Advertisement

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 103, Issue 2, pp 1031–1042 | Cite as

Improving ethanol yields in sugarcane molasses fermentation by engineering the high osmolarity glycerol pathway while maintaining osmotolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

  • Rutuja Shivaji Jagtap
  • Dheeraj Madhukar Mahajan
  • Sanjay Ratilal Mistry
  • Megha Bilaiya
  • Rajesh Kumar Singh
  • Rishi JainEmail author
Bioenergy and biofuels
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

The ever-increasing demand of energy has made it imperative to increase the production of renewable fuels like ethanol. Many studies have reported increase in ethanol production by reducing fermentation by-products like glycerol. Deletion of structural genes like gpd1and gpd2 leads to an increase in ethanol by reducing glycerol; however, it makes the yeast osmosensitive that is not desirable for industrial strains. In this study, genes in the HOG pathway which regulates glycerol synthesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae were targeted for improving ethanol yields in fermentation of sugarcane molasses. Deletion strains of ssk1, hot1, and smp1 were tested and they did not show osmosensitivity. Δssk1 and Δsmp1 recombinant strains showed consistent improved ethanol yields. As a result, a double-deletion strain, Δssk1Δsmp1, was also constructed, which showed a synergistic effect leading to 6% increase in ethanol yield and 35% decrease in glycerol yield. It was also observed that there was a significant decrease in acetic acid yields of all the recombinant strains. Overall, the study demonstrates an industrially viable technique of engineering the HOG pathway resulting in decrease of glycerol and no loss of osmotolerance. These S. cerevisiae strains showed a significant increase in ethanol yields.

Keywords

Ethanol Glycerol Acetic acid Osmosensitivity HOG pathway 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor J. M. Thevelein at VIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, Leuven, Belgium, for kindly providing the plasmids. We would also like to thank Mr. Suresh Zirpe at Praj Matrix, Pune, India, for the analysis of fermentation samples.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

A patent has been filed related to this work by the authors.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

253_2018_9532_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (119 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 119 kb)

References

  1. Akhtar N, Påhlman AK, Larsson K, Corbett AH, Adler L (2000) SGD1 encodes an essential nuclear protein of Saccharomyces cerevisiae that affects expression of the GPD1 gene for glycerol 3‐phosphate dehydrogenase. FEBS Lett 483:87–92Google Scholar
  2. Albertyn J, Hohmann S, Thevelein JM, Prior BA (1994) GPD1, which encodes glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, is essential for growth under osmotic stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and its expression is regulated by the high-osmolarity glycerol response pathway. Mol Cell Biol 14:4135–4144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alepuz PM, Jovanovic A, Reiser V, Ammerer G (2001) Stress-induced map kinase Hog1 is part of transcription activation complexes. Mol Cell 7:767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andre L, Hemming A, Adler L (1991) Osmoregulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae studies on the osmotic induction of glycerol production and glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (NAD+). FEBS Lett 286:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balat M, Balat H (2009) Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel. Appl Energy 86:2273–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basso LC, De Amorim HV, De Oliveira AJ, Lopes ML (2008) Yeast selection for fuel ethanol production in Brazil. FEMS Yeast Res 8:1155–1163.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00428.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basso LC, Basso TO, Rocha SN (2011) Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. In: Bernardes MADS (ed) Biofuel production-recent developments and prospects. InTech, Rijeka, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Bideaux C, Alfenore S, Cameleyre X, Molina-Jouve C, Uribelarrea J-L, Guillouet SE (2006) Minimization of glycerol production during the high-performance fed-batch ethanolic fermentation process in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, using a metabolic model as a prediction tool. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:2134–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Björkqvist S, Ansell R, Adler L, Liden G (1997) Physiological response to anaerobicity of glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:128–132Google Scholar
  10. Blomberg A, Adler L (1989) Roles of glycerol and glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (NAD+) in acquired osmotolerance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 171:1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bro C, Regenberg B, Förster J, Nielsen J (2006) In silico aided metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for improved bioethanol production. Metab Eng 8:102–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2005.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Nadal E, Casadomé L, Posas F (2003) Targeting the MEF2-like transcription factor Smp1 by the stress-activated Hog1 mitogen-activated protein kinase. Mol Cell Biol 23:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksson P, Alipour H, Adler L, Blomberg A (2000) Rap1p-binding sites in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae GPD1 promoter are involved in its response to NaCl. J Biol Chem 275:29368–29376.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M001663200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrigno P, Posas F, Koepp D, Saito H, Silver PA (1998) Regulated nucleo/cytoplasmic exchange of HOG1 MAPK requires the importin β homologs NMD5 and XPO1. EMBO J 17:5606–5614.  https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/17.19.5606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gustin MC, Albertyn J, Alexander M, Davenport K (1998) MAP kinase pathways in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62:1264–1300Google Scholar
  16. Hahn-Hägerdal B, Karhumaa K, Larsson CU, Gorwa-Grauslund M, Görgens J, Van Zyl WH (2005) Role of cultivation media in the development of yeast strains for large scale industrial use. Microb Cell Factories 4(31):31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hersen P, McClean MN, Mahadevan L, Ramanathan S (2008) Signal processing by the HOG MAP kinase pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:7165–7170.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710770105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hohmann S, Krantz M, Nordlander B (2007) Yeast osmoregulation. Methods Enzymol 428:29–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(07)28002-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacques KA, Lyons TP, Kelsall DR (2003) The alcohol textbook: a reference for the beverage, fuel and industrial alcohol industries. University Press, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  20. Jain VK, Divol B, Prior BA, Bauer FF (2012) Effect of alternative NAD+-regenerating pathways on the formation of primary and secondary aroma compounds in a Saccharomyces cerevisiae glycerol-defective mutant. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 93:131–141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-011-3431-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kyrion G, Boakye K, Lustig A (1992) C-terminal truncation of RAP1 results in the deregulation of telomere size, stability, and function in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 12:5159–5173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin H, Nguyen P, Vancura A (2002) Phospholipase C interacts with Sgd1p and is required for expression of GPD1 and osmoresistance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Gen Genomics 267:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maeda T, Wurgler-Murphy SM, Saito H (1994) A two-component system that regulates an osmosensing MAP kinase cascade in yeast. Nature 369:242–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maeda T, Takekawa M, Saito H (1995) Activation of yeast PBS2 MAPKK by MAPKKKs or by binding of an SH3-containing osmosensor. Science 269:554–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maiorella B, Blanch H, Wilke C, Wyman CE (2009) Economic evaluation of alternative ethanol fermentation processes. Biotechnol Bioeng 104:419–443.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michnick S, Roustan JL, Remize F, Barre P, Dequin S (1997) Modulation of glycerol and ethanol yields during alcoholic fermentation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains overexpressed or disrupted for GPD1 encoding glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase. Yeast 13:783–793.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(199707)13:9<783::AID-YEA128>3.0.CO;2-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nissen TL, Kielland-Brandt MC, Nielsen J, Villadsen J (2000) Optimization of ethanol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by metabolic engineering of the ammonium assimilation. Metab Eng 2:69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1006/mben.1999.0140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Rourke SM, Herskowitz I (2004) Unique and redundant roles for HOG MAPK pathway components as revealed by whole-genome expression analysis. Mol Biol Cell 15:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pagliardini J, Hubmann G, Bideaux C, Alfenore S, Nevoigt E, Guillouet SE (2010) Quantitative evaluation of yeast’s requirement for glycerol formation in very high ethanol performance fed-batch process. Microb Cell Factories 9:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Påhlman A-K, Granath K, Ansell R, Hohmann S, Adler L (2001) The yeast glycerol 3-phosphatases Gpp1p and Gpp2p are required for glycerol biosynthesis and differentially involved in the cellular responses to osmotic, anaerobic, and oxidative stress. J Biol Chem 276:3555–3563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pigeau G, Bozza E, Kaiser K, Inglis D (2007) Concentration effect of Riesling Icewine juice on yeast performance and wine acidity. J Appl Microbiol 103:1691–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Posas F, Saito H (1998) Activation of the yeast SSK2 MAP kinase kinase kinase by the SSK1 two-component response regulator. EMBO J 17:1385–1394.  https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/17.5.1385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Posas F, Wurgler-Murphy SM, Maeda T, Witten EA, Thai TC, Saito H (1996) Yeast HOG1 MAP kinase cascade is regulated by a multistep phosphorelay mechanism in the SLN1–YPD1–SSK1 “two-component” osmosensor. Cell 86:865–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pradeep P, Reddy O (2010) High gravity fermentation of sugarcane molasses to produce ethanol: effect of nutrients. Indian J Microbiol 50:82–87.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-010-0006-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prasad S, Singh A, Jain N, Joshi H (2007) Ethanol production from sweet sorghum syrup for utilization as automotive fuel in India. Energy Fuel 21:2415–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Proft M, Pascual-Ahuir A, de Nadal E, Ariño J, Serrano R, Posas F (2001) Regulation of the Sko1 transcriptional repressor by the Hog1 MAP kinase in response to osmotic stress. EMBO J 20:1123–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/20.5.1123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Remize F, Barnavon L, Dequin S (2001) Glycerol export and glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, but not glycerol phosphatase, are rate limiting for glycerol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab Eng 3:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rep M, Reiser V, Gartner U, Thevelein JM, Hohmann S, Ammerer G, Ruis H (1999) Osmotic stress-induced gene expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae requires Msn1p and the novel nuclear factor Hot1p. Mol Cell Biol 19:5474–5485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rep M, Krantz M, Thevelein JM, Hohmann S (2000) The transcriptional response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to osmotic shock. Hot1p and Msn2p/Msn4p are required for the induction of subsets of high osmolarity glycerol pathway-dependent genes. J Biol Chem 275:8290–8300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sangiorgi E, Shuhua Z, Capecchi MR (2008) In vivo evaluation of PhiC31 recombinase activity using a self-excision cassette. Nucleic Acids Res 36:e134–e134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Statistics E (2015) Central statistics office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Govt. of India, New Delhi (22nd Issue) (www.mospi.gov.in). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Tanaka K, Tatebayashi K, Nishimura A, Yamamoto K, Yang H-Y, Saito H (2014) Yeast osmosensors Hkr1 and Msb2 activate the Hog1 MAPK cascade by different mechanisms. Sci Signal 7:ra21–ra21.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.2004780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tatebayashi K, Yamamoto K, Tanaka K, Tomida T, Maruoka T, Kasukawa E, Saito H (2006) Adaptor functions of Cdc42, Ste50, and Sho1 in the yeast osmoregulatory HOG MAPK pathway. EMBO J 25:3033–3044.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tatebayashi K, Tanaka K, Yang HY, Yamamoto K, Matsushita Y, Tomida T, Imai M, Saito H (2007) Transmembrane mucins Hkr1 and Msb2 are putative osmosensors in the SHO1 branch of yeast HOG pathway. EMBO J 26:3521–3533.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsiropoulos I, Faaij AP, Seabra JE, Lundquist L, Schenker U, Briois J-F, Patel MK (2014) Life cycle assessment of sugarcane ethanol production in India in comparison to Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1049–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Valadi H, Larsson C, Gustafsson L (1998) Improved ethanol production by glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 50:434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yamamoto K, Tatebayashi K, Saito H (2016) Binding of the extracellular eight-cysteine motif of Opy2 to the putative osmosensor Msb2 is essential for activation of the yeast high-osmolarity glycerol pathway. Mol Cell Biol 36:475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yu KO, Kim SW, Han SO (2010) Reduction of glycerol production to improve ethanol yield in an engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae using glycerol as a substrate. J Biotechnol 150:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rutuja Shivaji Jagtap
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dheeraj Madhukar Mahajan
    • 1
  • Sanjay Ratilal Mistry
    • 1
  • Megha Bilaiya
    • 1
  • Rajesh Kumar Singh
    • 1
  • Rishi Jain
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Praj-Matrix - R&D Centre (Division of Praj Industries Limited) 402/403/1098PuneIndia
  2. 2.Department of TechnologySavitribai Phule Pune UniversityPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations