| Literature DB >> 27199958 |
George E Anasontzis1, Elisavet Kourtoglou2, Silas G Villas-Boâs3, Dimitris G Hatzinikolaou1, Paul Christakopoulos4.
Abstract
Fusarium oxysporum is one of the few filamentous fungi capable of fermenting ethanol directly from plant cell wall biomass. It has the enzymatic toolbox necessary to break down biomass to its monosaccharides and, under anaerobic and microaerobic conditions, ferments them to ethanol. Although these traits could enable its use in consolidated processes and thus bypass some of the bottlenecks encountered in ethanol production from lignocellulosic material when Saccharomyces cerevisiae is used-namely its inability to degrade lignocellulose and to consume pentoses-two major disadvantages of F. oxysporum compared to the yeast-its low growth rate and low ethanol productivity-hinder the further development of this process. We had previously identified phosphoglucomutase and transaldolase, two major enzymes of glucose catabolism and the pentose phosphate pathway, as possible bottlenecks in the metabolism of the fungus and we had reported the effect of their constitutive production on the growth characteristics of the fungus. In this study, we investigated the effect of their constitutive production on ethanol productivity under anaerobic conditions. We report an increase in ethanol yield and a concomitant decrease in acetic acid production. Metabolomics analysis revealed that the genetic modifications applied did not simply accelerate the metabolic rate of the microorganism; they also affected the relative concentrations of the various metabolites suggesting an increased channeling toward the chorismate pathway, an activation of the γ-aminobutyric acid shunt, and an excess in NADPH regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium oxysporum; NADPH regeneration; biofuels; consolidated bioprocessing; ethanol; fermentation; filamentous fungi; γ-aminobutyric acid shunt
Year: 2016 PMID: 27199958 PMCID: PMC4854878 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Yield of ethanol and acetic acid.
| YSE | 0.360 | 0.504 |
| YSAc | 0.252 | 0.040 |
| Per cent EtOH | 69.9% | 98.1% |
| YSE | 0.232 | 0.492 |
| YSAc | 0.162 | 0.039 |
| Per cent EtOH | 45.1% | 95.7% |
YSE, ethanol yield over consumed and initial glucose; YSAc, acetic acid yield over consumed and initial glucose; Per cent EtOH, percentage of ethanol over the theoretical yield of 0.51 g ethanol per g of glucose.
Figure 1Glucose (■), ethanol (▴), acetic acid (•), and biomass (♦) during the anaerobic phase of . These are results of duplicate measurements (technical duplicates) from two different fermenters (biological duplicates). Standard deviation was lower than 3%.
Figure 2Schematic demonstration of the relative intracellular concentrations of amino and non-amino organic acids during anaerobic growth of . Single lines: One enzyme reaction; dashed lines: several reactions; Colors on the left and right correspond to the difference in intracellular and extracellular metabolites, respectively. Red: F3:FF11 > 3; Orange: 2 < F3:FF11 < 3; green/yellow: 1.2 < F3:FF11 < 2: Dark green: FF11:F3 > 3; Green: 2 < FF11:F3 < 3; Light green: 1.2 < FF11:F3 < 2: blue: difference smaller than 20%; gray: not detected (adapted from Anasontzis et al., 2014a).
Amino acid and non-amino acid intracellular and extracellular metabolites detected at the end of the anaerobic phase, for the two strains.
| 4-amino-n-butyrate (GABA) | 1.0 | 66.1 | 7.4 | 10.1 |
| Alanine | 296.9 | 163.6 | 84.4 | 102.9 |
| Asparagine | 13.5 | 52.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Aspartate | 56.4 | 65.5 | 3.2 | 1.0 |
| Cis-aconitate | 19.0 | 12.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Citramalate | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 3.8 |
| Citrate | 268.6 | 150.9 | 3.9 | 3.5 |
| Cystathionine | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Fumarate | 18.2 | 45.7 | 2.2 | 17.3 |
| Glutamate | 75.4 | 71.7 | 1.8 | 2.4 |
| Glutamine | 3.3 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Glutathione | 9.6 | 6.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 |
| Glycine | 235.7 | 163.6 | 5.9 | 26.2 |
| Histidine | 19.8 | 14.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Itaconate | 8.3 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| L-2-amino-adipate | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Lactic acid | 41.5 | 82.5 | 9.3 | 84.2 |
| Leucine | 97.0 | 46.3 | 8.5 | 0.5 |
| Lysine | 43.6 | 26.4 | 1.1 | 0.1 |
| Malate | 17.9 | 76.6 | 1.3 | 11.6 |
| Myristate | 3.7 | 3.1 | 0.3 | 1.6 |
| N-acetyl-L-glutamate | 10.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Nicotinate | 1.7 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| Ornithine | 73.9 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 0.7 |
| Phenylalanine | 24.8 | 15.8 | 2.1 | 0.5 |
| Phosphenolpyruvate | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Proline | 279.5 | 14.3 | 31.8 | 4.8 |
| Pyroglutamate | 82.5 | 31.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Pyruvate | n.d. | n.d. | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Serine | 88.9 | 57.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Succinate | 39.3 | 58.8 | 15.3 | 66.6 |
| Threonine | 88.9 | 57.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Tryptophan | 23.3 | 20.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Tyrosine | 25.7 | 27.8 | 1.2 | 0.2 |
| Valine | 150.3 | 63.3 | 7.4 | 1.1 |
All values express peak areas normalized by the biomass concentration. Standard deviation lower than 5%.
Ethanol productivity of different strains reported in the literature, using glucose as the carbon source.
| 9.9 | 0.36 | 0.081 | This study | |
| 20.4 | 0.504 | 0.146 | This study | |
| 8.5 | ~0.425 | 0.142 | Fan et al., | |
| 7.5 | ~0.375 | 0.125 | Fan et al., | |
| 0.46 | Sues et al., | |||
| ~110 | 0.4845 | 2.4 | Krishnan et al., | |
| 0.35–0.45 | Kordowska-Wiater and Targonski, | |||
| 70.4 | 0.495 | 2 | Kesava et al., | |
| 0.428–0.459 | Shafiei et al., | |||
| 8.1 | 0.41 | 0.021 | Okamoto et al., | |
| 7.7 | 0.39 | 0.017 | Okamoto et al., | |
| 20.5 | 0.41 | 1.87 | Millati et al., | |
| 21.5 | 0.43 | 1.48 | Millati et al., | |
| 19.5 | 0.39 | 1.44 | Millati et al., | |
| 19.5 | 0.39 | 1.41 | Millati et al., | |
| 21 | 0.42 | 1.29 | Millati et al., |