A review on ethanol tolerance mechanisms in yeast: Current knowledge in biotechnological applications and future directions
Biofuels; Ethanol production; Ethanol tolerance; Fermentation; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Sustainability; Yeast stress
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is one of the prominent strains in the brewing and bioethanol industries and has been used for many industrial purposes for ages. Though the organism is an outstanding ethanol producer, the major limiting factor is the stress the organism undergoes during fermentation. One of the significant stresses is the ethanol stress, created by ethanol accumulation in the medium. The ethanol starts to interact with the yeast cell membrane; further, as ethanol concentration increases, it affects a lot of cell organelles. Thereby, cellular activities get disrupted, causing cell death and hence reducing ethanol production. The organism has developed many strategies to overcome this stress by activating the stress response pathway, which regulates many genes involved in modifying the cell membrane cell wall, renaturation of proteins, and altering the metabolism. However, with higher ethanol concentrations, the yeast cells will be unable to tolerate, leading to cell death. Hence, to minimize cell death at higher ethanol concentrations, there is a need to understand the effect of ethanol and its response by the organism; this helps improve the ethanol tolerance of the organism and, thereby, ethanol production. Although many research works are carried out to understand the vital aspect of the tolerance and are reported, very few review papers cover all these points. Hence, this review is designed to include information on all the elements of ethanol tolerance, i.e., ethanol tolerance of different strains of S. cerevisiae, the effect of ethanol on the yeast cells, the mechanism used to tolerate the ethanol, and various techniques developed to improve the ethanol tolerance of the yeast cells. 2024 Elsevier Ltd
Sahana G.R.; Balasubramanian B.; Joseph K.S.; Pappuswamy M.; Liu W.-C.; Meyyazhagan A.; Kamyab H.; Chelliapan S.; Joseph B.V.
Process Biochemistry, Vol-138, pp. 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2023.12.024 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85183024475&doi=10.1016%2fj.procbio.2023.12.024&partnerID=40&md5=80974ce4f3b4bd62688f58bb9587ccbf
Sahana G.R., Department of Life Sciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Karnataka, Bangalore, 560 029, India; Balasubramanian B., Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, College of Life Science, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea; Joseph K.S., Department of Life Sciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Karnataka, Bangalore, 560 029, India; Pappuswamy M., Department of Life Sciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Karnataka, Bangalore, 560 029, India; Liu W.-C., Department of Animal Science, College of Coastal Agricultural Sciences, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang, 524088, China; Meyyazhagan A., Department of Life Sciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Karnataka, Bangalore, 560 029, India; Kamyab H., Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, UTE University, Calle Rumipamba S/N and Bourgeois, Quito, Ecuador, Department of Biomaterials, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai, 600 077, India, Process Systems Engineering Centre, Department of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Skudai, Malaysia; Chelliapan S., Engineering Department, Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Jln Sultan Yahya Petra, 54100, Malaysia; Joseph B.V., Department of Life Sciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Karnataka, Bangalore, 560 029, India