Consortia-mediated bioprocessing of cellulose to ethanol with a symbiotic Clostridium phytofermentans/yeast co-culture

Biotechnology for Biofuels

Trevor R Zuroff²  Salvador Barri Xiques¹  Wayne R Curtis² 

[1] Industrial Engineering Department, ETS IQS, Via Augusta 390, Barcelona, 08017, Spain

[2] Current address: The Pennsylvania State University, 158 Fenske Laboratory, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

关键词: Oxygen transport;    Symbiosis;    Cellulosic ethanol;    Consolidated bioprocessing;    Consortia;   

Others  :  798081
DOI  :  10.1186/1754-6834-6-59

 received in 2012-10-19, accepted in 2013-04-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Lignocellulosic ethanol is a viable alternative to petroleum-based fuels with the added benefit of potentially lower greenhouse gas emissions. Consolidated bioprocessing (simultaneous enzyme production, hydrolysis and fermentation; CBP) is thought to be a low-cost processing scheme for lignocellulosic ethanol production. However, no single organism has been developed which is capable of high productivity, yield and titer ethanol production directly from lignocellulose. Consortia of cellulolytic and ethanologenic organisms could be an attractive alternate to the typical single organism approaches but implementation of consortia has a number of challenges (e.g., control, stability, productivity).

Results

Ethanol is produced from α-cellulose using a consortium of C. phytofermentans and yeast that is maintained by controlled oxygen transport. Both Saccharomyces cerevisiae cdt-1 and Candida molischiana “protect” C. phytofermentans from introduced oxygen in return for soluble sugars released by C. phytofermentans hydrolysis. Only co-cultures were able to degrade filter paper when mono- and co-cultures were incubated at 30°C under semi-aerobic conditions. Using controlled oxygen delivery by diffusion through neoprene tubing at a calculated rate of approximately 8 μmol/L hour, we demonstrate establishment of the symbiotic relationship between C. phytofermentans and S. cerevisiae cdt-1 and maintenance of populations of 10⁵ to 10⁶ CFU/mL for 50 days. Comparable symbiotic population dynamics were observed in scaled up 500 mL bioreactors as those in 50 mL shake cultures. The conversion of α-cellulose to ethanol was shown to improve with additional cellulase indicating a limitation in hydrolysis rate. A co-culture of C. phytofermentans and S. cerevisiae cdt-1 with added endoglucanase produced approximately 22 g/L ethanol from 100 g/L α-cellulose compared to C. phytofermentans and S. cerevisiae cdt-1 mono-cultures which produced approximately 6 and 9 g/L, respectively.

Conclusion

This work represents a significant step toward developing consortia-based bioprocessing systems for lignocellulosic biofuels production which utilize scalable, environmentally-mediated symbiosis mechanisms to provide consortium stability.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Zuroff et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Davey ME, O’toole GA: Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol Mol Biol R 2000, 64:847-867.
• [2]Prosser JI, Bohannan BJM, Curtis TP, Ellis RJ, Firestone MK, Freckleton RP, Green JL, Green LE, Killham K, Lennon JJ, Osborn AM, Solan M, van der Gast CJ, Young JPW: The role of ecological theory in microbial ecology. Nat Rev Microbiol 2007, 5:384-392.
• [3]Hibbing M, Fuqua C: Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle. Nat Rev Microbiol 2009, 8:15-25.
• [4]Bader J, Mast-Gerlach E, Popović MK, Bajpai R, Stahl U: Relevance of microbial coculture fermentations in biotechnology. J Appl Microbiol 2010, 109:371-387.
• [5]Shong J: Jimenez Diaz MR, Collins CH: Towards synthetic microbial consortia for bioprocessing. Curr Opin Biotech 2012, 2:1-5.
• [6]Brenner K, You L, Arnold FH: Engineering microbial consortia: a new frontier in synthetic biology. Trends Biotechnol 2008, 26:483-489.
• [7]Zuroff TR, Curtis WR: Developing symbiotic consortia for lignocellulosic biofuel production. App Microbiol Biot 2012, 93:1423-1435.
• [8]U.S. Deparmtent of Energy Strategic Plan DOE/CF-0067. 2011.
• [9]Annual Energy Review DOE/EIA-0384(2011). 2011.
• [10]Lynd LR, Laser MS, Bransby D, Dale BE, Davison B, Hamilton R, Himmel M, Keller M, McMillan JD, Sheehan J, Wyman CE: How biotech can transform biofuels. Nat Biotechnol 2008, 26:169-172.
• [11]Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, Zyl WHV, Pretorius IS: Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol R 2002, 66:506-577.
• [12]Lynd LR, van Zyl WH, McBride JE, Laser M: Consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass: an update. Curr Opin Biotech 2005, 16:577-583.
• [13]Olson DG, McBride JE, Shaw JA, Lynd LR: Recent progress in consolidated bioprocessing. Curr Opin Biotech 2011, 23:396-406.
• [14]Ohkuma M: Termite symbiotic systems: efficient bio-recycling of lignocellulose. Int Microbiol 2003, 61:1-9.
• [15]Kudo T: Termite-microbe symbiotic system and its efficient degradation of lignocellulose. Biosci Biotech Bioch 2009, 73:2561-2567.
• [16]Kerner A, Park J, Williams A, Lin XN: A programmable Escherichia coli consortium via tunable symbiosis. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e34032.
• [17]Shou W, Ram S, Vilar JMG: Synthetic cooperation in engineered yeast populations. PNAS 2007, 104:1877-1882.
• [18]Balagaddé FK, Song H, Ozaki J, Collins CH, Barnet M, Arnold FH, Quake SR, You L: A synthetic Escherichia coli predator–prey ecosystem. Mol Syst Biol 2008, 4:1-8.
• [19]You L, Cox RS, Weiss R, Arnold FH: Programmed population control by cell–cell communication and regulated killing. Nature 2004, 428:868-871.
• [20]Bayer TS, Widmaier DM, Temme K, Mirsky EA, Santi DV, Voigt CA: Synthesis of methyl halides from biomass using engineered microbes. J Am Chem Soc 2009, 131:6508-6515.
• [21]Kim HJ, Boedicker JQ, Choi JW, Ismagilov RF: Defined spatial structure stabilizes a synthetic multispecies bacterial community. PNAS 2008, 105:18188-18193.
• [22]Habets MGJL, Rozen DE, Hoekstra RF, de Visser JAGM: The effect of population structure on the adaptive radiation of microbial populations evolving in spatially structured environments. Ecol Lett 2006, 9:1041-1048.
• [23]Saxer G, Doebeli M, Travisano M: Spatial structure leads to ecological breakdown and loss of diversity. P R Soc B 2009, 276:2065-2070.
• [24]Warnick Thomas A, Methe Barbara A, Leschine Susan B: Clostridium phytofermentans sp. nov., a cellulolytic mesophile from forest soil. Int J Syst Evol Micr 2002, 52:1155-1160.
• [25]Freer SN: Utilization of glucose and cellobiose by Candida molischiana. Can J Microbiol 1995, 41:177-185.
• [26]Galazka JM, Tian C, Beeson WT, Martinez B, Glass NL, Cate JHD: Cellodextrin transport in yeast for improved biofuel production. Science 2010, 330:84-86.
• [27]Jin M, Balan V, Gunawan C, Dale BE: Consolidated bioprocessing (CBP) performance of Clostridium phytofermentans on AFEX-treated corn stover for ethanol production. Biotechnol Bioeng 2011, 108:1290-1297.
• [28]Gondé P, Blondin B, Leclerc M, Ratomahenina R, Arnaud A, Galzy P: Fermentation of cellodextrins by different yeast strains. Appl Environ Microb 1984, 48:265-269.
• [29]Freer SN, Skory CD: Production of β-glucosidase and diauxic usage of sugar mixtures by Candida molischiana. Can J Microbiol 1996, 42:431-436.
• [30]Veal D, Lynch J: Associative cellulolysis and dinitrogen fixation by co-cultures of Trichoderma harzianum and Clostridium butyricum. Nature 1984, 310:695-696.
• [31]Kato S, Haruta S, Cui ZJ, Ishii M, Igarashi Y: Network relationships of bacteria in a stable mixed culture. Microb Ecol 2008, 56:403-411.
• [32]Paerl H, Pinckney J: A mini-review of microbial consortia: their roles in aquatic production and biogeochemical cycling. Microb Ecol 1996, 31:225-247.
• [33]Kato S, Haruta S, Cui ZJ, Ishii M, Igarashi Y: Effective cellulose degradation by a mixed-culture system composed of a cellulolytic Clostridium and aerobic non-cellulolytic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2004, 51:133-142.
• [34]Maier U, Büchs J: Characterisation of the gas–liquid mass transfer in shaking bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 2001, 7:99-106.
• [35]Andreasen AA, Stier TJ: Anaerobic nutrition of Saccharomyces cerevisiae unsaturated fatty acid requirement for growth in a defined medium. Yeast 1950.
• [36]Kumar A, John L, Alam MM, Gupta A, Sharma G, Pillai B, Sengupta S: Homocysteine- and cysteine-mediated growth defect is not associated with induction of oxidative stress response genes in yeast. Biochem J 2006, 396:61-69.
• [37]Visser W, Scheffers WA: Batenburg-van der Vegte WH, van Dijken JP: Oxygen requirements of yeasts. Appl Environ Microb 1990, 56:3785-3792.
• [38]Park EY, Naruse K, Kato T: One-pot bioethanol production from cellulose by co-culture of Acremonium cellulolyticus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Biofuels 2012, 5:64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Taffs R, Aston JE, Brileya K, Jay Z, Klatt CG, Mcglynn S, Mallette N, Montross S, Gerlach R, Inskeep WP, Ward DM, Carlson RP: Microbial consortia: a syntrophic case study. Systems Biol 2009, 16:1-16.
• [40]Zomorrodi AR, Maranas CD: OptCom: A multi-level optimization framework for the metabolic modeling and analysis of microbial communities. PLoS Comput Biol 2012, 8:e1002363.
• [41]Biliouris K, Babson D, Schmidt-Dannert C: Stochastic simulations of a synthetic bacteria-yeast ecosystem. BMC Syst Biol 2012, 6:58. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Cavedon K, Leschine SB, Canale-Parola E: Cellulase system of a free-living, mesophilic Clostridium (strain C7). J Bacteriol 1990, 172:4222-4230.