Consolidated bioprocessing of cellulose to itaconic acid by a co-culture of Trichoderma reesei and Ustilago maydis.
Cellulose
Co-culture
Consolidated bioprocessing
Itaconic acid
Lignocellulose
Metabolic engineering
Microbial consortium
Mixed culture
Platform chemical
Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
Journal
Biotechnology for biofuels
ISSN: 1754-6834
Titre abrégé: Biotechnol Biofuels
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101316935
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Dec 2020
14 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
17
08
2020
accepted:
17
11
2020
entrez:
15
12
2020
pubmed:
16
12
2020
medline:
16
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Itaconic acid is a bio-derived platform chemical with uses ranging from polymer synthesis to biofuel production. The efficient conversion of cellulosic waste streams into itaconic acid could thus enable the sustainable production of a variety of substitutes for fossil oil based products. However, the realization of such a process is currently hindered by an expensive conversion of cellulose into fermentable sugars. Here, we present the stepwise development of a fully consolidated bioprocess (CBP), which is capable of directly converting recalcitrant cellulose into itaconic acid without the need for separate cellulose hydrolysis including the application of commercial cellulases. The process is based on a synthetic microbial consortium of the cellulase producer Trichoderma reesei and the itaconic acid producing yeast Ustilago maydis. A method for process monitoring was developed to estimate cellulose consumption, itaconic acid formation as well as the actual itaconic acid production yield online during co-cultivation. The efficiency of the process was compared to a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation setup (SSF). Because of the additional substrate consumption of T. reesei in the CBP, the itaconic acid yield was significantly lower in the CBP than in the SSF. In order to increase yield and productivity of itaconic acid in the CBP, the population dynamics was manipulated by varying the inoculation delay between T. reesei and U. maydis. Surprisingly, neither inoculation delay nor inoculation density significantly affected the population development or the CBP performance. Instead, the substrate availability was the most important parameter. U. maydis was only able to grow and to produce itaconic acid when the cellulose concentration and thus, the sugar supply rate, was high. Finally, the metabolic processes during fed-batch CBP were analyzed in depth by online respiration measurements. Thereby, substrate availability was again identified as key factor also controlling itaconic acid yield. In summary, an itaconic acid titer of 34 g/L with a total productivity of up to 0.07 g/L/h and a yield of 0.16 g/g could be reached during fed-batch cultivation. This study demonstrates the feasibility of consortium-based CBP for itaconic acid production and also lays the fundamentals for the development and improvement of similar microbial consortia for cellulose-based organic acid production.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Itaconic acid is a bio-derived platform chemical with uses ranging from polymer synthesis to biofuel production. The efficient conversion of cellulosic waste streams into itaconic acid could thus enable the sustainable production of a variety of substitutes for fossil oil based products. However, the realization of such a process is currently hindered by an expensive conversion of cellulose into fermentable sugars. Here, we present the stepwise development of a fully consolidated bioprocess (CBP), which is capable of directly converting recalcitrant cellulose into itaconic acid without the need for separate cellulose hydrolysis including the application of commercial cellulases. The process is based on a synthetic microbial consortium of the cellulase producer Trichoderma reesei and the itaconic acid producing yeast Ustilago maydis. A method for process monitoring was developed to estimate cellulose consumption, itaconic acid formation as well as the actual itaconic acid production yield online during co-cultivation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The efficiency of the process was compared to a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation setup (SSF). Because of the additional substrate consumption of T. reesei in the CBP, the itaconic acid yield was significantly lower in the CBP than in the SSF. In order to increase yield and productivity of itaconic acid in the CBP, the population dynamics was manipulated by varying the inoculation delay between T. reesei and U. maydis. Surprisingly, neither inoculation delay nor inoculation density significantly affected the population development or the CBP performance. Instead, the substrate availability was the most important parameter. U. maydis was only able to grow and to produce itaconic acid when the cellulose concentration and thus, the sugar supply rate, was high. Finally, the metabolic processes during fed-batch CBP were analyzed in depth by online respiration measurements. Thereby, substrate availability was again identified as key factor also controlling itaconic acid yield. In summary, an itaconic acid titer of 34 g/L with a total productivity of up to 0.07 g/L/h and a yield of 0.16 g/g could be reached during fed-batch cultivation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the feasibility of consortium-based CBP for itaconic acid production and also lays the fundamentals for the development and improvement of similar microbial consortia for cellulose-based organic acid production.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33317635
doi: 10.1186/s13068-020-01835-4
pii: 10.1186/s13068-020-01835-4
pmc: PMC7737373
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
207Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : EXE 236
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : EXS 2186
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : EXE 236
Organisme : Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe
ID : FKZ 22030515
Références
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016 Aug 15;82(17):5174-85
pubmed: 27316952
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2019 Nov 6;12:263
pubmed: 31709012
3 Biotech. 2020 Mar;10(3):113
pubmed: 32117674
Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2018 Feb;38(1):68-82
pubmed: 28425297
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017 Jan;101(1):1-12
pubmed: 27847989
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Sep 3;110(36):14592-7
pubmed: 23959872
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020 Apr;62:153-159
pubmed: 31689647
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2018 Apr;115(4):1096-1100
pubmed: 29205274
Bioresour Technol. 2018 Aug;262:159-168
pubmed: 29704763
Anal Biochem. 1969 Dec;32(3):420-4
pubmed: 5361396
J Biol Eng. 2018 Dec 18;12:34
pubmed: 30574186
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2019 Sep 30;12:233
pubmed: 31583019
Fungal Genet Biol. 2019 Apr;125:45-52
pubmed: 30703558
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013 Apr 29;6(1):59
pubmed: 23628342
Metab Eng. 2020 Sep;61:416-426
pubmed: 31078793
Fungal Genet Biol. 2000 Apr;29(3):145-51
pubmed: 10882531
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017 May;101(10):4063-4072
pubmed: 28235991
Microbiology (Reading). 2005 Jan;151(Pt 1):135-143
pubmed: 15632433
Fungal Biol Biotechnol. 2014 Nov 1;1:2
pubmed: 28955444
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2018 May;115(5):1207-1215
pubmed: 29315476
Bioresour Technol. 2013 May;135:422-31
pubmed: 23298766
Microb Cell Fact. 2012 Apr 05;11:43
pubmed: 22480369
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018 Nov;102(22):9577-9584
pubmed: 30225531
Anal Biochem. 1976 May 7;72:248-54
pubmed: 942051
Biochem J. 1955 May;60(1):135-9
pubmed: 14363197
Microb Cell Fact. 2016 Sep 29;15(1):164
pubmed: 27686382
Bioresour Technol. 2014 Sep;167:447-55
pubmed: 25006020
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2012 Apr;109(4):1083-7
pubmed: 22095526
J Biotechnol. 2020 Jan 10;307:148-163
pubmed: 31715206
BMC Genomics. 2012 Feb 02;13:57
pubmed: 22300648
Bioresour Technol. 2020 Jul;307:123208
pubmed: 32208342
Bioresour Technol. 2017 Oct;241:25-34
pubmed: 28550772
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018 Oct 11;11:279
pubmed: 30337958
3 Biotech. 2018 Mar;8(3):138
pubmed: 29484277
Microb Cell Fact. 2014 Jan 17;13:11
pubmed: 24438100
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015 Jun;33:32-8
pubmed: 25445545
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015 Oct;99(19):7937-44
pubmed: 26078111
Metab Eng. 2019 Jul;54:293-300
pubmed: 31091468
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2004 Dec 30;88(7):832-7
pubmed: 15459905
Bioresour Technol. 2014 Jun;161:431-40
pubmed: 24745899
Microb Biotechnol. 2016 Jan;9(1):116-26
pubmed: 26639528
Microb Cell Fact. 2019 Dec 12;18(1):213
pubmed: 31830998
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018 May;102(9):3901-3914
pubmed: 29536145
Front Microbiol. 2015 Feb 11;6:107
pubmed: 25717323
BMC Biotechnol. 2013 Jul 26;13:59
pubmed: 23889751
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017 Apr 24;10:106
pubmed: 28450887
Fungal Genet Biol. 2008 Aug;45 Suppl 1:S63-70
pubmed: 18456523
Front Microbiol. 2019 Jul 09;10:1589
pubmed: 31338087
Metab Eng. 2016 Nov;38:427-435
pubmed: 27750034
Microb Biotechnol. 2020 Mar;13(2):350-362
pubmed: 31880860