↓ Skip to main content

Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain comparison in glucose–xylose fermentations on defined substrates and in high-gravity SSCF: convergence in strain performance despite differences in genetic and…

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain comparison in glucose–xylose fermentations on defined substrates and in high-gravity SSCF: convergence in strain performance despite differences in genetic and evolutionary engineering history
Published in
Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13068-017-0887-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vera Novy, Ruifei Wang, Johan O. Westman, Carl Johan Franzén, Bernd Nidetzky

Abstract

The most advanced strains of xylose-fermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae still utilize xylose far less efficiently than glucose, despite the extensive metabolic and evolutionary engineering applied in their development. Systematic comparison of strains across literature is difficult due to widely varying conditions used for determining key physiological parameters. Here, we evaluate an industrial and a laboratory S. cerevisiae strain, which has the assimilation of xylose via xylitol in common, but differ fundamentally in the history of their adaptive laboratory evolution development, and in the cofactor specificity of the xylose reductase (XR) and xylitol dehydrogenase (XDH). In xylose and mixed glucose-xylose shaken bottle fermentations, with and without addition of inhibitor-rich wheat straw hydrolyzate, the specific xylose uptake rate of KE6-12.A (0.27-1.08 g gCDW(-1) h(-1)) was 1.1 to twofold higher than that of IBB10B05 (0.10-0.82 g gCDW(-1) h(-1)). KE6-12.A further showed a 1.1 to ninefold higher glycerol yield (0.08-0.15 g g(-1)) than IBB10B05 (0.01-0.09 g g(-1)). However, the ethanol yield (0.30-0.40 g g(-1)), xylitol yield (0.08-0.26 g g(-1)), and maximum specific growth rate (0.04-0.27 h(-1)) were in close range for both strains. The robustness of flocculating variants of KE6-12.A (KE-Flow) and IBB10B05 (B-Flow) was analyzed in high-gravity simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation. As in shaken bottles, KE-Flow showed faster xylose conversion and higher glycerol formation than B-Flow, but final ethanol titres (61 g L(-1)) and cell viability were again comparable for both strains. Individual specific traits, elicited by the engineering strategy, can affect global physiological parameters of S. cerevisiae in different and, sometimes, unpredictable ways. The industrial strain background and prolonged evolution history in KE6-12.A improved the specific xylose uptake rate more substantially than the superior XR, XDH, and xylulokinase activities were able to elicit in IBB10B05. Use of an engineered XR/XDH pathway in IBB10B05 resulted in a lower glycerol rather than a lower xylitol yield. However, the strain development programs were remarkably convergent in terms of the achieved overall strain performance. This highlights the importance of comparative strain evaluation to advance the engineering strategies for next-generation S. cerevisiae strain development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 22%
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 17%
Engineering 8 14%
Chemical Engineering 3 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts
#944
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,061
of 323,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.