Volume 2, Issue 5, October 2017, Page: 68-77
Preliminary Analysis of Sugar Supplementation on Alcoholic Fermentation by Meyerozyma guilliermondii
Gidado Rose Suniso Maxwell, Agricultural Biotechnology Department, National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), Abuja, Nigeria; Department of Industrial Microbiology, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria
Etuk-Udo Godwin Akpan, Biotechnology Advanced Research Center, Sheda Science and Technology Complex (SHESTCO), Abuja, Nigeria
Olatiilu Olukemi Anna, Biotechnology Advanced Research Center, Sheda Science and Technology Complex (SHESTCO), Abuja, Nigeria
Isu Rosemary Nennaya, Department of Industrial Microbiology, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria
Habu Josiah, Bioresource Development Center, National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), Bayelsa, Nigeria
Solomon Bamidele Ogbe, Department of Chemical Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Received: Aug. 10, 2017;       Accepted: Aug. 29, 2017;       Published: Sep. 25, 2017
DOI: 10.11648/j.eeb.20170205.11      View  1695      Downloads  57
Abstract
Non Saccharomyces yeast strains consume a diverse range of sugars, capable of producing ethanol at different quantities and concentrations. The ability of such wild type indigenous strains to do so and compete with industrial strains of Saccharomyces cerevisae is not common in Nigeria. This study aimed at comparing the ability of Meyerozyma guilliermondii with a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, to consume sugars (fructose, galactose, glucose, lactose, sucrose and molasses) and to convert them into ethanol during fermentation. Yeast extract (6g/L), peptone (10g/L), malt extract (6g/L) broth was supplemented with different concentrations (5g/L, 10g/L, 20g/L, 30g/L) of fructose, galactose, glucose, lactose and sucrose respectively. Sugar utilization post incubation for 96 hours at 120 rpm, 30°C was measured using a refractometer. The alcoholic yield using molasses for Meyerozyma guilliermondii 9.2±0.45 (mg/ml) was significantly higher than that of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain T (4.8±1.15 mg/ml) at 96 hours. Ethanol production from the consumption of fructose as the sole carbon source was more favourable for M. guilliermondii 2.1, 3.0, 8.11 and 9.06 (mg/ml) compared to 1.08, 3.12, 8.06 and 6.0 (mg/ml) for S. cerevisiae. Both strains displayed similar adaptation to galactose metabolism at all tested concentrations. With glucose, M. guilliermondii yielded more than its S. cerevisiae counterpart at 1.0% (4.15, 3.18 mg/ml) and 2.0% glucose (4.25, 3.3 mg/ml). At 3.0% glucose broth content, 8.15 and 9.08 mg/ml ethanol was obtained for M. guilliermondii and S. cerevisiae respectively. Sucrose utilization resulted in a 10.18 mg/ml yield of ethanol compared to a 7.06 mg/ml yield for M. guilliermondi and S. cerevisiae respectively at 3.0% sugar supplement. Meyerozyma guilliermondii displayed its ability as a highly adaptable non Saccharomyces yeast specie capable of producing ethanol from a variety of sugars indicative of local feedstock as a suitable alternative.
Keywords
Ethanol, Meyerozyma guilliermondii, Fructose, Glucose, Galactose, Lactose, Sucrose
To cite this article
Gidado Rose Suniso Maxwell, Etuk-Udo Godwin Akpan, Olatiilu Olukemi Anna, Isu Rosemary Nennaya, Habu Josiah, Solomon Bamidele Ogbe, Preliminary Analysis of Sugar Supplementation on Alcoholic Fermentation by Meyerozyma guilliermondii, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Vol. 2, No. 5, 2017, pp. 68-77. doi: 10.11648/j.eeb.20170205.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Boekhout T., (2005). Gut feeling for yeasts. Nature, 434: 449–451.
[2]
Meersman E., Steensels J., Mathawan M., et al., (2013). Detailed analysis of the microbial population in Malaysian spontaneous cocoa pulp fermentations reveals a core and variable microbiota. PLoS One, 8: e81559.
[3]
Bokulich N. A., Thorngate JH, Richardson PM, et al., (2014). Microbial biogeography of wine grapes is conditioned by cultivar, vintage, and climate. P Natl Acad Sci USA, 111: 139–148.
[4]
Steensels J., and Verstrepen K. J., (2014). Taming wild yeast: potential of conventional and nonconventional yeasts in industrial fermentations. Annual Reviews Microbiology, 68: 61–80.
[5]
Querol A., (2003). Adaptive evolution of wine yeast. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 86: 3–10.
[6]
Balat M., Balat H., and Oz C., (2008). Progress in bioethanol processing. Progress in Energy and Combustion, 34: 551–573.
[7]
Gbadebo O. O., and Chinedu O., (2009). Does energy consumption contribute to economic performance? Empirical evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 1: 2.
[8]
Watanabe I., Ando A., and Nakamura T., (2012). Characterization of Candida sp. NY7122, a novel pentose-fermenting soil yeast. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 39: 307-315.
[9]
Basso L. C., Basso T. O., Rocha S. N., (2011). Ethanol Production in Brazil: The Industrial Process and Its Impact on Yeast Fermentation. In: dos Santos Bernardes MA (ed). Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects. InTech, 1530, DOI: 10.5772/17047.
[10]
Taylor M. P., Mulako I., Tuffin M., et al., (2012). Understanding physiological responses to pre-treatment inhibitors in ethanologenic fermentations. Biotechnology Journal, 7: 1169–1181.
[11]
Sun Y., and Cheng J., (2002). Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review. Bioresource Technology, 83: 1–11.
[12]
Palmqvist E., and Hahn-Hägerdal B., (2000). Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. II: inhibitors and mechanisms of inhibition. Bioresource Technology, 74: 25–33.
[13]
Almario M. P., Reyes L. H., and Kao K. C., (2013). Evolutionary engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for enhanced tolerance to hydrolysates of lignocellulosic biomass. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 110: 2616–2623.
[14]
Martorell P., Stratford M., Steels H., et al., (2007). Physiological characterization of spoilage strains of Zygosaccharomyces bailii and Zygosaccharomyces rouxii isolated from high sugar environments. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 114: 234–242.
[15]
Dujon B., (2010). Yeast evolutionary genomics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11: 512–524.
[16]
Souciet J-L., Dujon B., Gaillardin C., et al., (2009). Comparative genomics of protoploid Saccharomycetaceae. Genome Research, 19: 1696–1709.
[17]
Leandro M. J., Sychrov’a H., Prista C., et al., (2011). The osmotolerant fructophilic yeast Zygosaccharomyces rouxii employs two plasma membrane fructose uptake systems belonging to a new family of yeast sugar transporters. Microbiology, 157: 601–608.
[18]
Dashko S., Zhou N., Compagno C., et al., (2014). Why, when, and how did yeast evolve alcoholic fermentation? FEMS Yeast Research, 14: 826–832.
[19]
Limtong S., Sringiew C., and Yongmanitchai W., (2007). Production of fuel ethanol at high temperature from sugar cane juice by a newly isolated Kluyveromyces marxianus. Bioresource Technology, 98: 3367–3374.
[20]
Nonklang S., Abdel-Banat B. M. A., Cha-aim K., et al., (2008). High-temperature ethanol fermentation and transformation with linear DNA in the thermotolerant yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus DMKU3–1042. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 74: 7514–7521.
[21]
Oberoi H. S., Babbar N., Sandhu S. K., et al., (2012). Ethanol production from alkali-treated rice straw via simultaneous saccharification and fermentation using newly isolated thermotolerant Pichia kudriavzevii HOP-1. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 39: 557–566.
[22]
Ruyters S., Mukherjee V., Verstrepen K. J., et al., (2015). Assessing the potential of wild yeasts for bioethanol production. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 42: 39–48.
[23]
De Barros Pita W., Leite F. C. B., de Souza Liberal A. T., et al., (2011). The ability to use nitrate confers advantage to Dekkera bruxellensis over S. cerevisiae and can explain its adaptation to industrial fermentation processes. Anton Leeuw, 100: 99–107.
[24]
Stratford M., Steels H., Nebe-von-Caron G., et al., (2013). Extreme resistance to weak-acid preservatives in the spoilage yeast Zygosaccharomyces bailii. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 166: 126–134.
[25]
González S. S., Barrio E., Gafner J., and Querol A., (2006). Natural hybrids from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces bayanus and Saccharomyces kudriavzevii in wine fermentations. FEMS Yeast Research, 6: 1221–1234.
[26]
Daniel H. M., Vrancken G., Takrama J. F., Camu N., de Vos P., and de Vuyst L., (2009). Yeast diversity of Ghanaian cocoa bean heap fermentations. FEMS Yeast Research, 9: 774–783.
[27]
Romi W., Keisam S., Ahmed G., and Jeyaram K., (2014). Reliable differentiation of Meyerozyma guilliermondii from Meyerozyma caribbica by internal transcribed spacer restriction fingerprinting. BMC Microbiology, 14: 52-62.
[28]
Zanol G., Baleiras-Couto M. M., and Duarte F. L., (2010). Restriction profiles of 26S rDNA as a molecular approach for wine yeasts identification. Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola 25: 75-85.
[29]
Mussatto S. I., Silva C. J. S. M., and Roberto I. C., (2006). Fermentation performance of Candida guilliermondii for xylitol production on single and mixed substrate media. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 72: 681-686.
[30]
Coda R., Rizzello C. G., Cagno R. D., Trani A., et al., (2013). Antifungal activity of Meyerozyma guilliermondii: Identification of active compounds synthesized during dough fermentation and their effect on long-term storage of wheat bread. Food Microbiology, 33: 243-251.
[31]
Gidado R. S. M., Olatiilu O. A., Etuk-Udo G. A., Onyenekwe P. C., Isu R. N., and Habu J., (2016). Isolation and Characterization of Yeast Inhabiting Alcohol Processing Environment in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Advances in Applied Sciences, 1: 78-85.
[32]
Tronchoni J., Gamero A., Arroyo-Lopez F. N., Barrio E., and Querol A., (2009). Differences in the glucose and fructose consumption profiles in diverse Saccharomyces wine species and their hybrids during grapes juice fermentation. Industrial Journal of Food Microbiology, 134: 237-243.
[33]
Guillaume C., Delobel P., Sablayrolles J. M., and Blondin B., (2007). Molecular basis of fructose utilization by the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a mutated HXT3 allele enhances fructose fermentation. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 73: 2432-2439.
[34]
Berthels N. J., Otero R. R. C., Bauer F. F., and Pretorius I. S., (2008). Correlation between glucose/fructose discrepancy and hexokinase kinetic properties in different Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast strains. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 77: 1083-1091.
[35]
Wu X., Staggenborg S., Propheter J. L., Rooney W. L., Yu J., and Wang D., (2010). Feature of sweet sorghum juice and their performance in ethanol fermentation. Industrial Crops and Products, 31: 164-170.
[36]
Goncalves P., et al., (2000). FSY1, a novel gene encoding a specific fructose/HC symporter in the type strain of Saccharomyces carlsbergensis, Journal of Bacteriology, 182: 5628–5630.
[37]
de Sousa H. R., et al., (2004). Differential regulation by glucose and fructose of a gene encoding a specific fructose/HC symporter in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast, 21: 519–530.
[38]
Schnierda T., Bauer F. F., Divol B., et al., (2014). Optimization of carbon and nitrogen medium components for biomass production using non-Saccharomyces wine yeasts. Letters Applied Microbiology, 58: 478–485.
[39]
Berthels N. J., Otero R. R. C., Bauer F. F., Thevelein J. M., and Pretorius I. S., (2004). Discrepancy in glucose and fructose utilization during fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast. FEMS Yeast Research, 4: 683-689.
Browse journals by subject