| Literature DB >> 23555660 |
Tobin J Verbeke1, Xiangli Zhang, Bernard Henrissat, Vic Spicer, Thomas Rydzak, Oleg V Krokhin, Brian Fristensky, David B Levin, Richard Sparling.
Abstract
The microbial production of ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass is a multi-component process that involves biomass hydrolysis, carbohydrate transport and utilization, and finally, the production of ethanol. Strains of the genus Thermoanaerobacter have been studied for decades due to their innate abilities to produce comparatively high ethanol yields from hemicellulose constituent sugars. However, their inability to hydrolyze cellulose, limits their usefulness in lignocellulosic biofuel production. As such, co-culturing Thermoanaerobacter spp. with cellulolytic organisms is a plausible approach to improving lignocellulose conversion efficiencies and yields of biofuels. To evaluate native lignocellulosic ethanol production capacities relative to competing fermentative end-products, comparative genomic analysis of 11 sequenced Thermoanaerobacter strains, including a de novo genome, Thermoanaerobacter thermohydrosulfuricus WC1, was conducted. Analysis was specifically focused on the genomic potential for each strain to address all aspects of ethanol production mentioned through a consolidated bioprocessing approach. Whole genome functional annotation analysis identified three distinct clades within the genus. The genomes of Clade 1 strains encode the fewest extracellular carbohydrate active enzymes and also show the least diversity in terms of lignocellulose relevant carbohydrate utilization pathways. However, these same strains reportedly are capable of directing a higher proportion of their total carbon flux towards ethanol, rather than non-biofuel end-products, than other Thermoanaerobacter strains. Strains in Clade 2 show the greatest diversity in terms of lignocellulose hydrolysis and utilization, but proportionately produce more non-ethanol end-products than Clade 1 strains. Strains in Clade 3, in which T. thermohydrosulfuricus WC1 is included, show mid-range potential for lignocellulose hydrolysis and utilization, but also exhibit extensive divergence from both Clade 1 and Clade 2 strains in terms of cellular energetics. The potential implications regarding strain selection and suitability for industrial ethanol production through a consolidated bioprocessing co-culturing approach are examined throughout the manuscript.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23555660 PMCID: PMC3608648 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059362
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Schematic representation of key physiological processes pertinent to lignocellulosic ethanol production in a CBP system.
Physiological processes are identified as the text in blue boxes.
Figure 2Phylogram of annotated COG functional profiles for sequenced Thermoanaerobacter strains.
Cluster analysis, based on Cluster 3.0 analysis software [120], was conducted within the IMG-ER platform using the COG profiles for each genome. Branch lengths correspond to calculated distances between functional profiles. Similar clade architectures are observed when using KO or TIGRFAM descriptors (not shown).
Predicted extracellular CAZymes involved with lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysis within sequenced Thermoanaerobacter spp.
| Clade 1 | Clade 2 | Clade 3 | |||||||||
| CAZyme Designation&ModularStructure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GH10 | Thit_0188 | Tmath_0247 | |||||||||
| GH43 | Tmath_1695 | ||||||||||
| GH52 | Thit_0190 | Tmath_0249 | TthWC1_1012 | ||||||||
| CE4 | ThesiDRAFT1_1967 | TthWC1_1808 | Thewi_00017610 | ||||||||
| PL9 | Thit_1727 | ||||||||||
| GH66-CBM35-CBM35-GH15 | ThesiDRAFT1_0902 | TthWC1_0529 | |||||||||
| CBM22-CBM22-GH10-CBM9-CBM9-SLH-SLH-SLH | Thit_0192 | Tmath_0251 | TthWC1_1010 | ||||||||
Selected1 transporters associated with carbohydrate import identified within sequenced Thermoanaerobacter spp.
| Clade 1 | Clade 2 | Clade 3 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||||
| 2-Keto-3-Deoxygluconate | + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Glycoside/Pentoside/Hexuronide Cation Symporter | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
|
| |||||||||||
| Lactose/L-arabinose | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + | + | + |
| Maltose/Maltodextrin | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Methyl-Galactoside | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Multiple Sugar (unspecified) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Oligogalacturonide | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | − | + | − | − |
| Putative Multiple Sugar (unspecified) | − | − | − | + | + | + | − | − | + | + | + |
| Putative Sugar (unspecified) | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | − |
| Ribose | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + |
| Simple Sugar (unspecified) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Xylose | − | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
|
| |||||||||||
| Cellobiose | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Fructose | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + |
| Galactitol | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Galactosamine | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + |
| Glucitol/Sorbitol | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + |
| Mannitol | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Mannose | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| N-Acetylglucosamine | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Sucrose | − | − | − | + | + | + | − | − | + | + | − |
Symbols denote the presence (+) or absence (−) of a particular annotated transporter within each genome. Substrate specificity is inferred based upon KO annotated specificity of the substrate binding protein (ABC transporters) or the membrane linked EIIC components (PTS transporters).
Transport systems presented are limited to complexes showing co-localization of all genes needed to form a functional complex. Complexes lacking annotation of a single component are not included. Redundancy in transport systems exists, but is not identified.
Identification of the genomic potential for sequenced Thermoanaerobacter strains to utilize the major carbohydrate hydrolysis products of lignocellulose degradation.
| Clade 1 | Clade 2 | Clade 3 | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Cellulose Hydrolysis Products | Glucose | Genes Present | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Reported Phenotype | + | NR | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
| Cellobiose | Genes Present | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Reported Phenotype | + | NR | + | NR | NR | NR | + | + | + | + | + | ||
| Hemicellulose Hydrolysis Products | Arabinose | Genes Present | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | − | − |
| Reported Phenotype | − | NR | – | NR | NR | NR | + | + | − | − | − | ||
| Galactose | Genes Present | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Reported Phenotype | + | NR | + | NR | NR | NR | + | − | NR | + | + | ||
| Mannose | Genes Present | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Reported Phenotype | + | NR | + | NR | NR | NR | + | + | NR | + | + | ||
| Xylose | Genes Present | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Reported Phenotype | + | NR | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
| Glucuronic Acid | Genes Present | − | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | + | − | |
| Reported Phenotype | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | ||
| Reference |
| − |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Symbols denote the presence (+) or absence (–) of all enzymes needed for hydrolysis to pyruvate or whether the substrate has been reported to be used (+) or not used (−) in the literature. NR denotes substrate utilization has not yet been reported for a particular strain.
Cellulose hydrolysis products have been limited to glucose and cellobiose and not higher order cellodextrins.
Physiological data has not yet been reported for this strain.
Reported end-product yields and related growth conditions for sequenced Thermoanaerobacter strains1 grown on glucose, xylose or cellobiose.
| End Products (mol/mol hexose equivalent) | Culture Conditions | |||||||||
| Clade | Strain | H2 | CO2 | Acetate | Ethanol | Lactate | Substrate | Concentration | Type | Reference |
| 1 |
| 0.25 | 1.66 | 0.26 | 1.66 | 0.38 | Glucose | 5 g L−1 | B |
|
|
| NI | NQ | 0.38 | 1.11 | 0.30 | Glucose | NR | B |
| |
| NI | NQ | 0.29 | 1.52 | 0.10 | Xylose | 2 g L−1 | B |
| ||
| 0.45 | 1.72 | 0.10 | 1.41 | 0.15 | Glucose | 10 g L−1 | B |
| ||
| NI | 1.63 | 0.08 | 1.55 | 0.23 | Glucose | 4 g L−1 | B |
| ||
| NI | NI | 0.24 | 1.25 | 0.32 | Xylose | 5 g L−1 | B |
| ||
| NI | NI | 0.17 | 1.10 | 0.35 | Glucose | 5 g L−1 | B |
| ||
|
| NI | NI | NI | NQ | NI | Xylose | 1.5 g L−1 | B |
| |
|
| NI | NQ | 0.51 | 1.02 | 0.29 | Glucose | NR | B |
| |
| NI | NQ | 0.25 | 1.55 | 0.12 | Xylose | 2 g L−1 | B |
| ||
| NI | NQ | 0.33 | 1.25 | 0.17 | Glucose | 2.1 g L−1 | B |
| ||
|
| NI | NI | NI | NQ | NI | Xylose | 1.5 g L−1 | B |
| |
| 2 |
| NQ | NC | NC | NC | NC | Glucose | 5 g L−1 | B |
|
|
| 1.08 | 2.17 | 0.48 | 1.32 | 0.07 | Xylose | 2 g L−1 | B |
| |
| 3 |
| NQ | NQ | NI | NQ | NQ | Glucose | 5 g L−1 | B |
|
|
| 0.56 | 1.19 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.33 | Cellobiose | 2 g L−1 | B |
| |
|
| NI | NI | 0.50 | 0.88 | 0.17 | Glucose | 8.6 g L−1 | B |
| |
| NI | 1.60 | 0.50 | 1.10 | 0.04 | Glucose | 9 g L−1 | P |
| ||
| NI | 1.84 | 0.53 | 1.32 | 0.06 | Xylose | 7.5 g L−1 | P |
| ||
| NI | 1.68 | 0.61 | 1.06 | ND | Cellobiose | 17 g L−1 | P |
| ||
Abbreviations: NI = end-product not investigated; ND = end-product investigated, but not detected; NQ = end-product detected, but not quantified; NC = end-product quantified, but ratio not calculable due to missing substrate consumption data; B = batch culture; P = pH-controlled batch culture.
T. ethanolicus CCSD1 omitted as no physiological data is available.
End product and substrate utilization data used for calculations approximated from graphical data.
Succinate production reported as a minor product.
Propionate detected on xylose grown cells (molar ratio = 0.12) and cellobiose grown cells (molar ratio = 0.06).
Figure 3Phylogenetic analysis of all annotated alcohol dehydrogenase genes within sequenced Thermoanaerobacter strains.
All included sequences belong to COG1063, COG1454 or COG1979. Tmath_0755 was excluded from analysis as the annotated sequence appears to be a CDS fragment. Sequences in bold correspond to the GenBank accession numbers for functionally characterized sequences from T. ethanolicus JW200 [93], [95]. Tree construction was as described in Materials and Methods. Bootstrapping support values are indicated by their respective nodes.
Annotated hydrogenases within sequenced Thermoanaerobacter spp.
| FeFe hydrogenases | Ni-Fe hydrogenase | ||||
| Bifurcating | Fd-linked | PAS-sensory | Ech | ||
|
|
| Thebr_1491–Thebr_1495 | Thebr_1498 | Thebr_0227 | |
|
| TeCCSD1DRAFT_0391–TeCCSD1DRAFT_0395 | TeCCSD1DRAFT_0398 | TeCCSD1DRAFT_1595 | ||
|
| Teth39_1456–Teth39_1460 | Teth39_1463 | Teth39_0221 | ||
|
| Thet_0793–Thet_0797 | Thet_0790 | Thet_2270 | ||
|
| Teth514_2138–Teth514_2142 | Teth514_2145 | Teth514_0655 | ||
|
| Teth561DRAFT_0433–Teth561DRAFT_0437 | Teth561DRAFT_0440 | Teth561DRAFT_0685 | ||
|
|
| Thit_0826–Thit_0830 | Thit_0823 | Thit_2175 | Thit_1612–Thit_1617 |
|
| Tmath_0865–Tmath_0869 | Tmath_0862 | Tmath_2092 | Tmath_1603–Tmath_1608 | |
| Tmath_1048 | |||||
|
|
| ThesiDRAFT1_1833–ThesiDRAFT_1837 | ThesiDRAFT1_1830 | ThesiDRAFT1_1402–ThesiDRAFT1_1407 | |
|
| TthWC1_1780–TthWC1_1784 | TthWC1_1787 | TthWC1_1092–TthWC1_1097 | ||
|
| Thewi_00017870–Thewi_00017920 | Thewi_00017850 | Thewi_00028620 | Thewi_00009040–Thewi_00009090 | |
| Thewi_00028740 | Thewi_00005270 | ||||
Figure 4Transmembrane ion gradient generating and consuming reactions involved with Thermoanaerobacter cellular energetics.
With the exception of the natAB complex (see text, Table S5), all enzyme complexes show intra-clade conservation. Cation specificity is not inferred unless specifically discussed within the text. Dashed lines associated with napA and nhaC antiporters indicate a counter-directional flow of Na+ ions in relation to H+.