Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thermodynamic Electron Equivalents Model For Bacterial Yield Prediction Modifications and Comparative Evaluations
Thermodynamic Electron Equivalents Model For Bacterial Yield Prediction Modifications and Comparative Evaluations
! 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. 97, No. 2, June 1, 2007 377
0
model is then compared for accuracy and variance in prime is added to the superscript (DGoj ). This will be
predictions with modifications proposed by VanBriesen and referred to here as the standard case since it is the one used
colleagues (VanBriesen, 2001; Xiao and VanBriesen, 2006; throughout this article and in the models under comparison.
Yuan and VanBriesen, 2002). In many cases for predicting bacterial yields, especially with
aerobic heterotrophic reactions, there is little difference
0
between DGrand DGor , but this is often not the case in
some anaerobic and autotrophic reactions. For these cases,
TEEM1 Development the correction indicated by the right hand term on the right
side in Equation 2 must be applied. Since all reactions
TEEM1 has been presented in detail (Rittmann and 0
evaluated here were aerobic, DGoa equals the half reaction
McCarty, 2001). The model is based upon the use of reduction potential for oxygen of "78.72 kJ/eeq.
half-reaction reductive equations for electron donors and DGs in TEEM1 consists of two energy terms, one for the
acceptors as well as for cell synthesis, and the associated conversion of the electron donor to an intermediate
Gibbs free energies or reduction potentials for the half compound, (DGic), and another for conversion of the
reactions. Use of such half reactions is illustrated in the intermediate to cells (DGpc):
upper portion of Figure 1. The methods for developing half
reactions and computing the half-reaction reduction DGic DGpc
potentials (DGo0 , kJ/eeq) are provided by Rittmann and DGs ¼ þ (4)
"n "
McCarty (2001). Values for the compounds evaluated in this
article are given in the Appendix, and were developed using Energy may be required to convert the cell carbon source to
the standard free energy of formation for each compound the intermediate compound (DGic > 0), in which case n ¼ 1,
(DGof ) also listed in the Appendix. Half reactions for an or it may be obtained from the conversion itself when
electron donor and an electron acceptor can be combined to (DGic < 0), in which case n ¼ "1. In TEEM1, the
produce an energy reaction with its associated Gibbs free intermediate compound was taken to be pyruvate as this
energy (DGr). Half reactions for electron donor and cell compound’s half-reaction reduction potential (35.09 kJ/
synthesis can be combined to produce the synthesis reaction, eeq) was originally thought to be close to that of acetyl-
from which the Gibbs free energy for synthesis is derived CoA, which was considered the main intermediate in
(DGs). An overall reaction for cell growth is obtained by synthesis. However, it is now known that the difference
combining in proper proportion the energy reaction and between the two is quite significant, and so it is suggested
synthesis reactions. This proportion depends upon the that the reduction potential for acetyl-CoA itself be
energy transfer efficiency (e) and is represented by A, a value used, which is "0.32 V (Madigan et al., 1997) or 30.9 kJ/
that is obtained by consideration of the energy released by eeq. Thus,
the energy reaction and that required for synthesis:
DGic ¼ DGin " DGd ¼ 30:9 " DGd (5)
DGs
A¼" (1)
"DGr This does not make a great deal of difference in calculated
yields, but is felt to be a better theoretical choice.
A in essence gives the ratio of the fraction of a donor DGpc was estimated from reported values of ATP in moles
associated with energy production to that associated with required for cell synthesis, and with an assumed cell relative
cell synthesis. DGr is determined from the half reaction composition of C5H7O2N was set equal to 18.8 kJ/eeq when
reduction potentials for the electron acceptor (DGa) ammonia serves as the source for cell synthesis. This value, as
and that of the electron donor (DGd), as well as from the well as the cell synthesis half reaction, differs when other
activity of reactants and products, {i}, and their respective forms of nitrogen are used for synthesis (Rittmann and
stoichiometric coefficients, vi: McCarty, 2001). Since cell yields reported here all resulted
X with ammonia present, the model comparisons here use
DGr ¼ DGor þ RT vi lnfig (2) only the 18.8 kJ/eeq value.
i The true or maximum cell yield (Y) is determined from A.
Yield can be expressed in electron equivalent (eeq) units as
DGor ¼ DGoa " DGod (3) the fraction of donor electron equivalents converted
for synthesis f os , while the remaining fraction is used for
where R is the universal gas constant, T is absolute energy ( f oe ):
temperature, and DGoa , DGod , DGor are the reduction
potentials for the electron acceptor half-reaction, the feo o 1 A
A¼ ; f ¼ ; fo ¼ ; and fso þ feo ¼ 1 (6)
electron donor half-reaction, and the overall energy fso s 1þA e 1þA
reaction, respectively. Since most microbial reactions of
interest occur at pH 7, the reduction potential is modified so Commonly, cell yield is represented in other units. That
that the activity {i} for {Hþ} is taken as 10"7. For this case, a often used by others developing thermodynamic models for
DOI 10.1002/bit
Figure 1. Example of yield calculations for aerobic oxidation of acetate with e ¼ 0.37. Here, either TEEM1 or TEEM2 could be used since neither an oxygenase nor a C1
compound is involved.
DOI 10.1002/bit
reaction is either multiplied or divided by the energy transfer assume that standard conditions (unit activities) exist for all
efficiency, depending upon whether the reaction provides reactants and products, except for [Hþ], which is assumed
energy to the organism or consumes it, respectively. The to equal 10"7 molar. However, different investigators tend
exponents m and n are used to make this adjustment. This is to use different forms for the half-reactions, thus producing
accomplished as follows: m equals 1 for C1 compounds, and somewhat different half-reaction reduction potentials. It
equals n for all others; the exponent n is similar as before would be better to use the true activities for relevant species,
and equals þ1 if m ¼ n and (DGin " DGd) > 0, otherwise it but these often are not known. An analysis was made of the
equals "1. An example calculation is provided in Figure 1 impact of these differences in the models tested and this
and the summary equations for TEEM2 are contained in difference was found not to have a significant effect on the
Figure 2. comparative analysis made here. However, impacts might
Oxalate is another compound that presents an exception be quite different in overall reactions that yield relatively
to the general pathway for synthesis and energy production little energy, such as some anaerobic reactions. Thus, an
followed by most organic compounds. Oxalate is one of the understanding of this issue is necessary with general use of
most oxidized organic compounds, having a degree of the predictive equations. Another difference is in the cell
reduction of 1.0. Many organisms that can use oxalate for formulations used. Different empirical formula have been
energy and synthesis also use formate (Blackmore and reported by different investigators with different organisms
Quayle, 1970). Oxalate is a high-energy compound with fed on different substrates (Rittmann and McCarty, 2001).
DGo0 of 52.1 kJ/eeq. However, in energy metabolism, much An average or typical formulation of C5H7O2N
of this energy is lost as oxalate is first transformed into (CH1.4O0.4N0.2), which has a degree of reduction of 4.0,
formate, which then is used for energy. The synthesis with is the formulation used for this article. In the comparison
oxalate is also unique and may involve the glyoxylate or approach, Xiao and VanBriesen (2006) used CH2O0.6N0.2
serine pathways (Blackmore and Quayle, 1970; Kornberg, which has a degree of reduction for carbon of 4.2. This
1966). The modification in TEEM2 proposed here for this difference is relatively small and did not impact the
compound is to assume it has the same DGo0 as formate of comparisons made here greatly, although it could affect
39.19 kJ/eeq and follows the same synthesis pathway as somewhat the best-fit value for the energy transfer efficiency.
formate. In the following, model calibrations are made through the
selection for a given data set of the best fit value for the
energy transfer efficiency, e, a value that brings the average
TEEM2 Calibration and Comparisons error for a data set close to zero. Xiao and VanBriesen (2006)
estimated the value for e for heterotrophic aerobic oxidation
The effort made initially was to obtain a better calibration on from known ATP production for 10 different substrates. An
the energy transfer efficiency value that might be used in analysis of these data gives an average value of 0.39 with 95%
TEEM2 for prediction purposes for aerobic heterotrophic confidence limits of 0.38–0.40. They also evaluated e from
growth. The large sets of yield information provided by six measurements of yield from aerobic oxidation of acetate,
others (Heijnen and van Dijken, 1992; VanBriesen, 2001; yielding an average value of 0.41 with 95% confidence limits
Xiao and VanBriesen, 2006; Yuan and VanBriesen, 2002) of 0.35–0.47. While they selected a value of 0.41 to use in
were used to calibrate e and to compare the predictive their equations, this is not necessarily the optimum value to
capability of TEEM2 with other models. use because the true value possibly lies elsewhere within the
In order to make comparisons between models, the error confidence limits. In addition, models are simplifications of
defined as the difference between a reported value and a reality and as such have inherent errors that are dependent
predicted value by each model is calculated: to some degree on the assumptions made as already noted.
Thus, for a predictive model, the best value to use for e for
Reported Value " Predicted Value good predictions may be somewhat different than the ‘‘true’’
Error ¼ (11)
Reported Value value. One of the purposes of this study was to find
which value of e for TEEM2 provides the best value for
The average error and the standard deviation of the error prediction of yields for aerobic heterotrophic growth
was determined for each data set and model under with organic compounds following normal catabolic
comparison. The average error provides an indication of processes. The accuracy and precision are then determined
a model’s accuracy in prediction, while the standard for TEEM2 model predictions for aerobic heterotrophic
deviation of the error provides a measure of the variance reactions involving an oxygenase and then for C1
or precision of the prediction. compounds. Results are compared with those of other
One difficulty in making true comparisons between the model predictions.
different models is that different assumptions are often
made in values chosen for the models. The question then is
Energy Transfer Efficiency Evaluation
whether the differences noted result from the basic structure
of a model itself or from values assumed for the model. For The extensive YC/C values from Heijnen and van Dijken
example, in the comparison set, the authors generally (1992) for aerobic heterotrophic growth with both pure and
DOI 10.1002/bit
mixed cultures were used to determine the best-fit energy Table II. Mixed culture e evaluation.
transfer efficiency (e ) for the TEEM model. Here, all C1
Calculated YC/C e ¼ 0.37
compounds and compounds known to involve oxygenases Reported
were excluded so that they would not bias the selection of e. Substrate YC/C& e Implied fs YC/CCmol/Cmol Error
The best-fit value for e so found was then used in the 2"
Malate 0.375 0.40 0.46 0.343 0.09
comparative evaluation of TEEM2 for organic compounds Citrate3" 0.365 0.40 0.45 0.340 0.07
involving oxygenases and for C1 compounds. Table I Succinate2" 0.400 0.40 0.42 0.365 0.09
contains a summary of this analysis for pure cultures and Gluconate" 0.510 0.43 0.48 0.441 0.14
Table II that for mixed cultures. Two separate evaluations Glucose 0.610 0.46 0.49 0.486 0.20
Lactate" 0.510 0.42 0.45 0.450 0.12
were made. First, the value for e that would produce the
Acetate" 0.410 0.38 0.39 0.394 0.04
reported YC/C for each substrate using TEEM1 was Mannitol 0.560 0.40 0.48 0.520 0.07
determined and the results are listed as e implied in Tables Glycerol 0.670 0.45 0.48 0.555 0.17
I and II. This required solving for e using a combination of Propionate" 0.480 0.38 0.40 0.463 0.04
Acetone 0.445 0.30 0.42 0.566 "0.27
Ethanol 0.530 0.31 0.45 0.668 "0.26
Propanol 0.575 0.34 0.43 0.644 "0.12
Average 0.39 0.03
Std. Dev. 0.05 0.15
Number 13.00 13.00
&
Yield data from Heijnen and van Dijken (1992).
DOI 10.1002/bit
Table IV. Model comparisons for compounds examined by Xiao and yields for organisms following the serine pathway were not
VanBriesen (2006) with different gs using e ¼ 0.37 with TEEM2. made here, and this may partially explain the less accurate
predictions with formate. In any event, TEEM2 with an
Xiao and
VanBriesen energy transfers efficiency of 0.37 appears to provide a good
TEEM2 (2006) estimate of maximum yield in general for a range of
Reported compounds under aerobic conditions, regardless of the
Substrate gs YC/C fs YC/C Error YC/C Error
degree of carbon reduction. In summary, the estimates
2"
Oxalate 1.00 0.086 0.402 0.101 "0.17 0.107 "0.24 for C1 compounds, covering a wide range of degrees of
Formate- 2.00 0.162 0.402 0.201 "0.24 0.216 "0.33 reduction, are better than that provided by the degree of
Glyoxylate" 2.00 0.220* 0.527 0.263 "0.20 0.247 "0.12
reduction model by Xiao and VanBriesen (2006).
Tartrate2" 2.50 0.280* 0.482 0.301 "0.08 0.297 "0.06
Malonate2" 2.67 0.238* 0.427 0.285 "0.20 0.268 "0.13
Iminodiacetate 3.00 0.333 0.483 0.362 "0.09 0.337 "0.01
Citrate3" 3.00 0.368 0.453 0.340 0.08 0.334 0.09
Malate2" 3.00 0.348 0.457 0.343 0.01 0.342 0.02
Pyruvate" 3.33 0.377 0.461 0.384 "0.02 0.397 "0.05 Discussion
Succinate2" 3.50 0.385 0.417 0.365 0.05 0.383 0.01
Gluconate" 3.66 0.535 0.482 0.441 0.18 0.464 0.13 TEEM2 was found to be as good as or better than the
Acetate" 4.00 0.447 0.394 0.394 0.12 0.446 0.00 comparison models for predicting maximum aerobic
Glucose 4.00 0.535 0.486 0.486 0.09 0.501 0.06 bacterial yields. The comparisons made here were aerobic
Fructose 4.00 0.505 0.486 0.486 0.04 0.501 0.01 growth because of the extensive data bank that was here
Lactate" 4.00 0.510* 0.450 0.450 0.12 0.480 0.06
available. TEEM2 is based upon an electron equivalents
Formaldehyde 4.00 0.470 0.507 0.507 "0.08 0.524 "0.11
Glycerol 4.66 0.596 0.476 0.555 0.07 0.578 0.03 balance, with yields reported as fraction of substrate or
Ethylenediamine 5.00 0.660 0.427 0.534 0.19 0.616 0.07 electron donor electron equivalents converted for synthesis.
(ED) Other models tend to report yields in moles of cell carbon
Methanol 6.00 0.552 0.375 0.563 "0.02 0.728 "0.32 per mole of substrate carbon for organic electron donors or
Ethanol 6.00 0.558* 0.445 0.668 "0.20 0.692 "0.24
in moles cell carbon per mole of electron donor for
Average "0.02 "0.06
Std. Dev. 0.13 0.14 autotrophic reactions. Conversions to such units is readily
Number 20 20 achieved when using electron equivalents. The comparison
&
models also use electron equivalents for determining
Data from Heijnen and van Dijken (1992) that is also listed in Tables I
or II.
reaction energies so that use for determining yield in
electron equivalents would not be a difficult transition to
make. Using electron equivalents has the advantage that
conversion factors are not needed in the models, which often
a significant improvement over TEEM1. However, the leads to confusion. An additional advantage of using
predictions are much higher for formate than measured, electron equivalents is that stoichiometric equations for the
thus leading to the larger than desired negative average overall microorganism reactions for growth and energy
values with TEEM2. Additional corrections for the reduced production can be more directly produced.
With the large data set of aerobic heterotrophic yield
values analyzed here, the best energy transfer efficiency
found for use in TEEM2 for aerobic growth was 0.37. With
Table V. Model comparisons for C1 compounds using e ¼ 0.37 with
TEEM2.
this value, predicted yields were within 13%–23% of the
measured yields. Good accuracy and about the same
Xiao and variation was found for organic reactions involving
VanBriesen oxygenases. The TEEM2 modification to address single
TEEM2 (2006)
Reported
carbon compounds was also found to be quite accurate for
Substrate gs YC/C& fos YC/C Error YC/C Error all cases using the 0.37 energy transfer efficiency, except for
formate, where yield predictions were on average 35% too
Formate- 2.00 0.162 0.402 0.201 "0.24 0.216 "0.33
Formate- 2.00 0.120 0.402 0.201 "0.68 0.216 "0.80 high. This larger error was affected mainly by one especially
Formate- 2.00 0.180 0.402 0.201 "0.12 0.216 "0.20 low formate yield measurement, which may be the result of a
Formaldehyde 4.00 0.470 0.507 0.507 "0.08 0.524 "0.11 measurement error or to formate catabolism following a
Methanol 6.00 0.540 0.375 0.563 "0.04 0.728 "0.35 lower energy biochemical pathway than assumed here. For
Methanol 6.00 0.540 0.375 0.563 "0.04 0.728 "0.35 other C1 compounds, the accuracy was good and much
Methanol 6.00 0.552 0.375 0.563 "0.02 0.728 "0.32
Average "0.17 "0.35 better than with the comparison model, especially for
Std. Dev 0.23 0.23 methanol, which has a high degree of reduction. These
Number 7 7 results tend to support the hypothesis proposed here that
& yield measurements that are much lower than predicted by
Data from Heijnen and van Dijken (1992) and Xiao and VanBriesen
(2006), with one reported YC/C value of 0.100 for formate not included as TEEM1 are the result of energy inefficient biochemical
value appears to be erroneous (correspondence with VanBriesen). pathways taken in transformations of C1 compounds, rather
DOI 10.1002/bit
Appendix. Thermodynamic properties of compounds at 258C.
0
Substance State DGof (kJ/mol) Reference Oxidized form DGo (kJ/mol) p eeq/mol C mol/mol g degree of reduction
" a
Acetate aq. "369.41 CO2 27.40 8 2 4.00
c
Acetoin aq. "280 CO2 33.59 20 4 5.00
a
Acetone aq. "161.17 CO2 29.62 16 3 5.33
a
Acetyl-CoA CO2 30.88
a
Alanine aq. "371.54 CO2 31.37 12 3 4.00
a
n-Alkanes aq. 60 CO2 27.48 92 15 6.13
f
Benzene aq. 133.9 CO2 28.34 30 6 5.00
d
Benzoate aq. "245.6 CO2 27.34 30 7 4.29
e
Butane g "15.707 CO2 27.56 26 4 6.50
c
2-3 butanediol aq. "322 CO2 32.25 22 4 5.50
a
n-Butanol aq. "171.84 CO2 29.26 24 4 6.00
a
Butyrate- aq. "352.63 CO2 27.72 20 4 5.00
Citrate3" aq. "1168.34 a
CO2 33.08 18 6 3.00
c
Dihydroxy-acetone aq. "450 CO2 41.67 12 3 4.00
b
EDTA aq. "1209.15 CO2 33.66 34 10 3.40
a
Ethanol aq. "181.75 CO2 31.18 12 2 6.00
a
Ethylene glycol aq. "323.21 CO2 39.01 10 2 5.00
b
Ethylenediamine aq. "10.05 CO2 29.80 10 2 5.00
a
Formaldehyde aq. "130.54 CO2 46.53 4 1 4.00
Formate" aq. "351.0 a
CO2 39.19 2 1 2.00
a
Fructose aq. "915.38 CO2 41.27 24 6 4.00
Gluconate" aq. "1128.3 a
CO2 40.21 22 6 3.67
a
Glucose aq. "917.22 CO2 41.35 24 6 4.00
a
Glycerol aq. "488.52 CO2 38.88 14 3 4.67
a
Glycine aq. "370.788 CO2 39.80 6 2 3.00
Glyoxylate" aq. "658.1 a
CO2 51.30 4 2 2.00
b
Iminodiacetate aq. "655.2 CO2 40.56 12 4 3.00
Lactate" aq. "517,81 a
CO2 32.29 12 3 4.00
a
Lactose aq. "1515.24 CO2 42.09 48 12 4.00
Malate2" aq. "845.08 a
CO2 34.17 12 4 3.00
Malonate2" aq. "700 a
CO2 29.78 8 3 2.67
a
Mannitol aq. "942.61 CO2 39.89 26 6 4.33
a
Methane g "50.75 CO2 23.53 8 1 8.00
a
Methanol aq. "175.39 CO2 36.84 6 1 6.00
NADH aq. a
NADþ 30.88 2
b
Naphthalene aq. 219.97 CO2 27.80 48 10 4.80
b
NTA aq. "954.79 CO2 33.97 18 6 3.00
Oxalate2" aq. "674.9 a
CO2 52.10 2 2 1.00
b
Phenanthrene aq. 310.99 CO2 27.62 66 14 4.71
f
Phenol aq. "47.5 CO2 29.50 28 6 4.67
a
Phenylalanine aq. "207.1 CO2 29.42 40 9 4.44
a
n-Propanol aq. "175.81 CO2 29.94 18 3 6.00
Propionate" aq. "361.08 a
CO2 27.63 14 3 4.67
Pyruvate" aq. "474.63 a
CO2 35.09 10 3 3.33
Succinate2" aq. "690.23 a
CO2 29.09 14 4 3.50
a
Sucrose aq. "1551.85 CO2 42.00 48 12 4.00
Tartrate2" aq. "1010 c
CO2 40.24 10 4 2.50
f
Toluene aq. 127 CO2 27.85 36 7 5.14
g
Xylose aq. 1077 CO2 41.35 20 5 4.00
NH4þ aq. "79.37 a
a
CO2 g "394.36
Hþ aq. 0 a
a
Thauer et al. (1977).
b
Yuan and VanBriesen (2002).
c
Heijnen and van Dijken (1992).
d
Madigan et al. (1997).
e
Weast and Astle (1980).
f
Sawyer et al. (2003).
a
Xylose assumed to have same reduction potential of 41.35 kJ/eeq as glucose.
DOI 10.1002/bit