ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2017
Improving ethanol productivity through self-cycling fermentation of yeast: a proof of concept.
Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-cell density two-stage self-cycling fermentation system for the enhanced production of ethanol from steam-exploded poplar hydrolysate.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2026Article
- An adaptive, continuous substrate feeding strategy based on evolved gas to improve fed-batch ethanol fermentation.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Adapted feeding strategies in fed-batch fermentation improve sugar delivery and ethanol productivity.Bioengineered · 2023Article
- Methanol bioconversion in Methylotuvimicrobium buryatense 5GB1C through self-cycling fermentation.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2023Article
- The influence of self-cycling fermentation long- and short-cycle schemes on Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Escherichia coli.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Transcriptomic analysis of synchrony and productivity in self-cycling fermentation of engineered yeast producing shikimic acid.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- High-level production of maltobionic acid from high-maltose corn syrup by genetically engineeredBiotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Article
- Improved bioethanol productivity through gas flow rate-driven self-cycling fermentation.Biotechnology for biofuels · 2020Article
- Evaluation of divergent yeast genera for fermentation-associated stresses and identification of a robust sugarcane distillery waste isolateBiotechnology for biofuels · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cellulosic ethanol industry has developed efficient strategies for converting sugars obtained from various cellulosic feedstocks to bioethanol. However, any further major improvements in ethanol productivity will require development of novel and innovative fermentation strategies that enhance incumbent technologies in a cost-effective manner. The present study investigates the feasibility of applying self-cycling fermentation (SCF) to cellulosic ethanol production to elevate productivity. SCF is a semi-continuous cycling process that employs the following strategy: once the onset of stationary phase is detected, half of the broth volume is automatically harvested and replaced with fresh medium to initiate the next cycle. SCF has been shown to increase product yield and/or productivity in many types of microbial cultivation. To test whether this cycling process could increase productivity during ethanol fermentations, we mimicked the process by manually cycling the fermentation for five cycles in shake flasks, and then compared the results to batch operation.
resultsMimicking SCF for five cycles resulted in regular patterns with regards to glucose consumption, ethanol titer, pH, and biomass production. Compared to batch fermentation, our cycling strategy displayed improved ethanol volumetric productivity (the titer of ethanol produced in a given cycle per corresponding cycle time) and specific productivity (the amount of ethanol produced per cellular biomass) by 43.1 ± 11.6 and 42.7 ± 9.8%, respectively. Five successive cycles contributed to an improvement of overall productivity (the aggregate amount of ethanol produced at the end of a given cycle per total processing time) and the estimated annual ethanol productivity (the amount of ethanol produced per year) by 64.4 ± 3.3 and 33.1 ± 7.2%, respectively.
conclusionsThis study provides proof of concept that applying SCF to ethanol production could significantly increase productivities, which will help strengthen the cellulosic ethanol industry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.