Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 734–741 | Cite as

Response to different environmental stress conditions of industrial and laboratory Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains

  • A. Garay-Arroyo
  • A. A. Covarrubias
  • I. Clark
  • I. Niño
  • G. Gosset
  • A. Martinez
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Amoros M, Estruch F (2001) Hsf1p and Msn2/4p cooperate in the expression of Saccharomyces cerevisiae HSP26 and HSP104 in a gene and stress type-dependent manner. Mol Microbiol 39:1523–1532PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Corkidi G, Diaz-Uribe R, Folch-Mallol JL, Nieto-Sotelo J (1998) COVASIM: an image analysis method that allows detection of confluent sizes for automated counting. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:1400–1404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dijken JP van et al (2000) An interlaboratory comparison of physiological and genetic properties of four Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Enzyme Microb Technol 26:706–714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Garay-Arroyo A, Covarrubias AA (1999) Three genes whose expression is induced by stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 15:879–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hohmann S (2002) Osmotic stress signaling and osmoadaptation in yeast. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 66:300–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Lee J, Godon C, Lagniel G, Spector D, Garin J, Labarre J, Toledano MB (1999) Yap1 and Skn7 control two specialized oxidative stress response regulons in yeast. J Biol Chem 274:16040–16046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Martín C, Jönsson LJ (2003) Comparison of the resistance of industrial and laboratory strains of Saccharomyces and Zygosaccharomyces to lignocellulose-derived fermentation inhibitors. Enzyme Microb Technol 32:386–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martinez A, Rodríguez ME, York SW, Preston JF, Ingram LO (2000) Effects of Ca(OH)2 treatments ("overliming") on the composition and toxicity of bagasse hemicellulose hydrolysate. Biotechnol Bioeng 69:526–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Narendranath NV, Thomas KC, Ingledew WM (2001) Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a minimal medium. J Ind Microbiol 26:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Palmqvist E, Grade H, Meinander NQ, Hahn-Hägerdal B (1999) Main and interaction effects of acetic acid, furfural, and p-hydroxybenzoic acid on growth and ethanol productivity of yeast. Biotechnol Bioeng 63:46–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Petitjean A, Hilger F, Tatchell K (1990) Comparison of thermosensitive alleles of the CDC25 gene involved in the cAMP metabolism of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 124:797–806PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pinal L, Cedeño M, Gutiérrez H, Alvarez-Jacobs J (1997) Fermentation parameters influencing higher alcohol production in the Tequila process. Biotechnol Lett 19:45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Serrano R (1996) Salt tolerance in plants and microorganisms: toxicity, targets and defense responses Int Rev Cytol 165:1–52Google Scholar
  19. Taherzadeh MJ, Eklund R, Gustafsson L, Niklasson C, Lidén G (1997a) Characterization and fermentation of dilute-acid hydrolyzates from wood. Ind Eng Chem Res 36:4659–4665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taherzadeh MJ, Niklasson C, Lidén G (1997b) Acetic acid—friend or foe in anaerobic batch conversion of glucose to ethanol by Saccharomyces cerevisiae? Chem Eng Sci 52:2653–2659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taherzadeh MJ, Niklasson C, Lidén G (2000) On-line control of fed-batch fermentation of dilute-acid hydrolyzates. Biotechnol Bioeng 69:330–338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas KC, Hynes SH, Ingledew WM (2002) Influence of medium buffering capacity on inhibition of Saccharomyces cerevisiae growth by acetic and lactic acids. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:1616–1623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Garay-Arroyo
    • 1
  • A. A. Covarrubias
    • 1
  • I. Clark
    • 1
  • I. Niño
    • 2
  • G. Gosset
    • 2
  • A. Martinez
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Biología Molecular de Plantas, Instituto de BiotecnologíaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCuernavacaMexico
  2. 2.Departamento de Ingeniería Celular y Biocatálisis, Instituto de BiotecnologíaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCuernavacaMexico

Personalised recommendations