4.8 Article

Adaptive laboratory evolution of Rhodosporidium toruloides to inhibitors derived from lignocellulosic biomass and genetic variations behind evolution

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 333, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125171

关键词

Adaptive laboratory evolution; Tolerance; Inhibitors; Hydrolysate; Rhodosporidium toruloides

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF), Denmark [NNF20SA0066233]
  2. China Scholarship Council (CSC) [201708530221]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of adaptive laboratory evolution in hydrolysate-based medium improved the tolerance of Rhodosporidium toruloides to inhibitors in lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysate, resulting in enhanced lipid accumulation and carotenoid production compared to the wild-type strain. Whole genome sequencing revealed that the wild-type strain naturally contained tolerance-related genes that facilitated evolution in biomass-derived inhibitors.
Using lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysate for the production of microbial lipids and carotenoids is still a challenge due to the poor tolerance of oleaginous yeasts to the inhibitors generated during biomass pretreatment. In this study, a strategy of adaptive laboratory evolution in hydrolysate-based medium was developed to improve the tolerance of Rhodosporidium toruloides to inhibitors present in biomass hydrolysate. The evolved strains presented better performance to grow in hydrolysate medium, with a significant reduction in their lag phases, and improved ability to accumulate lipids and produce carotenoids when compared to the wild-type starting strain. In the best cases, the lag phase was reduced by 72 h and resulted in lipid accumulation of 27.89 +/- 0.80% (dry cell weight) and carotenoid production of 14.09 +/- 0.12 mg/g (dry cell weight). Whole genome sequencing analysis indicated that the wild-type strain naturally contained tolerance-related genes, which provided a background that allowed the strain to evolve in biomass-derived inhibitors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据