Glycolysis-dependent Sulfur Metabolism Orchestrates Morphological Plasticity and Virulence in Fungi

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Fungal survival and pathogenicity rely on the ability to undergo reversible morphological transitions, which are often linked to nutrient availability. In this study, the authors uncover a conserved connection between glycolytic activity and sulfur amino acid biosynthesis that drives morphogenesis in two fungal model systems. By disentangling this process from canonical cAMP signaling, the authors identify a new metabolic axis that integrates central carbon metabolism with developmental plasticity and virulence.

Strengths:

The study integrates different experimental approaches, including genetic, biochemical, transcriptomic, and morphological analyses, and convincingly demonstrates that perturbations in glycolysis alter sulfur metabolic pathways and thus impact pseudohyphal and hyphal differentiation. Overall, this work offers new and important insights into how metabolic fluxes are intertwined with fungal developmental programs and therefore opens new perspectives to investigate morphological transitioning in fungi.

Weaknesses:

A few aspects could be improved to strengthen the conclusions. Firstly, the striking transcriptomic changes observed upon 2DG treatment should be analyzed in S. cerevisiae adh1 and pfk1 deletion strains, for instance, through qPCR or western blot analyses of sulfur metabolism genes, to confirm that observed changes in 2DG conditions mirror those seen in genetic mutants. Secondly, differences between methionine and cysteine in their ability to rescue the mutant phenotype in both species are not mentioned, nor discussed in more detail. This is especially important as there seem to be differences between S. cerevisiae and C. albicans, which might point to subtle but specific metabolic adaptations.

The authors are also encouraged to refine several figure elements for clarity and comparability (e.g., harmonized axes in bar plots), condense the discussion to emphasize the conceptual advances over a summary of the results, and shorten figure legends.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates the interplay between glycolysis and sulfur metabolism in regulating fungal morphogenesis and virulence. Using both Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans, the authors demonstrate that glycolytic flux is essential for morphogenesis under nitrogen-limiting conditions, acting independently of the established cAMP-PKA pathway. Transcriptomic and genetic analyses reveal that glycolysis influences the de novo biosynthesis of sulfur-containing amino acids, specifically cysteine and methionine. Notably, supplementation with sulfur sources restores morphogenetic and virulence defects in glycolysis-deficient mutants, thereby linking core carbon metabolism with sulfur assimilation and fungal pathogenicity.

Strengths:

The work identifies a previously uncharacterized link between glycolysis and sulfur metabolism in fungi, bridging metabolic and morphogenetic regulation, which is an important conceptual advance and fungal pathogenicity. Demonstrating that adding cysteine supplementation rescues virulence defects in animal models connects basic metabolism to infection outcomes, which adds to biomedical importance.

Weaknesses:

The proposed model that glycolytic flux modulates Met30 activity post-translationally remains speculative. While data support Met4 stabilization in met30 deletion strains, the mechanism of Met30 modulation by glycolysis is not demonstrated.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This study investigates the connection between glycolysis and the biosynthesis of sulfur-containing amino acids in controlling fungal morphogenesis, using Saccharomyces cerevisiae and C. albicans as model organisms. The authors identify a conserved metabolic axis that integrates glycolysis with cysteine/methionine biosynthetic pathways to influence morphological transitions. This work broadens the current understanding of fungal morphogenesis, which has largely focused on gene regulatory networks and cAMP-dependent signaling pathways, by emphasizing the contribution of metabolic control mechanisms. However, despite the novel conceptual framework, the study provides limited mechanistic characterization of how the sulfur metabolism and glycolysis blockade directly drive morphological outcomes. In particular, the rationale for selecting specific gene deletions, such as Met32 (and not Met4), or the Met30 deletion used to probe this pathway, is not clearly explained, making it difficult to assess whether these targets comprehensively represent the metabolic nodes proposed to be critical. Further supportive data and experimental validation would strengthen the claims on connections between glycolysis, sulfur amino acid metabolism, and virulence.

Strengths:

(1) The delineation of how glycolytic flux regulates fungal morphogenesis through a cAMP-independent mechanism is a significant advancement. The coupling of glycolysis with the de novo biosynthesis of sulfur-containing amino acids, a requirement for morphogenesis, introduces a novel and unexpected layer of regulation.

(2) Demonstrating this mechanism in both S. cerevisiae and C. albicans strengthens the argument for its evolutionary conservation and biological importance.

(3) The ability to rescue the morphogenesis defect through exogenous supplementation of sulfur-containing amino acids provides functional validation.

(4) The findings from the murine Pfk1-deficient model underscore the clinical significance of metabolic pathways in fungal infections.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the link between glycolysis and sulfur amino acid biosynthesis is established via transcriptomic and proteomic analysis, the specific regulation connecting these pathways via Met30 remains to be elucidated. For example, what are the expression and protein levels of Met30 in the initial analysis from Figure 2? How specific is this effect on Met30 in anaerobic versus aerobic glycolysis, especially when the pentose phosphate pathway is involved in the growth of the cells when glycolysis is perturbed?

(2) Including detailed metabolite profiling could have strengthened the metabolic connection and provided additional insights into intermediate flux changes, i.e., measuring levels of metabolites to check if cysteine or methionine levels are influenced intracellularly. Also, it is expected to see how Met30 deletion could affect cell growth. Data on Met30 deletion and its effect on growth are not included, especially given that a viable heterozygous Met30 strain has been established. Measuring the cysteine or methionine levels using metabolomic analysis would further strengthen the claims in every section.

(3) In comparison with the previous bioRxiv (doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.14.654021) of this article in May 2025 to the recent bioRxiv of this article (doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.14.654021), there have been some changes, and Met30 deletion has been recently included, and the chemical perturbation of glycolysis has been added as new data. Although the changes incorporated in the recent version of the article improved the illustration of the hypothesis in Figure 6, which connects glycolysis to Sulfur metabolism, the gene expression and protein levels of all genes involved in the illustrated hypothesis are not consistently shown. For example, in some cases, the Met4 expression is not shown (Figure 4), and the Met30 expression is not shown during profiling (gene expression or protein levels) throughout the manuscript. Lack of consistency in profiling the same set of key genes makes understanding more complicated.

(4) The demonstrated link between glycolysis and sulfur amino acid biosynthesis, along with its implications for virulence in C. albicans, is important for understanding fungal adaptation, as mentioned in the article; however, the Met4 activation was not fully characterized, nor were the data presented when virulence was assessed in Figure 4. Why is Met4 not included in Figure 4D and I? Especially, according to Figure 6, Met4 activation is crucial and guides the differences between glycolysis-active and inactive conditions.

(5) Similarly, the rationale behind selecting Met32 for characterizing sulfur metabolism is unclear. Deletion of Met32 resulted in a significant reduction in pseudohyphal differentiation; why is this attributed only to Met32? What happens if Met4 is deleted? It is not justified why Met32, rather than Met4, was chosen. Figure 6 clearly hypothesizes that Met4 activation is the key to the mechanism.

(6) The comparative RT-qPCR in Figure 5 did not account for sulfur metabolism genes, whereas it was focused only on virulence and hyphal differentiation. Is there data to support the levels of sulfur metabolism genes?

(7) To validate the proposed interlink between sulfur metabolism and virulence, it is recommended that the gene sets (illustrated in Figure 6) be consistently included across all comparative data included throughout the comparisons. Excluding sulfur metabolism genes in Figure 5 prevents the experiment from demonstrating the coordinated role of glycolysis perturbation → sulfur metabolism → virulence. The same is true for other comparisons, where the lack of data on Met30, Met4, etc., makes it hard to connect the hypothesis. It is also recommended to check the gene expression of other genes related to the cAMP pathway and report them to confirm the cAMP-independent mechanism. For example, gap2 deletion was used to confirm the effects of cAMP supplementation, but the expression of this gene was not assessed in the RNA-seq analysis in Figure 2. It would be beneficial to show the expression of cAMP-related genes to completely confirm that they do not play a role in the claims in Figure 2.

(8) Although the NAC supplementation study is included in the new version of the article compared to the previous version in BioRxiv (May 2025), the link to sulfur metabolism is not well characterized in Figure 5 and their related datasets. The main focus of the manuscript is to delineate the role of sulfur metabolism; hence, it is anticipated that Figure 5 will include sulfur-related metabolic genes and their links to pfk1 deletion, using RT-PCR measurements as shown for the virulence genes.

(9) The manuscript would benefit from more information added to the introduction section and literature supports for some of the findings reported earlier, including the role of (i) cAMP-PKA and MAPK pathways, (ii) what is known in the literature that reports about the treatment with 2DG (role of Snf1, HXT1, and HXT3), as well as how gpa2 is involved. Some sentences in the manuscripts are repetitive; it would be beneficial to add more relevant sections to the introduction and discussion to clarify the rationale for gene choices.