title: A strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae evolved for fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass displays improved growth and fermentative ability in high solids concentrations and in the presence of inhibitory compounds.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Softwoods are the dominant source of lignocellulosic biomass in the northern hemisphere, and have been investigated worldwide as a renewable substrate for cellulosic ethanol production. One challenge to using softwoods, which is particularly acute with pine, is that the pretreatment process produces inhibitory compounds detrimental to the growth and metabolic activity of fermenting organisms. To overcome the challenge of bioconversion in the presence of inhibitory compounds, especially at high solids loading, a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae was subjected to evolutionary engineering and adaptation for fermentation of pretreated pine wood (Pinus taeda).
  
  
  RESULTS
  An industrial strain of Saccharomyces, XR122N, was evolved using pretreated pine; the resulting daughter strain, AJP50, produced ethanol much more rapidly than its parent in fermentations of pretreated pine. Adaptation, by preculturing of the industrial yeast XR122N and the evolved strains in 7% dry weight per volume (w/v) pretreated pine solids prior to inoculation into higher solids concentrations, improved fermentation performance of all strains compared with direct inoculation into high solids. Growth comparisons between XR122N and AJP50 in model hydrolysate media containing inhibitory compounds found in pretreated biomass showed that AJP50 exited lag phase faster under all conditions tested. This was due, in part, to the ability of AJP50 to rapidly convert furfural and hydroxymethylfurfural to their less toxic alcohol derivatives, and to recover from reactive oxygen species damage more quickly than XR122N. Under industrially relevant conditions of 17.5% w/v pretreated pine solids loading, additional evolutionary engineering was required to decrease the pronounced lag phase. Using a combination of adaptation by inoculation first into a solids loading of 7% w/v for 24 hours, followed by a 10% v/v inoculum (approximately equivalent to 1 g/L dry cell weight) into 17.5% w/v solids, the final strain (AJP50) produced ethanol at more than 80% of the maximum theoretical yield after 72 hours of fermentation, and reached more than 90% of the maximum theoretical yield after 120 hours of fermentation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results show that fermentation of pretreated pine containing liquid and solids, including any inhibitory compounds generated during pretreatment, is possible at higher solids loadings than those previously reported in the literature. Using our evolved strain, efficient fermentation with reduced inoculum sizes and shortened process times was possible, thereby improving the overall economic viability of a woody biomass-to-ethanol conversion process.
authors.affiliation: Microbiology Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. jpeterso@uga.edu.
authors.forename: Gary M
authors.initials: GM
authors.lastname: Hawkins
authors.forename: Joy
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Doran-Peterson
references.citation: Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2000 Spring;84-86:617-32
references.pmid: 10849822
references.citation: Microb Biotechnol. 2008 Nov;1(6):497-506
references.pmid: 21261870
references.citation: Biochem J. 2002 May 1;363(Pt 3):769-76
references.pmid: 11964178
references.citation: Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2005 Spring;121-124:451-60
references.pmid: 15917621
references.citation: Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2000 Spring;84-86:693-705
references.pmid: 10849828
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2000 Jun;53(6):701-8
references.pmid: 10919330
references.citation: Biotechnol Bioeng. 2007 Nov 1;98(4):737-46
references.pmid: 17385749
references.citation: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2010 Jan 15;3:2
references.pmid: 20150993
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):7866-71
references.pmid: 16332761
references.citation: Environ Health Perspect. 1990 Jul;87:213-8
references.pmid: 2176586
references.citation: FEMS Yeast Res. 2008 Nov;8(7):1155-63
references.pmid: 18752628
references.citation: Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008 Jun 15;100(3):423-9
references.pmid: 18438882
references.citation: Gene. 1994 May 3;142(1):107-12
references.pmid: 8181743
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Jul;24(7):761-4
references.pmid: 16841054
references.citation: Biotechnol Prog. 2004 May-Jun;20(3):744-9
references.pmid: 15176877
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006 Feb;69(6):627-42
references.pmid: 16331454
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Dec;75(24):7631-8
references.pmid: 19854918
references.citation: Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 1998 Spring;70-72:137-48
references.pmid: 9627379
references.citation: Biotechnol Bioeng. 1986 Jun;28(6):792-801
references.pmid: 18555395
references.citation: Methods Mol Biol. 2009;581:263-80
references.pmid: 19768628
references.citation: Biotechnol Bioeng. 1995 Feb 20;45(4):356-65
references.pmid: 18623189
references.citation: J Cell Biol. 1994 Aug;126(4):1079-88
references.pmid: 8051207
references.citation: Yeast. 2006 Apr 30;23(6):455-64
references.pmid: 16652391
references.citation: FEMS Yeast Res. 2005 Jul;5(10):925-34
references.pmid: 15949975
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001 Oct;57(1-2):167-74
references.pmid: 11693915
references.citation: Biotechnol Prog. 2003 Jul-Aug;19(4):1109-17
references.pmid: 12892470
references.citation: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004 Sep;31(8):345-52
references.pmid: 15338422
references.citation: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004 Jun;31(5):235-44
references.pmid: 15252719
references.citation: Biotechnol Prog. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5):1421-9
references.pmid: 15458326
references.citation: Bioresour Technol. 2007 Jul;98(9):1767-73
references.pmid: 16934451
references.citation: Trends Biotechnol. 2006 Dec;24(12):549-56
references.pmid: 17050014