| Literature DB >> 27257435 |
Liang Tian1,2, Beth Papanek3,4,2, Daniel G Olson1,2, Thomas Rydzak4,2, Evert K Holwerda1,2, Tianyong Zheng1,2, Jilai Zhou1,2, Marybeth Maloney1,2, Nannan Jiang3,4,2, Richard J Giannone2,5, Robert L Hettich2,5, Adam M Guss3,4,2, Lee R Lynd1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biofuel production from plant cell walls offers the potential for sustainable and economically attractive alternatives to petroleum-based products. Fuels from cellulosic biomass are particularly promising, but would benefit from lower processing costs. Clostridium thermocellum can rapidly solubilize and ferment cellulosic biomass, making it a promising candidate microorganism for consolidated bioprocessing for biofuel production, but increases in product yield and titer are still needed.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive evolution; Cellulosic ethanol; Clostridium thermocellum; Consolidated bioprocessing
Year: 2016 PMID: 27257435 PMCID: PMC4890492 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-016-0528-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1The ethanol pathway in C. thermocellum strain AG553. Gray crosses represent gene deletions. NAD(P)H producing pathways are in blue, and NAD(P)H consuming steps are in red
Fig. 2Ethanol production during the course of strain evolution. a First round of evolution, ethanol titer determined from 5 g/L cellobiose as substrate in CTFUD medium. b Second round of selection, ethanol titer determined from 50 g/L cellobiose as substrate in MTC medium
Comparison of strains grown on low substrate (5 g/L cellobiose)
| Strain name | Description | Growth rate μ (h−1) |
|---|---|---|
| AG553 |
| 0.06 ± 0.01 |
| AG601 | Selected from AG553 after first stage adaptive evolution | 0.10 ± 0.01 |
| LL1210 | Selected from AG601 after second stage adaptive evolution | 0.22 ± 0.02 |
Error bars represent one standard deviation, n = 3
Fig. 3Serum bottle batch fermentation products of C. thermocellum from 50 g/L cellobiose. Strains were grown on minimal medium with 50 g/L cellobiose in serum bottle. Error bars represent one standard deviation, n = 3
Fig. 4Residual substrate and product concentrations from 60 g/L from cellulose fermentation in a bioreactor. The strains grown on minimal medium in a bioreactor with pH regulation. Error bars represent one standard deviation, n = 3
Carbon balance from fermentation of 60 g/L cellulose (345 mM glucose equivalents)
| Compound | mM | % C3 (pyruvate)a |
|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | 520.9 | 75.5 |
| Ex amino acid carbonb | 208.2 | 10.1 |
| Biomass carbon | 148.3 | 7.2 |
| Ex protein carbonc | 50.8 | 2.1 |
| Acetate | 11.9 | 1.7 |
| Ex sugard | 10.4 | 1.5 |
| Isobutanol | 3.5 | 1.0 |
| Malate | 3.0 | 0.4 |
| Lactate | 2.0 | 0.3 |
| Glucose | 0.6 | 0.1 |
| Total | 99.8 |
aTo facilitate comparison, carbon-containing compounds were expressed in terms of C3 equivalents. For example, one C3 equivalent (i.e., pyruvate) is required to produce one ethanol
bEx amino acid carbon; amount of carbon in extracellular free amino acids
cEx protein carbon; amount of carbon in extracellular (secreted) protein
dEx sugar; extracellular sugar, including all the soluble glucan and xylan
Fig. 5Batch fermentation C. thermocellum LL1210 with different initial ethanol concentrations. The strains grown on minimal medium with 50 g/L cellobiose in serum bottles. Error bars represent one standard deviation, n = 3
Fig. 6Relative protein abundance. Abundance was determined based on matched-ion intensity (MIT) and is reported in arbitrary units. Proteins that were not detected were plotted with a low-level log-normal distribution value. Each point represents the average of two biological replicates. For panel a, all the gene deletions proteins are in red color, and some significantly upregulated genes are noted in green color. For panel b, proteins were included for selection that are thought to play a role in central metabolism, electron transfer, and ethanol production. Red ovals indicate the abundances decreased significantly between AG601 and LL1210; Green ovals indicate the abundances increase significantly; Gray ovals indicated no significant difference in the abundances. The solid diagonal line represents a 1:1 correspondence in protein abundance between target and control strains. The dashed lines indicate twofold changes in abundance
Enzyme activity comparison
| Strain name | PFK activitya | ALDH activity | ADH activity | GAPDH activity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPi | NADH | NADPH | NADH | NADPH | NADH | |
| Wild type | 1.60 ± 0.40b | N/A | N/A | 12.53 ± 2.59 | N/A | 0.38 ± 0.09 |
| AG553 | 2.31 ± 0.54 | 1.32 ± 0.40 | 0.00 ± 0.06c | 7.67 ± 1.19 | 6.82 ± 0.16 | 0.28 ± 0.07 |
| AG601 | 2.84 ± 0.37 | 1.10 ± 0.17 | 0.00 ± 0.14 | 8.63 ± 0.74 | 6.74 ± 0.57 | 0.40 ± 0.11 |
| LL1210 | 4.45 ± 0.81 | 2.92 ± 0.89 | 0.02 ± 0.11 | 14.88 ± 2.33 | 14.9 ± 0.31 | 0.53 ± 0.15 |
aActivity units are in U/mg protein
bMeasured in triplicates with same sample at different concentrations. Error represents one standard deviation, n = 3
cWhen background activity was higher than reaction activity, the values are reported as zero