title: Combining inhibitor tolerance and D-xylose fermentation in industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae for efficient lignocellulose-based bioethanol production.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In addition to efficient pentose utilization, high inhibitor tolerance is a key trait required in any organism used for economically viable industrial bioethanol production with lignocellulose biomass. Although recent work has succeeded in establishing efficient xylose fermentation in robust industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains, the resulting strains still lacked sufficient inhibitor tolerance for efficient sugar fermentation in lignocellulose hydrolysates. The aim of the present work was to combine high xylose fermentation activity and high inhibitor tolerance in a single industrial yeast strain.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We have screened 580 yeast strains for high inhibitor tolerance using undetoxified acid-pretreated spruce hydrolysate and identified a triploid industrial baker's yeast strain as having the highest inhibitor tolerance. From this strain, a mating competent diploid segregant with even higher inhibitor tolerance was obtained. It was crossed with the recently developed D-xylose fermenting diploid industrial strain GS1.11-26, with the Ethanol Red genetic background. Screening of 819 diploid segregants from the tetraploid hybrid resulted in two strains, GSF335 and GSF767, combining high inhibitor tolerance and efficient xylose fermentation. In a parallel approach, meiotic recombination of GS1.11-26 with a haploid segregant of Ethanol Red and screening of 104 segregants resulted in a similar inhibitor tolerant diploid strain, GSE16. The three superior strains exhibited significantly improved tolerance to inhibitors in spruce hydrolysate, higher glucose consumption rates, higher aerobic growth rates and higher maximal ethanol accumulation capacity in very-high gravity fermentation, compared to GS1.11-26. In complex medium, the D-xylose utilization rate by the three superior strains ranged from 0.36 to 0.67 g/g DW/h, which was lower than that of GS1.11-26 (1.10 g/g DW/h). On the other hand, in batch fermentation of undetoxified acid-pretreated spruce hydrolysate, the three superior strains showed comparable D-xylose utilization rates as GS1.11-26, probably because of their higher inhibitor tolerance. They produced up to 23% more ethanol compared to Ethanol Red.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We have successfully constructed three superior industrial S. cerevisiae strains that combine efficient D-xylose utilization with high inhibitor tolerance. Since the background strain Ethanol Red has a proven record of successful industrial application, the three new superior strains have strong potential for direct application in industrial bioethanol production.
authors: Laboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, KU Leuven, Leuven-Heverlee, Flanders B-3001, Belgium. johan.thevelein@mmbio.vib-kuleuven.be.
authors: Mekonnen M
authors: MM
authors: Demeke
authors: Françoise
authors: F
authors: Dumortier
authors: Yingying
authors: Y
authors: Li
authors: Tom
authors: T
authors: Broeckx
authors: María R
authors: MR
authors: Foulquié-Moreno
authors: Johan M
authors: JM
authors: Thevelein
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013 Jun 21;6(1):89
references: 23800147
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2008 Oct 23;1(1):16
references: 18947407
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Apr;69(4):1990-8
references: 12676674
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012 May 11;5(1):32
references: 22578262
references: Nat Biotechnol. 1997 Dec;15(13):1351-7
references: 9415886
references: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2008 Sep;72(3):379-412
references: 18772282
references: Bioresour Technol. 2008 Sep;99(13):5270-95
references: 18158236
references: Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2007;108:41-65
references: 17646946
references: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Oct;88(4):849-57
references: 20803138
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2008 May 01;1(1):7
references: 18471273
references: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Jul;87(4):1303-15
references: 20535464
references: Trends Biotechnol. 2002 Oct;20(10):426-32
references: 12220905
references: Biotechnol Prog. 2008 Jan-Feb;24(1):38-47
references: 17914860
references: OMICS. 2010 Oct;14(5):553-61
references: 20955008
references: PLoS Genet. 2013 Jun;9(6):e1003548
references: 23754966
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012 Jul 18;5(1):46
references: 22809265
references: Biotechnol Bioeng. 2004 Jul 5;87(1):90-8
references: 15211492
references: Metab Eng. 2012 Nov;14(6):611-22
references: 22921355
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012 Apr 13;5:22
references: 22502801
references: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 Apr;74(5):937-53
references: 17294186
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Feb;75(4):907-14
references: 19074603
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 Mar;101(6):1570-80
references: 19963372
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Oct;68(10):4780-7
references: 12324320
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 May;101(9):3106-14
references: 20061141
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Mar;67(3):1163-70
references: 11229906
references: Bioresour Technol. 2009 Jul;100(14):3674-7
references: 19329297
references: Exp Cell Res. 1982 Nov;142(1):69-78
references: 6754401
references: Bioresour Technol. 2005 Oct;96(15):1670-6
references: 16023569
references: Curr Opin Microbiol. 2001 Jun;4(3):324-9
references: 11378487
references: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012 Mar;93(6):2591-601
references: 22116630
references: FEMS Yeast Res. 2005 Jul;5(10):925-34
references: 15949975
references: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001 Oct;57(1-2):167-74
references: 11693915
references: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006 Jul;71(3):339-49
references: 16222531
references: Genetics. 2010 Oct;186(2):537-50
references: 20697121
references: Biotechnol Adv. 2011 Nov-Dec;29(6):675-85
references: 21624451
references: FEMS Yeast Res. 2009 May;9(3):358-64
references: 19416101
references: FEMS Yeast Res. 2003 May;3(3):319-26
references: 12689639
references: FEMS Yeast Res. 2005 Feb;5(4-5):399-409
references: 15691745
references: J Biotechnol. 2009 Oct 12;144(1):23-30
references: 19446584
references: Genetics. 2012 Jun;191(2):621-32
references: 22426884
references: Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Jul;24(7):777-84
references: 16841058
references: Biotechnol Adv. 2008 Jan-Feb;26(1):89-105
references: 17964107
references: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006 Feb;69(6):689-96
references: 15988574
references: Bioresour Technol. 2011 Feb;102(3):3020-7
references: 20980141
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Apr;75(8):2304-11
references: 19218403
references: PLoS Genet. 2006 Sep 22;2(9):e145
references: 17002497
references: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Nov;37(11):1211-20
references: 20585830
references: Trends Genet. 1990 Aug;6(8):236
references: 2238077
references: Int J Mol Sci. 2008 Sep;9(9):1621-51
references: 19325822
references: Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2013 Apr;24(2):192-9
references: 22947601
references: Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2007;108:205-35
references: 17846725
references: Biotechnol Bioeng. 2002 Sep 20;79(6):694-700
references: 12209817
references: FEMS Yeast Res. 2009 Dec;9(8):1148-60
references: 19758333