Literature DB >> 35044803

Blocking Mitophagy Does Not Significantly Improve Fuel Ethanol Production in Bioethanol Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Kevy Pontes Eliodório1, Gabriel Caetano de Gois E Cunha1, Brianna A White2, Demisha H M Patel2, Fangyi Zhang2, Ewald H Hettema2, Thiago Olitta Basso1, Andreas Karoly Gombert3, Vijayendran Raghavendran2.   

Abstract

Ethanolic fermentation is frequently performed under conditions of low nitrogen. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, nitrogen limitation induces macroautophagy, including the selective removal of mitochondria, also called mitophagy. Previous research showed that blocking mitophagy by deletion of the mitophagy-specific gene ATG32 increased the fermentation performance during the brewing of Ginjo sake. In this study, we tested if a similar strategy could enhance alcoholic fermentation in the context of fuel ethanol production from sugarcane in Brazilian biorefineries. Conditions that mimic the industrial fermentation process indeed induce Atg32-dependent mitophagy in cells of S. cerevisiae PE-2, a strain frequently used in the industry. However, after blocking mitophagy, no significant differences in CO2 production, final ethanol titers, or cell viability were observed after five rounds of ethanol fermentation, cell recycling, and acid treatment, which is commonly performed in sugarcane biorefineries. To test if S. cerevisiae's strain background influenced this outcome, cultivations were carried out in a synthetic medium with strains PE-2, Ethanol Red (industrial), and BY (laboratory) with and without a functional ATG32 gene and under oxic and oxygen restricted conditions. Despite the clear differences in sugar consumption, cell viability, and ethanol titers, among the three strains, we did not observe any significant improvement in fermentation performance related to the blocking of mitophagy. We concluded, with caution, that the results obtained with Ginjo sake yeast were an exception and cannot be extrapolated to other yeast strains and that more research is needed to ascertain the role of autophagic processes during fermentation. IMPORTANCE Bioethanol is the largest (per volume) ever biobased bulk chemical produced globally. The fermentation process is well established, and industries regularly attain nearly 85% of maximum theoretical yields. However, because of the volume of fuel produced, even a small improvement will have huge economic benefits. To this end, besides already implemented process improvements, various free energy conservation strategies have been successfully exploited at least in laboratory strains to increase ethanol yields and decrease byproduct formation. Cellular housekeeping processes have been an almost unexplored territory in strain improvement. It was previously reported that blocking mitophagy by deletion of the mitophagy receptor gene ATG32 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae led to a 2.1% increase in final ethanol titers during Japanese sake fermentation. We found in two commercially used bioethanol strains (PE-2 and Ethanol Red) that ATG32 deficiency does not lead to a significant improvement in cell viability or ethanol levels during fermentation with molasses or in a synthetic complete medium. More research is required to ascertain the role of autophagic processes during fermentation conditions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioethanol; Brazilian fuel ethanol fermentation; Fermentation; Mineral Medium; Mitophagy; Yeast

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35044803      PMCID: PMC8904057          DOI: 10.1128/aem.02068-21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol        ISSN: 0099-2240            Impact factor:   5.005


  39 in total

1.  Comparison of methods used for assessing the viability and vitality of yeast cells.

Authors:  Magdalena Kwolek-Mirek; Renata Zadrag-Tecza
Journal:  FEMS Yeast Res       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 2.796

2.  Mitophagy in yeast occurs through a selective mechanism.

Authors:  Tomotake Kanki; Daniel J Klionsky
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 5.157

3.  Systematic genetic analysis with ordered arrays of yeast deletion mutants.

Authors:  A H Tong; M Evangelista; A B Parsons; H Xu; G D Bader; N Pagé; M Robinson; S Raghibizadeh; C W Hogue; H Bussey; B Andrews; M Tyers; C Boone
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-12-14       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  A hap1 mutation in a laboratory strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae results in decreased expression of ergosterol-related genes and cellular ergosterol content compared to sake yeast.

Authors:  Ken-Ichi Tamura; Yongqing Gu; Qian Wang; Tasuku Yamada; Kiyoshi Ito; Hitoshi Shimoi
Journal:  J Biosci Bioeng       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Transformation of yeast by lithium acetate/single-stranded carrier DNA/polyethylene glycol method.

Authors:  R Daniel Gietz; Robin A Woods
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.600

6.  Genealogy of principal strains of the yeast genetic stock center.

Authors:  R K Mortimer; J R Johnston
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Heme levels switch the function of Hap1 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae between transcriptional activator and transcriptional repressor.

Authors:  Mark J Hickman; Fred Winston
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 4.272

8.  Trait variation in yeast is defined by population history.

Authors:  Jonas Warringer; Enikö Zörgö; Francisco A Cubillos; Amin Zia; Arne Gjuvsland; Jared T Simpson; Annabelle Forsmark; Richard Durbin; Stig W Omholt; Edward J Louis; Gianni Liti; Alan Moses; Anders Blomberg
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 5.917

9.  A synthetic medium to simulate sugarcane molasses.

Authors:  Felipe Senne de Oliveira Lino; Thiago Olitta Basso; Morten Otto Alexander Sommer
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2018-08-11       Impact factor: 6.040

10.  Deletion of Atg22 gene contributes to reduce programmed cell death induced by acetic acid stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  Jingjin Hu; Yachen Dong; Wei Wang; Wei Zhang; Hanghang Lou; Qihe Chen
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 6.040

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.