Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 149–157 | Cite as

Metabolic selectivity and growth of Clostridium thermocellum in continuous culture under elevated hydrostatic pressure

  • G. D. Bothun
  • B. L. KnutsonEmail author
  • J. A. Berberich
  • H. J. Strobel
  • S. E. Nokes
Original Paper


The continuous culture of Clostridium thermocellum, a thermophilic bacterium capable of producing ethanol from cellulosic material, is demonstrated at elevated hydrostatic pressure (7.0 MPa, 17.3 MPa) and compared with cultures at atmospheric pressure. A commercial limitation of ethanol production by C. thermocellum is low ethanol yield due to the formation of organic acids (acetate, lactate). At elevated hydrostatic pressure, ethanol:acetate (E/A) ratios increased >102 relative to atmospheric pressure. Cell growth was inhibited by approximately 40% and 60% for incubations at 7.0 MPa and 17.3 MPa, respectively, relative to continuous culture at atmospheric pressure. A decrease in the theoretical maximum growth yield and an increase in the maintenance coefficient indicated that more cellobiose and ATP are channeled towards maintaining cellular function in pressurized cultures. Shifts in product selectivity toward ethanol are consistent with previous observations of hydrostatic pressure effects in batch cultures. The results are partially attributed to the increasing concentration of dissolved product gases (H2, CO2) with increasing pressure; and they highlight the utility of continuous culture experiments for the quantification of the complex role of dissolved gas and pressure effects on metabolic activity.


Fermentation Hydrostatic Pressure Cellobiose Dilution Rate Continuous Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the National Science Foundation (Grant BES-9817069) and thank Eva Kaplan in the Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Kentucky, for her assistance with laboratory analysis.


  1. Abe F, Horikoshi K (2001) The biotechnological potential of piezophiles. Trends Biotechnol 19:102–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abe F, Kato C, Horikoshi K (1999) Pressure-regulated metabolism in microorganisms. Trends Microbiol 7:447–453PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett DH (2002) Pressure effects on in vivo microbial processes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1595:367–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beguin P, Aubert J-P (1993) The biological degradation of cellulose. FEMS Microbiol Rev 13:25–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berberich JA (2001) Whole cell biocatalysis in the presence of supercritical and compressed solvents. PhD thesis, University of Kentucky, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Berberich JA, Knutson BL, Strobel HJ, Tarhan S, Nokes SE, Dawson KA (2000a) Product selectivity shifts in Clostridium thermocellum in the presence of compressed solvents. Ind Eng Chem Res 39:4500–4505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berberich JA, Knutson BL, Strobel HJ, Tarhan S, Nokes SE, Dawson KA (2000b) Toxicity effects of compressed and supercritical solvents on thermophilic microbial metabolism. Biotechnol Bioeng 70:491–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergmeyer H (1963). Methods of enzymatic analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Brauer R, Hogan P, Hugon M, MacDonald A, Miller K (1982) Patterns of interaction of effects of light metabolically inert gases with those of hydrostatic pressure as such—a review. Undersea Biomed Res 9:353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bubela B, Labone CL, Dawson CH (1987) An apparatus for continuous growth of microorganisms under oil reserve conditions. Biotechnol Bioeng 29:289–291Google Scholar
  11. Chicoye E, Helbert JR, Rice JF (1978) Accelerated fermentation of lager beer. US patent 4,068,005Google Scholar
  12. Chin JH, Trudell JR, Cohen EN (1976) The compression-ordering and solubility-disordering effects of high pressure gases on phospholipid bilayers. Life Sci 18:489–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cotta M, Russell J (1982) Effect of peptides and amino acids on efficiency of ruminal bacterial protein synthesis in continuous culture. J Dairy Sci 65:226–234Google Scholar
  14. Dean JA (1979) Lange’s handbook of chemistry, 12th edn. McGraw–Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon NM, Kell DB (1989) The inhibition by CO2 of the growth and metabolism of microorganisms. J Appl Bacteriol 67:109–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Doremus MG, Linden JC, Moreira AR (1985) Agitation and pressure effects on acetone–butanol fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:852–860Google Scholar
  17. Eklund T (1984) The effect of carbon dioxide on bacterial growth and on uptake processes in bacterial membrane vesicles. Int J Food Microbiol 1:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erbeznik M, Jones CR, Dawson KA, Strobel HJ (1997) Clostridium thermocellum JW20 (ATCC 31549) is a co-culture with Thermoanaerobacter ethanolicus. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:2949–2951PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Felix CR, Ljungdahl LG (1993) The cellulosome: the exocellular organelle of Clostridium. Annu Rev Microbiol 47:791–819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey AH (1996) Semiempirical correlation for Henry’s constants over large temperature ranges. AIChE J 42:1491–1494Google Scholar
  21. Hauben KJA, Bartlett DH, Soontjens CCF, Cornelis K (1997) Escherichia coli mutants resistant to inactivation by high hydrostatic pressure. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:945–950PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Herrero AA, Gomez RF, Roberts MF (1985) 31P NMR studies of Clostridium thermocellum. J Biol Chem 260:7442–7451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jannasch HW, Wirsen CO, Doherty KW (1996) A pressurized chemostat for the study of marine barophilic and oligotrophic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:1593–1596Google Scholar
  24. Jones RP, Greenfield PF (1982) Effect of carbon dioxide on yeast growth and fermentation. Enzyme Microb Technol 4:210–223Google Scholar
  25. Knutson BL, Strobel HJ, Nokes SE, Dawson K, Berberich JA, Jones CR (1999) Effect of pressurized solvents on ethanol production by the thermophilic bacterium Clostridium thermocellum. J Supercrit Fluids 16:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuriyama H, Mahakarnchanakul W, Matsui S (1993) The effects of pCO2 on yeast growth and metabolism under continuous fermentation. Biotechnol Lett 15:189–194Google Scholar
  27. Lamad RJ, Zeikus JG (1980) Ethanol production by thermophilic bacteria: relationship between fermentation product yields of and catabolic enzyme activities in Clostridium thermocellum and Thermoanaerobium brockii. J Bacteriol 144:569–578PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamad RJ, Lobos JH, Su TM (1988) Effects of stirring and hydrogen on fermentation products of Clostridium thermocellum. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:1216–1221Google Scholar
  29. Lee D, Heinz V, Knorr D (2001) Biphasic inactivation kinetics of Escherichia coli in liquid whole egg by high hydrostatic pressure treatments. Biotechnol Prog 17:1020–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynd L (1989) Production of ethanol from lignocellulosic materials using thermophilic bacteria. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 38:1Google Scholar
  31. McIntyre M, McNeil B (1998) Morphogenetic and biochemical effects of dissolved carbon dioxide on filamentous fungi in submerged cultivation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 50:291–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mistry FR, Cooney CL (1989) Production of ethanol by Clostridium thermosaccharolyticum: I. Effect of cell recycle and environmental parameters. Biotechnol Bioeng 34:1295–1304Google Scholar
  33. Mollah AH, Stuckey DC (1992) The influence of H2, CO2 and dilution rate on the continuous fermentation of acetone-butanol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 37:533–538Google Scholar
  34. Murray WD, Khan AW (1983) Ethanol production by a newly isolated anaerobe, Clostridium saccharolyticum: effects of culture medium and growth conditions. Can J Microbiol 29:342–347Google Scholar
  35. Pirt SJ (1965) The maintenance energy of bacteria in growing cultures. Proc R Soc Biol 163b:224–231Google Scholar
  36. Pirt S (1982) Maintenance energy: a general model for energy-limited and energy-sufficient growth. Arch Microbiol 133:300–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell J, Baldwin R (1978) Substrate preferences in rumen bacteria: evidence of catabolite regulatory mechanisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 36:319–329Google Scholar
  38. Schieche D, Murty M, Kermode R, Bhattacharyya D (1997) Biohydrogenation of fumarate using Desulfovibrio desulfuricans: experimental results and kinetic rate modelling. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 70:316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shuler M, Kargi F (1992). Bioprocess engineering: basic concepts. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  40. Smelt JPPM (1998) Recent advances in the microbiology of high pressure processing. Trends Food Sci Technol 9:152–158Google Scholar
  41. Strobel HJ (1995) Growth of the thermophilic bacterium Clostridium thermocellum in continuous culture. Curr Microbiol 31:210–214Google Scholar
  42. Sudha Rani K, Swamy MV, Seenayya G (1997) Increased ethanol production by metabolic modulation of cellulose fermentation in Clostridium thermocellum. Biotechnol Lett 19:819–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tarhan S (2001) Fermentation kinetics and modeling of non-growing Clostridium thermocellum JW20. PhD thesis, University of Kentucky, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. Tyurin-Kuz’min AY (1997) Properties of the biomembrane lipid phase optimization to high pressure. Membr Cell Biol 11:243–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiegel J (1980) Formation of ethanol by bacteria. A pledge for the use of extreme thermophilic bacteria in industrial ethanol fermentation processes. Experientia 36:1434–1446Google Scholar
  46. Xiang T, Anderson BD (1999) Molecular dissolution processes in lipid bilayers: a molecular dynamics simulation. J Chem Phys 110:1807–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. D. Bothun
    • 1
  • B. L. Knutson
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. A. Berberich
    • 1
  • H. J. Strobel
    • 2
  • S. E. Nokes
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Materials EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Animal SciencesUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biosystems and Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations