Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27495311›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Comparative genomics and transcriptomics of Pichia pastoris.

Kerry R Love, Kartik A Shah, Charles A Whittaker, Jie Wu, M Catherine Bartlett, Duanduan Ma, Rachel L Leeson, Margaret Priest, Jonathan Borowsky, Sarah K Young and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pichia pastoris RNA-Sequencing and Data Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Ancient origin and high diversity of zymocin-like killer toxins in the budding yeast subphylum.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genetic tools for metabolic engineering ofEngineering microbiology · 2023
    Review
  16. EngineeringSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Comparative proteomics analysis ofSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kerry R LoveKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 76-253, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Kartik A ShahKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 76-253, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Charles A WhittakerThe Barbara K. Ostrom (1978) Bioinformatics and Computing Facility in the Swanson Biotechnology Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Jie WuThe Barbara K. Ostrom (1978) Bioinformatics and Computing Facility in the Swanson Biotechnology Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
M Catherine BartlettKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 76-253, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Duanduan MaThe Barbara K. Ostrom (1978) Bioinformatics and Computing Facility in the Swanson Biotechnology Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Rachel L LeesonKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 76-253, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Margaret PriestThe Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA.
Jonathan BorowskyThe Barbara K. Ostrom (1978) Bioinformatics and Computing Facility in the Swanson Biotechnology Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Sarah K YoungThe Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA.
J Christopher LoveKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 76-253, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. clove@mit.edu.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · USBroad Institute · US

Funding

VIRUS PRODUCTION COREP30CA014051 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI MATTHEW G. VANDER HEIDEN · 1985 to 2026
$93.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPichia pastoris has emerged as an important alternative host for producing recombinant biopharmaceuticals, owing to its high cultivation density, low host cell protein burden, and the development of strains with humanized glycosylation. Despite its demonstrated utility, relatively little strain engineering has been performed to improve Pichia, due in part to the limited number and inconsistent frameworks of reported genomes and transcriptomes. Furthermore, the co-mingling of genomic, transcriptomic and fermentation data collected about Komagataella pastoris and Komagataella phaffii, the two strains co-branded as Pichia, has generated confusion about host performance for these genetically distinct species. Generation of comparative high-quality genomes and transcriptomes will enable meaningful comparisons between the organisms, and potentially inform distinct biotechnological utilies for each species.

resultsHere, we present a comprehensive and standardized comparative analysis of the genomic features of the three most commonly used strains comprising the tradename Pichia: K. pastoris wild-type, K. phaffii wild-type, and K. phaffii GS115. We used a combination of long-read (PacBio) and short-read (Illumina) sequencing technologies to achieve over 1000X coverage of each genome. Construction of individual genomes was then performed using as few as seven individual contigs to create gap-free assemblies. We found substantial syntenic rearrangements between the species and characterized a linear plasmid present in K. phaffii. Comparative analyses between K. phaffii genomes enabled the characterization of the mutational landscape of the GS115 strain. We identified and examined 35 non-synonomous coding mutations present in GS115, many of which are likely to impact strain performance. Additionally, we investigated transcriptomic profiles of gene expression for both species during cultivation on various carbon sources. We observed that the most highly transcribed genes in both organisms were consistently highly expressed in all three carbon sources examined. We also observed selective expression of certain genes in each carbon source, including many sequences not previously reported as promoters for expression of heterologous proteins in yeasts.

conclusionsOur studies establish a foundation for understanding critical relationships between genome structure, cultivation conditions and gene expression. The resources we report here will inform and facilitate rational, organism-wide strain engineering for improved utility as a host for protein production.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGenomicsAlternative SplicingDNA, FungalMolecular Sequence AnnotationMutationPichiaSpecies SpecificityDNA, FungalCultivation dependent expressionGene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA)Komagataella pastorisKomagataella phaffiiPichia pastorisRNA-SeqSecretomeSelf-Organizing Maps (SOMs)Transcriptome

Identifiers

PMID27495311
PMCPMC4974788
OpenAlexW2475920490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.