Potential of Candida glabrata from ragi as a bioethanol producer using selected carbohydrate substrates
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Abstract. Vincent M, Johnny Q, Adeni DSA, Suhaili N. 2021. Potential of Candida glabrata from ragi as a bioethanol producer using selected carbohydrate substrates. Nusantara Bioscience 13: 1-10. The flexibility and efficiency of fermenting microorganisms to convert substrates to ethanol are important factors in achieving high bioethanol yields during ethanolic fermentation. In this study, Candida glabrata, a common yeast found in fermented food, was evaluated in terms of its capability to produce ethanol using different types of carbohydrates, which included simple saccharides (glucose, maltose, sucrose), polysaccharides (starch and cellulose) and complex carbohydrates (total sago effluent, TSE). Our results indicated that C. glabrata was able to efficiently produce ethanol from glucose at 79.84% TEY (Theoretical Ethanol Yield). The ethanol production from sucrose was low, which was only 6.44% TEY, while no ethanol was produced from maltose. Meanwhile, for complex carbohydrate substrates such as starch and cellulose, ethanol was produced only when supplementary enzymes were introduced. Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF) of starch dosed with amylases resulted in an ethanol yield of 55.08% TEY, whilst SSF of cellulose dosed with cellulases yielded a TEY of 31.41%. When SSF was performed on TSE dosed with amylases and cellulases, the highest ethanol production was recorded within 24 h, with a yield of 23.36% TEY. Lactic acid and acetic acid were found to be at minimal levels throughout the fermentation period, indicating an efficient ethanol conversion. A notable increase in C. glabrata biomass was observed in cultures fed with glucose, starch (with supplementary amylases), and TSE (with supplementary amylases and cellulases). The current study indicates that C. glabrata can be used for bioethanol production from glucose, polysaccharides, and complex starchy lignocellulosic substrates such as TSE via SSF.
2019-01-01
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Ali SS, Nugent B, Mullins E, Doohan FM. 2016. Fungal-mediated consolidated bioprocessing: The potential of Fusarium oxysporum for the lignocellulosic ethanol industry. AMB Express 6: 13. DOI: 10.1186/s13568-016-0185-0.
Awg-Adeni DS, Abd-Aziz S, Bujang K, Hasaan MA. 2010. Bioconversion of sago residues into value added products. Afr J Biotechnol 9 (4): 2016-2021.
Barnett JA, Payne RW, Yaroww D. 2000. Yeasts: Characteristics and identification. Cambridge University Press, USA.
Battaglia E, Hansen SF, Leendertse A, Madrid S, Mulder H, Nikolaev I, de Vries RP. 2011. Regulation of pentose utilisation by AraR, but not XlnR, differs in Aspergillus nidulans and Aspergillus niger. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91 (2): 387-397.
Bettiga M, Bengtsson O, Hahn-Hagerdal B, Gorwa-Grauslund MF. 2009. Arabinose and xylose fermentation by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae expressing a fungal pentose utilization pathway. Microb Cell Fact 8: 40-52.
Carrasco C, Baudel H, Roslander C, Galbe M, Lidén G. 2013. Fermentation of the straw material paja brava by the yeast Pichia stipitis in a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process. J Sustain Bioenergy Syst 3: 99-106.
Chang YH, Chang KS, Chen CY, Hsu CL, Chang TC, Jang HD. 2018. Enhancement of the Efficiency of Bioethanol Production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae via Gradually Batch-Wise and Fed-Batch Increasing the Glucose Concentration. Ferment 4 (2): 45-57.
Fox JM, Levine SE, Clark DS, Blanch HW. 2012. Initial- and processive-cut products reveal cellobiohydrolase rate limitations and the role of companion enzymes. Biochem 51: 442-452.
Goering HK, van Soest PJ. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agriculture Handbook No. 379. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Hung CH, Adeni DSA, Johnny Q, Vincent M. 2018. Production of bioethanol from sago hampas via Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF). Nusantara Biosci 10 (4): 240-245.
Ingledew WM. 1999. Alcohol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: A yeast primer. In: Lyons TP, Kelsall DR (eds). Nottingham University Press, United Kingdom.
Jacques KA, Lyons TP, Kelsall DR. 2003. The Alcohol Textbook (4thed.). Nottingham University Press, United Kingdom.
Jönsson LJ, Alriksson B, Nilvebrant NO. 2013. Bioconversion of lignocellulose: Inhibitors and detoxification. Biotechnol Biofuels 6 (16): 1-10.
Kim JH, Block DE, Mills DA. 2010. Simultaneous consumption of pentose and hexose sugars: An optimal microbial pheno¬type for efficient fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 88 (5): 1077-1085.
Lin Y, Zhang W, Li CJ, Sakakibara K, Tanaka S, Kang HN. 2012. Factors affecting ethanol fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4742. Biomass Bioenergy 47: 395-401.
Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS. 2002. Microbial cellulose utilization: Fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 66: 506-577.
Malherbe S, Cloete TE. 2002. Lignocellulose biodegradation: Fundamentals and applications. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 1: 105-114.
Merico A, Sulo P, Piskur J, Compagno C. 2007. Fermentative lifestyle in yeasts belonging to the Saccharomyces complex. FEBS J 274: 976-989.
Mohammad S, Awg-Adeni DS, Bujang KB, Vincent M, Baidurah S. 2020. Potentials of sago fibre hydrolysate (SFH) as a sole fermentation media for bioethanol production. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 716 (1): 012001. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/716/1/012001.
Mosier N. 2005. Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96 (6): 673-686.
Narendranath, N. 2003. Bacterial contamination and control in ethanol production. In: Jacques KA, Lyons TP, Kelsall DR (eds). Nottingham University Press, United Kingdom.
Pagliardini J, Hubmann G, Alfenore S, Nevoigt E, Bideaux C, Guillouet SE. 2013. The metabolic costs of improving ethanol yield by reducing glycerol formation capacity under anaerobic conditions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microb Cell Fact 12 (1): 29. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-12-29.
Ruriani E, Sunarti TC, Meryandini A. 2012. Yeast isolation for bioethanol production. Hayati 19 (3): 145-149.
?tef?nescu-Mih?il? RO. 2016. Rural economy and bioethanol production. Sustainability 8: 1148. DOI: 10.3390/su8111148.
Techaparin A, Thanonkeo P, Klanrit P. 2017. High-temperature ethanol production using thermotolerant yeast newly isolated from Greater Mekong Subregion. Braz J Microbiol 48 (3): 461-475.
Turner SA, Butler G. 2014. The Candida Pathogenic Species Complex. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 4 (9). DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a019778.
Tye YY, Lee KT, Abdullah WNW, Leh CP. 2011. Second-generation bioethanol as a sustainable energy source in Malaysia transportation sector: Status, potential and future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15 (9): 4521-4536.
Vincent M, Senawi BR, Esut E, Muhammad-Nor N, Adeni DS. 2015. Sequential saccharification and simultaneous fermentation (SSSF) of sago hampas for the production of bioethanol. Sains Malays 44 (6): 899-904.
Vincent M, Hung HC, Baran PRM, Azahari AS, Adeni DSA. 2018. Isolation, identification and diversity of oleaginous yeasts from Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. Biodiversitas 19 (4): 1266-1272.
Vincent M, Junaidi F, Bilung LM, Suhaili N, Husaini AA, Kanakaraju D. 2020. Simultaneous reclamation of sago starch processing effluent water and Rhizopus oligosporus cultivation at different pH conditions. J Water Environ Technol 18 (4): 254-263.
Watanabe I, Nakamura T, Shima J. 2010. Strategy for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation using a respiratory-deficient mutant of Candida glabrata for bioethanol production. J Biosci Bioeng 110 (2): 176-179.
Wei CCS, Seng L, Hussaini AASA, Zulkarnain A, Apun K, Bilung L, Vincent M. 2015. Molecular technique identification of the microbial population in palm oil mill effluent (POME). J Oil Palm Res 27 (3): 293-298.
Wong SH, Vincent M. 2019. Development of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa strain via random mutagenesis for improved lipid production. Malays J Microbiol 15 (7): 566-576.
Zhang X, Lei H, Chen S, Wu J. 2016. Catalytic co-pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass with polymer: A critical review. Green Chem 18 (15): 4145-4169.
Zhao Y, Lu W, Wang H. 2009. Supercritical hydrolysis of cellulose for oligosaccharide production in combined technology. Chem Eng J 150 (2-3): 411-417.