Continuous Fermentation Studies with Xylose-Utilizing Recombinant Zymomonas mobilis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the continuous cofermentation performance characteristics of a dilute-acid “prehydrolysate-adapted” recombinant Zymomonas 39676:pZB4L and builds on the pH-stat batch fermentations with this recombinant that we reported on last year. Substitution of yeast extract by 1% (w/v) corn steep liquor (CSL) (50% solids) and Mg (2 mM) did not alter the cofermentation performance. Using declared assumptions, the cost of using CSL and Mg was estimated to be 12.5¢/gal of ethanol with a possibility of 50% cost reduction using fourfold less CSL with 0.1% diammonium phosphate. Because of competition for a common sugar transporter that exhibits a higher affinity for glucose, utilization of glucose was complete whereas xylose was always present in the chemostat effluent. The ethanol yield, based on sugar used, was 94% of theoretical maximum. Altering the sugar ratio of the synthetic dilute acid hardwood prehydrolysate did not appear to significantly change the pattern of xylose utilization. Using a criterion of 80% sugar utilization for determining the maximum dilution rate (D max), changing the composition of the feed from 4% xylose to 3%, and simultaneously increasing the glucose from 0.8 to 1.8% shifted D max from 0.07 to 0.08/h. With equal amounts of both sugars (2.5%), D max was 0.07/h. By comparison to a similar investigation with rec Zm CP4:pZB5 with a 4% equal mixture of xylose and glucose, we observed that at pH 5.0, the D max was 0.064/h and shifted to 0.084/h at pH 5.75. At a level of 0.4% (w/v) acetic acid in the CSL-based medium with 3% xylose and 1.8% glucose at pH 5.75, the D max for the adapted recombinant shifted from 0.08 to 0.048/h, and the corresponding maximum volumetric ethanol productivity decreased 45%, from 1.52 to 0.84 g/(L.h). Under these conditions of continuous culture, linear regression of a Pirt plot of the specific rate of sugar utilization vs D showed that 4 g/L of acetic acid did not affect the maximum growth yield (0.030 g dry cell mass/g sugar), but did increase the maintenance coefficient twofold, from 0.46 to 1.0 g of sugar/(g of cell.h).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".