A C6/C5 co‐fermenting<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>strain with the alleviation of antagonism between xylose utilization and robustness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During second‐generation bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass, the desired traits for fermenting microorganisms, such asSaccharomyces cerevisiae, are high xylose utilization and high robustness to inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates. However, as observed previously, these two traits easily showed the antagonism, one rising and the other falling, in the C6/C5 co‐fermentingS. cerevisiaestrain. In this study, LF1 obtained in our previous study is an engineered budding yeast strain with a superior co‐fermentation capacity of glucose and xylose, and was then mutated by atmospheric and room temperature plasma (ARTP) mutagenesis to improve its robustness. The ARTP‐treated cells were grown in 50% (v/v) leachate from lignocellulose pretreatment with high inhibitors content for adaptive evolution. After 30 days, the generated mutant LF1‐6 showed significantly enhanced tolerance, with a six‐fold increase in cell density in the above leachate. Unfortunately, its xylose utilization dropped markedly, indicating the recurrence of the negative correlation between xylose utilization and robustness. To alleviate this antagonism, LF1‐6 cells were iteratively mutated with ARTP mutagenesis and then anaerobically grown using xylose as the sole carbon source, and xylose utilization was restored in the resulting strain 6M‐15. 6M‐15 also exhibited increased co‐fermentation performance of xylose and glucose with the highest ethanol productivity reported to date (0.525 g g−1 h−1) in high‐level mixed sugars (80 g L−1glucose and 40 g L−1xylose) with no inhibitors. Meanwhile, its fermentation time was shortened by 8 h compared to that of LF1. During the fermentation of non‐detoxified lignocellulosic hydrolysate with high inhibitor concentrations at pH ~3.5, 6M‐15 can efficiently convert glucose and xylose with an ethanol yield of 0.43 g g−1. 6M‐15 is also regarded as a potential chassis cell for further design of a customized strain suitable for production of second‐generation bioethanol or other high value‐added products from lignocellulosic biomass.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".