Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33836811›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2021

Identification of the major fermentation inhibitors of recombinant 2G yeasts in diverse lignocellulose hydrolysates.

Gert Vanmarcke, Mekonnen M Demeke, Maria R Foulquié-Moreno, Johan M Thevelein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. An Evolved Strain of the Oleaginous YeastJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Whole-Genome Sequence and Fermentation Characteristics ofBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gert VanmarckeLaboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, Department of Biology, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, 3001, Leuven-Heverlee, Flanders, Belgium.
Mekonnen M DemekeLaboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, Department of Biology, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, 3001, Leuven-Heverlee, Flanders, Belgium.
Maria R Foulquié-MorenoLaboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, Department of Biology, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, 3001, Leuven-Heverlee, Flanders, Belgium.
Johan M TheveleinLaboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, Department of Biology, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, 3001, Leuven-Heverlee, Flanders, Belgium. johan.thevelein@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2626-0180

Funding

Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen 'SPICY' (HBC.2017.0597)Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie 'ARBOREF' (140894)Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie 'SUPERIORYEAST' (140044)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPresence of inhibitory chemicals in lignocellulose hydrolysates is a major hurdle for production of second-generation bioethanol. Especially cheaper pre-treatment methods that ensure an economical viable production process generate high levels of these inhibitory chemicals. The effect of several of these inhibitors has been extensively studied with non-xylose-fermenting laboratory strains, in synthetic media, and usually as single inhibitors, or with inhibitor concentrations much higher than those found in lignocellulose hydrolysates. However, the relevance of individual inhibitors in inhibitor-rich lignocellulose hydrolysates has remained unclear.

resultsThe relative importance for inhibition of ethanol fermentation by two industrial second-generation yeast strains in five lignocellulose hydrolysates, from bagasse, corn cobs and spruce, has now been investigated by spiking higher concentrations of each compound in a concentration range relevant for industrial hydrolysates. The strongest inhibition was observed with industrially relevant concentrations of furfural causing partial inhibition of both D-glucose and D-xylose consumption. Addition of 3 or 6 g/L furfural strongly reduced the ethanol titer obtained with strain MD4 in all hydrolysates evaluated, in a range of 34 to 51% and of 77 to 86%, respectively. This was followed by 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, acetic acid and formic acid, for which in general, industrially relevant concentrations caused partial inhibition of D-xylose fermentation. On the other hand, spiking with levulinic acid, 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid or vanillin caused little inhibition compared to unspiked hydrolysate. The further evolved MD4 strain generally showed superior performance compared to the previously developed strain GSE16-T18.

conclusionThe results highlight the importance of individual inhibitor evaluation in a medium containing a genuine mix of inhibitors as well as the ethanol that is produced by the fermentation. They also highlight the potential of increasing yeast inhibitor tolerance for improving industrial process economics.

Indexed as

2G yeast strainsBioethanol productionFermentation inhibitorsLignocellulose hydrolysates

Identifiers

PMID33836811
PMCPMC8034183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.