| Literature DB >> 23890073 |
Mingjie Jin1, Cory Sarks1, Christa Gunawan1, Benjamin D Bice2, Shane P Simonett3, Ragothaman Avanasi Narasimhan2, Laura B Willis4, Bruce E Dale1, Venkatesh Balan1, Trey K Sato2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) process involves enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated lignocellulosic biomass and fermentation of glucose and xylose in one bioreactor. The optimal temperatures for enzymatic hydrolysis are higher than the standard fermentation temperature of ethanologenic Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Moreover, degradation products resulting from biomass pretreatment impair fermentation of sugars, especially xylose, and can synergize with high temperature stress. One approach to resolve both concerns is to utilize a strain background with innate tolerance to both elevated temperatures and degradation products.Entities:
Keywords: AFEX; Degradation products; Ethanol; S. cerevisiae; SSCF; Thermo-tolerance; Xylose fermentation
Year: 2013 PMID: 23890073 PMCID: PMC3729497 DOI: 10.1186/1754-6834-6-108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Figure 1Identification of strains with thermotolerance in AFEX corn stover hydrolysate (ACSH). (A) Heat map displaying binned growth phenotypes of 108 wild and domesticated S. cerevisiae strains grown in the indicated media at 40°C. Yeast strains were grown in 96-well plate format on 6% or 9% glucan loading (GL) ACSH at 40°C, or YEPD at 30 or 40°C for 24 hours. Cell growth was continuously monitored by measuring the optical density at 595 nm every 10 minutes with Tecan 96-well plate readers. Specific growth rates in ACSH or YEPD at 40°C were normalized relative to YEPD at 30°C, and resulting values were binned (0–0.2 = “No growth,” 0.2-0.4 = “Slow” growth, 0.4-0.8 = “Moderate” growth, >0.8 = “Fast” growth). Strains were placed into numbered cluster groups (1–7) and the number of strains within each group are indicated along the right side of the heat map based on phenotype and is indicated in the Additional file 1: Table S1. Representative 96-well growth curve data of CEN.PK2 (B), ATCC4124 (C) or GLBRCY0 (D) in indicated media conditions. Relative cell densities are expressed as background subtracted OD595 values divided by the initial OD595 value for each culture. Time points every 30 minutes are shown for clarity.
Figure 2Fermentation performance comparison of Y1A, Y2A, Y35 and 424A on YEP medium at 30°C, 35°C and 40°C. Graphs display glucose (A), xylose (B), ethanol (C), cell biomass (D), and viable cell density (E) profiles of the four strains during fermentation. Fermentation results with 424A at 30°C are adapted from [7].
Fermentation results summary of strains Y1A, Y2A, Y35 and 424A in YEP medium
| Xylose consumption | 17.0% ± 4.5% | 7.8% ± 1.3% | 8.3% ± 0.5% | 30.4% ± 2.4% | 22.4% ± 1.4% | 9.9% ± 0.3% | 43.5% ± 0.6% | 50.9% ± 1.4% | 24.5% ± 0.4% | 99.0% ± 0.0% | 96.5% ± 0.0% | 30.3% ± 1.1% |
| Maximum cell biomass (g/L) | 9.2 ± 0.5 | 8.1 ± 0.0 | 5.2 ± 0.1 | 8.7 ± 0.1 | 8.4 ± 0.1 | 5.3 ± 0.1 | 8.7 ± 0.0 | 8.3 ± 0.0 | 5.1 ± 0.2 | 8.6 ± 0.0 | 6.9 ± 0.0 | 4.2 ± 0.0 |
| Yx/sb | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.00 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | 0.15 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | 0.15 ± 0.00 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | 0.07 ± 0.00 |
| Xylitol (g/L) | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 2.4 ± 0.0 | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 3.2 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | 4.1 ± 0.1 | 4.2 ± 0.2 | 2.8 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 2.6 ± 0.0 | 0.9 ± 0.0 |
| Glycerol (g/L) | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 2.8 ± 0.0 | 2.9 ± 0.0 | 3.5 ± 0.0 | 3.2 ± 0.0 | 3.2 ± 0.0 | 3.8 ± 0.0 | 3.8 ± 0.0 | 3.6 ± 0.0 | 4.7 ± 0.1 | 6.2 ± 0.1 | 5.3 ± 0.1 |
| Specific xylose consumption rate (g/h/g cell), 18 hc | 0.012 ± 0.005 | 0.011 ± 0.007 | 0.016 ± 0.026 | 0.033 ± 0.001 | 0.022 ± 0.005 | 0.006 ± 0.003 | 0.036 ± 0.002 | 0.048 ± 0.002 | 0.044 ± 0.012 | 0.153 ± 0.000 | 0.151 ± 0.005 | 0.046 ± 0.002 |
| Ethanol metabolic yield (%) | 75.6% ± 3.4% | 83.6% ± 1.1% | 83.8% ± 0.9% | 80.5% ± 0.1% | 82.3% ± 0.6% | 84.2% ± 0.4% | 79.6% ± 0.1% | 79.6% ± 0.2% | 83.2% ± 0.0% | 87.0% ± 0.8% | 84.6% ± 0.0% | 85.1% ± 0.3% |
| Ethanol (g/L) | 25.4 ± 0.6 | 26.8 ± 0.2 | 26.9 ± 0.2 | 28.6 ± 0.3 | 28.2 ± 0.0 | 27.3 ± 0.1 | 29.6 ± 0.0 | 30.4 ± 0.1 | 28.5 ± 0.0 | 39.9 ± 0.4 | 38.5 ± 0.0 | 30.2 ± 0.0 |
| Ethanol volumetric productivity (g/L/h)d | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.00 | 0.56 ± 0.00 | 0.60 ± 0.01 | 0.59 ± 0.00 | 0.57 ± 0.00 | 0.62 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.59 ± 0.00 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 0.80 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 |
aThe experiments were carried out in YEP medium with 58.2 g/L glucose and 29.8 g/L xylose, 150 rpm, 30°C. Reactions proceeded for 48 h. Standard deviations from biological duplicate experiments are indicated.
bYx/s, cell biomass yield on glucose was calculated based on maximum cell biomass during glucose fermentation and consumed glucose at that time.
cSpecific xylose consumption rate was calculated based on time point 18 h.
dEthanol volumetric productivity was based on the final concentration of ethanol.
Figure 3Fermentation performance of Y35 and 424A in 6% and 9% glucan loading ACSH at 30°C. (A and B): 6% glucan loading; (C and D): 9% glucan loading; (A and C): Glucose and xylose consumption profiles; (B and D): ethanol production and OD profiles.
SHF fermentation results summary of strains Y35 and 424A in 6% glucan loading and 9% glucan loading ACSH at 30°C
| Xylose consumption | 51% ± 0.0 | 21% ± 0.0 | 81% ± 0.0 | 39% ± 0.0 |
| Final xylose (g/L) | 14.4 ± 0.17 | 33.5 ± 0.16 | 5.53 ± 0.11 | 26.2 ± 0.09 |
| Yx/sb | 0.10 ± 0.00 | 0.07 ± 0.00 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 0.06 ± 0.00 |
| Xylitol (g/L) | 5.0 ± 0.1 | 3.1 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.0 |
| Glycerol (g/L) | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 5.6 ± 0.0 | 5.0 ± 0.0 | 6.0 ± 0.1 |
| Specific xylose consumption rate (g/h/g cell), 18 hc | 0.020 ± 0.001 | 0.016 ± 0.001 | 0.076 ± 0.003 | 0.051 ± 0.000 |
| Sugar consumption (%)d | 82.3% ± 0.2% | 72.3% ± 0.1% | 92.7% ± 0.1% | 78.1% ± 0.1% |
| Ethanol metabolic yield (%) | 90.0% ± 1.7% | 96.6% ± 0.3% | 97.6% ± 0.3% | 99.7% ± 0.4% |
| Final Ethanol concentration (g/L) | 33.3 ± 0.5 | 45.5 ± 0.1 | 40.7 ± 0.2 | 50.7 ± 0.1 |
| Ethanol volumetric productivity (g/L/h), 48 he | 0.61 ± 0.00 | 0.87 ± 0.00 | 0.77 ± 0.00 | 1.00 ± 0.01 |
aThe experiments were carried out at 150 rpm and 30°C. Reactions proceeded for 168 h. Errors presented here were standard deviation of triplicate experiments.
bYx/s, cell biomass yield on glucose was calculated based on maximum cell biomass during glucose fermentation and consumed glucose at that time.
cSpecific xylose consumption rate was calculated based on time point 18 h.
dSugar consumption was calculated based on available monomeric glucose and xylose for fermentation.
eEthanol volumetric productivity was based on the 48 h results.
Figure 4SSCF performance comparison of Y35 and 424A on ACS at 6% and 9% glucan loading and 30 and 35°C. (A-D): glucose and xylose consumption profiles; (E-H): ethanol production and cell viability profiles.
Summary of SSCF results on ACS using Y35 and 424A at two biomass solids loadings (6% glucan loading and 9% glucan loading) and at 30 or 35°C
| Final xylose conc. (g/L) | 10.9 ± 0.8 | 13.3 ± 2.5 | 5.4 ± 0.6 | 13.1 ± 1.4 | 22.70 ± 1.35 | 24.69 ± 1.27 | 17.2 ±0.8 | 25.2 ± 0.6 |
| Xylitol (g/L) | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 4.4 ± 1.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 2.9 ± 1.0 | 4.9 ± 1.4 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.1 |
| Glycerol (g/L) | 5.4 ± 0.4 | 5.5 ± 0.2 | 5.9 ± 0.2 | 6.3 ± 0.5 | 7.4 ± 0.4 | 6.8 ± 0.6 | 7.5 ±0.4 | 7.7 ± 0.4 |
| Final Ethanol conc. (g/L) | 34.9 ± 0.8 | 34.6 ± 1.7 | 40.3 ± 0.2 | 37.3 ± 1.0 | 49.5 ± 2.9 | 51.3 ± 0.4 | 54.4 ±1.3 | 48.8 ± 1.7 |
| Monomeric sugar conversionb | 72.5% ± 0.8% | 73.7% ± 1% | 71.8% ± 0.4% | 73.6% ± 0.7% | 68.7% ± 2.4% | 71.7% ± 0.4% | 69.8% ±1.5% | 71.7% ± 1.7% |
| Sugar consumptionc | 87.0% ± 1.1% | 84.9% ± 3.1% | 93.6% ± 0.9% | 84.6% ± 1.7% | 80.8% ± 1.9% | 80.3% ± 0.8% | 84.7% ±0.7% | 74.0% ± 1.5% |
| Ethanol volumetric productivity (g/L/h), 48 hd | 0.52 ± 0.02 | 0.56 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ±0.01 | 0.65 ±0.01 | 0.69 ±0.02 | 0.76 ± 0.02 | 0.78 ± 0.02 | 0.82 ± 0.02 |
aSSCF experiments were carried out in 250 ml baffled flasks with working weight of 100 g. Shaking speed, temperature and initial pH were 180 rpm, 30°C and 5.5, respectively.
bMonomeric sugar conversion was calculated based on the ethanol concentration and the remaining monomeric glucose and xylose in the fermentation broth after 168 h with the assumption of ethanol metabolic yield the same as SHF.
cSugar consumption was calculated based on available monomeric glucose and xylose for fermentation.
dEthanol volumetric productivity was based on the 48 h results.