Газовая ферментация – технология, меняющая правила игры. От молекулярной инженерии до биореакторов, моделирование и оптимизация процессов и аппаратов

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

На фоне растущей потребности в устойчивых источниках энергии, конструкционных материалах и качественном продовольствии для увеличивающегося населения планеты все большее внимание исследователей сосредоточено на возможности биотрансформации газовых субстратов – источников углерода и энергии для уникальных микроорганизмов, использующих метан, моно- и диоксид углерода, водород в качестве питания. Помимо чистого научного интереса к изучению фундаментальных задач математического моделирования в биофизике и биохимии микроорганизмов, направление характеризуется высокой практической значимостью результатов исследований. В фокусе внимания исследователей несколько классов задач, включающих как использование возможностей генной инженерии по оптимизации метаболизма как эффективного способа получения широкого спектра продуктов, так и ключевые биокаталитические ферменты, а также разработку новых инженерных решений для биореакторов, подразумевающих повышение управляемости, безопасности и эффективности процесса биосинтеза, снижение затрат на получение продукта. Для изучения сравнительной эффективности существующих и перспективных биореакторов, прежде всего в части массообменных характеристик аппаратов и оптимизации показателей расхода энергии, сегодня доступен значительный спектр инструментов, включающий как методы математического описания двухфазной газожидкостной среды и гидродинамических процессов, так и возможности суперкомпьютерных вычислений, использование алгоритмов машинного обучения и нейросетей – в работе рассмотрен ряд примеров и современных тенденций по развитию направления газовой ферментации.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

И. Низовцева

Уральский федеральный университет им. первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: nizovtseva.irina@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Екатеринбург

Д. Чернушкин

НПО Биосинтез

Email: nizovtseva.irina@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Москва

А. Резайкин

Уральский федеральный университет им. первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина; Уральский государственный медицинский университет

Email: nizovtseva.irina@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Екатеринбург; Екатеринбург

В. Свитич

Уральский федеральный университет им. первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина

Email: nizovtseva.irina@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Екатеринбург

А. Коренская

НПО Биосинтез

Email: nizovtseva.irina@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Москва

П. Микушин

Уральский федеральный университет им. первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина; Московский физико-технический институт

Email: nizovtseva.irina@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Екатеринбург; Москва

И. Стародумов

Уральский федеральный университет им. первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина; Уральский государственный медицинский университет

Email: nizovtseva.irina@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Екатеринбург; Екатеринбург

参考

  1. English W.H. World population // Population. V. 1. № 2. P. 3.
  2. Roser M., Ritchie H., Rosado P. Our world in data: food supply. 2013.
  3. Raut N.A. et al. (ed.). 360-degree waste management, V. 1: fundamentals, agricultural and domestic waste, and remediation. Elsevier, 2023.
  4. Agrawal A., Gopal K. Biomass production in food chain and its role at trophic levels. In: Springer.: Biomonitoring of Water and Waste Water, 2013.
  5. Fomichev A.N. On scientific substantiation of concepts of ecological development // Social sciences and modernity. 2008. № 3. P. 142–150. [Фомичев А.Н. О научных обоснованиях концепций экологического развития // Общественные науки и современность. 2008. № 3. C. 142–150.]
  6. Ravindra P. et al. Value-added food: single cell protein // Biotechnology advances. 2000. V. 18. № 6. P. 459–479.
  7. Suman G. et al. Single cell protein production: a review // Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2015. V. 4. № 9. P. 251–262.
  8. Ritala A. et al. Single cell protein – state-of-the-art, industrial landscape and patents 2001–2016 // Front. Microbiol. 2017. V. 8. P. 2009.
  9. Tusé D., Miller M.W. Single‐cell protein: Current status and future prospects // Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1984. V. 19. № 4. P. 273–325.
  10. Yáñez-Ruiz D.R., Martín-García A.I. Non-cow milk production: the greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change // Non-Bovine Milk and Milk Products. Academic Press, 2016. P. 15–38.
  11. Leger D., Matassa S., Noor E., Shepon A., Milo R., Bar-Even A. Photovoltaic-driven microbial protein production can use land and sunlight more efficiently than conventional crops // PNAS. 2021. V. 118. № 26. P. e2015025118.
  12. Bae J., Jin S., Kang S., Cho B.K., Oh M. Recent progress in the engineering of C1-utilizing microbes // Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2022. V. 78. P. 102836.
  13. Guerrero-Cruz S., Vaksmaa A., Horn M. A., Niemann H., Pijuan M., Ho A. Methanotrophs: discoveries, environmental relevance, and a perspective on current and future applications // Front. Microbiol. 2021. V. 12. P. 678057.
  14. Al Sayed A., Fergala A., Eldyasti A. Sustainable biogas mitigation and value-added resources recovery using methanotrophs intergrated into wastewater treatment plants // Rev. Environ Sci. Biotechnol. 2018. V. 17. P. 351–393.
  15. Gupta A., Ahmad A., Chothwe D., Madhu M.K., Srivastava S., Sharma V.K. Genome-scale metabolic reconstruction and metabolic versatility of an obligate methanotroph Methylococcus capsulatus str. Bath // Peer J. 2019. V. 7. P. e6685.
  16. Kalyuzhnaya M.G., Puri A.W., Lidstrom M.E. Metabolic engineering in methanotrophic bacteria // Metabolic Engineering. 2015. V. 29. P. 142–152.
  17. Park S., Brown K.W., Thomas J.C. The effect of various environmental and design parameters on methane oxidation in a model biofilter // Waste Manag. Res. 2002. V. 20. № 5. P. 434–444.
  18. Zhu Y., Koo C.W., Cassidy C.K. et al. Structure and activity of particulate methane monooxygenase arrays in methanotrophs // Nat. Commun. 2022. V. 13. № 1. P. 5221.
  19. Smith T.J., Murrell J.C. Chapter nine – mutagenesis of soluble methane monooxygenase. Academic Press. Elsevier: Methods in Enzymology, 2011.
  20. Semrau J.D., DiSpirito A.A., Yoon S. Methanotrophs and copper // FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2010. V. 34. № 4. P. 496–531.
  21. Kenney G.E., Sadek M., Rosenzweig A.C. Copper-responsive gene expression in the methanotroph Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b // Metallomics. 2016. V. 8. № 9. P. 931–940.
  22. Trotsenko Y.A., Murrell J.C. Metabolic aspects of aerobic obligate methanotrophy. advances in applied microbiology // Academic Press. 2008. V. 63. P. 183–229.
  23. Khmelenina V.N., Colin Murrell J., Smith T.J., Trotsenko Y.A. Physiology and biochemistry of the aerobic methanotrophs. Springer.: Aerobic Utilization of Hydrocarbons, Oils and Lipids, 2018.
  24. Dong-W. Choi, Kunz R.C., Boyd E.S., Semrau J.D., Antholine W.E., Han J.I. et al. The membrane-associated methane monooxygenase (pMMO) and pMMO-NADH: quinone oxidoreductase complex from methylococcus capsulatus bath // J. Bacteriol. 2003. V. 185. № 19.
  25. Xu B., Liu Y., Chen K., Wang L., Sagada G., Tegomo A.F. et al. Evaluation of methanotroph (Methylococcus capsulatus, Bath) bacteria meal (FeedKind®) as an alternative protein source for juvenile black sea bream, Acanthopagrus schlegelii // Front. Marine Sci. 2021. V. 8. P. 778301.
  26. Lee H., Baek J.I., Lee J.Y., Jeong J., Kim H., Lee D.H. et al. Syntrophic co-culture of a methanotroph and heterotroph for the efficient conversion of methane to mevalonate // Metab. Eng. 2021. V. 67. P. 285–292.
  27. Best D.J., Higgin I.J. Methane-oxidizing activity and membrane morphology in a methanolgrown obligate methanotroph // Methylosinus Trichosporium OB3b. 1981. V. 125. № 1. P. 73–84.
  28. Ho A., de Roy K., Thas O. et al. The more, the merrier: heterotroph richness stimulates methanotrophic activity // ISME J. 2014. V. 8. № 8. P. 1747–1751.
  29. Nguyen A.D., Hwang I.Y., Lee O.K., Kim D., Kalyuzhnaya M.G., Mariyana R. et al. Systematic metabolic engineering of Methylomicrobium alcaliphilum 20Z for 2,3-butanediol production from methane // Metab. Eng. 2018. V. 47. P. 323–333.
  30. Oshkin I.Y., Belova S.E., Khokhlachev N.S. et al. Molecular analysis of the microbial community developing in continuous culture of methylococcus sp. concept-8 on natural gas // Microbiology. 2020. V. 89. P. 551–559.
  31. Sandoval J.M., Arenas F.A., Vásquez C.C. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase protects escherichia coli from tellurite-mediated oxidative stress // PLoS ONE. 2011.V. 6. № 9. P. e25573.
  32. Boti M.A., Athanasopoulou K., Adamopoulos P.G., Sideris D.C., Scorilas A. Recent advances in genome-engineering strategies // Genes. 2023. V. 14. № 1. P. 129.
  33. Makarova K.S., Koonin E.V. Annotation and classification of CRISPR-cas systems // Methods Mol. Biol. 2015. V. 1311. P. 47–75.
  34. Ledford H., Callaway E. Pioneers of revolutionary CRISPR gene editing win chemistry Nobel // Nature. 2020. V. 586. № 7829. P. 346–347.
  35. Li C., Brant E., Budak H., Zhang B. CRISPR/Cas: a Nobel Prize award-winning precise genome editing technology for gene therapy and crop improvement // J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B. 2022. V. 22. № 4. P. 253–284.
  36. Zhang D., Zhang Z., Unver T., Zhang B. CRISPR/Cas: A powerful tool for gene function study and crop improvement // J Adv Res. 2020. V. 29. P. 207–221.
  37. Javed M.R., Noman M., Shahid M., Ahmed T., Khurshid M., Rashid M.H. et al. Current situation of biofuel production and its enhancement by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome engineering of microbial cells // Microbiol. Res. 2019. V. 219. P. 1–11.
  38. Lakhawat S.S., Malik N., Kumar V., Kumar S., Sharma P.K. Implications of CRISPR-Cas9 in developing next generation biofuel: a mini-review // Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2022. V. 23. № 9. P. 574–584.
  39. Chisti M.Y., Moo-Young M. Airlift reactors: characteristics, applications and design considerations // Chem. Eng. Commun. 1987. V. 60. № 1–6. P. 195–242.
  40. Warnecke H.J., Geisendörfer M., Hempel D.C. Mass transfer behaviour of gas‐liquid jet loop reactors // Chem. Eng. Technol. 1988. V. 11. № 1. P. 306–311.
  41. Joshi J.B. et al. Sparged loop reactors // Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1990. V. 68. № 5. P. 705–741.
  42. Olsen D.F. et al. Optimal operating points for SCP production in the U-loop reactor // IFAC Proc. Vol. 2010. V. 43. № 5. P. 499–504.
  43. Petersen L.A.H. et al. Mixing and mass transfer in a pilot scale U‐loop bioreactor // Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2017. V. 114. № 2. P. 344–354.
  44. Prado-Rubio O. A., Jørgensen J. B., Jørgensen S.B. Systematic model analysis for single cell protein (SCP) production in a U-loop reactor // Comp. Aided Chem. Eng. Elsevier, 2010. V. 28. P. 319–324.
  45. Oosterhuis N.M.G., Junne S. Design, applications, and development of single‐use bioreactors // Bioreactors: Design, Operation and Novel Applications. 2016. P. 261–294.
  46. Bonvillani P. et al. Theoretical and experimental study of the effects of scale-up on mixing time for a stirred-tank bioreactor // Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2006. V. 23. P. 1–7.
  47. Petersen L.A.H. et al. Modeling and system identification of an unconventional bioreactor used for single cell protein production // Chem. Eng. J. 2020. V. 390. P. 124438.
  48. Hu W.S. Cell culture bioreactors // Cell Cult. Bioproc. Eng. Sec. Ed. CRC Press, 2020. P. 279–303.
  49. Diez V. et al. A novel jet-loop anaerobic filter membrane bioreactor treating raw slaughterhouse wastewater: Biological and filtration processes // Chem. Eng. J. 2021. V. 408. P. 127288.
  50. Moo-Young M., Chisti Y. Bioreactor applications in waste treatment // Resources, Conserv. Recycl. 1994. V. 11. № 1–4. P. 13–24.
  51. Handler R.M. et al. Life cycle assessments of ethanol production via gas fermentation: anticipated greenhouse gas emissions for cellulosic and waste gas feedstock // Indust. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016. V. 55. № 12. P. 3253–3261.
  52. Teixeira L.V., Moutinho L.F., Romão‐Dumaresq A.S. Gas fermentation of C1 feedstocks: commercialization status and future prospects // Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 2018. V. 12. № 6. P. 1103–1117.
  53. Guo B. et al. A natural gas fermentation bacterial meal (FeedKind®) as a functional alternative ingredient for fishmeal in diet of largemouth bass, Micropterus Salmoides // Antioxidants. 2022. V. 11. № 8. P. 1479.
  54. Banks M. et al. Industrial production of microbial protein products // Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2022. V. 75. P. 102707.
  55. Rønn M. et al. Evaluation of nutritional quality for weaner piglets of a new methanotrophic microbial cell-derived protein feed // Animal Feed Sci. Technol. 2022. V. 294. P. 115498.
  56. Paglianti A. Recent innovations in turbulent mixing with static elements // Recent Patents Chem. Eng. 2008. V. 1. № 1. P. 80–87.
  57. Starodumov I. et al. Measurement of mass transfer intensity in gas–liquid medium of bioreactor circuit using the thermometry method // Fluids. 2022. V. 7. № 12. P. 366.
  58. Aroniada M. et al. Estimation of volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa) –Review of classical approaches and contribution of a novel methodology // Biochem. Eng. J. 2020. V. 155. P. 107458.
  59. Ho D. et al. Enhancing gas–liquid volumetric mass transfer coefficient // J. Indust. Eng. Chem. 2020. V. 87. P. 1–17.
  60. Abbasian-arani M., Hatamipour M.S., Rahimi A. Experimental determination of gas holdup and volumetric mass transfer coefficient in a jet bubbling reactor // Chinese J. Chem. Eng. 2021. V. 34. P. 61–67.
  61. Richard H. et al. C1-proteins prospect for production of industrial proteins and protein-based materials from methane // Algal Bioref. Circular Bioecon. CRC Press, 2022. P. 251–276.
  62. Kalyuzhnaya M.G., Gomez O.A., Murrell J.C. The methane-oxidizing bacteria (methanotrophs) // Taxonomy, genomics and ecophysiology of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes. 2019. P. 245–278.
  63. León-Becerril E., Maya-Yescas R. Axial variation of mass transfer volumetric coefficients in bubble column bioreactors // Chem. Prod. Process Modeling. 2010. V. 5. № 1.
  64. Rahimi M.J. et al. Computational fluid dynamics study of full-scale aerobic bioreactors: Evaluation of gas–liquid mass transfer, oxygen uptake, and dynamic oxygen distribution // Chem. Eng. Res. Design. 2018. V. 139. P. 283–295.
  65. Nizovtseva I.G. et al. Simulation of two‐phase air–liquid flows in a closed bioreactor loop: Numerical modeling, experiments, and verification // Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2022. V. 45. № 13. P. 8216–8229.
  66. Charles M. Fermentation scale-up: problems and possibilities // Trends Biotechnol. 1985. V. 3. № 6. P. 134–139.
  67. Finkler A.T.J. et al. A model-based strategy for scaling-up traditional packed-bed bioreactors for solid-state fermentation based on measurement of O2 uptake rates // Biochem. Eng. J. 2021. V. 166. P. 107854.
  68. Nizovtseva I.G. et al. Influence of the gas–liquid non-equilibrium mediastructure on the mass transfer dynamics in biophysical processes // Smart Mater. Struct. 2023. V. 33. № 1. P. 015028.
  69. Abu-Reesh I., Kargi F. Biological responses of hybridoma cells to hydrodynamic shear in an agitated bioreactor // Enzyme Microb. Technol. 1991. V. 13. № 11. P. 913–919.
  70. Sharma C., Malhotra D., Rathore A.S. Review of computational fluid dynamics applications in biotechnology processes // Biotechnol. Prog. 2011. V. 27 № 6. P. 1497–1510.
  71. Odeleye O.A. et al. On the fluid dynamics of a laboratory scale single-use stirred bioreactor // Chem. Eng. Sci. 2014. V. 111 № 100. P. 299–312.
  72. Yang S.-T. (Ed.). Bioprocessing for Value-added Products from Renewable Resources: New Technologies and Applications. Elsevier, 2011.
  73. Ma N., Mollet M., Chalmers J.J. Aeration, mixing and hydrodynamics in bioreactors, Encyclopedia of cell technology. Wiley, New York, 2003.
  74. Schmalzriedt S., Jenne M., Mauch K., Reuss M. Integration of physiology and fluid dynamics, in: U.S. von Stockar (Ed.), Process Integration in Biochemical Engineering, Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003. V. 80. P. 19–68.
  75. Amer M., Feng Y., Ramsey D.J. Using CFD simulations and statistical analysis to correlate oxygen mass transfer coefficient to both geometrical parameters and operating conditions in a stirred-tank bioreactor // Biotechnol Prog. 2019. V. 35. № 3. P 1–14.
  76. Kaiser C.S. et al. Engineering characteristics of a single-use stirred bioreactor at bench-scale: the mobius cell ready 3L bioreactor as a case study // Eng. Life Sci. 2011. V. 11. № 4. № 359–368.
  77. Maltby R., Tian S., Chew Y.M.J. Computational studies of a novel magnetically driven single-use technology bioreactor: A comparison of mass transfer models // Chem. Eng. Sci. 2018. V. 187. P. 157–173.
  78. Martín M., Montes F.J., Gal´an M.A. On the contribution of the scales of mixing to the oxygen tansfer in stirred tank // Chem. Eng. 2008. V. 145. № 2. P. 232–241.
  79. Marques M.P.C., Cabral J.M.S., Fernandes P.J. Bioprocess scale-up: quest for the parameters to be used as criterion to move from microreactors to lab-scale // Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2010. V. 85. № 9. P. 1184–1198.
  80. Delafosse A. et al. Comparison of hydrodynamics in standard stainless steel and single-use bioreactors by means of an Euler-Lagrange approach // Chem. Eng. Sci. 2018. V. 180. P. 52– 64.
  81. Nizovtseva I. et al. Simulation of two‐phase air–liquid flows in a closed bioreactor loop: Numerical modeling, experiments, and verification // Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2022. V. 45. № 13. P. 8216–8229.
  82. Haringa C. et al. Euler-Lagrange analysis towards representative down-scaling of a 22 m3 aerobic S. cerevisiae fermentation // Chem. Eng. Sci. 2017. V. 170. P. 653–669.
  83. Amer M., Feng Yu., Ramsey J.D. Using CFD simulations and statistical analysis to correlate oxygen mass transfer coefficient to both geometrical parameters and operating conditions in a stirred-tank bioreactor // Biotechnol. Prog. 2019. V. 35. № 3. P. e2785.
  84. Moilanen P. et al. Modelling mass transfer in an aerated 0.2 m3 vessel agitated by Rushton, Phasejet and Combijet impellers // Chem.Eng. V. 0142. № 1. P. 95–108.
  85. Li X., Scott K., Kelly W.J., Huang Z. Development of a computational fluid dynamics model for scaling-up ambr bioreactors, biotechnol. // Bioprocess Eng. 2018. V. 23. P. 710–725.
  86. Sanyal J., Marchisio L.D., Fox O.R., Dhanasekharan K. On the comparison between population balance models for CFD simulation of bubble columns // Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005. V. 44. № 14. P. 5063–5072.
  87. Sajjadi, Baharak, Raman, et al. Review on gas-liquid mixing analysis in multiscale stirred vessel using CFD // Rev. Chem. Eng. 2012. V. 28. № 2–3. P. 171–189.
  88. Villiger T.K. et al. Experimental and CFD physical characterization of animal cell bioreactors: From micro-to production scale // Biochem. Eng. J. 2018. V. 131. P. 84–94.
  89. Witz C., Treffer D., Hardiman T., Khinast J. Local gas holdup simulation and validation of industrial-scale aerated bioreactors // Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016. V. 152. P. 636–648.
  90. Shu S., Zhang J., Yang N. GPU-accelerated transient lattice Boltzmann simulation of bubble column reactors // Chem. Eng. Sci. 2020. V. 214. P. 115436.
  91. Thomas J.A. et al. A mechanistic approach for predicting mass transfer in bioreactors // Chem. Eng. Sci. V. 237. 2021. P. 116538.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
2. 1. Metabolic pathways of aerobic methanotrophs of types I, II, X. Adapted from Khider et al., 2021.

下载 (183KB)
索引源数据
3. Fig. 2. Prospects of using synthetic communities. Adapted from Oshkin et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021.

下载 (290KB)
索引源数据
4. 3. The work of CRISPR/Cas9 – adaptive immunity of bacteria and archaea.

下载 (236KB)
索引源数据
5. 4. Diagram of the main types of bioreactors.

下载 (161KB)
索引源数据

版权所有 © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024