Advertisement

High Gravity Ethanol Fermentations and Yeast Tolerance

Chapter
Part of the Microbiology Monographs book series (MICROMONO, volume 22)

Abstract

High gravity (HG) fermentations save energy consumption for both ethanol distillation and subsequent discharge treatment. However, yeast cells suffer from various stresses under HG conditions, which often result in stuck or sluggish fermentations with more sugars remained unfermented, and thus reduce efficiency of ethanol fermentation. This chapter focuses on stresses affecting ethanol fermentations under HG conditions and their impact on yeast growth and ethanol production. The HG condition associated with osmotic pressure may repress yeast cells for ethanol fermentation from sugar-based feedstocks such as molasses but less likely for starch-based feedstocks that are fermented by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process in industry. However, ethanol inhibition is a major stress for ethanol fermentation from both sugar- and starch-based feedstocks in which ethanol concentration as high as 12–14% (v/v) can be commonly achieved, and higher ethanol concentration of more than 15% (v/v) is expected. On the other hand, it is a less concern for ethanol fermentation from hydrolysate of lignocellulosic biomass since ethanol concentration achieved is usually lower than 12% (v/v), a tolerable level for ethanologenic yeast. Instead, overcoming the inhibition of toxic by-products generated during biomass pretreatment is a major issue for ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass. Strategies for developing stress-tolerant strains and bioprocess engineering aspects to alleviate the impact of stresses on yeast cells are discussed.

Keywords

Yeast Cell Ethanol Production Lignocellulosic Biomass Ethanol Fermentation Fermentation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The assistance of Dr. Z. Lewis Liu is gratefully acknowledged. Without his great effort and valuable comments, it would not have been possible for us to make the chapter accommodated to the theme of this book.

References

  1. Aiba S, Shoda M, Nagatani M (1968) Kinetics of product inhibition in alcohol fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng 10:845–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldiguier AS, Alfenore S, Cameleyre X, Goma G, Uribelarrea JL, Guillouet SE, Molina-Jouve C (2004) Synergistic temperature and ethanol effect on Saccharomyces cerevisiae dynamic behavior in ethanol bio-fuel production. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 26:217–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander MR, Tyers M, Perret M, Craig BM, Fang KS, Gustin MC (2001) Regulation of cell cycle progression by Swe1p and Hog1p following hypertonic stress. Mol Biol Cell 12:53–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arcay-Ledezma GJ, Slaughter JC (1984) The response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to fermentation under carbon dioxide pressure. J Inst Brew 90:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auesukaree C, Damnernsawad A, Kruatrachue M, Pokethitiyook P, Boonchird C, Kaneko Y, Harashima S (2009) Genome-wide identification of genes involved in tolerance to various environmental stresses in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Appl Genet 50:301–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bai FW, Chen LJ, Anderson WA, Moo-Young M (2004) Parameter oscillations in high gravity medium continuous ethanol fermentation and their attenuation on multi-stage packed column bioreactor system. Biotechnol Bioeng 88:558–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bai FW, Anderson WA, Moo-Young M (2008) Ethanol fermentation technologies from sugar and starch feedstocks. Biotechnol Adv 26:89–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bai FW, Ge XM, Anderson WA, Moo-Young M (2009) Parameter oscillation attenuation and mechanism exploration for continuous VHG ethanol fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng 102:112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belli G, Gari E, Aldea M, Herrero E (2001) Osmotic stress causes a G1 cell cycle delay and downregulation of Cln3/Cdc28 activity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Microbiol 39:1022–1035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bösl B, Grimminger V, Walter S (2006) The molecular chaperone Hsp104-Amolecular machine for protein disaggregation. J Struct Biol 156:139–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cakar ZP, Seker UOS, Tamerler C, Sonderegger M, Sauer U (2005) Evolutionary engineering of multiple-stress resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res 5:569–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casey GP, Ingledew WM (1986) Ethanol tolerance in yeasts. Crit Rev Microbiol 13:219–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devantier R, Pedersen S, Olsson L (2005a) Characterization of very high gravity ethanol fermentation of corn mash: effect of glucoamylase dosage, pre-saccharification and yeast strain. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 68:622–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devantier R, Scheithauer B, Villas-Bôas SG, Pedersen S, Olsson L (2005b) Metabolite profiling for analysis of yeast stress response during very high gravity ethanol fermentations. Biotechnol Bioeng 90:703–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira C, Lucas C (2007) Glucose repression over Saccharomyces cerevisiae glycerol/H+ symporter gene STL1 is overcome by high temperature. FEBS Lett 581:1923–1927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferreira C, von Voorst F, Martins A, Neves L, Oliveira R, Kielland-Brandt MC, Lucas C, Brandt A (2005) A member of the sugar transporter family, Stl1p is the glycerol/H+ symporter in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Biol Cell 16:2068–2076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gauci VJ, Beckhouse AG, Lyons V, Beh EJ, Rogers PJ, Dawes IW, Higgins VJ (2009) Zinc starvation induces a stress response in Saccharomyces cerevisiae that is mediated by the Msn2p and Msn4p transcriptional activators. FEMS Yeast Res 9:1187–1195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Himmel ME, Ding SY, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, Brady JW, Foust TD (2007) Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 315:804–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirasawa T, Yoshikawa K, Nakakura Y, Nagahisa K, Furusawa C, Katakura Y, Shimizu H, Shioya S (2007) Identification of target genes conferring ethanol stress tolerance to Saccharomyces cerevisiae based on DNA microarray data analysis. J Biotechnol 131:34–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hohmann S (2009) Control of high osmolarity signaling in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEBS Lett 583:4025–4029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingledew WM (2003) Alcohol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a yeast primer. In: Jacques K, Lyons TP, Kelsall DR (eds) The alcohol textbook. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp 49–87Google Scholar
  22. Jung YJ, Park HD (2005) Antisense-mediated inhibition of acid trehalase (ATH1) gene expression promotes ethanol fermentation and tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Lett 27:1855–1859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kayingo G, Kilian SG, Prior BA (2001) Conservation and release of osmolytes by yeasts during hypo-osmotic stress. Arch Microbiol 177:29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lei JJ, Zhao XQ, Ge XM, Bai FW (2007) Ethanol tolerance and the variation of plasma membrane composition of yeast floc populations with different size distributions. J Biotechnol 131:270–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li F, Zhao XQ, Ge XM, Bai FW (2009) An innovative consecutive batch fermentation process for very high gravity ethanol fermentation with self-flocculating yeast. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 84:1079–1086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindquist S, Kim G (1996) Heat-shock protein 104 expression is sufficient for thermotolerance in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:5301–5306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu ZL, Blaschek HP (2010) Biomass conversion inhibitors and in situ detoxification. In: Vertès AA, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP, Yukawa H (eds) Biomass to biofuels: strategies for global industries. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, pp 233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma M, Liu ZL (2010) Quantitative transcription dynamic analysis reveals candidate genes and key regulators for ethanol tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BMC Microbiol 10:169. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-169 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magasanik B, Kaiser CA (2002) Nitrogen regulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Gene 290:1–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mensonides FIC, Schuurmans JM, de Mattos MJT, Hellingwerf KJ, Brul S (2002) The metabolic response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to continuous heat stress. Mol Biol Rep 29:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Modig T, Granath K, Adler L, Liden G (2007) Anaerobic glycerol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains under hyperosmotic stress. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 75:289–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Narendranath NV (2003) Bacterial contamination and control in ethanol production. In: Jacques KA, Lyons TP, Kelsall DR (eds) The alcohol textbook. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp 287–298Google Scholar
  33. 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 15:532–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Rourke SM, Herskowitz I, O’Shea EK (2002) Yeast go to the whole HOG for the hyperosmotic response. Trends Genet 18:405–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parawira W, Tekere M (2011) Biological strategies to overcome inhibitors in lignocellulose hydrolysates for ethanol production: review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 31:20–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petri R, Schmidt-Dannert C (2004) Dealing with complexity: evolutionary engineering and genome shuffling. Curr Opin Biotechnol 15:298–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pham TK, Wright P (2008a) Proteomic analysis of calcium alginate-immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae under high-gravity fermentation conditions. J Proteome Res 7:515–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pham TK, Wright P (2008b) The proteomic response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in very high glucose conditions with amino acid supplementation. J Proteome Res 7:4766–4774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pienkos PT, Zhang M (2009) Role of pretreatment and conditioning processes on toxicity of lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates. Cellulose 16:743–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poole K, Walker ME, Warren T, Gardner J, McBryde C, de Barros-Lopes M, Jiranek V (2009) Proline transport and stress tolerance of ammonia-insensitive mutants of the PUT4-encoded praline-specific permease in yeast. J Gen Appl Microbiol 55:427–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Posas F, Saito H (1998) Activation of the yeast SSK2 MAP kinase kinase kinase by the SSK1 two-component response regulator. EMBO J 17:1385–1394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 86:865–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Postmus J, Canelas AB, Bouwman J, Bakker BM, van Gulik W, de Mattos MJT, Brul S, Smits GJ (2008) Quantitative analysis of the high temperature-induced glycolytic flux increase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae reveals dominant metabolic regulation. J Biol Chem 283:23524–23532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosamond LN, Adam L, Marshall B, Walter PF, Joanne G, Scott R, Kenneth C (2007) The ripple effect: biofuels, food security, and the environment. Environment 49:30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schirmer EC, Homann OR, Kowal AS, Lindquist S (2004) Dominant gain-of-function mutations in Hsp104p reveal crucial roles for the middle region. Mol Biol Cell 15:2061–2072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Service RF (2007) Biofuel researchers prepare to reap a new harvest. Science 315:1488–1491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shen Y, Zhao XQ, Ge XM, Bai FW (2009) Metabolic flux and cell cycle analysis indicating new mechanism underlying process oscillation in continuous ethanol fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae under VHG conditions. Biotechnol Adv 27:1118–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shen Y, Ge XM, Bai FW (2010) Application of oscillation for efficiency improvement of continuous ethanol fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae under very-high-gravity conditions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Siderius M, van Wuytswinkel O, Reijenga KA, Kelders M, Mager WH (2000) The control of intracellular glycerol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae influences osmotic stress response and resistance to increased temperature. Mol Microbiol 36:1381–1390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sonderegger M, Sauer U (2003) Evolutionary engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for anaerobic growth on xylose. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1990–1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stanley D, Chambers PJ, Stanley GA, Borneman A, Fraser S (2010) Transcriptional changes associated with ethanol tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 88:231–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Takagi H (2008) Proline as a stress protectant in yeast: physiological functions, metabolic regulations, and biological applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 81:211–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Takagi H, Takaoka M, Kawaguchi A, Kubo Y (2005) Effect of L-proline on sake brewing and ethanol stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8656–8662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tamás MJ, Luyten K, Sutherland FC, Hernandez A, Albertyn J, Valadi H, Li H, Prior BA, Kilian SG, Ramos J, Gustafsson L, Thevelein JM, Hohmann S (1999) Fps1p controls the accumulation and release of the compatible solute glycerol in yeast osmoregulation. Mol Microbiol 31:1087–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 26:3521–3533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teixeira MC, Raposo LR, Mira NP, Lourenço AB, Sá-Correia I (2009) Genome-wide identification of Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes required for maximal tolerance to ethanol. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:5761–5772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomas KC, Hynes SH, Ingledew WM (1995) Practical and theoretical considerations in the production of high concentrations of alcohol by fermentation. Process Biochem 31:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Vleet JH, Jeffries TW (2009) Yeast metabolic engineering for hemicellulosic ethanol. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:300–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Xue C, Zhao XQ, Bai FW (2010) Effect of the size of yeast flocs and zinc supplementation on continuous ethanol fermentation performance and metabolic flux distribution under very high concentration conditions. Biotechnol Bioeng 105:935–944PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Yamamoto N, Maeda Y, Ikeda A, Sakurai H (2008) Regulation of thermotolerance by stress-induced transcription factors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Eukaryot Cell 7:783–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yazawa H, Iwahashi H, Uemura H (2007) Disruption of URA7 and GAL6 improves the ethanol tolerance and fermentation capacity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 24:551–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yoshikawa K, Tanaka T, Furusawa C, Nagahisa K, Hirasawa T, Shimizu H (2009) Comprehensive phenotypic analysis for identification of genes affecting growth under ethanol stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res 9:32–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhao XQ, Bai FW (2009) Yeast flocculation: new story in fuel ethanol production. Biotechnol Adv 27:849–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhao XQ, Xue C, Ge XM, Yuan WJ, Wang JY, Bai FW (2009) Impact of zinc supplementation on the improvement of ethanol tolerance and yield of self-flocculating yeast in continuous ethanol fermentation. J Biotechnol 139:55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioscience and BioengineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations