Adaptation of Dekkera bruxellensis to lignocellulose-based substrate.

Adaptation of Dekkera bruxellensis to lignocellulose hydrolysate was investigated. Cells of D. bruxellensis were grown for 72 and 192 H in batch and continuous culture, respectively (adapted cells). Cultivations in semisynthetic medium were run as controls (nonadapted cells). To test the adaptation, cells from these cultures were reinoculated in the lignocellulose medium, and growth and ethanol production characteristics were monitored. Cells adapted to lignocellulose hydrolysate had a shorter lag phase, grew faster, and produced a higher ethanol concentration as compared with nonadapted cells. A stability test showed that after cultivation in rich medium, cells partially lost the adapted phenotype but still showed faster growth and higher ethanol production as compared with nonadapted cells. Because alcohol dehydrogenase genes have been described to be involved in the adaptation to furfural in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, an analogous mechanism of adaptation to lignocelluloses hydrolysate of D. bruxellensis was hypothesized. However, gene expression analysis showed that genes homologous to S. cerevisiae ADH1 were not involved in the adaptation to lignocelluloses hydrolysate in D. bruxellensis.

Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysate by the alternative industrial ethanol yeast Dekkera bruxellensis.

AIM: Testing the ability of the alternative ethanol production yeast Dekkera bruxellensis to produce ethanol from lignocellulose hydrolysate and comparing it to Saccharomyces cerevisiae. METHODS AND RESULTS: Industrial isolates of D. bruxellensis and S. cerevisiae were cultivated in small-scale batch fermentations of enzymatically hydrolysed steam exploded aspen sawdust. Different dilutions of hydrolysate were tested. None of the yeasts grew in undiluted or 1:2 diluted hydrolysate [final glucose concentration always adjusted to 40 g l⁻¹ (0.22 mol l⁻¹)]. This was most likely due to the presence of inhibitors such as acetate or furfural. In 1:5 hydrolysate, S. cerevisiae grew, but not D. bruxellensis, and in 1:10 hydrolysate, both yeasts grew. An external vitamin source (e.g. yeast extract) was essential for growth of D. bruxellensis in this lignocellulosic hydrolysate and strongly stimulated S. cerevisiae growth and ethanol production. Ethanol yields of 0.42 ± 0.01 g ethanol (g glucose)⁻¹ were observed for both yeasts in 1:10 hydrolysate. In small-scale continuous cultures with cell recirculation, with a gradual increase in the hydrolysate concentration, D. bruxellensis was able to grow in 1:5 hydrolysate. In bioreactor experiments with cell recirculation, hydrolysate contents were increased up to 1:2 hydrolysate, without significant losses in ethanol yields for both yeasts and only slight differences in viable cell counts, indicating an ability of both yeasts to adapt to toxic compounds in the hydrolysate. CONCLUSIONS: Dekkera bruxellensis and S. cerevisiae have a similar potential to ferment lignocellulose hydrolysate to ethanol and to adapt to fermentation inhibitors in the hydrolysate. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This is the first study investigating the potential of D. bruxellensis to ferment lignocellulosic hydrolysate. Its high competitiveness in industrial fermentations makes D. bruxellensis an interesting alternative for ethanol production from those substrates.