| Literature DB >> 27134652 |
Balaji Sundara Sekar1, Eunhee Seol1, Subramanian Mohan Raj2, Sunghoon Park1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fermentative hydrogen (H2) production suffers from low carbon-to-H2 yield, to which problem, co-production of ethanol and H2 has been proposed as a solution. For improved co-production of H2 and ethanol, we developed Escherichia coli BW25113 ΔhycA ΔhyaAB ΔhybBC ΔldhA ΔfrdAB Δpta-ackA ΔpfkA (SH8*) and overexpressed Zwf and Gnd, the key enzymes in the pentose-phosphate (PP) pathway (SH8*_ZG). However, the amount of accumulated pyruvate, which was significant (typically 0.20 mol mol(-1) glucose), reduced the co-production yield.Entities:
Keywords: Biohydrogen; Co-production of hydrogen and ethanol; Escherichia coli; Glycolysis; NADPH production; Pentose-phosphate pathway
Year: 2016 PMID: 27134652 PMCID: PMC4850720 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-016-0510-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1Strategy for promoting carbon flux through PP pathway to improve co-production of H2 and ethanol. EMP pathway was down-regulated by pfkA deletion (red) and PP pathway was activated by overexpression of zwf and gnd (blue). Genes: pgi—phosphoglucose isomerase, pfk—phosphofructokinase, gapA—glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, pta—phosphotransacetylase, ackA—acetate kinase, adhE—alcohol dehydrogenase, zwf—glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, gnd—6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, edd—6-phosphogluconate dehyratase, eda—Entner–Doudoroff aldolase, udhA—soluble transhydrogenase, pntAB—membrane-bound transhydrogenase. Metabolites: G6P—glucose-6-phosphate, F6P—fructose-6-phosphate, FBP—fructose-1,6-bisphosphate, DHAP—dihydroxyacetone phosphate, G3P—glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, 1,3-PG—1,3-bisphosphoglycerate, PYR—pyruvate, FOR—formate, H2—hydrogen, AcCoA—acetyl CoA, ACE—acetate, EtOH—ethanol, 6PG—6-phosphogluconate, RL5P—ribulose-5-phosphate, X5P—xylose-5-phosphate, E4P—erythrose-4-phosphate, KDPG—2-Keto-3-deoxy-6-phosphogluconate
List of strains and plasmids used in this study
| Strains and plasmids | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| SH5 |
| [ |
| SH5_ZG | SH5/pEcZG | This study |
| SH9 | SH5Δ | |
| SH9* | SH9—adapted for anaerobic growth | |
| SH9*_G | SH9*/pEcG | |
| SH9*_Z | SH9*/pEcZ | |
| SH9*_ZG | SH9*/pEcZG | |
| SH9*_ZGU | SH9*/pEcZGU | |
| SH10_ZG | SH9* Δ | |
| Plasmids | ||
| pDK7 | Bacterial expression plasmid, Cm resistant | [ |
| pEcG | pDK7 carrying | [ |
| pEcZ | pDK7 carrying | |
| pEcZG | pDK7 carrying | |
| pEcZGU | pDK7 carrying | This study |
Fig. 2Growth of host strains (SH5, SH9, and SH9*) in glucose-containing M9 medium and mutation occurred in SH9*. Refer to Table 1 for the genotype of each strain. a Growth under aerobic condition, b growth under anaerobic condition and c difference in genome sequence between SH9 and SH9* (adapted SH9 strain). Adaptation introduced a single-point mutation only in the promoter region of pfkB, from ‘C’ to ‘T’. The mutated nucleotide is marked in red
Comparison of metabolites yield of recombinant SH5, SH8*, and SH9* strains
| Strainb | Overexpressed gene | Yield of metabolitesa,d (mol mol−1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H2 | Ethanol | Acetate | Pyruvate | ||
| SH5 | – | 1.44 | 0.79 | 0.67 | – |
|
| 1.60 | 1.09 | 0.35 | – | |
| SH8*c | – | 1.01 (0.59) | 0.89 (0.48) | – | 0.73 (1.36) |
|
| 1.20 (0.57) | 1.18 (0.49) | – | 0.41 (1.38) | |
|
| 1.05 (0.99) | 0.96 (0.79) | – | 0.67 (1.07) | |
|
| 1.32 (0.98) | 1.38 (0.81) | – | 0.18 (1.05) | |
| SH9* | – | 1.68 (1.68) | 0.85 (0.51) | 0.78 (1.37) | – |
|
| 1.76 (1.75) | 0.80 (0.52) | 0.87 (1.45) | – | |
|
| 1.78 (1.64) | 0.87 (0.68) | 0.71 (1.13) | – | |
|
| 1.88 (1.70) | 1.40 (0.65) | 0.15 (1.28) | – | |
| SH10 |
| 1.57 | 1.30 | 0.38 | – |
aYields of metabolites were calculated from three individual experiments and the standard deviation was less than 10 %
bRefer to Table 1 for the genotype of the strains
cData for SH8* were obtained from the previous study and presented for comparison [18]
dYields of metabolites in parentheses were obtained with gluconate as carbon source
Fig. 3Metabolites yield of SH9*_ZG induced with varying concentrations of IPTG. a Final cell density, H2, ethanol and acetate. b Pyruvate (ethanol + acetate) yield and ratio of produced CO2 to H2
Fig. 4Specific activities of Zwf and Gnd in the cytosolic fractions of SH9* and SH9*ZG induced with varying concentrations of IPTG
Relative transcription levels of key glycolytic enzymes in SH9*_ZG after induction with different IPTG concentrations
| Gene | IPTG concentration (mM) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 mM | 0.02 mM | 0.20 mM | |
|
| 2.3 | 5.2 | 5.3 |
|
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
|
| 63.3 | 58.5 | 40.2 |
|
| 4.5 | 17.5 | 34.1 |
|
| 0.30 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
|
| 1.02 | 2222.0 | 7631.1 |
|
| 8.08 | 1610.4 | 3075.0 |
|
| 9.4 | 6.1 | 4.3 |
|
| 28.4 | 21.2 | 21.1 |
|
| 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
|
| 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
|
| 2.1 | 4.6 | 35.9 |
|
| 4.1 | ND | 1.6 |
|
| 0.2 | ND | 0.5 |
|
| 0.0 | ND | 0.1 |
|
| 0.1 | ND | 0.3 |
|
| 0.0 | ND | 0.3 |
|
| 0.6 | ND | 1.1 |
|
| 0.3 | ND | 0.4 |
|
| 0.1 | ND | 0.1 |
|
| 0.3 | ND | 0.4 |
The result was from three individual experiment repeats and the standard deviation was less than 10 %
rpoD was used as the endogenous control and the transcriptional level of rpoD was considered as 1
ND not determined