Comparative Lipidomic Studies Of Two Pleuromutilin Fermentation Styles And Yeast Rapid Adaptive Evolution

In this study, lipidomic analysis using LC/ESI/MSntechnology was employed toinvestigate two pleuromutilin fermentation styles and rapid adaptive evolution processof haploid and diploid yeast strain in the presence of multiple inhibitors.Under the same vaccination concentration, cells in new fermentation style weremore vigorous, pleuromutilin yield was higher and the content of every kind ofphospholipids (PLs) was higher. Principal component analysis (PCA) indicated thatthe two fermentation styles were completely separated; biomarkers contributing mostto discriminate the two styles were phosphatidylinositol (PI) and phosphatidylserine(PS), the contents of which were higher in new fermentation style. Since PI wasrelated to cellular vitality, cells in new fermentation style were more vigorous andproductive. PS was involved in cell division, which explained the exuberant cellgrowth in new fermentation style. The main difference between the two fermentationstyles were the sources of inoculation liquor. Inoculation cells in new fermentationstyle came from big tank and were more adaptable to the environment, leading tomore rapid cellular growth and higher productivity.The PLs data of haploid and diploid yeast strain cultured in medium containingmultiply inhibitors suggested that the content of PLs decreased from the initial strainto the first generation, indicating that PLs play an important role in cellular stressadaptation; then PLs bounced to the initial level in the second generation and thisrapid adaptive evolution was very stable in next generations; these PLs changingtrends corresponded well with cellular growth, glucose consumption and ethanolproduction characteristics. PCA analysis indicated that the initial strain, the firstgeneration, the second and the next generations were obviously discriminated. Thisvalidated that cells realized rapid adaptive evolution just after one generationacclimation in multiply inhibitors and this rapid evolution was stable. PLs changingtrends in haploid and diploid yeast strain were similar, but the respond time, responsespeed and recovery ability were different. The response and recovery of haploidBY4741to inhibitor were slow while diploid BY4743were very rapid and themaintenance time is short, but its recovery ability was not as good as haploid strain.