| Literature DB >> 34176008 |
Song Wang1,2, Ran Tian1, Buwei Liu1, Hongcai Wang2, Jun Liu2, Chenghui Li2, Mingyue Li2, Smith Etareri Evivie1,3,4, Bailiang Li5.
Abstract
Sugarcane molasses are considered a potential source for bioethanol's commercial production because of its availability and low market price. It contains high concentrations of fermentable sugars that can be directly metabolized by microbial fermentation. Heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria, especially Lactiplantibacillus casei, have a high potential to be a biocatalyst in ethanol production that they are characterized by strong abilities of carbohydrate metabolism, ethanol synthesis, and high alcohol tolerance. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of producing ethanol by Lactiplantibacillus casei used the ethanologen engineering strain L. casei E1 as a starter culture and cane molasses as substrate medium. The effects of environmental factors on the metabolism of L. casei E1 were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system, and the gene expression of key enzymes in carbon source metabolism was detected using quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR). Results showed that the strain could grow well, ferment sugar quickly in cane molasses. By fermenting this bacterium anaerobically at 37 °C for 36 h incubation in 5 °BX molasses when the fermenter's pH was controlled at 6.0, ethanol yield reached 13.77 g/L, and carbohydrate utilization percentage was 78.60%. RT-qPCR results verified the strain preferentially ferment glucose and fructose of molasses to ethanol at the molecular level. In addition, the metabolism of sugars, especially fructose, would be inhibited by elevating acidity. Our findings support the theoretical basis for exploring Lactic acid bacteria as a starter culture for converting sugarcane molasses into ethanol.Entities:
Keywords: Bioethanol; Fermentation; Lactiplantibacillus casei; Sugarcane molasses
Year: 2021 PMID: 34176008 PMCID: PMC8236424 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-021-01257-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
The primers of key enzyme genes
| Target | Primer | Sequence |
|---|---|---|
| GK | Forward | 5′ ATTGAGGTGTAATAGGTCGGTGG 3′ |
| Reverse | 5′ CGATTTTATGACGATTGATGCC 3′ | |
| INV | Forward | 5′ AGACGCAGACTTGTTGTTTCCC 3′ |
| Reverse | 5′ GACGTTAGATGATGGCGATGAG 3′ | |
| PFK | Forward | 5′ CATTGCCAAAGAAGCGACC 3′ |
| Reverse | 5′ AAGACAACGATTCATCTGCCTG 3′ |
Fig 1Growth of strain in different concentrations of cane molasses
Fig. 2Carbohydrate utilization in different concentrations of cane molasses. Carbohydrates tested: Sucrose , Glucose , Fructose . a 5 °BX; b 7.5 °BX; c 10 °BX; d 20 °BX
Carbohydrate metabolism in four low concentrations of cane molasses
| Compound (g/L) | Concentrations of fermentation broth | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 °BX | 7.5 °BX | 10 °BX | 20 °BX | |||||
| 0 h | 72 h | 0 h | 72 h | 0 h | 72 h | 0 h | 72 h | |
| Sucrose | 34.52 ± 0.26 | 11.03 ± 0.41 | 42.41 ± 1.35 | 24.68 ± 0.33 | 56.79 ± 1.04 | 47.92 ± 0.48 | 74.18 ± 0.89 | 71.85 ± 1.13 |
| Glucose | 3.57 ± 0.04 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 4.67 ± 0.07 | 0.34 ± 0.12 | 6.50 ± 0.32 | 0.74 ± 0.05 | 19.26 ± 0.22 | 7.16 ± 0.08 |
| Fructose | 9.37 ± 0.51 | 0.73 ± 0.02 | 12.64 ± 0.03 | 0.93 ± 0.05 | 17.69 ± 0.62 | 1.10 ± 0.04 | 31.58 ± 0.09 | 13.99 ± 0.21 |
| Acetate | 0.57 ± 0.03 | 1.59 ± 0.11 | 0.69 ± 0.03 | 0.70 ± 0.04 | 0.94 ± 0.41 | 0.99 ± 0.02 | 17.86 ± 0.15 | 12.73 ± 0.17 |
| Lactate | 0.47 ± 0.02 | 10.04 ± 0.19 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | 11.30 ± 0.11 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 9.96 ± 0.10 | 11.70 ± 0.01 | 21.63 ± 0.07 |
| Ethanol | 0.00 | 12.76 ± 0.27 | 0.00 | 12.83 ± 0.30 | 0.00 | 11.13 ± 0.06 | 0.00 | 7.87 ± 0.01 |
Fig. 3Products in different concentrations of cane molasses. Products tested: Lactate , Acetate , Ethanol . a 5 °BX; b 7.5 °BX; c 10 °BX; d 20 °BX
Carbohydrate utilization ratio and ethanol production ratio in low concentrations of molasses for 72 h
| Concentrations | Carbohydrate utilization ratio (w/w%) | Ethanol production | Ethanol: lactate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5°BX | 75.2 | 35.8 | 2.0 |
| 7.5°BX | 56.5 | 38.0 | 1.8 |
| 10°BX | 38.6 | 35.7 | 1.7 |
| 20°BX | 25.6 | 24.6 | 0.6 |
Carbohydrate consumption (g/L) was calculated as Initial carbohydrate content (g/L) minus residual carbohydrate content (g/L). The carbohydrate utilization ratio was calculated using the following equation: Carbohydrate utilization ratio (w/w%) = Carbohydrate consumption (g/L)/Initial carbohydrate content (g/L) × 100%. The ethanol production ratio was calculated using the following equation: Ethanol production ratio (w/w%) = Ethanol yield (g/L)/Carbohydrate consumption (g/L) × 100%
Fig. 4The products in aerobic (a) and anaerobic (b) fermentation. Products tested: Lactate , Acetate , Ethanol
Fig 5Effect of pH control and non-pH control on the growth of strain. pH changes under non-pH control
Effect of pH on carbohydrate metabolism
| Time (h) | Residual carbohydrate content (g/L) | Ethanol yield (g/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH control | non-pH control | pH control | non-pH control | |
| 0 | 60.83±0.79 | 61.42±0.29 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 36 | 13.03±0.52 | 20.63±0.06 | 13.77±0.24 | 10.62±0.17 |
| 60 | 0.00 | 10.46±0.15 | 14.85±0.08 | 12.15±0.35 |
Fig. 6Effect of pH control (a) and non-pH control (b) on carbohydrate utilization. Carbohydrates tested: Sucrose , Glucose , Fructose
Fig 7Effect of pH control and non-pH control on key enzyme gene expression of carbon source metabolism. a GK, glucokinase; b INV, invertase; c PFK, phosphofructokinase
Fig 8RT-qPCR analysis of key enzyme gene expression under pH control and non-pH control . INV, invertase; GK, glucokinase; PFK, phosphofructokinase. a 4 h; b 8 h; c 12 h; d 16 h; e 24 h