Next Article in Journal
Improving the Nutritional Value of Plant Protein Sources as Poultry Feed through Solid-State Fermentation with a Special Focus on Peanut Meal—Advances and Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Algal Biomass: From Bioproducts to Biofuels
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transcriptional Response of Multi-Stress-Tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae to Sequential Stresses
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bioactive Compounds from and against Yeasts in the One Health Context: A Comprehensive Review

by
Viviani Tadioto
1,2,3,
Anderson Giehl
1,2,
Rafael Dorighello Cadamuro
1,3,
Iara Zanella Guterres
3,4,
Angela Alves dos Santos
5,
Stefany Kell Bressan
2,
Larissa Werlang
2,
Boris U. Stambuk
1,5,
Gislaine Fongaro
1,3,
Izabella Thaís Silva
1,3,4 and
Sérgio Luiz Alves, Jr.
1,2,*
1
Graduate Program in Biotechnology and Biosciences, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88040-900, SC, Brazil
2
Laboratory of Yeast Biochemistry, Federal University of Fronteira Sul, Campus Chapecó 89815-899, SC, Brazil
3
Laboratory of Applied Virology, Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Parasitology, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88040-900, SC, Brazil
4
Graduate Program in Pharmacy, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88040-900, SC, Brazil
5
Laboratory of Yeast Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Department of Biochemistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88040-900, SC, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2023, 9(4), 363; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040363
Submission received: 18 February 2023 / Revised: 1 April 2023 / Accepted: 5 April 2023 / Published: 7 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Yeast, Biofuels, and Value-Added Products)

Abstract

:
Yeasts are the most used microorganisms for biotechnological purposes. Although they have been mainly recognized for their application in the beverage and bioethanol industries, these microorganisms can be efficiently employed in pharmaceutical and food production companies. In these industrial sectors, yeasts are highly desirable for their capacity to produce bioactive compounds from simple substrates, including wastes. In this review, we present the state of the art of bioactive compound production in microbial cell factories and analyze the avenues to increase the productivity of these molecules, which benefit human and environmental health. The article addresses their vast biological activities, from preventing to treating human diseases and from pre to postharvest control on agroindustrial streams. Furthermore, different yeast species, genetically engineered or not, are herein presented not only as biofactories of the referred to compounds but also as their targets. This comprehensive analysis of the literature points out the significant roles of biodiversity, bioprospection, and genome editing tools on the microbial production of bioactive compounds and reveals the value of these approaches from the one health perspective.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The concept of one health recognizes that human health relies on the health of other living beings and the environment [1]. In this context, considering the biotechnological potential of yeasts, alternatives to combating bacterial antibiotic resistance, improving the nutritional content of foods, increasing sustainable management of crops, and replacing conventional raw materials with residual biomass are envisaged, thus ensuring a more sustainable production chain. As stated by Elnaiem et al. [2], there is a need for urgent investment in strategies that reduce the risk of the appearance of new diseases, which will improve animal, human and environmental health and act in the fight against climate change.
Plant-associated yeasts can control their host plant’s microbiota, thus presenting as an alternative to synthetic pesticides and as inducers of vegetal growth. They are, therefore, potential substitutes for conventional fertilizers or growth hormones. Additionally, second-generation biorefinery strategies have shown proven efficiency in converting residual substrates (e.g., agroindustrial wastes) into a myriad of bioproducts through the metabolism of yeasts, whether genetically engineered or not [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Therefore, the bioactive compounds produced by yeasts allow the achievement of the one health goals, as they bring benefits not only to human health but also to animal and plant health, helping to maintain environmental balance. In the following sections, we present a comprehensive review of the most valuable bioactive compounds produced by (and against) yeasts and how they can contribute to a more sustainable future.

2. Bioactive Compounds Naturally Produced by Non-Engineered Yeasts

Polysaccharides, polyphenols, carotenoids, flavonoids, and terpenoids are part of the wide range of compounds that have biological activities, including antimicrobial, immunosuppressive, anticancer, and anti-inflammatory activity [14,15]. Although some of them are complex molecules, these bioactive compounds can be produced by microorganisms through biosynthetic processes from simple substrates [16]. Some yeasts have stood out in this context, namely Saccharomyces cerevisiae [17,18], Komagataella phaffii (formerly Pichia pastoris) [19], Hansenula polymorpha [20], Rhodosporidium diobovatum [21], Aureobasidium pullulans [22], Rhodotorula glutinis [23,24], Saccharomyces bayanus, Candida stellata, Kluyveromyces thermotolerants, and Hanseniaspora uvarum [25,26]. Mostly, yeast fermentation products are employed in the nutritional improvement of food products. However, based on the versatility of their metabolic routes, these microorganisms synthesize bioactive compounds of different molecular classes, such as peptides, polyphenols, and terpenoids [27,28]. Table 1 summarizes the main bioactive compounds produced by nongenetically modified yeasts of different species and points out their commercial interests and market values.

2.1. Pharmacological Outlooks

Notably, the main species used in the production of bioactive compounds is Saccharomyces cerevisiae [45,46]. The glutathione tripeptide, formed by a thiol of cysteine, glycine, and glutamine, is a major example of these products [47,48]. Although humans naturally produce it, the significant antioxidant effect of this molecule makes it a product of commercial interest, being sold mainly in retail chains and pharmacies as a supplement [49,50]. The interest in glutathione, however, is not restricted to combating free radicals. In humans, this tripeptide acts in the metabolism of peroxides [51] and xenobiotics [52], the inflammatory/immunological response [53], and the activation of some enzymes [54]. Currently, like most bioactive compounds, glutathione is also mainly produced by strains of S. cerevisiae due to its safety in food production [17,18]. In addition to S. cerevisiae, though, other yeasts can be used for the same purpose, such as the methylotrophic yeasts K. phaffii [19] and H. polymorpha [20], as well as the marine yeast Rhodosporidium diobovatum [21].
Melatonin is another major antioxidant that can be produced by yeast species, such as S. cerevisiae, S. bayanus, and Saccharomyces uvarum. This compound, an indole amine, is part of the composition of wines and beers, being produced naturally during the fermentation process [26,55,56,57,58,59]. Another important role of melatonin in the human and animal body is the maintenance of sleep rhythms [60,61]. Cardinali [62] reports the prevention of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s in experimental models when melatonin is administered. Reiter et al. [63] report the reduction of stroke-provoked neural damage in experimental models. Commercially, melatonin is sold as a sleep hormone, being found in drugstores and retail. Despite being naturally produced by the body, it can often be out of balance due to biological factors or habits that inhibit its production—that is why it is commercially sought after as a replacement.
Biologically active molecules can also be peptides that act as toxins depending on the environmental conditions. Bioactive peptides are protein segments abundantly found in yeast extracts, especially those generated by S. cerevisiae, Kluyveromyces marxianus, and Candida utilis, since the cells of these microorganisms harbor 35 to 60% of protein in their dry mass [64]. These yeasts are able to produce antimicrobial peptides that fight other yeasts, bacteria, and molds; in addition, they produce mycocins, extracellular proteins that hinder the growth of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria [65].
The so-called killer yeasts are also extensively studied for the production of bioactive compounds. In addition to acting in the biological control of phytopathogens (as discussed in the following section), these yeasts can serve as producers of new human and animal health drugs. In this context, a killer decapeptide produced by Pichia anomala stands out, showing in vitro and in vivo inhibitory activities against influenza A and human immunodeficiency type-1 (HIV-1) viruses [66,67]. Decapeptides such as this one have already shown activity against infections caused by Candida albicans (also a yeast), thanks to the destruction of its biofilm in invaded tissues [68], and Toxoplasma gondii (the etiological agent of toxoplasmosis) [69].
Tested for pharmacological purposes, the yeast Pichia kudriavzevii showed the production of a toxin with activity against human-infective bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Pseudomonas alcaligenes. The toxin produced by P. kudriavzevii has a high specificity of action and high toxicity against the above pathogens, which are extremely desirable characteristics for drug development [70]. Alternatively, the toxin can also be used as a prophylactic measure, preventing these pathogens from reaching humans through the ingestion of contaminated food [71].
Yeasts are also able to accumulate lipids for the pharmaceutical industry [72,73]. The so-called single-cell oils (SCO) include long-chain fatty acids of nutritional interest, such as the polyunsaturated acids Eicosapentaenoic (produced by Meyerozyma guilliermondii), Linoleic (produced by Apiotrichum brassicae, Candida tropicalis, Metschnikowia pulcherrima, P. kudriavzevii, M. guilliermondii, Lodderomyces elongisporus, and Rhodotorula mucilaginosa), and γ-Linolenic (produced by A. brassicae, M. pulcherrima, M. guilliermondii, L. elongisporus, and R. mucilaginosa) [72,74,75,76].
The tropical yeast Saccharomyces boulardii, isolated from lychee and mangosteen peels, has interesting properties for supplementation in the human microbiota, given its ability to adapt to the inhospitable conditions of the gastrointestinal system. This yeast can produce high levels of acetic acid, inhibiting virulent strains of E. coli [38], which are eventually responsible for human food poisoning. Saccharomyces boulardii is also considered efficient in treating inflammatory bowel diseases [77,78] and improving inflammation caused by Citrobacter rodentium [79]. This yeast also demonstrated protection against infection generated by the yeast C. albicans [80].
Riboflavin is also an important bioactive compound produced by yeasts. Capable of preventing deficiency symptoms such as dermatitis, this vitamin also plays a key role in the food industry. Its chemical synthesis requires organic solvents, generates waste that is harmful to the environment, and requires a lot of energy compared to the yeast fermentation process [30]. Currently, the yeast M. guilliermondii stands out in the large-scale production of riboflavin [81]. In addition, the marine yeast Candida membranifaciens subsp. flavinogenie W14-3, isolated from sea water in China, also showed a high potential for producing this bioactive compound [30].

2.2. Microbial Competition and Ecological Food Production

Due to multiple adverse situations, microorganisms are not always inserted in a natural habitat with abundant nutrients from which they can benefit. In these cases, microbial competition is inevitable, and the competition tools of each microorganism can be exploited as agroecological strategies. In this context, yeasts seem to have a prominent place [82,83]. Due to interactions with other microorganisms in natural environments, yeasts can use competitive approaches that guarantee advantages against other opposing organisms, either through mechanisms of enzyme secretion, toxin production, or the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [84].
Volatiles produced by yeasts can display antifungal and bacteriostatic action. Two of these compounds are ethanol and 2,3-butanediol, both produced by the yeasts S. cerevisiae and P. kudriavzevii, which have already been proven capable of reducing the growth of the filamentous fungi Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus [85]. The volatile compound 2-phenylethanol, produced by P. anomala, has also demonstrated a fungus-control effect; in one case, this effect was against Aspergillus ochraceus [86], a well-known generator of toxins in food [87].
The species Sporidiobolus pararoseus has the ability to control the plant illness caused by the gray fungus Botrytis cinerea. Huang et al. [88] attributed this activity to 2-ethyl-1-hexanol. The yeast Candida intermedia was also able to control this phytopathogen by producing the VOCs 1,3,5,7-cyclooctatetraene, 3-methyl-1-butanol, 2-nonanone, and phenylethyl alcohol [89]. Cyberlindnera jadinii, Candida fryrichii, C. intermedia, and Lachancea thermotolerans have also been identified as producers of 2-phenyl ethanol, inhibiting the molds Aspergillus carbonarius and A. ochraceus [90,91,92].
Against postharvest bacterial diseases, the polymorphic yeast Aureobasidium pullulans has been shown to produce secondary metabolites such as aureobasidins, liamocins, 2-propyl acrylic acid, and 2-methylene succinic acid, which act against bacteria such as Salmonella typhi, Proteus vulgaris, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Bacillus subtilis, S. aureus, and Sarcina ventriculi. Liamocins also showed selective activity against bacteria of the genus Streptococcus [93,94,95,96]. The biocontrol strategy using VOCs produced by yeasts is interesting to use to maintain the shelf life of fruits such as grapes, especially with compounds produced by Wickerhamomyces anomalus, M. pulcherrima, and A. pullulans [97]. Furthermore, VOCs produced by Candida saque were also efficient in controlling the proliferation of fungi in apples [40].
Marine yeasts are often found in hostile conditions to maintain their lives. Marine species, such as the aforementioned A. pullulans, can produce siderophores—secondary metabolites used by microorganisms as chelators of essential trace elements such as iron [98,99,100,101,102,103]. The so-referred yeast produces a high concentration of the siderophore hydroxamate, a bioactive compound capable of inhibiting the cell growth of the bacteria Vibrio anguillarum and Vibrio parahaemolyticus, which are found in sick marine animals. In fact, siderophores are effective in controlling pathogenic bacteria in marine fish, presenting as an important alternative for pisciculture and the remediation of sites with radioactive waste [104].
In addition to marine yeasts, yeasts associated with plants and fruits can also produce siderophores, such as R. glutinis, Rhodotorula rubra, and species of the genus Meyerozyma, such as M. guilliermondii [23,105]. Although some siderophores have shown pharmacological potential, allowing the control of pathogenic microorganisms [98,101], it is in agriculture that they primarily receive attention. These compounds are quite efficient in protecting plants of agronomic interest against fungal and bacterial infections [99]. The chelating action of these compounds also contributes to the availability of essential micronutrients for plant development [106].
Competition for micronutrients, especially iron, limits the development of microorganisms [83]. The species R. glutinis, isolated from a rhizosphere environment, uses the siderophore rhodotorulic acid to inhibit the growth of its competitor B. cinerea [107]. Along the same line, M. pulcherrima, also found in rhizospheres [108], inhibits its competitors through pulcherriminic acid [109]. Still in the context of the rhizosphere, it should be noted that the growth of plant roots can benefit from the presence of yeasts in the rhizosphere [110,111].
In terms of microbial competition, the production of killer toxins is another yeast strategy. This trait has been widely identified in different yeast genera [112]. In nature, these killer microorganisms are found in different environments, whether in fruits, water, or soil [113]. Toxins can be active against filamentous fungi [114] and bacteria [115]. In shrimp culture, for example, wild yeasts can also confer advantages to the production system. The psychrotolerant yeast Mrakia frigida, found in marine sediments in Antarctica, produces a killer toxin against the shrimp-pathogenic yeast Metschnikowia bicuspidata, and can be inoculated in shrimp breeding tanks to improve this animal’s health [116]. Still in the context of animal production, the yeast Williopsis mrakii deserves attention in silage conservation. While lactic fermentation (by lactic acid bacteria) of silage is desirable, subsequent aerobic consumption of lactic acid (by other microorganisms) causes its deterioration. In this scenario, Lowes et al. [117] demonstrated that the HMK mycocin produced by W. mrakii was able to prevent the development of spoilage microorganisms.
Enzymes secreted by yeasts are also part of the list of mechanisms used to control phytopathogenic fungi. Their antifungal action is often due to their hydrolytic capacity; this is the case, for example, of the chitinases produced by the genera Pichia, Debaryomyces, Metschnikowia, Meyerozyma, and Saccharomycopsis, which act on fungal cell walls composed of chitin. Among the hydrolases, proteases from Aureobasidium, Pichia, and Saccharomycopsis, and glucanases from Wickerhamomyces and Pichia also have a fungicidal or fungistatic effect [118,119,120,121,122].
Strains of W. anomalus and M. guilliermondii have significant effects in reducing the postharvest disease caused by the fungus Colletotrichum gloeosporioides in papaya [123]. The yeast W. anomalus can also control the cherry tomato gray mold caused by the fungus Lycopersicon esculentum [124]. Likewise, R. glutinis strains ensure the significant control of blue rot caused by Penicillium expansum in postharvested apples [125].
Therefore, alternatives for improving the ecological practices of food production arise from the ecological relationships of yeasts. Bioactive compounds produced by yeasts can act in pre and postharvest control, replacing synthetic agricultural defensives, which have a high environmental impact on and pose high environmental risk to human and animal health [113,124].

3. Other Microorganisms’ Bioactive Compounds Acting against Yeast

In natural environments, the production of organic acids such as acetic, lactic, and propionic acids affects the interspecific relationships among microbial cells. The elucidation of their mechanisms of inhibition, though, remains not fully understood. Acetic acid, for example, exhibits a synergistic effect with lactic acid with the capability of preventing fungal/yeast growth, being probably more potent due to its higher pKa value (4.76), which facilitates its uptake by cells and leads to a higher level of acid dissociation in the cytoplasm, damaging the cell [126]. The same holds true for other organic acids—e.g., propionic acid displays a pKa value of 4.87. Mixtures of acids usually appear in the natural ecosystem and have been applied as fungal/yeast inhibitors. A mix of formic, acetic, propionic, butyric, caproic, and n-valeric acid, for example, is naturally produced by lactic acid bacteria (LAB) [127]. On the other hand, in case these acids are thought to be used as biocontrol agents of yeasts, it should be noted that their exacerbated use may lead to a contamination process in soil, plants, water bodies, and air, thus also affecting animal and human health. Thus, there is a demand for new biocompounds in aiming to control yeasts without environmental contamination [128].
In this sense, LAB may also offer alternatives. Reuterin, for example, produced by Lactobacillus reuteri, is a low-molecular-weight compound that exhibits antimicrobial activity against yeasts such as C. albicans [129]. The cyclic dipeptides produced by LAB are also good examples of bioactive compounds that act against yeasts. Lactobacillus plantarum has been cultivated, seeking metabolites to biocontrol mold and yeasts, and two compounds were isolated with this aim: cyclo(L-Phe-L-Pro) and cyclo(L-Phe-trans-4-OH-L-Pro). The former’s minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was 20 mg/mL in assays with Penicillium roqueforti and Aspergillus fumigatus. Additionally, a synergistic effect was observed when this compound was associated with phenyllactic acid, which reduced the MIC to 10 mg/mL [130]. Several lactobacilli can produce these compounds, but the mechanism of action and biochemical pathways of cyclic dipeptide acting as inhibitors of fungi are still unknown [131].
Fatty acids (FAs) are also good examples of molecules with antifungal activity. The literature demonstrates that the chain length of the fatty acid appears to be relevant in this role. The FA identified as lauric (C12) and capric (C10) seems to be the most toxic against C. albicans [132]. Four hydroxylated fatty acids produced by Lactobacillus plantaram (3-hydroxydecanoic, 3-hydroxy-5-cis-dodecenoic, 3-(R)-hydroxydodecanoic, and 3-(R)-hydroxytetradecanoic acid) also proved to be relevant in acting against yeasts, with MICs ranging from 10 to 100 μg/mL [133]. However, the mechanisms of how fatty acids inhibit the growth of yeasts are still unclear. It is believed that fatty acids generate the partition of lipid bilayers present on the membranes of fungi, resulting in instability and a loss of permeability control. In these scenarios, fluidity results in the liberation of intracellular proteins, enzymes, and electrolytes, disintegrating the fungal cell [134].
Endophytic bacteria and filamentous fungi are also important sources of bioactive compounds. These microorganisms live within plant tissues, taking their nutrients from this habitat and producing metabolites with some capability of providing protection to the host [135]. In this regard, an endophytic fungus isolated from the leaves of Psidium guajava L., identified as Alternaria tenuissima, demonstrated activity against the human pathogenic yeast C. albicans [136]. The study focused on exploiting the metabolites extracted with ethyl acetate (EA) from the endophytic mold. Different concentrations of the EA extract were analyzed against C. albicans, and a maximum inhibition zone of 14 ± 1.0 mm at a concentration of 10 mg/mL was observed. Moreover, a decrease in the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) of a C. albicans culture treated with this EA extract was observed. The number of CFUs counted suggested that the MIC value of the so-referred extract against this pathogen was 1400 µg/mL. The EA extract from the culture of the endophytic fungus Xylaria sp. PSU-D14, isolated from the leaves of Garcinia dulcis, also exhibited antifungal activity against C. albicans, with a MIC value of 128 µg/mL [137]. From the broth extract of this endophytic fungus, a glucoside derivative, xylarosides A, along with another known compound, sordaricin were isolated. This metabolite demonstrated antifungal activity, against C. albicans, with a MIC value of 32 µg/mL [138].
The alkaloid aspernigrin A, which has been isolated from Cladosporium herbarum (an endophyte of the Cynodondactylon), is also effective in acting against C. albicans. Zhang et al. [139] showed that this compound is able to inhibit this yeast’s growth with a MIC value of 75.0 μg/mL. Another compound, cryptocandin A, isolated from the endophytic fungus Cryptosporiopsis quercina, was characterized as a lipopeptide with antifungal properties. Cryptocandin A demonstrated activity against some important fungal pathogens of humans and showed MIC values of 0.03–0.07 μg/mL against isolates of C. albicans, Trichophyton mentagrophytes, and Trichophyton rubrum. The most significant result was against C. albicans, with a MIC value of 0.03 μg/mL. This value was very similar to the values obtained with amphotericin B, a well-known antifungal agent used in most cases—clinically expressing the potential of this new substance. Cryptocandin A contains some hydroxylated amino acids, for example, the 3-hydroxy-4-hydroxymethyl proline, which can contribute to its activity [140]. The main bioactive compounds produced by bacteria and molds against yeasts are summarized in Table 2.

Candida auris and Cryptococcus neoformans: Two Emerging Pathogenic Yeasts to Be Tackled with Bioactive Compounds

Among the yeast pathogens that infect humans and cause them diseases, Candida auris and Cryptococcus neoformans are definitely worth noting. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) considered both species critically harmful to human health, showing resistance against antifungals and being responsible for increased death rates [145].
Cryptococcus neoformans infect the lungs, causing pulmonary infections such as pneumonia that can happen before dissemination to the central nervous system [146]. Cryptococcosis and meningitis, caused by C. neoformans, are responsible for a considerable number of deaths in the world [147]. This yeast usually infects immunocompromised people, and it has recently gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with SARS-CoV-2 co-infection, especially in those over sixty years old [148].
Two compounds, eicosanoic acid and myriocin, isolated from the endophytic fungus Mycosphaerella sp. (found to be associated with the plant Eugenia bimarginata) were tested against Cr. neoformans, and their MIC values were obtained by microdilution assays. For eicosanoic acid, the MIC values ranged from 1.95 to 7.82 μM, and myriocin’s MIC values ranged from 0.48 to 1.95 μM [144]. Other compounds that demonstrated activity against this yeast were isolated from endophytic fungi associated with Acanthus ilicifolius var. xiamenensis [149] and Tripterigeum wilfordii [140], demonstrating the potential of endophytic molds as a source of novel compounds with bioactivity against yeasts.
Candida auris was described as a pathogenic yeast during the last decade. Over 25% of its strains naturally present multidrug resistance against antifungal compounds, which may be related to their surface stability. Also, the widespread presence of C. auris worldwide may facilitate its contact with different compounds and thus increase its resistance [150]. The first report was made in 2009, receiving attention from medical journals and also mass media [151,152,153].
Despite the search for biocompounds that could inhibit the propagation of C. auris, it remains a challenge to obtain them from sources such as filamentous fungi. However, studies report possible synthetic or semisynthetic options, from natural sources, that can inhibit C. auris growth [154,155].

4. Using Yeasts as “Microbial Cell Factories” of Bioactive Compounds

Yeasts are widely known for producing natural compounds and have been applied in several industrial sectors, such as the production of proteins, pigments, vitamins, fuels, beverages, and foods [156]. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the main microorganism used in alcoholic fermentation environments, in addition to producing ethanol, has been associated with the release of secondary metabolites responsible for flavors and aromas; for example, in the production of wine, sake, and cachaça, different S. cerevisiae strains have already been correlated with the formation of acetate esters, ethyl esters, acids and higher alcohols [157]. Nevertheless, although S. cerevisiae plays a central role in winemaking, yeasts such as Torulaspora delbrueckii have been gaining prominence due to their greater release of aromatic compounds and the greater intensity of the color of the final product [158,159]. In table olive production, various yeasts, through the generation of metabolites such as glycerol, ethanol, higher alcohols, esters, and other volatile compounds, shape the texture and flavor characteristics of the final product [160]. In addition to food and beverage production, platform molecules have also been explored in yeast-based bioprocesses; for example, isolates of S. cerevisiae and Yarrowia lipolytica have already been tested for the production of succinic acid—an important industrial chemical that is currently produced by petrochemical processing [161,162].
As stated before, bioactive compounds are produced by organisms such as plants, fungi, and bacteria [14,15]. These metabolites can be isolated directly from their natural producers, from fungal and bacterial cultures, or from their accumulation in plant biomass. However, extracting these compounds through direct isolation is difficult, especially in plants with low concentrations, which makes the natural extraction of these products environmentally destructive and economically unsustainable [163]. For example, the natural concentration of taxol (a diterpene alkaloid used against several types of cancer) is, on average, 0.01–0.06% of the dry weight of the plant Taxus spp. [164]; however, the estimated amount of purified taxol needed to treat 500 cancer patients is 1 kg, which is equivalent to about 10 tons of bark or the felling of 700 trees [165]. In addition to this low concentration, seasonal variability and government policies can also influence the productivity of plant crops and, consequently, the extraction of the compounds of interest [166]. Some of these natural products can also be obtained through chemical synthesis, but their structural complexity generally makes this synthetic route difficult, and there are often toxic agents present as byproducts [167,168]—among them, especially, are solvents such as benzene, dichloromethane, and chloroform [169]. In this context, producing bioactive compounds using genetically modified microorganisms represents an advantageous technological alternative in environmental, economic, and health terms.
With the recent advances in genetic engineering (or genome editing, to use today’s more popular term), bioprocesses based on recombinant microorganisms have become increasingly sought after as an alternative to traditional techniques of direct isolation of compounds or their chemical synthesis [170,171]. Fast- and controlled-growth microorganisms, such as the bacterium E. coli and the yeast S. cerevisiae, are already widely used as platform cells to produce high levels of chemicals of human interest, such as biofuels and proteins [172,173]. The yeast S. cerevisiae, in particular, has been shown to be suitable to host several heterologous biosynthetic pathways, given the following traits: (i) being a model organism for molecular biology research, (ii) being the first eukaryotic organism to have its genome completely sequenced, (iii) having the properties of robust growth and high productivity, (iv) being the best-studied organism among lower eukaryotes, and (v) having a wide variety of commercially available and ready-made mutant strains for laboratory use [174,175]. In addition, yeasts have a eukaryotic subcellular organization capable of post-translationally processing many proteins from more complex eukaryotic organisms [176,177]. These factors have led to the use of S. cerevisiae strains as veritable versatile biofactories.
Arguably, S. cerevisiae has a long history of producing compounds of commercial interest. This yeast is widely used to produce fermented foods, beverages, and biofuels, as well as pharmaceutical products such as recombinant human insulin—which since the early 1980s has been massively produced using this microorganism [178]—and the industrial-scale production of the antimalarial precursor artemisinic acid [179]. With the advent of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing system [180], rapid and precise genetic manipulation has favored the insertion of a myriad of new biosynthetic pathways in S. cerevisiae, many of which provide products originally found and produced by plants [181]. With CRISPR-Cas9, strains of S. cerevisiae have already been developed to produce the opioids thebaine and hydrocodone from sugars. To achieve this purpose, 21 enzymes were expressed for producing the former and 23 were expressed for producing the latter, with genes from plants, mammals, and bacteria [182]. This yeast has also been modified to produce resveratrol directly from glucose or ethanol [183]. The CRISPR-Cas9 tool was also used to express the last five steps of the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway in S. cerevisiae [184]. More recently, S. cerevisiae has been designed as a platform for the production of daidzein, a key chemical for isoflavonoid biosynthesis [185].
During the last decade, the genomes of several nonconventional yeast species have also been sequenced and made available in databases [186]. In many cases, the interest in new yeasts exists due to the difficulties in using S. cerevisiae as a biofactory, especially when exploring alternative substrates. For example, this yeast mainly uses hexoses as carbon sources, which is an obstacle in the fermentation of sustainable substrates, such as lignocellulosic hydrolysates, which contain, in addition to hexoses, a high concentration of pentoses [187]. Because of this, nonconventional yeasts have been developed as alternative platforms for the production of several recombinant proteins. In fact, the species Y. lipolytica, Kluyveromyces lactis, K. marxianus, H. polymorpha, C. tropicalis and K. phaffii have successfully fulfilled this role (Table 3). This success is mainly due to their (i) capacity to grow under inhibitory conditions, (ii) tolerance to high temperatures, (iii) ability to use different carbon sources, and (iv) high potential for extracellular protein secretion [188]. Among these yeasts, the oleaginous Y. lipolytica has been genetically modified to produce some bioactive compounds, such as linalool [189], β-carotene [190], and lycopene [191]. Recently, the oleaginous C. tropicalis was modified to produce α-Humulene, a terpenoid with multiple pharmacological activities [192].
Concomitantly with genome editing, evolutionary engineering has also proven to be a resource for directing and selecting the best microbial cell factories. During stages of adaptive evolution, the microorganism of choice is grown for an extended period of time (which can be weeks or even years) under specific conditions that push it towards a desired trait. Afterward, whether or not a more fit and enriched strain with new advantageous mutations has been developed is checked [201,202]. Adaptive laboratory evolution has already been performed, for example, to increase carotenoid production in a recombinant S. cerevisiae strain through its prolonged exposure to hydrogen peroxide stress, since carotenoids have antioxidant properties [203]. In another study, buoyancy was used to select mutants of a recombinant Y. lipolytica strain with a higher ability to accumulate lipids [204]—once lipids reduced cell density.
In short, the ability to heterologously produce bioactive compounds in yeast demonstrates advantages over plant extraction and chemical synthesis. In addition to reducing environmental damage (caused by the need for large areas of cultivation for plant extraction), the biosynthesis of complex molecules can be achieved through new molecular biology techniques and increased knowledge about the genetic characteristics of yeasts. Furthermore, compounds that normally exist at low natural levels can be re-engineered in microbial biofactories for increased productivity [205]. Finally, the vast and unexplored biodiversity of nonconventional yeasts can further optimize the production of bioactive compounds, especially considering the efficient use of renewable and low-cost raw materials as substrates for these biotransformations.

5. Final Considerations

Although higher eukaryotes may produce bioactive compounds, the great demand for these molecules makes it unfeasible and unsustainable to rely on plants and animals for this aim on industrial scale. On the other hand, microbial cell factories perfectly fulfill this role; in this regard, yeasts stand out as the most successful microorganism employed in bioprocesses [11].
Despite Saccharomyces yeasts being seen as the first option for biotechnological purposes until the late 20th century, many studies have recently highlighted the potential applications of unconventional yeasts in the pharmaceutical and food production sectors, as we have discussed above. In this sense, the recent discoveries of new valuable microorganisms should call attention to the social, economic, and environmental importance of biodiversity and bioprospection.
Thus, in the light of circular economy approaches and the one health concept, new public policies and international laws are imperative to induce (i) the development of alternatives to the current environment-impacting production chains, (ii) optimization strategies to increase the production of bioactive compounds from residual feedstocks using yeasts as microbial cell factories, and (iii) the substitution of synthetic pesticides and plant growth hormones in food production systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and supervision, S.L.A.J.; writing, V.T., A.G., R.D.C., I.Z.G., A.A.d.S., S.K.B. and L.W.; review and editing, B.U.S., G.F., I.T.S. and S.L.A.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is part of the project “INCT Yeasts: Biodiversity, preservation and biotechnological innovation”, supported by grants and fellowships from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, grant #406564/2022-1). It is also funded by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), and the Research Promotion Program and the Support Program for Scientific and Technological Initiation from the Federal University of Fronteira Sul (UFFS, grant #PES-2022-0221 and #PES-2022-0224).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). One Health. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health (accessed on 22 January 2023).
  2. Elnaiem, A.; Mohamed-Ahmed, O.; Zumla, A.; Mecaskey, J.; Charron, N.; Abakar, M.F.; Raji, T.; Bahalim, A.; Manikam, L.; Risk, O.; et al. Global and Regional Governance of One Health and Implications for Global Health Security. Lancet 2023, 401, 688–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vargas, A.C.G.; Dresch, A.P.; Schmidt, A.R.; Tadioto, V.; Giehl, A.; Fogolari, O.; Mibielli, G.M.; Alves, S.L.; Bender, J.P. Batch Fermentation of Lignocellulosic Elephant Grass Biomass for 2G Ethanol and Xylitol Production. Bioenergy Res. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Scapini, T.; Bonatto, C.; Dalastra, C.; Bazoti, S.F.; Camargo, A.F.; Alves, S.L., Jr.; Venturin, B.; Steinmetz, R.L.R.; Kunz, A.; Fongaro, G.; et al. Bioethanol and Biomethane Production from Watermelon Waste: A Circular Economy Strategy. Biomass Bioenergy 2023, 170, 106719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fenner, E.D.; Scapini, T.; da Costa Diniz, M.; Giehl, A.; Treichel, H.; Álvarez-Pérez, S.; Alves, S.L. Nature’s Most Fruitful Threesome: The Relationship between Yeasts, Insects, and Angiosperms. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dalastra, C.; Scapini, T.; Kubeneck, S.; Camargo, A.F.; Klanovicz, N.; Alves, S.L., Jr.; Shah, M.P.; Treichel, H. Wastewater as a Feasible Feedstock for Biorefineries. In Biorefinery for Water and Wastewater Treatment; Shah, M.P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Colet, R.; Hassemer, G.; Alves, S.L., Jr.; Paroul, N.; Zeni, J.; Backes, G.T.; Valduga, E.; Cansian, R.L. Pichia: From Supporting Actors to the Leading Roles. In Yeasts: From Nature to Bioprocesses; Alves, S.L., Jr., Treichel, H., Basso, T.O., Stambuk, B.U., Eds.; Bentham Science: Singapore, 2022; pp. 148–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Achilles, K.A.; Camargo, A.F.; Reichert Júnior, F.W.; Lerin, L.; Scapini, T.; Stefanski, F.S.; Dalastra, C.; Treichel, H.; Mossi, A.J. Improvement of Organic Agriculture with Growth-Promoting and Biocontrol Yeasts. In Yeasts: From Nature to Bioprocesses; Alves, S.L., Jr., Treichel, H., Basso, T.O., Stambul, B.U., Eds.; Bentham Science: Singapore, 2022; pp. 378–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Louhasakul, Y.; Cheirsilp, B. Biotechnological Applications of Oleaginous Yeasts. In Yeasts: From Nature to Bioprocesses; Alves, S.L., Jr., Treichel, H., Basso, T., Stambuk, B.U., Eds.; Bentham Science: Singapore, 2022; pp. 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Giehl, A.; Scapini, T.; Treichel, H.; Alves, S.L., Jr. Production of volatile organic compounds by yeasts in biorefineries: Ecological, environmental, and biotechnological outlooks. In Ciências Ambientais e da Saúde na Atualidade: Insights Para Alcançar os Objetivos para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável; Michelon, W., Viancelli, A., Eds.; Instituto de Inteligência em Pesquisa e Consultoria Cientifica Ltda: Concórdia/SC, Brazil, 2022; pp. 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alves, S.L., Jr.; Treichel, H.; Basso, T.O.; Stambuk, B.U. Are Yeasts “Humanity’s Best Friends”? In Yeasts: From Nature to Bioprocesses; Alves, S.L., Jr., Treichel, H., Basso, T., Stambuk, B.U., Eds.; Bentham Science: Singapore, 2022; pp. 431–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Alves, S.L., Jr.; Scapini, T.; Warken, A.; Klanovicz, N.; Procópio, D.P.; Tadioto, V.; Stambuk, B.U.; Basso, T.O.; Treichel, H. Engineered Saccharomyces or Prospected Non-Saccharomyces: Is There Only One Good Choice for Biorefineries? In Yeasts: From Nature to Bioprocesses; Alves, S.L., Jr., Treichel, H., Basso, T., Stambuk, B.U., Eds.; Bentham Science: Singapore, 2022; pp. 243–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pais, C.; Franco-Duarte, R.; Sampaio, P.; Wildner, J.; Carolas, A.; Figueira, D.; Ferreira, B.S. Production of Dicarboxylic Acid Platform Chemicals Using Yeasts. In Biotransformation of Agricultural Waste and By-Products; Poltronieri, P., D’Urso, O.F., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 237–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Veeresham, C. Natural Products Derived from Plants as a Source of Drugs. J. Adv. Pharm Technol. Res. 2012, 3, 200–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cragg, G.M.; Newman, D.J. Natural Products: A Continuing Source of Novel Drug Leads. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2013, 1830, 3670–3695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Hubbard, B.K.; Walsh, C.T. Vancomycin Assembly: Nature’s Way. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 730–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hong, J.-Y.; Son, S.-H.; Hong, S.-P.; Yi, S.-H.; Kang, S.H.; Lee, N.-K.; Paik, H.-D. Production of β-Glucan, Glutathione, and Glutathione Derivatives by Probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolated from Cucumber jangajji. LWT 2019, 100, 114–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Santos, L.O.; Silva, P.G.P.; Lemos Junior, W.J.F.; de Oliveira, V.S.; Anschau, A. Glutathione Production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Current State and Perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 1879–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Rollini, M.; Pagani, H.; Riboldi, S.; Manzoni, M. Influence of Carbon Source on Glutathione Accumulation in Methylotrophic Yeasts. Ann. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 199–203. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ubiyvovk, V.M.; Ananin, V.M.; Malyshev, A.Y.; Kang, H.A.; Sibirny, A.A. Optimization of Glutathione Production in Batch and Fed-Batch Cultures by the Wild-Type and Recombinant Strains of the Methylotrophic Yeast Hansenula polymorpha DL-1. BMC Biotechnol. 2011, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Kong, M.; Wang, F.; Tian, L.; Tang, H.; Zhang, L. Functional Identification of Glutamate Cysteine Ligase and Glutathione Synthetase in the Marine Yeast Rhodosporidium diobovatum. Sci. Nat. 2018, 105, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Chi, Z.; Liu, G.L.; Lu, Y.; Jiang, H.; Chi, Z.M. Bio-Products Produced by Marine Yeasts and Their Potential Applications. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 202, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Calvente, V.; De Orellano, M.E.; Sansone, G.; Benuzzi, D.; Sanz de Tosetti, M.I. A Simple Agar Plate Assay for Screening Siderophore Producer Yeasts. J. Microbiol. Methods 2001, 47, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sineli, P.E.; Maza, D.D.; Aybar, M.J.; Figueroa, L.I.C.; Viñarta, S.C. Bioconversion of Sugarcane Molasses and Waste Glycerol on Single Cell Oils for Biodiesel by the Red Yeast Rhodotorula glutinis R4 from Antarctica. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2022, 16, 100331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Arevalo-Villena, M.; Bartowsky, E.J.; Capone, D.; Sefton, M.A. Production of Indole by Wine-Associated Microorganisms under Oenological Conditions. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rodriguez-Naranjo, M.I.; Torija, M.J.; Mas, A.; Cantos-Villar, E.; Garcia-Parrilla, M.D.C. Production of Melatonin by Saccharomyces Strains under Growth and Fermentation Conditions. J. Pineal Res. 2012, 53, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ganeva, V.; Angelova, B.; Galutzov, B.; Goltsev, V.; Zhiponova, M. Extraction of Proteins and Other Intracellular Bioactive Compounds From Baker’s Yeasts by Pulsed Electric Field Treatment. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gómez-Mejía, E.; Rosales-Conrado, N.; León-González, M.E.; Madrid, Y. Determination of Phenolic Compounds in Residual Brewing Yeast Using Matrix Solid-Phase Dispersion Extraction Assisted by Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles. J. Chromatogr. A 2019, 1601, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Melatonin Market |Size, Trends, Forecast| 2022–2027. Available online: https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/melatonin-market (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  30. Wang, L.; Chi, Z.; Wang, X.; Ju, L.; Chi, Z.; Guo, N. Isolation and Characterization of Candida Membranifaciens subsp. flavinogenie W14-3, a Novel Riboflavin-Producing Marine Yeast. Microbiol. Res. 2008, 163, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Riboflavin Market Analysis—Industry Report—Trends, Size & Share. Available online: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/riboflavin-market (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  32. Schmitt, M.J.; Breinig, F. Yeast Viral Killer Toxins: Lethality and Self-Protection. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2006, 4, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Becker, B.; Schmitt, M.J. Yeast Killer Toxin K28: Biology and Unique Strategy of Host Cell Intoxication and Killing. Toxins 2017, 9, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Orentaite, I.; Poranen, M.M.; Oksanen, H.M.; Daugelavicius, R.; Bamford, D.H. K2 Killer Toxin-Induced Physiological Changes in the Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res. 2016, 16, fow003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Ciociola, T.; Pertinhez, T.A.; De Simone, T.; Magliani, W.; Ferrari, E.; Belletti, S.; D’Adda, T.; Conti, S.; Giovati, L. In Vitro and In Vivo Anti-Candida Activity and Structural Analysis of Killer Peptide (KP)-Derivatives. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Yun, C.W.; Tiedeman, J.S.; Moore, R.E.; Philpott, C.C. Siderophore-Iron Uptake in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Identification of ferrichrome and fusarinine transporters. J. Biol. Chem. 2000, 275, 16354–16359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Chiu, P.C.; Nakamura, Y.; Nishimura, S.; Tabuchi, T.; Yashiroda, Y.; Hirai, G.; Matsuyama, A.; Yoshida, M. Ferrichrome, a Fungal-Type Siderophore, Confers High Ammonium Tolerance to Fission Yeast. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Offei, B.; Vandecruys, P.; De Graeve, S.; Foulquié-Moreno, M.R.; Thevelein, J.M. Unique Genetic Basis of the Distinct Antibiotic Potency of High Acetic Acid Production in the Probiotic Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii. Genome Res. 2019, 29, 1478–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Acetic Acid Market Size, Share & Trends Report, 2022–2030. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/acetic-acid-market (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  40. Arrarte, E.; Garmendia, G.; Rossini, C.; Wisniewski, M.; Vero, S. Volatile Organic Compounds Produced by Antarctic Strains of Candida sake Play a Role in the Control of Postharvest Pathogens of Apples. Biol. Control 2017, 109, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Citronellol Market | Global Industry Report, 2030. Available online: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/citronellol-market.html (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  42. 2-Phenylethanol Market Share Statistics 2022–2028. Available online: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/2-phenylethanol-market (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  43. Indole Market Size, Share, Trends, Growth Analysis. Available online: https://precisionbusinessinsights.com/market-reports/indole-market/ (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  44. de Lourdes Chaves Macêdo, E.; Colombo Pimentel, T.; de Sousa Melo, D.; Cristina de Souza, A.; Santos de Morais, J.; dos Santos Lima, M.; Ribeiro Dias, D.; Freitas Schwan, R.; Magnani, M. Yeasts from Fermented Brazilian Fruits as Biotechnological Tools for Increasing Phenolics Bioaccessibility and Improving the Volatile Profile in Derived Pulps. Food Chem. 2023, 401, 134200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ho, C.H.; Piotrowski, J.; Dixon, S.J.; Baryshnikova, A.; Costanzo, M.; Boone, C. Combining Functional Genomics and Chemical Biology to Identify Targets of Bioactive Compounds. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2011, 15, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Moglia, A.; Goitre, L.; Gianoglio, S.; Baldini, E.; Trapani, E.; Genre, A.; Scattina, A.; Dondo, G.; Trabalzini, L.; Beekwilder, J.; et al. Evaluation of the Bioactive Properties of Avenanthramide Analogs Produced in Recombinant Yeast. Biofactors 2015, 41, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Dienes-Nagy, Á.; Vuichard, F.; Belcher, S.; Blackford, M.; Rösti, J.; Lorenzini, F. Simultaneous Quantification of Glutathione, Glutathione Disulfide and Glutathione-S-Sulfonate in Grape and Wine Using LC-MS/MS. Food Chem. 2022, 386, 132756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Meister, A.; Anderson, M.E. Glutathione. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1983, 52, 711–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Thompson, J.A.; Franklin, C.C. Enhanced Glutathione Biosynthetic Capacity Promotes Resistance to As3+-Induced Apoptosis. Toxicol. Lett. 2010, 193, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Penninckx, M. A Short Review on the Role of Glutathione in the Response of Yeasts to Nutritional, Environmental, and Oxidative Stresses. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2000, 26, 737–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bonnefoy, M.; Drai, J.; Kostka, T. Antioxidants to Slow Aging, Facts and Perspectives. Presse Med. 2002, 31, 1174–1184. [Google Scholar]
  52. Huber, P.C.; Almeida, W.P.; Fátima, Â. de Glutationa e Enzimas Relacionadas: Papel Biológico e Importância Em Processos Patológicos. Quim. Nova 2008, 31, 1170–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Perricone, C.; De Carolis, C.; Perricone, R. Glutathione: A Key Player in Autoimmunity. Autoimmun Rev. 2009, 8, 697–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. You, B.R.; Park, W.H. Gallic Acid-Induced Lung Cancer Cell Death Is Related to Glutathione Depletion as Well as Reactive Oxygen Species Increase. Toxicol. Vitr. 2010, 24, 1356–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Slominski, A.; Fischer, T.W.; Zmijewski, M.A.; Wortsman, J.; Semak, I.; Zbytek, B.; Slominski, R.M.; Tobin, D.J. On the Role of Melatonin in Skin Physiology and Pathology. Endocrine 2005, 27, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Arnao, M.B.; Hernández-Ruiz, J. The Physiological Function of Melatonin in Plants. Plant Signal Behav. 2006, 1, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Sharafati-Chaleshtori, R.; Shirzad, H.; Rafieian-Kopaei, M.; Soltani, A. Melatonin and Human Mitochondrial Diseases. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2017, 22, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jockers, R.; Delagrange, P.; Dubocovich, M.L.; Markus, R.P.; Renault, N.; Tosini, G.; Cecon, E.; Zlotos, D.P. Update on Melatonin Receptors: IUPHAR Review 20. Br. J. Pharm. 2016, 173, 2702–2725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Reiter, R.J.; Rosales-Corral, S.; Tan, D.X.; Jou, M.J.; Galano, A.; Xu, B. Melatonin as a Mitochondria-Targeted Antioxidant: One of Evolution’s Best Ideas. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2017, 74, 3863–3881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Emet, M.; Ozcan, H.; Ozel, L.; Yayla, M.; Halici, Z.; Hacimuftuoglu, A. A Review of Melatonin, Its Receptors and Drugs. Eurasian J. Med. 2016, 48, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hagenauer, M.H.; Perryman, J.I.; Lee, T.M.; Carskadon, M.A. Adolescent Changes in the Homeostatic and Circadian Regulation of Sleep. Dev. Neurosci. 2009, 31, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Cardinali, D.P. Melatonin: Clinical Perspectives in Neurodegeneration. Front. Endocrinol. 2019, 10, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Reiter, R.J.; Tan, D.; Leon, J.; Kilic, Ü.; Kilic, E. When Melatonin Gets on Your Nerves: Its Beneficial Actions in Experimental Models of Stroke. Exp. Biol. Med. 2005, 230, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Amorim, M.; Marques, C.; Pereira, J.O.; Guardão, L.; Martins, M.J.; Osório, H.; Moura, D.; Calhau, C.; Pinheiro, H.; Pintado, M. Antihypertensive Effect of Spent Brewer Yeast Peptide. Process Biochem. 2019, 76, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mirzaei, M.; Shavandi, A.; Mirdamadi, S.; Soleymanzadeh, N.; Motahari, P.; Mirdamadi, N.; Moser, M.; Subra, G.; Alimoradi, H.; Goriely, S. Bioactive Peptides from Yeast: A Comparative Review on Production Methods, Bioactivity, Structure-Function Relationship, and Stability. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 118, 297–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Conti, G.; Magliani, W.; Conti, S.; Nencioni, L.; Sgarbanti, R.; Palamara, A.T.; Polonelli, L. Therapeutic Activity of an Anti-Idiotypic Antibody-Derived Killer Peptide against Influenza a Virus Experimental Infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 4331–4337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Magliani, W.; Conti, S.; Ciociola, T.; Giovati, L.; Zanello, P.P.; Pertinhez, T.; Spisni, A.; Polonelli, L. Killer Peptide: A Novel Paradigm of Antimicrobial, Antiviral and Immunomodulatory Auto-Delivering Drugs. Future Med. Chem. 2011, 3, 1209–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Paulone, S.; Ardizzoni, A.; Tavanti, A.; Piccinelli, S.; Rizzato, C.; Lupetti, A.; Colombari, B.; Pericolini, E.; Polonelli, L.; Magliani, W.; et al. The Synthetic Killer Peptide KP Impairs Candida albicans Biofilm in vitro. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0181278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Giovati, L.; Santinoli, C.; Mangia, C.; Vismarra, A.; Belletti, S.; D’Adda, T.; Fumarola, C.; Ciociola, T.; Bacci, C.; Magliani, W.; et al. Novel Activity of a Synthetic Decapeptide Against Toxoplasma gondii Tachyzoites. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bajaj, B.K.; Raina, S.; Singh, S. Killer Toxin from a Novel Killer Yeast Pichia kudriavzevii RY55 with Idiosyncratic Antibacterial Activity. J. Basic Microbiol. 2013, 53, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pretscher, J.; Fischkal, T.; Branscheidt, S.; Jäger, L.; Kahl, S.; Schlander, M.; Thines, E.; Claus, H. Yeasts from Different Habitats and Their Potential as Biocontrol Agents. Fermentation 2018, 4, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Huang, C.; Chen, X.; Xiong, L.; Chen, X.; Ma, L.; Chen, Y. Single Cell Oil Production from Low-Cost Substrates: The Possibility and Potential of Its Industrialization. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Miranda, C.; Bettencourt, S.; Pozdniakova, T.; Pereira, J.; Sampaio, P.; Franco-Duarte, R.; Pais, C. Modified High-Throughput Nile Red Fluorescence Assay for the Rapid Screening of Oleaginous Yeasts Using Acetic Acid as Carbon Source. BMC Microbiol. 2020, 20, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Bettencourt, S.; Miranda, C.; Pozdniakova, T.A.; Sampaio, P.; Franco-Duarte, R.; Pais, C. Single Cell Oil Production by Oleaginous Yeasts Grown in Synthetic and Waste-Derived Volatile Fatty Acids. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Fabricio, M.F.; Valente, P.; Záchia Ayub, M.A. Oleaginous Yeast Meyerozyma guilliermondii Shows Fermentative Metabolism of Sugars in the Biosynthesis of Ethanol and Converts Raw Glycerol and Cheese Whey Permeate into Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids. Biotechnol. Prog. 2019, 35, e2895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Adel, A.; El-Baz, A.; Shetaia, Y.; Sorour, N.M. Biosynthesis of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids by Two Newly Cold-Adapted Egyptian Marine Yeast. 3 Biotech 2021, 11, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kelesidis, T.; Pothoulakis, C. Efficacy and Safety of the Probiotic Saccharomyces boulardii for the Prevention and Therapy of Gastrointestinal Disorders. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2012, 5, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Sen, S.; Mansell, T.J. Yeasts as Probiotics: Mechanisms, Outcomes, and Future Potential. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2020, 137, 103333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Wu, X.; Vallance, B.A.; Boyer, L.; Bergstrom, K.S.B.; Walker, J.; Madsen, K.; O’Kusky, J.R.; Buchan, A.M.; Jacobson, K. Saccharomyces Boulardii Ameliorates Citrobacter Rodentium-Induced Colitis through Actions on Bacterial Virulence Factors. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2008, 294, G295–G306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ducluzeau, R.; Bensaada, M. Comparative Effect of a Single or Continuous Administration of Saccharomyces Boulardii on the Establishment of Various Strains of Candida in the Digestive Tract of Gnotobiotic Mice. Ann. Microbiol. 1982, 133, 491–501. [Google Scholar]
  81. Fayura, L.R.; Fedorovych, D.V.; Prokopiv, T.M.; Boretsky, Y.R.; Sibirny, A.A. The Pleiotropic Nature of Rib80, Hit1, and Red6 Mutations Affecting Riboflavin Biosynthesis in the Yeast Pichia guilliermondii. Microbiology 2007, 76, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Schaible, U.E.; Kaufmann, S.H.E. A Nutritive View on the Host–Pathogen Interplay. Trends Microbiol. 2005, 13, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Spadaro, D.; Droby, S. Development of Biocontrol Products for Postharvest Diseases of Fruit: The Importance of Elucidating the Mechanisms of Action of Yeast Antagonists. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 47, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Freimoser, F.M.; Rueda-Mejia, M.P.; Tilocca, B.; Migheli, Q. Biocontrol Yeasts: Mechanisms and Applications. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 35, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Sampaolesi, S.; Briand, L.E.; De Antoni, G.; León Peláez, A. The Synthesis of Soluble and Volatile Bioactive Compounds by Selected Brewer’s Yeasts: Antagonistic Effect against Enteropathogenic Bacteria and Food Spoiler–Toxigenic Aspergillus sp. Food Chem. X 2022, 13, 100193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hua, S.S.T.; Beck, J.J.; Sarreal, S.B.L.; Gee, W. The Major Volatile Compound 2-Phenylethanol from the Biocontrol Yeast, Pichia anomala, Inhibits Growth and Expression of Aflatoxin Biosynthetic Genes of Aspergillus flavus. Mycotoxin Res. 2014, 30, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Masoud, W.; Poll, L.; Jakobsen, M. Influence of Volatile Compounds Produced by Yeasts Predominant during Processing of Coffea Arabica in East Africa on Growth and Ochratoxin A (OTA) Production by Aspergillus ochraceus. Yeast 2005, 22, 1133–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Huang, R.; Che, H.J.; Zhang, J.; Yang, L.; Jiang, D.H.; Li, G.Q. Evaluation of Sporidiobolus pararoseus Strain YCXT3 as Biocontrol Agent of Botrytis cinerea on Post-Harvest Strawberry Fruits. Biol. Control 2012, 62, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Huang, R.; Li, G.Q.; Zhang, J.; Yang, L.; Che, H.J.; Jiang, D.H.; Huang, H.C. Control of Postharvest Botrytis Fruit Rot of Strawberry by Volatile Organic Compounds of Candida intermedia. Dis. Control Pest Manag. 2011, 101, 859–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Farbo, M.G.; Urgeghe, P.P.; Fiori, S.; Marcello, A.; Oggiano, S.; Balmas, V.; Hassan, Z.U.; Jaoua, S.; Migheli, Q. Effect of Yeast Volatile Organic Compounds on Ochratoxin A-Producing Aspergillus carbonarius and A. ochraceus. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 284, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fiori, S.; Urgeghe, P.P.; Hammami, W.; Razzu, S.; Jaoua, S.; Migheli, Q. Biocontrol Activity of Four Non- and Low-Fermenting Yeast Strains against Aspergillus carbonarius and Their Ability to Remove Ochratoxin A from Grape Juice. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 189, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Tilocca, B.; Balmas, V.; Hassan, Z.U.; Jaoua, S.; Migheli, Q. A Proteomic Investigation of Aspergillus carbonarius Exposed to Yeast Volatilome or to Its Major Component 2-Phenylethanol Reveals Major Shifts in Fungal Metabolism. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 306, 108265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Holb, I.J.; Kunz, S. Integrated Control of Brown Rot Blossom Blight by Combining Approved Chemical Control Options with Aureobasidium pullulans in Organic Cherry Production. Crop Prot. 2013, 54, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Weiss, A.; Weißhaupt, S.; Krawiec, P.; Kunz, S. Use of Aureobasidium pullulans for Resistance Management in Chemical Control of Botrytis cinerea in Berries. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1017, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Prasongsuk, S.; Lotrakul, P.; Ali, I.; Bankeeree, W.; Punnapayak, H. The Current Status of Aureobasidium pullulans in Biotechnology. Folia Microbiol. 2017, 63, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Price, N.P.; Bischoff, K.M.; Leathers, T.D.; Cossé, A.A.; Manitchotpisit, P. Polyols, not sugars, determine the structural diversity of anti-streptococcal liamocins produced by Aureobasidium pullulans strain NRRL 50380. J. Antibiot. 2016, 70, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Parafati, L.; Vitale, A.; Restuccia, C.; Cirvilleri, G. Biocontrol Ability and Action Mechanism of Food-Isolated Yeast Strains against Botrytis cinerea Causing Post-Harvest Bunch Rot of Table Grape. Food Microbiol. 2015, 47, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Miethke, M.; Marahiel, M.A. Siderophore-Based Iron Acquisition and Pathogen Control. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2007, 71, 413–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Cassat, J.E.; Skaar, E.P. Iron in Infection and Immunity. Cell Host Microbe 2013, 13, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Barber, M.F.; Elde, N.C. Buried Treasure: Evolutionary Perspectives on Microbial Iron Piracy. Trends Genet. 2015, 31, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sheldon, J.R.; Heinrichs, D.E. Recent Developments in Understanding the Iron Acquisition Strategies of Gram Positive Pathogens. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 39, 592–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Boiteau, R.M.; Mende, D.R.; Hawco, N.J.; McIlvin, M.R.; Fitzsimmons, J.N.; Saito, M.A.; Sedwick, P.N.; DeLong, E.F.; Repeta, D.J. Siderophore-Based Microbial Adaptations to Iron Scarcity across the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 14237–14242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Kramer, J.; Özkaya, Ö.; Kümmerli, R. Bacterial Siderophores in Community and Host Interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 18, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, W.; Chi, Z.; Liu, G.; Buzdar, M.A.; Chi, Z.; Gu, Q. Chemical and Biological Characterization of Siderophore Produced by the Marine-Derived Aureobasidium pullulans HN6.2 and Its Antibacterial Activity. BioMetals 2009, 22, 965–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. de Lima Targino, H.M.; Silva, V.S.L.; Escobar, I.E.C.; de Almeida Ribeiro, P.R.; Gava, C.A.T.; Fernandes-Júnior, P.I. Maize-Associated Meyerozyma from the Brazilian Semiarid Region Are Effective Plant Growth-Promoting Yeasts. Rhizosphere 2022, 22, 100538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Puig, S.; Ramos-Alonso, L.; Romero, A.M.; Martínez-Pastor, M.T. The Elemental Role of Iron in DNA Synthesis and Repair. Metallomics 2017, 9, 1483–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Sansone, G.; Rezza, I.; Calvente, V.; Benuzzi, D.; Tosetti, M.I.S. de Control of Botrytis cinerea Strains Resistant to Iprodione in Apple with Rhodotorulic Acid and Yeasts. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2005, 35, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Vadkertiová, R.; Sláviková, E. Killer Activity of Yeasts Isolated from Natural Environments against Some Medically Important Candida Species. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2007, 56, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  109. Sipiczki, M. Metschnikowia Strains Isolated from Botrytized Grapes Antagonize Fungal and Bacterial Growth by Iron Depletion. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 6716–6724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. El-Tarabily, K.A.; Sivasithamparam, K. Potential of Yeasts as Biocontrol Agents of Soil-Borne Fungal Plant Pathogens and as Plant Growth Promoters. Mycoscience 2006, 47, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Cloete, K.J.; Valentine, A.J.; Stander, M.A.; Blomerus, L.M.; Botha, A. Evidence of Symbiosis between the Soil Yeast Cryptococcus laurentii and a Sclerophyllous Medicinal Shrub, Agathosma Betulina (Berg.) Pillans. Microb. Ecol. 2009, 57, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Klassen, R.; Schaffrath, R.; Buzzini, P.; Ganter, P.F. Antagonistic Interactions and Killer Yeasts. In Yeasts in Natural Ecosystems: Ecology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 229–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mannazzu, I.; Domizio, P.; Carboni, G.; Zara, S.; Zara, G.; Comitini, F.; Budroni, M.; Ciani, M. Yeast Killer Toxins: From Ecological Significance to Application. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2019, 39, 603–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Izgu, D.A.; Kepekci, R.A.; Izgu, F. Inhibition of Penicillium digitatum and Penicillium italicum in Vitro and in Planta with Panomycocin, a Novel Exo-β-1,3-Glucanase Isolated from Pichia anomala NCYC 434. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2011, 99, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Perez, M.F.; Contreras, L.; Garnica, N.M.; Fernández-Zenoff, M.V.; Farías, M.E.; Sepulveda, M.; Ramallo, J.; Dib, J.R. Native Killer Yeasts as Biocontrol Agents of Postharvest Fungal Diseases in Lemons. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Hua, M.X.; Chi, Z.; Liu, G.L.; Buzdar, M.A.; Chi, Z.M. Production of a Novel and Cold-Active Killer Toxin by Mrakia frigida 2E00797 Isolated from Sea Sediment in Antarctica. Extremophiles 2010, 14, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Lowes, K.F.; Shearman, C.A.; Payne, J.; MacKenzie, D.; Archer, D.B.; Merry, R.J.; Gasson, M.J. Prevention of Yeast Spoilage in Feed and Food by the Yeast Mycocin HMK. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. Zhang, D.; Spadaro, D.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Potential Biocontrol Activity of a Strain of Pichia guilliermondii against Grey Mold of Apples and Its Possible Modes of Action. Biol. Control 2011, 57, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zhang, D.; Spadaro, D.; Valente, S.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Cloning, Characterization, Expression and Antifungal Activity of an Alkaline Serine Protease of Aureobasidium pullulans PL5 Involved in the Biological Control of Postharvest Pathogens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 153, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Parafati, L.; Cirvilleri, G.; Restuccia, C.; Wisniewski, M. Potential Role of Exoglucanase Genes (WaEXG1 and WaEXG2) in the Biocontrol Activity of Wickerhamomyces anomalus. Microb. Ecol. 2017, 73, 876–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Junker, K.; Chailyan, A.; Hesselbart, A.; Forster, J.; Wendland, J. Multi-Omics Characterization of the Necrotrophic Mycoparasite Saccharomycopsis schoenii. PLoS Pathog. 2019, 15, e1007692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Zajc, J.; Gostinčar, C.; Černoša, A.; Gunde-Cimerman, N. Stress-Tolerant Yeasts: Opportunistic Pathogenicity Versus Biocontrol Potential. Genes 2019, 10, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Lima, J.R.; Gondim, D.M.F.; Oliveira, J.T.A.; Oliveira, F.S.A.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Viana, F.M.P. Use of Killer Yeast in the Management of Postharvest Papaya Anthracnose. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 83, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Raynaldo, F.A.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Ngea, G.L.N.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H. Investigating the Biocontrol Potentiality of Wickerhamomyces anomalus against Postharvest Gray Mold Decay in Cherry Tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 285, 110137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Calvente, V.; Benuzzi, D.; De Tosetti, M.I.S. Antagonistic Action of Siderophores from Rhodotorula glutinis upon the Postharvest Pathogen Penicillium expansum. Int. Biodeterior Biodegrad. 1999, 43, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Dang, T.D.T.; Vermeulen, A.; Ragaert, P.; Devlieghere, F. A Peculiar Stimulatory Effect of Acetic and Lactic Acid on Growth and Fermentative Metabolism of Zygosaccharomyces bailii. Food Microbiol. 2009, 26, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Corsetti, A.; De Angelis, M.; Dellaglio, F.; Paparella, A.; Fox, P.F.; Settanni, L. Characterization of Sourdough Lactic Acid Bacteria Based on Genotypic and Cell-Wall Protein Analyses. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 641–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Hollomon, D. Does Agricultural Use of Azole Fungicides Contribute to Resistance in the Human Pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus? Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 1987–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Axelsson, L.T.; Chung, T.C.; Dobrogosz, W.J.; Lindgren, S.E. Production of a Broad Spectrum Antimicrobial Substance by Lactobacillus reuteri. Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 2009, 2, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Dal Bello, F.; Clarke, C.I.; Ryan, L.A.M.; Ulmer, H.; Schober, T.J.; Ström, K.; Sjögren, J.; van Sinderen, D.; Schnürer, J.; Arendt, E.K. Improvement of the Quality and Shelf Life of Wheat Bread by Fermentation with the Antifungal Strain Lactobacillus plantarum FST 1.7. J. Cereal Sci. 2007, 45, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Crowley, S.; Mahony, J.; Van Sinderen, D. Current Perspectives on Antifungal Lactic Acid Bacteria as Natural Bio-Preservatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 33, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bergsson, G.; Arnfinnsson, J.; SteingrÍmsson, O.; Thormar, H. In Vitro Killing of Candida albicans by Fatty Acids and Monoglycerides. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001, 45, 3209–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Magnusson, J.; Ström, K.; Roos, S.; Sjögren, J.; Schnürer, J. Broad and Complex Antifungal Activity among Environmental Isolates of Lactic Acid Bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett 2003, 219, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. And, T.J.A.; Bé Langer, R.R. Specificity and Mode of Action of the Antifungal Fatty Acid Cis-9-Heptadecenoic Acid Produced by Pseudozyma flocculosa. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 956–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Strobel, G.; Daisy, B. Bioprospecting for Microbial Endophytes and Their Natural Products. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2003, 67, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Chatterjee, S.; Ghosh, S.; Mandal, N.C. Potential of an Endophytic Fungus Alternaria tenuissima PE2 Isolated from Psidium guajava L. for the Production of Bioactive Compounds. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2022, 150, 658–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Phongpaichit, S.; Rungjindamai, N.; Rukachaisirikul, V.; Sakayaroj, J. Antimicrobial Activity in Cultures of Endophytic Fungi Isolated from Garcinia Species. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2006, 48, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Pongcharoen, W.; Rukachaisirikul, V.; Phongpaichit, S.; Kühn, T.; Pelzing, M.; Sakayaroj, J.; Taylor, W.C. Metabolites from the Endophytic Fungus Xylaria sp. PSU-D14. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 1900–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Zhang, H.W.; Song, Y.C.; Tan, R.X. Biology and Chemistry of Endophytes. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2006, 23, 753–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Strobel, G.A.; Miller, R.V.; Martinez-Miller, C.; Condron, M.M.; Teplow, D.B.; Hess, W.M. Cryptocandin, a Potent Antimycotic from the Endophytic Fungus Cryptosporiopsis cf. quercina. Microbiol. Read. 1999, 145 Pt 8, 1919–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Ding, G.; Liu, S.; Guo, L.; Zhou, Y.; Che, Y. Antifungal Metabolites from the Plant Endophytic Fungus Pestalotiopsis foedan. J. Nat. Prod. 2008, 71, 615–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Moradi, A.; Yaghoubi-Avini, M.; Wink, J. Isolation of Nannocystis Species from Iran and Exploring Their Natural Products. Arch Microbiol. 2022, 204, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Rhee, K.H. Cyclic Dipeptides Exhibit Synergistic, Broad Spectrum Antimicrobial Effects and Have Anti-Mutagenic Properties. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2004, 24, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Pereira, C.B.; Pereira de Sá, N.; Borelli, B.M.; Rosa, C.A.; Barbeira, P.J.S.; Cota, B.B.; Johann, S. Antifungal Activity of Eicosanoic Acids Isolated from the Endophytic Fungus Mycosphaerella sp. against Cryptococcus neoformans and C. gattii. Microb. Pathog. 2016, 100, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Zafar, H.; Altamirano, D.S.; Ballou, E.R.; Nielsen, K. A Titanic Drug Resistance Threat in Cryptococcus Neoformans. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2019, 52, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Botts, M.R.; Hull, C.M. Dueling in the Lung: How Cryptococcus Spores Race the Host for Survival. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2010, 13, 437–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Perfect, J.R.; Bicanic, T. Cryptococcosis Diagnosis and Treatment: What Do We Know Now. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2015, 78, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Salehi, M.; Ahmadikia, K.; Badali, H.; Khodavaisy, S. Opportunistic Fungal Infections in the Epidemic Area of COVID-19: A Clinical and Diagnostic Perspective from Iran. Mycopathologia 2020, 185, 607–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Chi, W.C.; Pang, K.L.; Chen, W.L.; Wang, G.J.; Lee, T.H. Antimicrobial and INOS Inhibitory Activities of the Endophytic Fungi Isolated from the Mangrove Plant Acanthus ilicifolius var. xiamenensis. Bot. Stud. 2019, 60, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Sherry, L.; Ramage, G.; Kean, R.; Borman, A.; Johnson, E.M.; Richardson, M.D.; Rautemaa-Richardson, R. Biofilm-Forming Capability of Highly Virulent, Multidrug-Resistant Candida auris. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Calvo, B.; Melo, A.S.A.; Perozo-Mena, A.; Hernandez, M.; Francisco, E.C.; Hagen, F.; Meis, J.F.; Colombo, A.L. First Report of Candida auris in America: Clinical and Microbiological Aspects of 18 Episodes of Candidemia. J. Infect. 2016, 73, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Adam, R.D.; Revathi, G.; Okinda, N.; Fontaine, M.; Shah, J.; Kagotho, E.; Castanheira, M.; Pfaller, M.A.; Maina, D. Analysis of Candida auris Fungemia at a Single Facility in Kenya. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 85, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Taori, S.K.; Khonyongwa, K.; Hayden, I.; Athukorala, G.D.A.; Letters, A.; Fife, A.; Desai, N.; Borman, A.M. Candida auris Outbreak: Mortality, Interventions and Cost of Sustaining Control. J. Infect. 2019, 79, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Wall, G.; Herrera, N.; Lopez-Ribot, J.L. Repositionable Compounds with Antifungal Activity against Multidrug Resistant Candida auris Identified in the Medicines for Malaria Venture’s Pathogen Box. J. Fungi 2019, 5, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Treviño-Rangel, R.D.J.; González, G.M.; Montoya, A.M.; Rojas, O.C.; Elizondo-Zertuche, M.; Álvarez-Villalobos, N.A. Recent Antifungal Pipeline Developments against Candida auris: A Systematic Review. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Demain, A.L.; Martens, E. Production of Valuable Compounds by Molds and Yeasts. J. Antibiot. 2017, 70, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Mendes, I.; Sanchez, I.; Franco-Duarte, R.; Camarasa, C.; Schuller, D.; Dequin, S.; Sousa, M.J. Integrating Transcriptomics and Metabolomics for the Analysis of the Aroma Profiles of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains from Diverse Origins. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Fernandes, T.; Silva-Sousa, F.; Pereira, F.; Rito, T.; Soares, P.; Franco-Duarte, R.; Sousa, M.J. Biotechnological Importance of Torulaspora delbrueckii: From the Obscurity to the Spotlight. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Silva-Sousa, F.; Fernandes, T.; Pereira, F.; Rodrigues, D.; Rito, T.; Camarasa, C.; Franco-Duarte, R.; Sousa, M.J. Torulaspora delbrueckii Phenotypic and Metabolic Profiling towards Its Biotechnological Exploitation. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Arroyo-López, F.N.; Querol, A.; Bautista-Gallego, J.; Garrido-Fernández, A. Role of Yeasts in Table Olive Production. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 128, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Franco-Duarte, R.; Bessa, D.; Gonçalves, F.; Martins, R.; Silva-Ferreira, A.C.; Schuller, D.; Sampaio, P.; Pais, C. Genomic and Transcriptomic Analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolates with Focus in Succinic Acid Production. FEMS Yeast Res. 2017, 17, fox057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Li, C.; Ong, K.L.; Cui, Z.; Sang, Z.; Li, X.; Patria, R.D.; Qi, Q.; Fickers, P.; Yan, J.; Lin, C.S.K. Promising Advancement in Fermentative Succinic Acid Production by Yeast Hosts. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Atanasov, A.G.; Waltenberger, B.; Pferschy-Wenzig, E.M.; Linder, T.; Wawrosch, C.; Uhrin, P.; Temml, V.; Wang, L.; Schwaiger, S.; Heiss, E.H.; et al. Discovery and Resupply of Pharmacologically Active Plant-Derived Natural Products: A Review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 1582–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Ye, V.M.; Bhatia, S.K. Metabolic Engineering for the Production of Clinically Important Molecules: Omega-3 Fatty Acids, Artemisinin, and Taxol. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 7, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Barrales-Cureño, H.J.; Ramos Valdivia, A.C.; Soto Hernández, M. Increased Production of Taxoids in Suspension Cultures of Taxus Globosa after Elicitation. Future Pharmacol. 2022, 2, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Zaheer, K.; Humayoun Akhtar, M. An Updated Review of Dietary Isoflavones: Nutrition, Processing, Bioavailability and Impacts on Human Health. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 1280–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Cue, B.W.; Zhang, J. Green Process Chemistry in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2009, 2, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Sun, H.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, H.; Ang, E.L. Recent Advances in Combinatorial Biosynthesis for Drug Discovery. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2015, 9, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Byrne, F.P.; Jin, S.; Paggiola, G.; Petchey, T.H.M.; Clark, J.H.; Farmer, T.J.; Hunt, A.J.; Robert McElroy, C.; Sherwood, J. Tools and Techniques for Solvent Selection: Green Solvent Selection Guides. Sustain. Chem. Process. 2016, 4, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Keasling, J.D. Manufacturing Molecules through Metabolic Engineering. Science 2010, 330, 1355–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Luo, Y.; Li, B.Z.; Liu, D.; Zhang, L.; Chen, Y.; Jia, B.; Zeng, B.X.; Zhao, H.; Yuan, Y.J. Engineered Biosynthesis of Natural Products in Heterologous Hosts. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 5265–5290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Song, M.C.; Kim, E.J.; Kim, E.; Rathwell, K.; Nam, S.J.; Yoon, Y.J. Microbial Biosynthesis of Medicinally Important Plant Secondary Metabolites. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2014, 31, 1497–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Nielsen, J.; Keasling, J.D. Engineering Cellular Metabolism. Cell 2016, 164, 1185–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Goffeau, A.; Barrell, B.G.; Bussey, H.; Davis, R.W.; Dujon, B.; Feldmann, H.; Galibert, F.; Hoheisel, J.D.; Jacq, C.; Johnston, M.; et al. Life with 6000 Genes. Science 1996, 274, 563–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  175. Kim, H.; Yoo, S.J.; Kang, H.A. Yeast Synthetic Biology for the Production of Recombinant Therapeutic Proteins. FEMS Yeast Res. 2015, 15, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Porro, D.; Gasser, B.; Fossati, T.; Maurer, M.; Branduardi, P.; Sauer, M.; Mattanovich, D. Production of Recombinant Proteins and Metabolites in Yeasts. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 89, 939–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Buckholz, R.G.; Gleeson, M.A.G. Yeast Systems for the Commercial Production of Heterologous Proteins. Biotechnology 1991, 9, 1067–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Meehl, M.A.; Stadheim, T.A. Biopharmaceutical Discovery and Production in Yeast. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2014, 30, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Paddon, C.J.; Westfall, P.J.; Pitera, D.J.; Benjamin, K.; Fisher, K.; McPhee, D.; Leavell, M.D.; Tai, A.; Main, A.; Eng, D.; et al. High-Level Semi-Synthetic Production of the Potent Antimalarial Artemisinin. Nature 2013, 496, 528–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  180. Jinek, M.; Chylinski, K.; Fonfara, I.; Hauer, M.; Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. A Programmable Dual-RNA-Guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 2012, 337, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Dicarlo, J.E.; Norville, J.E.; Mali, P.; Rios, X.; Aach, J.; Church, G.M. Genome Engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Using CRISPR-Cas Systems. Nucleic. Acids Res. 2013, 41, 4336–4343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Galanie, S.; Thodey, K.; Trenchard, I.J.; Interrante, M.F.; Smolke, C.D. Complete Biosynthesis of Opioids in Yeast. Science 2015, 349, 1095–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  183. Li, M.; Kildegaard, K.R.; Chen, Y.; Rodriguez, A.; Borodina, I.; Nielsen, J. De Novo Production of Resveratrol from Glucose or Ethanol by Engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab. Eng. 2015, 32, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. EauClaire, S.F.; Zhang, J.; Rivera, C.G.; Huang, L.L. Combinatorial Metabolic Pathway Assembly in the Yeast Genome with RNA-Guided Cas9. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 43, 1001–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Liu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Li, G.; Savolainen, O.; Chen, Y.; Nielsen, J. De Novo Biosynthesis of Bioactive Isoflavonoids by Engineered Yeast Cell Factories. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Shen, X.X.; Opulente, D.A.; Kominek, J.; Zhou, X.; Steenwyk, J.L.; Buh, K.V.; Haase, M.A.B.; Wisecaver, J.H.; Wang, M.; Doering, D.T.; et al. Tempo and Mode of Genome Evolution in the Budding Yeast Subphylum. Cell 2018, 175, 1533–1545.e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Gírio, F.M.; Fonseca, C.; Carvalheiro, F.; Duarte, L.C.; Marques, S.; Bogel-Łukasik, R. Hemicelluloses for Fuel Ethanol: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 4775–4800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Rebello, S.; Abraham, A.; Madhavan, A.; Sindhu, R.; Binod, P.; Karthika Bahuleyan, A.; Aneesh, E.M.; Pandey, A. Non-Conventional Yeast Cell Factories for Sustainable Bioprocesses. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2018, 365, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Cao, X.; Wei, L.J.; Lin, J.Y.; Hua, Q. Enhancing Linalool Production by Engineering Oleaginous Yeast Yarrowia lipolytica. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 1641–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Gao, S.; Tong, Y.; Zhu, L.; Ge, M.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, D.; Jiang, Y.; Yang, S. Iterative Integration of Multiple-Copy Pathway Genes in Yarrowia lipolytica for Heterologous β-Carotene Production. Metab. Eng. 2017, 41, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Luo, Z.; Liu, N.; Lazar, Z.; Chatzivasileiou, A.; Ward, V.; Chen, J.; Zhou, J.; Stephanopoulos, G. Enhancing Isoprenoid Synthesis in Yarrowia lipolytica by Expressing the Isopentenol Utilization Pathway and Modulating Intracellular Hydrophobicity. Metab. Eng. 2020, 61, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Zhang, L.; Yang, H.; Xia, Y.; Shen, W.; Liu, L.; Li, Q.; Chen, X. Engineering the Oleaginous Yeast Candida tropicalis for α-Humulene Overproduction. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2022, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Yun, C.R.; Kong, J.N.; Chung, J.H.; Kim, M.C.; Kong, K.H. Improved Secretory Production of the Sweet-Tasting Protein, Brazzein, in Kluyveromyces lactis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 6312–6316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Lin, Y.J.; Chang, J.J.; Lin, H.Y.; Thia, C.; Kao, Y.Y.; Huang, C.C.; Li, W.H. Metabolic Engineering a Yeast to Produce Astaxanthin. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 899–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Khongto, B.; Laoteng, K.; Tongta, A. Fermentation Process Development of Recombinant Hansenula Polymorpha for Gamma-Linolenic Acid Production. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 20, 1555–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Bhataya, A.; Schmidt-Dannert, C.; Lee, P.C. Metabolic Engineering of Pichia pastoris X-33 for Lycopene Production. Process Biochem. 2009, 44, 1095–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Liu, Y.; Tu, X.; Xu, Q.; Bai, C.; Kong, C.; Liu, Q.; Yu, J.; Peng, Q.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Engineered Monoculture and Co-Culture of Methylotrophic Yeast for de Novo Production of Monacolin J and Lovastatin from Methanol. Metab. Eng. 2018, 45, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Zirpel, B.; Degenhardt, F.; Zammarelli, C.; Wibberg, D.; Kalinowski, J.; Stehle, F.; Kayser, O. Optimization of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid Synthase Production in Komagataella phaffii via Post-Translational Bottleneck Identification. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 272–273, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Araya-Garay, J.M.; Ageitos, J.M.; Vallejo, J.A.; Veiga-Crespo, P.; Sánchez-Pérez, A.; Villa, T.G. Construction of a Novel Pichia pastoris Strain for Production of Xanthophylls. AMB Express 2012, 2, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  200. Xue, Y.; Kong, C.; Shen, W.; Bai, C.; Ren, Y.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, M. Methylotrophic Yeast Pichia pastoris as a Chassis Organism for Polyketide Synthesis via the Full Citrinin Biosynthetic Pathway. J. Biotechnol. 2017, 242, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Mavrommati, M.; Daskalaki, A.; Papanikolaou, S.; Aggelis, G. Adaptive Laboratory Evolution Principles and Applications in Industrial Biotechnology. Biotechnol. Adv. 2022, 54, 107795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Fernandes, T.; Osório, C.; Sousa, M.J.; Franco-Duarte, R. Contributions of Adaptive Laboratory Evolution towards the Enhancement of the Biotechnological Potential of Non-Conventional Yeast Species. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Reyes, L.H.; Gomez, J.M.; Kao, K.C. Improving Carotenoids Production in Yeast via Adaptive Laboratory Evolution. Metab. Eng. 2014, 21, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Liu, L.; Pan, A.; Spofford, C.; Zhou, N.; Alper, H.S. An Evolutionary Metabolic Engineering Approach for Enhancing Lipogenesis in Yarrowia lipolytica. Metab. Eng. 2015, 29, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Dai, Z.; Liu, Y.; Guo, J.; Huang, L.; Zhang, X. Yeast Synthetic Biology for High-Value Metabolites. FEMS Yeast Res. 2015, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Bioactive compounds produced by different nongenetically modified yeasts, their commercial interest, and market value.
Table 1. Bioactive compounds produced by different nongenetically modified yeasts, their commercial interest, and market value.
CompoundFormulaCommercial InterestMarket Value in Millions of USD (Year)Reference
GlutathioneFermentation 09 00363 i001Antioxidant316.56 (2020)[17,18]
MelatoninFermentation 09 00363 i002Sleep cycle receptor mediator and antioxidant437.9 (2021)[26,29]
RiboflavinFermentation 09 00363 i003Food coloring and supplement397 (2023)[30,31]
Toxin K1KEX1 e KEX2 proteases encodedAntifungal-[32]
Toxin K28 Antifungal-[33]
Toxin K2 Antifungal-[34]
Toxin KPDecapeptide KP (AKVTMTCSAS)Toxoplasmosis and antifungal treatment-[35]
Rhodotorulic AcidFermentation 09 00363 i004Iron bioavailability and regulator of iron-mediated membrane transporters-[36]
FerrichromeFermentation 09 00363 i005Bioavailability and regulator of iron and other metals-[36,37]
Acetic AcidFermentation 09 00363 i006Preservative and food additive; drug production, industrial and laboratory solvent2900 (2021)[38,39]
CitronellolFermentation 09 00363 i007Antifungal~146.8 (2030)[40,41]
Phenylethyl AlcoholFermentation 09 00363 i008Antimicrobial, antiseptic, disinfectant, aromatic essence, and preservative of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics255.3 (2021)[40,42]
IndolFermentation 09 00363 i009Fragrance component and flavor aggregator35.7 (2021)[25,43]
Quercetin-3-glucosideFermentation 09 00363 i010Antiviral, antioxidant-[44]
Caffeic AcidFermentation 09 00363 i011Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory [44]
NaringeninFermentation 09 00363 i012Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antifungal [44]
Table 2. Relation between microorganisms, biocompounds produced, targets, and MIC.
Table 2. Relation between microorganisms, biocompounds produced, targets, and MIC.
Producing
Microorganism
BiocompoundTarget Yeast TestedMICReference
Alternaria tenuissima-Candida albicans1400 µg/mL[136]
Cladosporium herbarumAlkaloid-aspernigrin ACandida albicans75.0 μg/mL[139]
Cryptosporiopsis quercinaLipopeptide cryptocandin ACandida albicans0.03 μg/mL[140]
Cryptosporiopsis quercinaLipopeptide cryptocandin ACryptococcus neoformans-[140]
Pestalotiopsis foedanIsobenzofuranone, Pestaphtalides ACandida albicans-[141]
Xylaria sp.-Candida albicans128 µg/mL[137]
Xylaria sp.SordaricinCandida albicans32 µg/mL[138]
Nannocystis-Candida albicans and Pichia anomala-[142]
Streptomyces sp.Cyclo(l-leucyl–l-prolyl)Candida albicans; Candida glabrata; Candida tropicalis;32 mg/mL
16 mg/mL
8 mg/mL
[143]
Streptomyces sp.Cyclo(l-phenylalanyl–l-prolyl)Candida albicans; Candida glabrata; Candida tropicalis;64 mg/mL
256 mg/mL
32 mg/mL
[143]
Lactibacillus plantaram3-hydroxy tetradecanoic acidKluyveromyces marxianus10 μg/mL[133]
Lactibacillus plantaram3-hydroxy dodecanoic acidKluyveromyces marxianus25 μg/mL[133]
Lactibacillus plantaram3-hydroxy undecanoic acidKluyveromyces marxianus25 μg/mL[133]
Mycosphaerella sp.2-amino-3,4-dihydroxy-2-25 (hydroxymethyl)-14-oxo-6,12-eicosenoic acidCryptococcus neoformans1.95–7.82 μM[144]
Mycosphaerella sp.MyriocinCryptococcus neoformans0.48–1.95 μM[144]
MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; -: concentration not mentioned.
Table 3. Examples of biocompounds produced by engineered non-Saccharomyces yeasts.
Table 3. Examples of biocompounds produced by engineered non-Saccharomyces yeasts.
YeastCompoundApplicationReference
Yarrowia lipolyticaβ-caroteneAntioxidant[190]
LinaloolVitamin precursor, antifungal, antimicrobial and fragrance fixative[189]
LycopeneAntioxidant[191]
Kluyveromyces lactisBrazzeinSweetener compound[193]
Kluyveromyces marxianusAstaxanthinAntioxidant[194]
Hansenula polymorphaGamma-linolenic acidAnti-inflammatory and imunorregulatory[195]
Candida tropicalisα-HumuleneAnti-inflammatory[192]
Komagataella phaffii
(formerly Pichia pastoris)
LycopeneAntioxidant[196]
LovastatinAntihypercolesterolemia[197]
Δ9-TetrahydrocannabinolCompound with analgesic properties[198]
AstaxanthinAntioxidant[199]
CitrininAntibiotic and antifungal[200]
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

Tadioto, V.; Giehl, A.; Cadamuro, R.D.; Guterres, I.Z.; dos Santos, A.A.; Bressan, S.K.; Werlang, L.; Stambuk, B.U.; Fongaro, G.; Silva, I.T.; et al. Bioactive Compounds from and against Yeasts in the One Health Context: A Comprehensive Review. Fermentation 2023, 9, 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040363

AMA Style

Tadioto V, Giehl A, Cadamuro RD, Guterres IZ, dos Santos AA, Bressan SK, Werlang L, Stambuk BU, Fongaro G, Silva IT, et al. Bioactive Compounds from and against Yeasts in the One Health Context: A Comprehensive Review. Fermentation. 2023; 9(4):363. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040363

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tadioto, Viviani, Anderson Giehl, Rafael Dorighello Cadamuro, Iara Zanella Guterres, Angela Alves dos Santos, Stefany Kell Bressan, Larissa Werlang, Boris U. Stambuk, Gislaine Fongaro, Izabella Thaís Silva, and et al. 2023. "Bioactive Compounds from and against Yeasts in the One Health Context: A Comprehensive Review" Fermentation 9, no. 4: 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040363

APA Style

Tadioto, V., Giehl, A., Cadamuro, R. D., Guterres, I. Z., dos Santos, A. A., Bressan, S. K., Werlang, L., Stambuk, B. U., Fongaro, G., Silva, I. T., & Alves, S. L., Jr. (2023). Bioactive Compounds from and against Yeasts in the One Health Context: A Comprehensive Review. Fermentation, 9(4), 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9040363

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