Response to different environmental stress conditions of industrial and laboratory Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains
- 593 Downloads
Two sets of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains were compared for their physiological responses to different stress conditions. One group is composed of three strains adapted to controlled laboratory conditions (CEN.PK, LR88 and RS58), whereas the other consisted of five industrial strains (IND1101, SuperStart, LO24, LO41 and Azteca). Most industrial strains showed higher tolerance to heat shock and to an oxidative environment than laboratory strains. Excluding CEN.PK, a similar behavior was observed regarding ethanol production in high sugar concentrations (180 g/l glucose). Addition of acetate (10 g/l) or furfural (2 g/l), in concentrations similar to those found in sugar cane bagasse hydrolysates, decreased cell mass formation and growth rate in almost all strains. CEN.PK and SuperStart showed the highest sensitivity when grown in furfural-containing medium. Acetic acid treatment severely affected cell mass formation and reduced growth rate in all strains; CEN.PK and LO24 were the most resistant. The specific ethanol production rate was not affected by furfural addition. However, specific ethanol production rates decreased in response to acetic acid in four industrial strains, and increased in all laboratory strains and in LO24. No significant correlation was found between the stress tolerance of the strains tested and the transcript accumulation of genes selected by their involvement in the response to each of the stressful environments applied.
KeywordsEthanol Production Furfural Laboratory Strain Industrial Strain High Sugar Concentration
Strains were provided by Dr. Peter Köter (CEN.PK), Dr. José A. Peña (Azteca), Ignacio Lazcano (IND1101), Maria de la Luz Nuñez (LO24 and LO41), and Dra. Gladys Hoyos from Alltech Mexico (SuperStart). Technical support for HPLC analysis from G. Hernández is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank E. López and P. Gaytan for oligonucleotide synthesis. This work was supported by grant Z-003 from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología-México (CONACyT). I. Niño held a scholarship from CONACyT-México.
- Beall DS, Ohta K, Ingram LO (1991) Parametric studies of ethanol production from xylose and other sugars by recombinant Escherichia coli. Biotechnol Bioeng 38:296–303Google Scholar
- Collart M, Oliviero S (1995) In: Ausubel FM et al (eds) Current protocols in molecular biology. Wiley, New York, pp 13.12.1–13.12.4Google Scholar
- Kensall DR, Lyons TP (1999) Management of fermentations in the production of alcohol: moving toward 23% ethanol. In: Jacques KA, Lyons TP, Kelsall DR (eds) The alcohol textbook: a reference for the beverage, fuel and industrial alcohol industries, 3rd edn. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK, pp 26–38Google Scholar
- Larsson S, Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Tengborg Ch, Stenberg K, Zacchi G, Nilvebrant N-O (1999) The generation of fermentation inhibitors during dilute acid hydrolysis of softwood. Enzyme Microb Technol 24:151–159Google Scholar
- Rep M, Proft M, Remize F, Tamás M, Serrano R, Thevelein J M, Hohmann S (2001) The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sko1p transcription factor mediates HOG pathway-dependent osmotic regulation of a set of genes encoding enzymes implicated in protection from oxidative damage. Mol Microbiol 40:1067–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Serrano R (1996) Salt tolerance in plants and microorganisms: toxicity, targets and defense responses Int Rev Cytol 165:1–52Google Scholar