4.6 Review

Understanding biocatalyst inhibition by carboxylic acids

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00272

关键词

tolerance; membrane damage; transporters; acid resistance; intracellular pH; biocatalyst robustness; carboxylic acid toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carboxylic acids are an attractive biorenewable chemical in terms of their flexibility and usage as precursors for a variety of industrial chemicals. It has been demonstrated that such carboxylic acids can be fermentatively produced using engineered microbes, such as Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. However, like many other attractive biorenewable fuels and chemicals, carboxylic acids become inhibitory to these microbes at concentrations below the desired yield and titer. In fact, their potency as microbial inhibitors is highlighted by the fact that many of these carboxylic acids are routinely used as food preservatives. This review highlights the current knowledge regarding the impact that saturated, straight-chain carboxylic acids, such as hexanoic, octanoic, decanoic, and lauric acids can have on E. coli and S. cerevisiae, with the goal of identifying metabolic engineering strategies to increase robustness. Key effects of these carboxylic acids include damage to the cell membrane and a decrease of the microbial internal pH. Certain changes in cell membrane properties, such as composition, fluidity, integrity, and hydrophobicity, and intracellular pH are often associated with increased tolerance. The availability of appropriate exporters, such as Pdr12, can also increase tolerance. The effect on metabolic processes, such as maintaining appropriate respiratory function, regulation of Lrp activity and inhibition of production of key metabolites such as methionine, are also considered. Understanding the mechanisms of biocatalyst inhibition by these desirable products can aid in the engineering of robust strains with improved industrial performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据