Slt2, the MAPK of the cell wall integrity (CWI) pathway, connects different signaling pathways and performs different functions in the protective response of S. cerevisiae to stress. Previous work has evidenced the relation of the CWI pathway and the unfolded protein response (UPR), a transcriptional program activated upon endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. However, the mechanisms of crosstalk between these pathways and the targets regulated by Slt2 under ER stress remain unclear. Here, we demonstrated that ectopic expression of GFA1, the gene encoding the first enzyme in the synthesis of UDP-GlcNAc by the hexosamine biosynthetic pathway (HBP) or supplementation of the growth medium with glucosamine (GlcN), increases the tolerance of slt2 mutant cells to different ER-stress inducers. Remarkably, GlcN also alleviates the sensitivity phenotype of cells lacking IRE1 or HAC1, the main actors in controlling the UPR. The exogenous addition of GlcN reduced the abundance of glycosylated proteins and triggered autophagy. We also found that TORC1, the central stress and growth controller, is inhibited by tunicamycin exposure in cells of the wild-type strain but not in those lacking Slt2. Consistent with this, the tunicamycin-induced activation of autophagy and the increased synthesis of ATP in response to ER stress were absent by knock-out of SLT2. Altogether, our data placed Slt2 as an essential actor of the ER stress response by regulating the HBP activity and the TORC1-dependent signaling.

Summary The glycolytic enzyme glyceraldehyde‐3‐phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) has been traditionally considered a housekeeping protein involved in energy generation. However, evidence indicates that GAPDHs from different origins are tightly regulated and that this regulation may be on the basis of glycolysis‐related and glycolysis‐unrelated functions. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Tdh3 is the main GAPDH, although two other isoenzymes encoded by TDH1 and TDH2 have been identified. Like other GAPDHs, Tdh3 exists predominantly as a tetramer, although dimeric and monomeric forms have also been isolated. Mechanisms of Tdh3 regulation may thus imply changes in its oligomeric state or be based in its ability to interact with Tdh1 and/or Tdh2 to form hybrid complexes. However, no direct evidence of the existence of these interactions has been provided and the exact function of Tdh1,2 is unknown. Here, we show that Tdh1,2 immunopurified with a GFP‐tagged version of Tdh3 and that lack of this interaction stimulates the Tdh3’s aggregation. Furthermore, we found that the combined knockout of TDH1 and TDH2 promotes the loss of cell’s viability and increases the growing rate, glucose consumption and CO2 production, suggesting a higher glycolytic flux in the mutant cells. Consistent with this, the tdh3 strain, which displays impaired in vitro GAPDH activity, exhibited the opposite phenotypes. Quite remarkably, tdh1 tdh2 mutant cells show increased sensitivity to aureobasidin A, an inhibitor of the inositolphosphoryl ceramide synthase, while cells lacking Tdh3 showed improved tolerance. The results are in agreement with a link between glycolysis and sphingolipid (SLs) metabolism. Engineering Tdh activity could be thus exploited to alter the SLs status with consequences in different aspects of yeast biotechnology.