Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology publishes the Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology.

2014 ; Vol.24-5: 667~674

AuthorYouri Jang, Younghoon Lim, Keun Kim
Place of dutyDepartment of Bioscience and Biotechnology, The University of Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 445-743, Republic of Korea
TitleSaccharomyces cerevisiae Strain Improvement Using Selection, Mutation, and Adaptation for the Resistance to Lignocellulose-Derived Fermentation Inhibitor for Ethanol Production
PublicationInfo J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.2014 ; Vol.24-5
AbstractTwenty-five Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains were screened for the highest sugar tolerance, ethanol-tolerance, ethanol production, and inhibitor resistance, and S. cerevisiae KL5 was selected as the best strain. Inhibitor cocktail (100%) was composed of 75 mM formic acid, 75 mM acetic acid, 30 mM furfural, 30 mM hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF), and 2.7 mM vanillin. The cells of strain KL5 were treated with γ-irradiation, and among the survivals, KL5- G2 with improved inhibitor resistance and the highest ethanol yield in the presence of inhibitor cocktail was selected. The KL5-G2 strain was adapted to inhibitor cocktail by sequential transfer of cultures to a minimal YNB medium containing increasing concentrations of inhibitor cocktail. After 10 times of adaptation, most of the isolated colonies could grow in YNB with 80% inhibitor cocktail, whereas the parental KL5 strain could not grow at all. Among the various adapted strains, the best strain (KL5-G2-A9) producing the highest ethanol yield in the presence of inhibitor cocktail was selected. In a complex YP medium containing 60% inhibitor cocktail and 5% glucose, the theoretical yield and productivity (at 48 h) of KL5- G2-A9 were 81.3% and 0.304 g/l/h, respectively, whereas those of KL5 were 20.8% and 0.072 g/l/h, respectively. KL5-G2-A9 reduced the concentrations of HMF, furfural, and vanillin in the medium in much faster rates than KL5.
Full-Text
Key_wordLignocellulose-derived fermentation inhibitor, resistance, adaptation, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, ethanol production
References
  1. Almeida JRM, Karhumaa K, Bengtsson O, Gorwa-Grauslund M-F. 2009. Screening of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with respect to anaerobic growth in non-detoxified lignocelluloses hydrolysate. Bioresour. Technol. 100: 3674-3677.
    CrossRef
  2. Almeida JRM, Modig T, Petersson A, Hähn-Hägerdal B, Lidén G, Gorwa-Grauslund MF. 2007. Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 82:340-349.
    CrossRef
  3. Clark TA, Mackie KL. 1984. Fermentation inhibitors in wood hydrolysates derived from softwood Pinus radiata. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 34B: 101-110.
  4. Demeke MM, Dumortier F, Li Y, Broeckx T, FoulquieMoreno MR, Thevelein JM. 2013. Combining inhibitor tolerance and D-xylose fermentation in industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae for efficient lignocellulose-based bioethanol production. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6: 120-136.
    CrossRef
  5. Diaz De Villegas ME, Villa P, Guerra M, Rodrguez E, Redondo D, Martinez A. 1992. Conversion of furfural into furfuryl alcohol by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Acta Biotechnol. 12: 351-354.
    CrossRef
  6. Favaro L, Basaglia M, Trento A, Van Rensburg E, GarciaAparicio M, Van Zyl WH, Casella S. 2013. Exploring grape marc as trove for new thermotolerant and inhibitor-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains for second-generation bioethanol production. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6: 168-181.
    CrossRef
  7. Heer D, Sauer U. 2008. Identification of furfural as a key toxin in lignocellulosic hydrolysates and evolution of a tolerant yeast strain. Microb. Biotechnol. 6: 497-506.
    CrossRef
  8. Heipieper HJ, Weber FJ, Sikkema J, Keweloh H, De Bont JAM. 1994. Mechanisms of resistance of whole cells to toxic organic solvents. Trends Biotechnol. 12: 409-415.
    CrossRef
  9. Huang CF, Lin TH, Guo GL, Hwang WS. 2009. Enhanced ethanol production by fermentation of rice straw hydrolysate without detoxification using a newly adapted strain of Pichia stipitis. Bioresour. Technol. 100: 3914-3920.
    CrossRef
  10. Klinke HB, Olsson L, Thomsen AB, Ahring BK. 2003. Potential inhibitors from wet oxidation of wheat straw and their effect on ethanol production of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 81: 738-747.
  11. Landaeta R, Aroca G, Acevedo F, Teixeira JA, Mussatto SI. 2013. Adaptation of a flocculent Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain to lignocellulosic inhibitors by cell recycle batch fermentation. Appl. Energy 102: 124-130.
    CrossRef
  12. Larsson S, Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hgerdal B, Tengborg C, Stenberg K, Zacchi G, Nilvebrant N-O. 1999. The generation of fermentation inhibitors during dilute acid hydrolysis of softwood. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 24: 151-195.
    CrossRef
  13. Larsson S, Quintana-Sáinz A, Reimann A, Nilvebrant NO, Jönsson LJ. 2000. Influence of lignocelluloses-derived aromatic compounds on oxygen-limited growth and ethanolic fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 84-86:617-632.
    CrossRef
  14. Lee HW, Cho DH, Kim YH, Shin SJ, Kim SB, Han SO, et al. 2011. Tolerance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae K35 to lignocellulosederived inhibitory compounds. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 16:755-760.
    CrossRef
  15. Liu ZL. 2011. Molecular mechanisms of yeast tolerance and in situ detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysates. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 90: 809-825.
    CrossRef
  16. Liu ZL, Moon J. 2009. A novel NADPH-dependent aldehyde reductase gene from Saccharomyces cerevisiae NRRL Y-12632 involved in the detoxification of aldehyde inhibitors derived from lignocellulosic biomass conversion. Gene 446: 1-10.
    CrossRef
  17. Liu ZL, Moon J, Andersh BJ, Slininger PJ, Weber S. 2008. Multiple gene-mediated NAD(P)H-dependent aldehyde reduction is a mechanism of in situ detoxification of furfural and 5hydroxymethylfurfural by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 81: 743-753.
    CrossRef
  18. Liu ZL, Slininger PJ, Gorsich SW. 2005. Enhanced biotransformation of furfural and hydroxymethylfurfural by newly developed ethanologenic yeast strains. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 121-124: 451-460.
    CrossRef
  19. Martin C, Jonsson LJ. 2003. Comparison of the resistance of industrial and laboratory strains of Saccharomyces and Zygosaccharomyces to lignocellulose-derived fermentation inhibitors. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 32: 386-395.
    CrossRef
  20. Martin C, Marcet M, Almazan O, Jonsson LJ. 2007. Adaptation of a recombinant xylose-utilizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain to a sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate with high content of fermentation inhibitors. Bioresour. Technol. 98: 1767-1773.
  21. Metzger JO, Huttermann A. 2009. Sustainable global energy supply based on lignocellulosic biomass from afforestation of degraded areas. Naturwissenschaften. 96: 279-288.
    CrossRef
  22. Mussato SI, Roberto IC. 2004. Alternatives for detoxification of diluted-acid lignocellulosic hydrolyzates for use in fermentative processes; a review. Bioresour. Technol. 93: 1-10.
  23. Palmqvist E, Almeida JS, Hahn-Hägerdal B. 1999. Influence of furfural on anaerobic glycolytic kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in batch culture. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 62: 447-454.
  24. Pampulha ME, Loureiro-Dias MC. 1989. Combined effect of acetic acid, pH and ethanol on intracellular pH of fermenting yeast. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 20: 286-293.
  25. Parawira W, Tekere M. 2011. Biotechnological strategies to overcome inhibitors in lignocelluloses hydrolysates for ethanol production: review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 31: 20-31.
  26. Russel JB. 1992. Another explanation for the toxicity of fermentation acids at low pH: anion accumulation versus uncoupling. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 73: 363-370.
  27. Srvári Horváth I, Franzén CJ, Taherzadeh MJ, Niklasson C, Lidén G. 2003. Effects of furfural on the respiratory metabolism of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in glucose-limited chemostats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 4076-4086.
  28. Sauer U. 2001. Evolutionary engineering of industrially important microbial phenotypes. Adv. Biochem. Eng. 73: 129169.
  29. Slininger PJ, Gorsich SW, Liu ZL. 2009. Culture nutrition and physiology impact the inhibitor tolerance of the yeast Pichia stipitis NRRL Y-7124. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 102: 778-790.
  30. Taherzadeh M J, G ustafsson L, N iklasson C , Lidén G. 2 000. Physiological effects of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural on Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 53: 701-708.
  31. Thammasittirong SN-R, Thirasaktana T, Thammasittirong A, Srisodsuk M. 2013. Improvement of ethanol production by ethanol-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae UVNR56. Springerplus 2: 583-587.
  32. Verduyn C, P ostma E , Scheffers WA, V an D ijken J P. 1 992. Effect of benzoic acid on metabolic fluxes in yeasts: a continuous-culture study on the regulation of respiration and alcoholic fermentation. Yeast 8: 501-517.
  33. Xavier AMRB, Correia MF, Pereira SR, Evtuguin DV. 2010. Second-generation bioethanol from eucalypt sulphite spent liquor. Bioresour. Technol. 101: 2755 -2761.



Copyright © 2009 by the Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology.
All right reserved. Mail to jmb@jmb.or.kr
Online ISSN: 1738-8872    Print ISSN: 1017-7825    Powered by INFOrang Co., Ltd