| Literature DB >> 32296988 |
M S Lekshmi Sundar1,2, Aliyath Susmitha1,2, Devi Rajan1, Silvin Hannibal3, Keerthi Sasikumar1,2, Volker F Wendisch3, K Madhavan Nampoothiri4,5.
Abstract
In bacterial system, direct conversion of xylose to xylonic acid is mediated through NAD-dependent xylose dehydrogenase (xylB) and xylonolactonase (xylC) genes. Heterologous expression of these genes from Caulobacter crescentus into recombinant Corynebacterium glutamicum ATCC 13032 and C. glutamicum ATCC 31831 (with an innate pentose transporter, araE) resulted in an efficient bioconversion process to produce xylonic acid from xylose. Process parameters including the design of production medium was optimized using a statistical tool, Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Maximum xylonic acid of 56.32 g/L from 60 g/L xylose, i.e. about 76.67% of the maximum theoretical yield was obtained after 120 h fermentation from pure xylose with recombinant C. glutamicum ATCC 31831 containing the plasmid pVWEx1 xylB. Under the same condition, the production with recombinant C. glutamicum ATCC 13032 (with pVWEx1 xylB) was 50.66 g/L, i.e. 69% of the theoretical yield. There was no significant improvement in production with the simultaneous expression of xylB and xylC genes together indicating xylose dehydrogenase activity as one of the rate limiting factor in the bioconversion. Finally, proof of concept experiment in utilizing biomass derived pentose sugar, xylose, for xylonic acid production was also carried out and obtained 42.94 g/L xylonic acid from 60 g/L xylose. These results promise a significant value addition for the future bio refinery programs.Entities:
Keywords: Biomass; Corynebacterium glutamicum; Heterologous expression; Response surface methodology (RSM); Xylonic acid; Xylose; Xylose dehydrogenase
Year: 2020 PMID: 32296988 PMCID: PMC7158973 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-020-01003-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Microbial strains, plasmids and primers used in the study
| Strains and vectors | Descriptions | References |
|---|---|---|
| Microbial strains | ||
| | ATCC13032, wild type (WT) | Abe et al. ( |
| | ATCC 31831 | Kinoshita et al. ( |
| | Hanahan and Harbor ( | |
| Plasmid vectors | ||
| | Kanr; | Peters-Wendisch et al. ( |
| | Specr; pEKEx3 derivative for the regulated expression of | This study |
| Primers (sequences 5′–3′) | ||
| xylB-pVW-fw | CGCCAAGCTTGCATGC | This study |
| xylB-pVW-rw | CGAGCTCGGTACCCGG | This study |
| xylC-pVW-fw | CGCCAAGCTTGCATGC | This study |
| xylC-pVW-rw | CGAGCTCGGTACCCGG | This study |
| xylBC-pVW-fw | TGTTTAAGTTTAGTGGATGGGATGACCGCTCAAGTCACTTGCGTATGGG | This study |
| xylBC-pVW-fw | CCCATCCACTAAACTTAAACATCAACGCCAGCCGGCGTCGATCC | This study |
Fig. 1Xylose consumption (35 g/L) (closed triangle), xylonic acid production (closed circle) and growth curve (open circle) of C. glutamicum ATCC 31831 (a) pVWEx1 (b) pVWEx1-xyl B (c) pVWEx1-xylC (d) pVWEx1-xyl BC respectively
Box–Behnken experimental design matrix with experimental values of xylonic acid production by Corynebacterium glutamicum ATCC 31831
| Run order | Urea (g/L) | Xylose (g/L) | (NH4)2SO4 (g/L) | Inoculum (% v/v) | Xylonic acid (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.5 | 60 | 7.5 | 11.25 | 56.119 |
| 2 | 11.5 | 90 | 2.5 | 11.25 | 59.792 |
| 3 | 11.5 | 30 | 12.5 | 7.5 | 25.061 |
| 4 | 4.5 | 30 | 7.5 | 15 | 21.359 |
| 5 | 18.5 | 60 | 2.5 | 15 | 52.481 |
| 6 | 11.5 | 30 | 2.5 | 7.5 | 25.061 |
| 7 | 11.5 | 90 | 12.5 | 15 | 58.418 |
| 8 | 4.5 | 60 | 12.5 | 11.25 | 30.341 |
| 9 | 18.5 | 90 | 7.5 | 15 | 58.795 |
| 10 | 4.5 | 90 | 7.5 | 11.25 | 45.749 |
| 11 | 18.5 | 60 | 12.5 | 15 | 48.982 |
| 12 | 11.5 | 60 | 7.5 | 15 | 56.018 |
| 13 | 11.5 | 60 | 7.5 | 15 | |
| 14 | 18.5 | 30 | 7.5 | 11.25 | 28.349 |
| 15 | 4.5 | 60 | 2.5 | 7.5 | 28.816 |
Maximum conversion of xylose to xylonic acid indicated in italic
Fig. 2Response surface methodology-contour plots showing the effect of various parameters on xylonic acid production by C.glutamicum ATCC 31831. a Effect of inoculum and xylose. b Effect of xylose and urea. c Effect of (NH4)2SO4 and urea. d Effect of inoculum and (NH4)2SO4. e Effect of (NH4)2SO4 and xylose f Effect of inoculum and urea
Analysis of variance for xylonic acid production using C. glutamicum ATCC 31831
| Source | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 12 | 3583.09 | 298.591 | 6.45 | 0.142 |
| Linear | 4 | 1688.34 | 422.234 | 9.11 | 0.101 |
| Square | 4 | 1249.59 | 312.398 | 6.74 | 0.133 |
| Interaction | 4 | 284.83 | 71.208 | 1.54 | 0.431 |
| Residual error | 2 | 92.66 | 46.328 | ||
| Lack-of-fit | 1 | 0.00 | 92.657 | ||
| Pure error | 1 | 0.000 | |||
| Total | 14 | 3675.75 |
S = 6.80649, R-Sq = 97.48%, R-Sq (pred) = 0.00% and R-Sq (adj) = 82.35%
Fig. 3Xylonic acid production by C. glutamicum ATCC 13032 (open bar) and C. glutamicum ATCC 31831 (closed bar) harbouring plasmid pVWEx1-xylB
Fig. 4Xylose utilization (open symbols) and xylonic acid production (closed symbols) by C. glutamicum ATCC 31831 (pVWEx1-xylB) in rice straw hydrolysate containing different concentrations of xylose 20 g/L (open diamond), 40 g/L (open square) and 60 g/L (open circle). Xylonic acid production from 20 g/L xylose (closed diamond), 40 g/L xylose (closed square) and 60 g/L xylose (closed circle)
Comparison of xylonic acid production and productivity by the best xylonic acid producers
| Microorganism | Yields (g/g) | Volumetric productivity (g/l/h) | Specific productivity [g(g/biomass)/h] | PH | Biomass (g/l) | Process | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 109 | 1.1 | 2.5 | ~ 1.5 | 5.5 | 1.7 | Batch | Buchert et al. ( | |
| 100 | 107 | 1.1 | 2.2 | ~ 1.5 | 4.5 | 1.3 | Batch | Buchert et al. ( | |
| 150 | 162 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 6.5 | 6.9 | Batch | Buchert et al. ( | |
| ~ 0.4 | ~ 0.4 | ~ 1 | ~ 1.9 | ~ 0.7 | 6.8 | 2.9 | Continuous | Meijnen et al. ( | |
| 200 | 190 | ~ 1 | ~ 1.6 | – | 6.5 | nd | Batch | Ishizaki et al. ( | |
| 40 | 39 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.14 | 7.0 | ~ 8 | Batch | Liu et al. ( | |
| 20 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.03 | 0.007 | 5.5 | 4.6 | Batch | Toivari et al. ( | |
| 23 | 3 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 0.006 | 5.5 | 5.3 | Batch | Toivari et al. ( | |
| 23 | 17 | 0.8 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 5.5 | 5 | Batch | Toivari et al. ( | |
| 23 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 5.5 | 9 | Batch | Nygård et al. ( | |
| 20 | 6.23 | 1.04 | 1.02 | – | – | – | Batch | Yim et al. ( | |
| 60 | 56.32 | ~ 1 | 0.93 | – | 5.5 | 1.4 | Batch | This study |