Oleaginous yeasts- substrate preference and lipid productivity: a view on the performance of microbial lipid producers.
Biomass yield
Carbon substrate preference
Complex lignocellulosic/marine biomass hydrolysate
Fermentation inhibitor tolerance
Lipid yield
Oleaginous yeasts
Journal
Microbial cell factories
ISSN: 1475-2859
Titre abrégé: Microb Cell Fact
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139812
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Dec 2021
07 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
13
08
2021
accepted:
20
11
2021
entrez:
8
12
2021
pubmed:
9
12
2021
medline:
19
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Oleaginous yeasts are promising microbial platforms for sustainable, bio-based production of biofuels and oleochemical building blocks. Bio-based residues provide sustainable and cost-effective carbon sources for fermentative yeast oil production without land-use change. Considering the regional abundancy of different waste streams, we chose complex biomass residue streams of marine origin; macroalgae hydrolysate, and terrestrial origin; wheat straw hydrolysate in the presence, and absence of corn steep liquor as a complex nitrogen source. We investigated the biomass and lipid yields of an array of well-described oleaginous yeasts; R. glutinis, T. asahii, R. mucilaginosa, R. toruloides, C. oleaginosus growing on these hydrolysates. Furthermore, their sugar utilization, fatty acid profile, and inhibitory effect of the hydrolysates on yeast growth were compared. For correlative reference, we initially performed comparative growth experiments for the strains on individual monomeric sugars separately. Each of these monomeric sugars was a dominant carbon source in the complex biomass hydrolysates evaluated in this study. In addition, we evaluated N-acetylglucosamine, the monomeric building block of chitin, as a low-cost nitrogen and carbon source in yeast fermentation. C. oleaginosus provided the highest biomass and lipid yields. In the wheat straw and brown algae hydrolysates, this yeast strain gained 7.5 g/L and 3.8 g/L lipids, respectively. Cultivation in algae hydrolysate resulted in a higher level of unsaturated fatty acids in the lipids accumulated by all yeast strains. R. toruloides and C. oleaginosus were able to effectively co-utilize mannitol, glucose, and xylose. Growth rates on wheat straw hydrolysate were enhanced in presence of corn steep liquor. Among the yeast strains investigated in this study, C. oleaginosus proved to be the most versatile strain in terms of substrate utilization, productivity, and tolerance in the complex media. Various fatty acid profiles obtained on each substrate encourage the manipulation of culture conditions to achieve the desired fatty acid composition for each application. This could be accomplished by combining the element of carbon source with other formerly studied factors such as temperature and oxygen. Moreover, corn steep liquor showed promise for enhancement of growth in the oleaginous strains provided that carbon substrate is available.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Oleaginous yeasts are promising microbial platforms for sustainable, bio-based production of biofuels and oleochemical building blocks. Bio-based residues provide sustainable and cost-effective carbon sources for fermentative yeast oil production without land-use change. Considering the regional abundancy of different waste streams, we chose complex biomass residue streams of marine origin; macroalgae hydrolysate, and terrestrial origin; wheat straw hydrolysate in the presence, and absence of corn steep liquor as a complex nitrogen source. We investigated the biomass and lipid yields of an array of well-described oleaginous yeasts; R. glutinis, T. asahii, R. mucilaginosa, R. toruloides, C. oleaginosus growing on these hydrolysates. Furthermore, their sugar utilization, fatty acid profile, and inhibitory effect of the hydrolysates on yeast growth were compared. For correlative reference, we initially performed comparative growth experiments for the strains on individual monomeric sugars separately. Each of these monomeric sugars was a dominant carbon source in the complex biomass hydrolysates evaluated in this study. In addition, we evaluated N-acetylglucosamine, the monomeric building block of chitin, as a low-cost nitrogen and carbon source in yeast fermentation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
C. oleaginosus provided the highest biomass and lipid yields. In the wheat straw and brown algae hydrolysates, this yeast strain gained 7.5 g/L and 3.8 g/L lipids, respectively. Cultivation in algae hydrolysate resulted in a higher level of unsaturated fatty acids in the lipids accumulated by all yeast strains. R. toruloides and C. oleaginosus were able to effectively co-utilize mannitol, glucose, and xylose. Growth rates on wheat straw hydrolysate were enhanced in presence of corn steep liquor.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Among the yeast strains investigated in this study, C. oleaginosus proved to be the most versatile strain in terms of substrate utilization, productivity, and tolerance in the complex media. Various fatty acid profiles obtained on each substrate encourage the manipulation of culture conditions to achieve the desired fatty acid composition for each application. This could be accomplished by combining the element of carbon source with other formerly studied factors such as temperature and oxygen. Moreover, corn steep liquor showed promise for enhancement of growth in the oleaginous strains provided that carbon substrate is available.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34876116
doi: 10.1186/s12934-021-01710-3
pii: 10.1186/s12934-021-01710-3
pmc: PMC8650408
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biofuels
0
Lipids
0
Carbon
7440-44-0
Nitrogen
N762921K75
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
220Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 033RC012B
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Science. 2008 Feb 29;319(5867):1238-40
pubmed: 18258860
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008 Oct;80(5):749-56
pubmed: 18690426
Nature. 2014 Jan 9;505(7482):239-43
pubmed: 24291791
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016 Jul;100(14):6103-6117
pubmed: 27209039
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2020 Oct;47(9-10):801-813
pubmed: 32221720
Science. 2008 Feb 29;319(5867):1235-8
pubmed: 18258862
J Gen Microbiol. 1990 Aug;136(8):1469-74
pubmed: 2262787
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017 Sep;101(17):6627-6636
pubmed: 28741083
Bioresour Technol. 2018 Jun;258:255-262
pubmed: 29533885
J Bacteriol. 1980 Oct;144(1):1-6
pubmed: 6998941
Nat Commun. 2012;3:1112
pubmed: 23047670
mBio. 2015 Jul 21;6(4):e00918
pubmed: 26199329
Can J Biochem Physiol. 1959 Aug;37(8):911-7
pubmed: 13671378
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019 May;103(9):3651-3667
pubmed: 30911785
World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017 May;33(5):99
pubmed: 28429279
Mol Biol Cell. 2007 Mar;18(3):965-75
pubmed: 17192409
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 Jan 21;7:481
pubmed: 32039182
Bioresour Technol. 2010 Jul;101(13):4744-53
pubmed: 20031394
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019 Jul;103(13):5105-5116
pubmed: 31081521
Microb Cell Fact. 2017 Nov 17;16(1):206
pubmed: 29149902
Trends Biotechnol. 2018 Mar;36(3):304-317
pubmed: 29132754
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 May;90(4):1219-27
pubmed: 21465305
Lipids. 2010 Nov;45(11):1053-60
pubmed: 20820931
Microb Cell Fact. 2014 Jan 21;13:12
pubmed: 24443802
Bioresour Technol. 2019 Aug;286:121365
pubmed: 31030073
Nat Commun. 2016 Oct 03;7:12916
pubmed: 27694804
Trends Biotechnol. 2020 Aug;38(8):873-887
pubmed: 32673589
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015 Nov 25;8:189
pubmed: 26609324
Microb Cell Fact. 2017 Oct 25;16(1):178
pubmed: 29070039
Bioresour Technol. 2013 Jan;127:441-7
pubmed: 23138068
Bioresour Technol. 2013 May;136:775-9
pubmed: 23558185
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017 Apr;101(8):3319-3334
pubmed: 28012044
J Fungi (Basel). 2021 Jan 19;7(1):
pubmed: 33477740
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1974 Dec 20;374(3):384-91
pubmed: 4373081
Bioresour Technol. 2011 May;102(10):6134-40
pubmed: 21463940
J Appl Microbiol. 2018 Feb;124(2):336-367
pubmed: 29117646
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002 Mar 1;291(3):707-13
pubmed: 11855848
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2015 Oct;61(4):325-32
pubmed: 26250108
Bioresour Technol. 2014 Feb;153:230-5
pubmed: 24368271
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020 Jun 11;526(4):1138-1142
pubmed: 32317185
EMBO J. 1995 Aug 15;14(16):3958-65
pubmed: 7545108
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019 Mar 26;7:54
pubmed: 30984750
Metab Eng. 2015 May;29:1-11
pubmed: 25662836