Fusel alcohols are the natural products of amino acid catabolism. Yeasts cannot use branched chain or aromatic amino acids as their sole carbon source (
8). However, they can be used as nitrogen sources under otherwise nitrogen-limiting conditions, with the consequent production of fusel alcohols as potentially toxic or regulatory by-products (
2,
19). Our studies of aromatic alcohol production showed that
C. albicans produced three aromatic alcohols, phenethyl alcohol, tyrosol, and tryptophol, and they are consistent with the use of the same pathway as in
S. cerevisiae, i.e., transamination (
ARO8, ARO9), decarboxylation (
ARO10), and then reduction by alcohol dehydrogenase (
ADH) (
18,
34). This pathway is summarized in Fig. . We found that
C. albicans produced the three expected aromatic alcohols in roughly constant proportions under all conditions studied. Previously, Lingappa et al. (
26) reported the production of phenethyl alcohol and tryptophol, whereas Chen et al. (
7) detected tyrosol and Martins et al. (
29) detected phenethyl alcohol and isoamyl alcohol. Isoamyl alcohol is the fusel alcohol derived from leucine (
18).
Aromatic alcohol production was dependent on the transcription factor Aro80p. It was also repressed by ammonium ions and elevated under anaerobic conditions or whenever the appropriate amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, or tryptophan, were provided in the growth medium. Aromatic alcohol production was determined by growth conditions. For example, for wild-type
C. albicans, tyrosol production varied 16-fold merely with the inclusion of tyrosine (Fig. ) or ammonium ions (Fig. ) in the growth medium. Also, we found that cells of
C. albicans grown anaerobically at 30°C produced roughly twice as much of each of the three aromatic alcohols as did aerobically grown cells (Fig. ). This increased production occurred despite the fact that our anaerobic growth medium is a modified GPP medium containing 10 mM ammonium salts (
14).
C. albicans upregulates three alcohol dehydrogenase genes (
ADH1, ADH2, and
ADH5) during hypoxic growth (
35), a finding which is consistent with the fact that larger amounts of aromatic alcohols are secreted under anaerobic conditions (Fig. ). Aromatic alcohol production would be energetically favorable under anaerobic conditions. The aromatic aldehydes would be electron acceptors and substrates for one or more of the alcohol dehydrogenases (Fig. ). Higher aromatic alcohol production under anaerobic conditions would also explain the observation of Alem et al. (
1) that, on a per weight basis, biofilm cells secreted 50% more tyrosol than did planktonic cells. This 50% increase would be expected if 30 to 40% of the biofilm cells were growing in anaerobic conditions.
Because aromatic alcohols are formed from aromatic amino acids by a pathway which includes decarboxylation, we also considered whether their production was part of a pH response by
C. albicans. All microbes have an optimal pH for growth, and many use pH-regulated genes to bring the external pH close to this optimal range (
37). These studies were pioneered by Ernest Gale and Helen Epps (
17), who showed that in an amino acid- or protein-rich environment, many bacteria made amino acid decarboxylases at low external pHs and amino acid deaminases at high external pHs, in each case acting to neutralize the pH of the growth medium.
C. albicans is also capable of neutralizing unbuffered growth media. However, compensating for pH extremes is clearly not the dominant reason for aromatic alcohol production by
C. albicans. Aromatic alcohol production was actually reduced during growth at low pH (Fig. ), and the transaminase and decarboxylase genes were regulated in an opposite manner by pH (Fig. ).
ARO8 and
ARO9 were alkaline upregulated, whereas
ARO10 was alkaline downregulated. This pH regulation in opposite directions is consistent with aromatic alcohol production being maximal at pH 7 (Fig. ).
Finally, aromatic alcohol production was insensitive to pH in the
rim13 mutant (Fig. ), and the pH-dependent upregulation of
ARO9 was lost in both
rim13 and
rim101 (Fig. ). Thus, we suggest that
ARO9 should be added to the list of Rim101p-regulated genes. Dual regulation of
ARO9 by Aro80p and Rim101p suggests that Aro9p is a critical step for the regulation of fusel oils, a reasonable possibility because the decarboxylation step that follows is effectively irreversible (
12,
18,
34). For
ARO10, regulation was lost in
rim101 but not in
rim13 (Fig. ). This juxtaposition could mean that
ARO10 expression is dependent on Rim101p but not on the activation/processing of that protein by Rim13p.