The inability of native Saccharomyces cerevisiae to convert xylose from plant biomass into biofuels remains a major challenge for the production of renewable bioenergy. Despite extensive knowledge of the regulatory networks controlling carbon metabolism in yeast, little is known about how to reprogram S. cerevisiae to ferment xylose at rates comparable to glucose. Here we combined genome sequencing, proteomic profiling, and metabolomic analyses to identify and characterize the responsible mutations in a series of evolved strains capable of metabolizing xylose aerobically or anaerobically. We report that rapid xylose conversion by engineered and evolved S. cerevisiae strains depends upon epistatic interactions among genes encoding a xylose reductase (GRE3), a component of MAP Kinase (MAPK) signaling (HOG1), a regulator of Protein Kinase A (PKA) signaling (IRA2), and a scaffolding protein for mitochondrial iron-sulfur (Fe-S) cluster biogenesis (ISU1). Interestingly, the mutation in IRA2 only impacted anaerobic xylose consumption and required the loss of ISU1 function, indicating a previously unknown connection between PKA signaling, Fe-S cluster biogenesis, and anaerobiosis. Proteomic and metabolomic comparisons revealed that the xylose-metabolizing mutant strains exhibit altered metabolic pathways relative to the parental strain when grown in xylose. Further analyses revealed that interacting mutations in HOG1 and ISU1 unexpectedly elevated mitochondrial respiratory proteins and enabled rapid aerobic respiration of xylose and other non-fermentable carbon substrates. Our findings suggest a surprising connection between Fe-S cluster biogenesis and signaling that facilitates aerobic respiration and anaerobic fermentation of xylose, underscoring how much remains unknown about the eukaryotic signaling systems that regulate carbon metabolism.

The inability of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to ferment xylose effectively under anaerobic conditions is a major barrier to economical production of lignocellulosic biofuels. Although genetic approaches have enabled engineering of S. cerevisiae to convert xylose efficiently into ethanol in defined lab medium, few strains are able to ferment xylose from lignocellulosic hydrolysates in the absence of oxygen. This limited xylose conversion is believed to result from small molecules generated during biomass pretreatment and hydrolysis, which induce cellular stress and impair metabolism. Here, we describe the development of a xylose-fermenting S. cerevisiae strain with tolerance to a range of pretreated and hydrolyzed lignocellulose, including Ammonia Fiber Expansion (AFEX)-pretreated corn stover hydrolysate (ACSH). We genetically engineered a hydrolysate-resistant yeast strain with bacterial xylose isomerase and then applied two separate stages of aerobic and anaerobic directed evolution. The emergent S. cerevisiae strain rapidly converted xylose from lab medium and ACSH to ethanol under strict anaerobic conditions. Metabolomic, genetic and biochemical analyses suggested that a missense mutation in GRE3, which was acquired during the anaerobic evolution, contributed toward improved xylose conversion by reducing intracellular production of xylitol, an inhibitor of xylose isomerase. These results validate our combinatorial approach, which utilized phenotypic strain selection, rational engineering and directed evolution for the generation of a robust S. cerevisiae strain with the ability to ferment xylose anaerobically from ACSH.

BackgroundMicrobial conversion of lignocellulosic feedstocks into biofuels remains an attractive means to produce sustainable energy. It is essential to produce lignocellulosic hydrolysates in a consistent manner in order to study microbial performance in different feedstock hydrolysates. Because of the potential to introduce microbial contamination from the untreated biomass or at various points during the process, it can be difficult to control sterility during hydrolysate production. In this study, we compared hydrolysates produced from AFEX-pretreated corn stover and switchgrass using two different methods to control contamination: either by autoclaving the pretreated feedstocks prior to enzymatic hydrolysis, or by introducing antibiotics during the hydrolysis of non-autoclaved feedstocks. We then performed extensive chemical analysis, chemical genomics, and comparative fermentations to evaluate any differences between these two different methods used for producing corn stover and switchgrass hydrolysates.ResultsAutoclaving the pretreated feedstocks could eliminate the contamination for a variety of feedstocks, whereas the antibiotic gentamicin was unable to control contamination consistently during hydrolysis. Compared to the addition of gentamicin, autoclaving of biomass before hydrolysis had a minimal effect on mineral concentrations, and showed no significant effect on the two major sugars (glucose and xylose) found in these hydrolysates. However, autoclaving elevated the concentration of some furanic and phenolic compounds. Chemical genomics analyses using Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains indicated a high correlation between the AFEX-pretreated hydrolysates produced using these two methods within the same feedstock, indicating minimal differences between the autoclaving and antibiotic methods. Comparative fermentations with S. cerevisiae and Zymomonas mobilis also showed that autoclaving the AFEX-pretreated feedstocks had no significant effects on microbial performance in these hydrolysates.ConclusionsOur results showed that autoclaving the pretreated feedstocks offered advantages over the addition of antibiotics for hydrolysate production. The autoclaving method produced a more consistent quality of hydrolysate, and also showed negligible effects on microbial performance. Although the levels of some of the lignocellulose degradation inhibitors were elevated by autoclaving the feedstocks prior to enzymatic hydrolysis, no significant effects on cell growth, sugar utilization, or ethanol production were seen during bacterial or yeast fermentations in hydrolysates produced using the two different methods.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13068-015-0356-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.