Adaptation to low pH and lignocellulosic inhibitors resulting in ethanolic fermentation and growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

AMB Express

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Narayanan, Venkatachalam ^a   Sànchez i Nogué, Violeta ^b   van Niel, Ed W J ^a   Gorwa Grauslund, Marie F ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Ethanol yield; Lignocellulosic inhibitors; Low pH; Phenotypic robustness; Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL; ENZYME INHIBITOR; LIGNOCELLULOSE;

ADAPTATION; AEROBIC CELL CULTURE; ANAEROBIC FERMENTATION; ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; BIOMASS PRODUCTION; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; FERMENTATION; FUNGUS GROWTH; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; METABOLOMICS; NONHUMAN; PH; PHENOTYPE; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SPECTROPHOTOMETRY;

EID: 84984629805     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21910855     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13568-016-0234-8     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Acar M, Mettetal JT, van Oudenaarden A. Stochastic switching as a survival strategy in fluctuating environments. Nat Genet. 2008;40(4):471–5. doi:10.1038/ng.110.
2. Akopyanz N, Bukanov NO, Westblom TU, Kresovich S, Berg DE. DNA diversity among clinical isolates of Helicobacter pylori detected by PCR-based RAPD fingerprinting. Nucl Acids Res. 1992;20(19):5137–42. doi:10.1093/nar/20.19.5137.
3. Albers E, Johansson E, Franzén CJ, Larsson C. Selective suppression of bacterial contaminants by process conditions during lignocellulose based yeast fermentations. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2011;4:59. doi:10.1186/1754-6834-4-59.
4. Almario MPP, Reyes LH, Kao KC. Evolutionary engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for enhanced tolerance to hydrolysates of lignocellulosic biomass. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2013;110(10):2616–23. doi:10.1002/bit.24938.
5. Almeida JR, Modig T, Petersson A, Hähn-Hägerdal B, Lidén G, Gorwa-Grauslund MF. Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2007;82(4):340–9. doi:10.1002/jctb.1676.
6. Almeida JRM, Karhumaa K, Bengtsson O, Gorwa-Grauslund M-F. Screening of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with respect to anaerobic growth in non-detoxified lignocellulose hydrolysate. Bioresour Technol. 2009a;100(14):3674–7. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.057.
7. Almeida JRR, Bertilsson M, Gorwa-Grauslund MF, Gorsich S, Lidén G. Metabolic effects of furaldehydes and impacts on biotechnological processes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009b;82(4):625–38. doi:10.1007/s00253-009-1875-1.
8. Almeida JRM, Runquist D, Sànchez Nogué V, Lidén G, Gorwa-Grauslund MF. Stress-related challenges in pentose fermentation to ethanol by the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol J. 2011;6(3):286–99. doi:10.1002/biot.201000301.
9. Alriksson B, Horváth IS, Jönsson LJ. Overexpression of Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcription factor and multidrug resistance genes conveys enhanced resistance to lignocellulose-derived fermentation inhibitors. Process Biochem. 2010;45(2):264–71. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2009.09.016.
10. Andrade M, Rodriguez M, Sánchez B, Aranda E, Córdoba J. DNA typing methods for differentiation of yeasts related to dry-cured meat products. Int J Food Microbiol. 2006;107(1):48–58. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.08.011.
11. Anneli P, João RMA, Tobias M, Kaisa K, Bärbel HH, Marie FGG, Gunnar L. A 5-hydroxymethyl furfural reducing enzyme encoded by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae ADH6 gene conveys HMF tolerance. Yeast. 2006;23(6):455–64. doi:10.1002/yea.1370.
12. Avery SV. Microbial cell individuality and the underlying sources of heterogeneity. Nat Rev Micro. 2006;4(8):577–87. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1460.
13. Basso LC, Basso TO, Rocha SN. Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. In: dos Santos Bernardes MA, editor. Biofuel production-recent developments and prospects. Rijeka: InTech; 2011. p. 85–100. doi:10.5772/17047.
14. Beales N. Adaptation of microorganisms to cold temperatures, weak acid preservatives, low ph, and osmotic stress: a review. Compr Rev Food Sci F. 2004;3(1):1–20. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2004.tb00057.x.
15. Beckner M, Ivey M, Phister T. Microbial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentations. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2011;53(4):387–94. doi:10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03124.x.
16. Bischoff KM, Liu S, Leathers TD, Worthington RE, Rich JO. Modeling bacterial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2009;103(1):117–22. doi:10.1002/bit.22244.
17. Caspeta L, Castillo T, Nielsen J. Modifying yeast tolerance to inhibitory conditions of ethanol production processes. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015;3:184. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2015.00184.
18. da Silva-Filho EAA, Brito dos Santos SK, Resende AdM, de Morais JOO, de Morais MA, Ardaillon Simões D. Yeast population dynamics of industrial fuel-ethanol fermentation process assessed by PCR-fingerprinting. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2005;88(1):13–23. doi:10.1007/s10482-004-7283-8.
19. De Melo HF, Bonini BM, Thevelein J, Simões DA, Morais MA. Physiological and molecular analysis of the stress response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae imposed by strong inorganic acid with implication to industrial fermentations. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;109(1):116–27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04633.x.
20. Della-Bianca BE, de Hulster E, Pronk JT, van Maris AJA, Gombert AK. Physiology of the fuel ethanol strain Saccharomyces cerevisiae PE-2 at low pH indicates a context-dependent performance relevant for industrial applications. FEMS Yeast Res. 2014;14(8):1196–205. doi:10.1111/1567-1364.12217.
21. Delvigne F, Goffin P. Microbial heterogeneity affects bioprocess robustness: dynamic single-cell analysis contributes to understanding of microbial populations. Biotechnol J. 2014;9(1):61–72. doi:10.1002/biot.201300119.
22. Delvigne F, Zune Q, Lara AR, Al-Soud W, Sørensen SJ. Metabolic variability in bioprocessing: implications of microbial phenotypic heterogeneity. Trends Biotechnol. 2014;32(12):608–16. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.10.002.
23. Ding MZ, Wang X, Yang Y, Yuan YJ. Metabolomic study of interactive effects of phenol, furfural, and acetic acid on Saccharomyces cerevisiae. OMICS. 2011;15(10):647–53. doi:10.1089/omi.2011.0003.
24. Dominik H, Uwe S. Identification of furfural as a key toxin in lignocellulosic hydrolysates and evolution of a tolerant yeast strain. Microb Biotechnol. 2008;1(6):497–506. doi:10.1111/j.1751-7915.2008.00050.x.
25. Fernández-Niño M, Marquina M, Swinnen S, Rodríguez-Porrata B, Nevoigt E, Ariño J. The cytosolic pH of individual Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells is a key factor in acetic acid tolerance. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(22):7813–21. doi:10.1128/AEM.02313-15.
26. Gibson BR, Lawrence SJ, Leclaire JPR, Powell CD, Smart KA. Yeast responses to stresses associated with industrial brewery handling. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2007;31(5):535–69. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2007.00076.x.
27. Graves T, Narendranath NV, Dawson K, Power R. Effect of pH and lactic or acetic acid on ethanol productivity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in corn mash. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006;33(6):469–74. doi:10.1007/s10295-006-0091-6.
28. Hahn-Hägerdal B, Karhumaa K, Larsson CU, Gorwa-Grauslund M, Görgens J, van Zyl WH. Role of cultivation media in the development of yeast strains for large scale industrial use. Microb Cell Fact. 2005;4:31. doi:10.1186/1475-2859-4-31.
29. Hanqi G, Jian Z, Jie B. Inhibitor analysis and adaptive evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for simultaneous saccharification and ethanol fermentation from industrial waste corncob residues. Bioresour Technol. 2014;157:6–13. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.060.
30. Harju S, Fedosyuk H, Peterson KR. Rapid isolation of yeast genomic DNA: bust n’Grab. BMC Biotechnol. 2004;4(1):8. doi:10.1186/1472-6750-4-8.
31. Henningsen BM, Hon S, Covalla SF, Sonu C, Argyros AD, Barrett TF, Wiswall E, Froehlich AC, Zelle RM. Increasing anaerobic acetate consumption and ethanol yields in Saccharomyces cerevisiae with NADPH-specific alcohol dehydrogenase. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(23):8108–17. doi:10.1128/AEM.01689-15.
32. i Nogué V, Bettiga M, Gorwa-Grauslund MF. Isolation and characterization of a resident tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain from a spent sulfite liquor fermentation plant. AMB Express. 2012;2(1):68. doi:10.1186/2191-0855-2-68.
33. Ishola MM, Babapour AB, Gavitar MN, Brandberg T, Taherzadeh MJ. Effect of high solids loading on bacterial contamination in lignocellulosic ethanol production. Bioresources. 2013;8(3):4429–39. doi:10.15376/biores.8.3.4429-4439.
34. Jönsson LJ, Alriksson B, Nilvebrant N-O. Bioconversion of lignocellulose: inhibitors and detoxification. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013;6(1):16. doi:10.1186/1754-6834-6-16.
35. Kádár Z, Maltha SF, Szengyel Z, Réczey K, De Laat W. Ethanol fermentation of various pretreated and hydrolyzed substrates at low initial pH. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2007;137(1–12):847–58. doi:10.1007/s12010-007-9102-y.
36. Kapteyn J, Ter Riet B, Vink E, Blad S, De Nobel H, Van Den Ende H, Klis F. Low external pH induces HOG1-dependent changes in the organization of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall. Mol Microbiol. 2001;39(2):469–80. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.2001.02242.x.
37. Kawahata M, Masaki K, Fujii T, Iefuji H. Yeast genes involved in response to lactic acid and acetic acid: acidic conditions caused by the organic acids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cultures induce expression of intracellular metal metabolism genes regulated by Aft1p. FEMS Yeast Res. 2006;6(6):924–36. doi:10.1111/j.1567-1364.2006.00089.x.
38. Klinke HB, Thomsen AB, Ahring BK. Inhibition of ethanol-producing yeast and bacteria by degradation products produced during pre-treatment of biomass. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;66(1):10–26. doi:10.1007/s00253-004-1642-2.
39. Koichi T, Yukari I, Jun O, Jun S. Enhancement of acetic acid tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by overexpression of the HAA1 gene, encoding a transcriptional activator. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(22):8161–3. doi:10.1128/AEM.02356-12.
40. Lei J, Yu S, Lili X, Bingyin P, Yazhong X, Xiaoming B. Enhanced resistance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to vanillin by expression of lacA from Trametes sp. AH28-2. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(17):8105–9. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.057.
41. Levy SF, Ziv N, Siegal ML. Bet hedging in yeast by heterogeneous, age-correlated expression of a stress protectant. PLoS Biol. 2012;10(5):e1001325. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001325.
42. Limayem A, Ricke SC. Lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: current perspectives, potential issues and future prospects. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2012;38(4):449–67. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.002.
43. Liu ZL. Molecular mechanisms of yeast tolerance and in situ detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysates. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;90(3):809–25. doi:10.1007/s00253-011-3167-9.
44. Meijnen J-P, Randazzo P, Foulquié-Moreno MR, van den Brink J, Vandecruys P, Stojiljkovic M, Dumortier F, Zalar P, Boekhout T, Gunde-Cimerman N, Kokošar J, Štajdohar M, Curk T, Petrovič U, Thevelein JM. Polygenic analysis and targeted improvement of the complex trait of high acetic acid tolerance in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:5. doi:10.1186/s13068-015-0421-x.
45. Modig T, Almeida JR, Gorwa-Grauslund MF, Lidén G. Variability of the response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains to lignocellulose hydrolysate. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008;100(3):423–9. doi:10.1002/bit.21789.
46. Muthaiyan A, Limayem A, Ricke SC. Antimicrobial strategies for limiting bacterial contaminants in fuel bioethanol fermentations. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2011;37(3):351–70. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2010.06.005.
47. Nielsen F, Tomás-Pejó E, Olsson L, Wallberg O. Short-term adaptation during propagation improves the performance of xylose-fermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae in simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015;8:219. doi:10.1186/s13068-015-0399-4.
48. Palmqvist E, Grage H, Meinander NQ, Hahn-Hagerdal B. Main and interaction effects of acetic acid, furfural, and p-hydroxybenzoic acid on growth and ethanol productivity of yeasts. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1999;63(1):46–55. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19990405)63:1<46:AID-BIT5>3.0.CO;2-J.
49. Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hägerdal B. Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. II: inhibitors and mechanisms of inhibition. Bioresour Technol. 2000;74(1):25–33. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00161-3.
50. Papoutsakis ET, Pronk JT. Editorial overview: energy biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015;33:8–11. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2015.04.001.
51. Parawira W, Tekere M. Biotechnological strategies to overcome inhibitors in lignocellulose hydrolysates for ethanol production: review. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2011;31(1):20–31. doi:10.3109/07388551003757816.
52. Piotrowski JS, Zhang Y, Sato T, Ong I, Keating D, Bates D, Landick R. Death by a thousand cuts: the challenges and diverse landscape of lignocellulosic hydrolysate inhibitors. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:90. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2014.00090.
53. Sànchez i Nogué V, Narayanan V, Gorwa-Grauslund M,. Short-term adaptation improves the fermentation performance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the presence of acetic acid at low pH. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97(16):7517–25. doi:10.1007/s00253-013-5093-5.
54. Sauer U. Evolutionary engineering of industrially important microbial phenotypes. Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology. Berlin: Springer; 2001. p. 129–69.
55. Schofield MA, Rowe SM, Hammond JR, Molzahn SW, Quain DE. Differentiation of brewery yeast strains by DNA fingerprinting. J Inst Brewing. 1995;101(2):75–8. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1995.tb00850.x.
56. Serate J, Xie D, Pohlmann E, Donald C, Shabani M, Hinchman L, Higbee A, Mcgee M, La Reau A, Klinger GE, Li S, Myers CL, Boone C, Bates DM, Cavalier D, Eilert D, Oates LG, Sanford G, Sato TK, Dale B, Landick R, Piotrowski J, Ong RG, Zhang Y. Controlling microbial contamination during hydrolysis of AFEX-pretreated corn stover and switchgrass: effects on hydrolysate composition, microbial response and fermentation. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015;8(1):1–17. doi:10.1186/s13068-015-0356-2.
57. Skinner KA, Leathers TD. Bacterial contaminants of fuel ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;31(9):401–8. doi:10.1007/s10295-004-0159-0.
58. Taherzadeh MJ, Karimi K. Fermentation inhibitors in ethanol processes and different strategies to reduce their effects. Biofuels, alternative feedstocks and conversion processes. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2011. p. 287–311.
59. Takuya I, Daisuke W, Yoko Y, Koichi T, Jun O, Hiroshi T, Hitoshi S, Jun S. An organic acid-tolerant HAA1-overexpression mutant of an industrial bioethanol strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its application to the production of bioethanol from sugarcane molasses. AMB Express. 2013;3(1):74. doi:10.1186/2191-0855-3-74.
60. Todhanakasem T, Sangsutthiseree A, Areerat K, Young GM, Thanonkeo P. Biofilm production by Zymomonas mobilis enhances ethanol production and tolerance to toxic inhibitors from rice bran hydrolysate. New Biotechnol. 2014;31(5):451–9. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2014.06.002.
61. Tomás-Pejó E, Olsson L. Influence of the propagation strategy for obtaining robust Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells that efficiently co-ferment xylose and glucose in lignocellulosic hydrolysates. Microb Biotechnol. 2015;8(6):999–1005. doi:10.1111/1751-7915.12280.
62. Trinh Thi My N, Sakihito K, Shingo I. Importance of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) for vanillin tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biosci Bioeng. 2014;118(3):263–9. doi:10.1016/j.jbiosc.2014.02.025.
63. Verduyn C, Postma E, Scheffers WA, Van Dijken JP. Effect of benzoic acid on metabolic fluxes in yeasts: a continuous-culture study on the regulation of respiration and alcoholic fermentation. Yeast. 1992;8(7):501–17. doi:10.1002/yea.320080703.
64. Verstrepen KJ, Klis FM. Flocculation, adhesion and biofilm formation in yeasts. Mol Microbiol. 2006;60(1):5–15. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05072.x.
65. Worley-Morse TO, Deshusses MA, Gunsch CK. Reduction of invasive bacteria in ethanol fermentations using bacteriophages. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015;112(8):1544–53. doi:10.1002/bit.25586.
66. Wright J, Bellissimi E, de Hulster E, Wagner A, Pronk JT, van Maris AJ. Batch and continuous culture-based selection strategies for acetic acid tolerance in xylose-fermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res. 2011;11(3):299–306. doi:10.1111/j.1567-1364.2011.00719.x.