His−, pep4−Selection of expression vectors containing his4 to generate strains without protease A activity[46]
SMD1168Hpep4Mut+, pep4−Selection of Zeocin™-resistant expression vectors to generate strains without protease A activity[47]
SMD1165his4, prb1Mut+, His−, prb1−Selection of expression vectors containing his4 to generate strains without proteinase B activity[48]
MC100-3arg4, his4, aox1:ARG4, aox2:Phis4Mut−, His−Unable to grow on methanol[49]
Ref. = Reference.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barone, G.D.; Emmerstorfer-Augustin, A.; Biundo, A.; Pisano, I.; Coccetti, P.; Mapelli, V.; Camattari, A. Industrial Production of Proteins with Pichia pastoris—Komagataella phaffii. Biomolecules 2023, 13, 441. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom13030441

AMA Style

Barone GD, Emmerstorfer-Augustin A, Biundo A, Pisano I, Coccetti P, Mapelli V, Camattari A. Industrial Production of Proteins with Pichia pastoris—Komagataella phaffii. Biomolecules. 2023; 13(3):441. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom13030441

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barone, Giovanni Davide, Anita Emmerstorfer-Augustin, Antonino Biundo, Isabella Pisano, Paola Coccetti, Valeria Mapelli, and Andrea Camattari. 2023. "Industrial Production of Proteins with Pichia pastoris—Komagataella phaffii" Biomolecules 13, no. 3: 441. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom13030441

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