Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamics of microbial contaminants is driven by selection during ethanol production

  • Food Microbiology - Research Paper
  • Published:
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Brazil is the second largest ethanol producer in the world and largest using sugarcane feedstock. Bacteria contamination is one of the most important issues faced by ethanol producers that seek to increase production efficiency. Each step of production is a selection event due to the environmental and biological changes that occur. Therefore, we evaluated the influence of the selection arising from the ethanol production process on diversity and composition of bacteria. Our objectives were to test two hypotheses, (1) that species richness will decrease during the production process and (2) that lactic acid bacteria will become dominant with the advance of ethanol production. Bacterial community assemblage was accessed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing from 19 sequential samples. Temperature is of great importance in shaping microbial communities. Species richness increased between the decanter and must steps of the process. Low Simpson index values were recorded at the fermentation step, indicating a high dominance of Lactobacillus. Interactions between Lactobacillus and yeast may be impairing the efficiency of industrial ethanol production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lopes ML, Paulillo SC d L, Godoy A et al (2016) Ethanol production in Brazil: a bridge between science and industry. Braz J Microbiol 47:64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Amorim HV, Lopes ML, De Castro Oliveira JV et al (2011) Scientific challenges of bioethanol production in Brazil. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:1267–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-011-3437-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Basso L, Basso T, Rocha S (2011) Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. Biofuel Prod - Recent Dev Prospect 1530:85–100. https://doi.org/10.5772/959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Costa OYA, Souto BM, Tupinambá DD et al (2015) Microbial diversity in sugarcane ethanol production in a Brazilian distillery using a culture-independent method. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 42:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-014-1533-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bischoff KM, Liu S, Leathers TD et al (2009) Modeling bacterial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng 103:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brexó RP, Sant’ Ana A d S (2018) Microbial interactions during sugar cane must fermentation for bioethanol production: does quorum sensing play a role? Crit Rev Biotechnol 38:231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2017.1332570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Worley-Morse TO, Deshusses MA, Gunsch CK (2015) Reduction of invasive bacteria in ethanol fermentations using bacteriophages. Biotechnol Bioeng 112:1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Muthaiyan A, Limayem A, Ricke SC (2011) Antimicrobial strategies for limiting bacterial contaminants in fuel bioethanol fermentations. Prog Energy Combust Sci 37:351–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PECS.2010.06.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bayrock DP, Ingledew WM (2004) Inhibition of yeast by lactic acid bacteria in continuous culture: nutrient depletion and/or acid toxicity? J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:362–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-004-0156-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Castro REN de, Alves RM de B, Nascimento CAO do, Giudici R (2019) Assessment of Sugarcane-Based Ethanol Production. In: Basso TP, Basso LC (ed) Fuel Ethanol Production from Sugarcane. 1st edn. IntechOpen, pp 3–21. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78301

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lucena BTL, Dos Santos BM, Moreira JLS et al (2010) Diversity of lactic acid bacteria of the bioethanol process. BMC Microbiol 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-298

  12. Bonatelli ML, Quecine MC, Silva MS, Labate CA (2017) Characterization of the contaminant bacterial communities in sugarcane first-generation industrial ethanol production. FEMS Microbiol Lett 364. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx159

  13. Vellend M (2010) Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Q Rev Biol 85:183–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/652373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanson CA, Fuhrman JA, Horner-Devine MC, Martiny JBH (2012) Beyond biogeographic patterns: processes shaping the microbial landscape. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:497–506. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lenski RE (2017) Experimental evolution and the dynamics of adaptation and genome evolution in microbial populations. ISME J:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T et al (2013) Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res 41:e1. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pylro VS, Roesch LFW, Morais DK et al (2014) Data analysis for 16S microbial profiling from different benchtop sequencing platforms. J Microbiol Methods 107:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2014.08.018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B et al (2016) VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4:e2584. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2584

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J et al (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7:335–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P et al (2013) The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41:590–596. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fay MP, Proschan MA (2010) Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Stat Surv 4:1–39. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-SS051

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Murtagh F, Legendre P (2014) Ward ’ s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method : which algorithms implement ward ’ s criterion ? J Classif 31:274–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x

    Google Scholar 

  24. R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.Rproject.org/

  25. Wickham H (2016) ggplot2. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S (2013) phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One 8:e61217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, et al (2019) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–5. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=vegan

  28. Skinner KA, Leathers TD (2004) Bacterial contaminants of fuel ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:401–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-004-0159-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hill M (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haegeman B, Hamelin J, Moriarty J et al (2013) Robust estimation of microbial diversity in theory and in practice. ISME J 7:1092–1101. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kamboj K, Vasquez A, Balada-Llasat JM (2015) Identification and significance of Weissella species infections. Front Microbiol 6:1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fairfax MR, Lephart PR, Salimnia H (2014) Weissella confusa: problems with identification of an opportunistic pathogen that has been found in fermented foods and proposed as a probiotic. Front Microbiol 5:1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fusco V, Quero GM, Cho GS et al (2015) The genus Weissella: taxonomy, ecology and biotechnological potential. Front Microbiol 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00155

  34. Hammes WP, Vogel RF (1995) The genus Lactobacillus. In: Wood BJB, Holzapfel WH (eds) The genera of lactic acid bacteria. Springer US, Boston, pp 19–54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Goh KM, Gan HM, Chan KG et al (2014) Analysis of Anoxybacillus genomes from the aspects of lifestyle adaptations, prophage diversity, and carbohydrate metabolism. PLoS One 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090549

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Studholme DJ (2015) Some (bacilli) like it hot: genomics of Geobacillus species. Microb Biotechnol 8:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zeigler DR (2014) The Geobacillus paradox: why is a thermophilic bacterial genus so prevalent on a mesophilic planet? Microbiology (United Kingdom) 160:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.071696-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Goh KM, Kahar UM, Chai YY et al (2013) Recent discoveries and applications of Anoxybacillus. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:1475–1488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4663-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Doughari HJ, Ndakidemi PA, Human IS, Benade S (2011) The ecology, biology and pathogenesis of Acinetobacter spp.: an overview. Microbes Environ 26:101–112. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME10179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rogers PL, Lee KJ, Skotnicki ML, Tribe DE (1982) Ethanol production by Zymomonas mobilis. In: Microbial Reactions. Advances in Biochemical Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 37–84

    Google Scholar 

  41. Swings J, De Ley J (1977) The biology of Zymomonas. Bacteriol Rev 41:1–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Aris JP, Benner SA, Thomson JM et al (2005) Resurrecting ancestral alcohol dehydrogenases from yeast. Nat Genet 37:630–635. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Basso TO, Oliveira Lino FS de (2019) Clash of Kingdoms: How Do Bacterial Contaminants Thrive in and Interact with Yeasts during Ethanol Production? In: Fuel Ethanol Production from Sugarcane. In: Basso TP, Basso LC (ed) Fuel Ethanol Production from Sugarcane. 1st edn. IntechOpen, pp 3–21. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78413

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Narendranath NV, Power R (2005) Relationship between pH and medium dissolved solids in terms of growth and metabolism of lactobacilli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae during ethanol production. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:2239–2243. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.5.2239-2243.2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Narendranath NV, Hynes SH, Thomas KC, Ingledew WM (1997) Effects of lactobacilli on yeast-catalyzed ethanol fermentations. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4158–4163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bruno Spacek for critical reviews of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was granted by Instituto Federal de Minas Gerais, Edital de Pesquisa Aplicada no. 156/2013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Food Research Center (FoRC), Department of Food Sciences and Experimental Nutrition, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Luciano Lopes Queiroz & Gustavo Augusto Lacorte

  2. Microbiology Graduate Program, Department of Microbiology, Institute of Biomedical Science, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Luciano Lopes Queiroz

  3. Molecular Biology Lab, Federal Institute of Minas Gerais, Bambuí Campus, Bambuí, MG, Brazil

    Maria Silveira Costa, Alcilene de Abreu Pereira & Gustavo Augusto Lacorte

  4. Laboratório de Genética de Microrganismos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

    Marcelo de Paula Avila, Patrícia Silva Costa & Andréa Maria Amaral Nascimento

Authors
  1. Luciano Lopes Queiroz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Silveira Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alcilene de Abreu Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcelo de Paula Avila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrícia Silva Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andréa Maria Amaral Nascimento
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gustavo Augusto Lacorte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gustavo Augusto Lacorte.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Eleni Gomes.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1012 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Queiroz, L.L., Costa, M.S., de Abreu Pereira, A. et al. Dynamics of microbial contaminants is driven by selection during ethanol production. Braz J Microbiol 51, 303–312 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-019-00147-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-019-00147-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation