Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 177, Issue 4, pp 923–939

Diversity of Lactobacillus reuteri Strains in Converting Glycerol into 3-Hydroxypropionic Acid

  • G. Burgé
  • C. Saulou-Bérion
  • M. Moussa
  • B. Pollet
  • A. Flourat
  • F. Allais
  • V. Athès
  • H.E. Spinnler
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s12010-015-1787-8

Cite this article as:
Burgé, G., Saulou-Bérion, C., Moussa, M. et al. Appl Biochem Biotechnol (2015) 177: 923. doi:10.1007/s12010-015-1787-8

Abstract

The present study aims at comparing the performances of three Lactobacillus reuteri strains (DSM 20016, DSM 17938, and ATCC 53608) in producing 3-hydroxypropionic acid (3-HP) from glycerol and at exploring inhibition phenomena during this bioconversion. Differences were highlighted between the three strains in terms of 3-HP production yield, kinetics of substrate consumption, and metabolite production. With a maximal productivity in non-optimal conditions (free pH) around 2 g.L−1.h−1 of 3-HP and 4 g.L−1.h−1 of 3-hydroxypropionaldehyde (3-HPA) depending on the strain, this study confirmed the potential of L. reuteri for the biotechnological production of 3-HP. Moreover, the molar ratios of 3-HP to 1,3-propanediol (1,3-PDO) obtained for the three strains (comprised between 1.25 and 1.65) showed systematically a higher 3-HP production. From these results, the DSM 17938 strain appeared to be the most promising strain. The impact of glycerol bioconversion on the bacteria’s physiological state (a decrease of around 40 % in DSM 17938 cells showing an enzymatic activity after 3 h) and survival (total loss of cultivability after 2 or 3 h depending on the strains) was revealed and discussed. The effect of each metabolite on L. reuteri DSM 17938 was further investigated, displaying a drastic inhibition caused by 3-HPA, while 3-HP induced lower impact and only at acidic pH.

Keywords

3-Hydroxypropionic acid Lactobacillus reuteri Glycerol bioconversion Inhibitory activity 

Supplementary material

12010_2015_1787_MOESM1_ESM.doc (89 kb)
Online Resource 1(DOC 89 kb)
12010_2015_1787_MOESM2_ESM.doc (55 kb)
Online Resource 2(DOC 55 kb)
12010_2015_1787_MOESM3_ESM.doc (368 kb)
Online Resource 3(DOC 368 kb)
12010_2015_1787_MOESM4_ESM.doc (374 kb)
Online Resource 4(DOC 374 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Burgé
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • C. Saulou-Bérion
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. Moussa
    • 2
    • 3
  • B. Pollet
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. Flourat
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • F. Allais
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • V. Athès
    • 2
    • 3
  • H.E. Spinnler
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Chaire Agro-Biotechnologies Industrielles (ABI)-AgroParisTechReimsFrance
  2. 2.AgroParisTech, UMR 782 Génie et Microbiologie des Procédés Alimentaires (GMPA)Thiverval-GrignonFrance
  3. 3.INRA, UMR 782 Génie et Microbiologie des Procédés Alimentaires (GMPA)Thiverval-GrignonFrance
  4. 4.AgroParisTech, Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin (IJPB)Versailles CedexFrance
  5. 5.INRA, Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin (IJPB)Versailles CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations