The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Yeasts as Hosts for Recombinant Protein Production
Open accessAbstract
Recombinant protein production emerged in the early 1980s with the development of genetic engineering tools, which represented a compelling alternative to protein extraction from natural sources. Over the years, a high level of heterologous protein was made possible in a variety of hosts ranging from the bacteria Escherichia coli to mammalian cells. Recombinant protein importance is represented by its market size, which reached $1654 million in 2016 and is expected to reach $2850.5 million by 2022. Among the available hosts, yeasts have been used for producing a great variety of proteins applied to chemicals, fuels, food, and pharmaceuticals, being one of the most used hosts for recombinant production nowadays. Historically, Saccharomyces cerevisiae was the dominant yeast host for heterologous protein production. Lately, other yeasts such as Komagataella sp., Kluyveromyces lactis, and Yarrowia lipolytica have emerged as advantageous hosts. In this review, a comparative analysis is done listing the advantages and disadvantages of using each host regarding the availability of genetic tools, strategies for cultivation in bioreactors, and the main techniques utilized for protein purification. Finally, examples of each host will be discussed regarding the total amount of protein recovered and its bioactivity due to correct folding and glycosylation patterns.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering
Gaj, T., Gersbach, C. A., & Barbas, C. F. (2013) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004 · Cited by 3,820
Production of recombinant protein therapeutics in cultivated mammalian cells
Wurm, F. M. (2004) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1026 · Cited by 2,032
A new efficient gene disruption cassette for repeated use in budding yeast
Guldener, U. (1996) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/24.13.2519 · Cited by 1,656
Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR-Cas systems
DiCarlo, J. E., Norville, J. E., Mali, P., Rios, X., Aach, J., & Church, G. M. (2013) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt135 · Cited by 1,566
Heterologous protein production using the Pichia pastoris expression system
Macauley‐Patrick, S., Fazenda, M. L., McNeil, B., & Harvey, L. M. (2005) · Yeast · doi:10.1002/yea.1208 · Cited by 1,225
Ahmad, M., Hirz, M., Pichler, H., & Schwab, H. (2014) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-014-5732-5 · Cited by 989
A second set of loxP marker cassettes for Cre-mediated multiple gene knockouts in budding yeast
Gueldener, U. (2002) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/30.6.e23 · Cited by 979
Mumberg, D., Muller, R., & Funk, M. (1994) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/22.25.5767 · Cited by 955
DNA assembler, an in vivo genetic method for rapid construction of biochemical pathways
Shao, Z., Zhao, H., & Zhao, H. (2009) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkn991 · Cited by 678
Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1): a growth hormone
Laron, Z. (2001) · Molecular Pathology · doi:10.1136/mp.54.5.311 · Cited by 608
Cited by
COVID-19 vaccine development and a potential nanomaterial path forward
Shin, M. D., Shukla, S., Chung, Y. H., Beiss, V., Chan, S. K., Ortega-Rivera, O. A., Wirth, D. M., Chen, A., Sack, M., Pokorski, J. K., et al. (2020) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-020-0737-y · Cited by 659
Platforms for Production of Protein-Based Vaccines: From Classical to Next-Generation Strategies
Cid, R., & Bolívar, J. (2021) · Biomolecules · doi:10.3390/biom11081072 · Cited by 176
Trends and prospects in dairy protein replacement in yogurt and cheese
Diaz-Bustamante, M. L., Keppler, J. K., Reyes, L. H., & Alvarez Solano, O. A. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16974 · Cited by 48
Amann, T., Schmieder, V., Faustrup Kildegaard, H., Borth, N., & Andersen, M. R. (2019) · Biotechnology and Bioengineering · doi:10.1002/bit.27101 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Vieira Gomes, A. M., Souza Carmo, T., Silva Carvalho, L., Mendonça Bahia, F., & Parachin, N. S.
- Venue
- Microorganisms
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2018-04-29
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 38
- ISSN
- 2076-2607 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2800329064
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 110
- FWCI
- 8.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Yeasts as Hosts for Recombinant Protein Production. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/microorganisms6020038
- The paper
- Vieira Gomes, A. M., Souza Carmo, T., Silva Carvalho, L., Mendonça Bahia, F., & Parachin, N. S. (2018). Comparison of Yeasts as Hosts for Recombinant Protein Production. Microorganisms. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6020038
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.