Butanol bugs: Through a series of genetic modifications, scientists programmed E. coli to make butanol efficiently, bringing the biofuel closer to commercialization.
Wilson Wong, UCLA

Energy

Better Bugs for Making Butanol

Engineered E. coli proves efficient at churning out the biofuel.

  • Wednesday, January 16, 2008
  • By Alexandra M. Goho

In a push to find better biofuels to reduce gasoline consumption and lower greenhouse-gas emissions, scientists have genetically engineered E. coli that is highly efficient in producing butanol, a promising new type of biofuel. The new technology could speed up the development of butanol biofuels into a cost-effective alternative to ethanol.

While ethanol is the main biofuel on the market today, energy firms are increasingly looking to alternatives such as butanol. "It has many attractive properties," says Jim McMillan, manager of biorefining process R&D at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's National Bioenergy Center, in Golden, CO. Because butanol packs more energy per gallon than ethanol does, cars running on butanol get better mileage. And, unlike ethanol, it doesn't mix with water, so it can be shipped in existing petroleum pipelines without causing problems.

A number of research groups are engineering microbes that can convert sugar from various feedstocks into butanol. Most of these groups rely on the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum, which naturally makes a form of butanol called 1-butanol. "But Clostridium is not easy to deal with," says James Liao, a chemical engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It grows slowly, it's very fastidious, and it's not easy to genetically manipulate." Despite decades of tinkering by scientists, the microbe still can't produce enough butanol to make it economically viable as a transportation fuel, Liao says.

Instead, he and his colleagues turned to E. coli. Although the bacterium does not produce butanol naturally, it is easy to modify and grows fast. Instead of tweaking the pathway that the microbes employ for fermenting sugar into alcohol, Liao reasoned that he could program E. coli to produce butanol by diverting some of the microorganism's metabolites into alcohol production. These metabolites, called keto acids, are involved in the synthesis of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

Advertisement

To make butanol from keto acids, the researchers inserted two different nonnative genes into E. coli. The first gene came from a microbe commonly used in the production of cheese. The gene codes for an enzyme that converts keto acids into aldehydes. The second gene, derived from yeast, codes for an enzyme that converts aldehydes into butanol.

Initially, when linked together in E. coli, the two genes allowed the microbe to produce small amounts of butanol. With further genetic modifications, Liao was able to dramatically increase the efficiency of the process. For instance, deleting certain genes and boosting the activity of others increased the amount of keto acids available for conversion into butanol. With all the combined manipulations, the engineered microbes achieved an efficiency high enough for industrial use, says Liao.

Print

Related Articles

Jet Fuel from Plants

A way to get a high-energy fuel out of an abundant and renewable resource.

A Better Biofuel Bug

Zymetis is testing genetically modified bacteria that efficiently convert biomass into sugar.

Cheaper Butanol from Biomass

A startup has raised $25 million for inexpensively producing biofuel.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

rhansing

74 Comments

  • 1489 Days Ago
  • 01/16/2008

butanol

first, no fuel should be processed from corn and other food sources. the same with the cellulose from corn, since it is needed to be plowed under to keep the soil furtile.

But a great use would be to use the tons of "fuel" trash, that we dump in the dumpyards.

Reply

Guest (Britt Borden)

  • 998 Days Ago
  • 05/21/2009

Re: butanol - Food Science Can Help

I agree that the fuel from trash should be pursued, but the whole thing with alternative fuels is really about cost, so I also believe that bio-fuels from corn etc should also be pursued. Food science professionals often work with E. coli. This work could be funded by President Obama's new energy funding, and this will create food science jobs which will help to stimulate our economy.

Reply

Biofuelsimon

1 Comment

  • 1488 Days Ago
  • 01/17/2008

Patents

I wonder how this fits with the technology that BP and DuPont are using to make butanol.

Reply

killian

74 Comments

  • 1487 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2008

the problem is the feedstock

This is fairly neat work, since butanol is a better fuel than ethanol.  However, it shares ethanol's problem that photosynthesis is insufficiently efficient.  It would take too much land to replace gasoline with biobutanol, even if it could be made from high-per-acre feedstocks like switchgrass.

Reply

DJTal

154 Comments

  • 1485 Days Ago
  • 01/20/2008

Re: the problem is the feedstock

The scale of photosynthesis more than makes up for the low efficiency ...... think we've been here before killian ....... in any case other renewables can be used to catalyse the biofuel production system , which seems to be the route down which lots of renewable energy start up companies are going .

Reply

killian

74 Comments

  • 1484 Days Ago
  • 01/21/2008

Re: the problem is the feedstock

When I do the calculations, it takes hundreds of thousands of square miles to produce enough cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass to make up for the poor efficiency of photosynthesis.  Is that what you mean by scale?  Are we going to turn 19% of the U.S. into ethanol production so we can drive?  That's scale alright.

420M people in 2050, 9300 VMT per person gives 3.9 trillion miles.  35 MPG for gasoline gives 112 billion gallons gasoline, or 154 billion gallons of E85 (adjusting for the energy content), requiring 131 billion gallons of ethanol.  Schmer et. al in PNAS recently reported switchgrass yields of 7100kg/ha and cellulosic ethanol at 0.38 L/kg which gives 2700 L/ha, or 185,000 gallons/mi^2.  That gives 710,000 mi^2, or 19% of the U.S.  Scale.

Oh, and then there's freight...

Reply

DJTal

154 Comments

  • 1480 Days Ago
  • 01/25/2008

Re: the problem is the feedstock

Interesting mathematics , but the equations don't take account of practical realites . Potentialy the entire growing area of the USA , including forestry , wetland and municiple land , can be used to produce biofuel since all crops produce residues and waste . All forestry produce can eventually be used to make biofuel when building timber and paper reaches the end of it's life . Plus your not taking into account the possibility of increasing productivity per acre , on the same sort of scale as food production was increased in the 20th centuary (seems such a long time ago) .

Reply

Advertisement

killian

74 Comments

  • 1475 Days Ago
  • 01/30/2008

Re: the problem is the feedstock

NREL has estimated the U.S. biomass potential of everything you mention as well as several you missed.  It is in the single digit percent range of the fossil fuel energy the U.S. uses each year.

Reply

DJTal

154 Comments

  • 1475 Days Ago
  • 01/30/2008

Re: the problem is the feedstock

20% is a pretty resonable estimate of the potential .

Reply

killian

74 Comments

  • 1465 Days Ago
  • 02/09/2008

Re: the problem is the feedstock

I will take NREL's estimates over unattributed numbers any day.

However, more importantly, two articles in Science just did calculations for greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels due to land use change, and the data really looks bad for most biofuels, unless they are made from waste.  For example, Fargione's paper said, "Our results show that converting native ecosystems to biofuel production results in large carbon debts. ... The carbon debts attributed to biofuels would not be repaid by the annual carbon repayments from biofuel production for decades or centuries."

As a specific example, Searchinger's paper said, "This analysis has implications for other biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol could use wastes that do not trigger land use change. But if American corn fields of average yield were converted to switchgrass for ethanol, replacing that corn would still trigger emissions from land use change that would take 52 years to pay back and increase emissions over 30 years by 50%."

This suggests that we had better restrict our ethanol feedstocks to waste products rather than growing crops specifically to make into ethanol.

Reply

bruce1369@ida.net

3 Comments

  • 1053 Days Ago
  • 03/27/2009

Re: the problem is the feedstock

Sorry, Killian, after working for the DOE I wouldn't trust anything they said.

Reply

quickerest

1 Comment

  • 1372 Days Ago
  • 05/12/2008

butanol

Imagine the entire wasted wood product from any disaster. Imagine all the waste we do not use every day. Imagine all the restaurants waste, imagine all the waste product from packing houses that charge very little for the waste food left behind after processing. Then imagine that this is not a one off oil replacement solution. This is just one solution that will have to be a multi layered system including transportation reform along with many alternative solutions to other power needs. This is a Great addition to any multi layered solution. How many layers?? Well consider all the desert land we have that can take on solar power, wind power, wave power hydro power, you name it we can manipulate our environment to optimize our power returns. Bullet trains. Common it is the best way to reduce emissions and increase connectivity reducing loss and spreading gains as the markets fluctuate across America. We will continue to use and pump oil but to simply start with adding more ethanol or butanol to our resource will make large differences in price and make a real step in the right direction. The other very important factor many also forget about is the large number of jobs we can create and economy boost that is created by building the infrastructure required for the changes needed to switch to a multi layer system.

I do agree that there has to be a very big barrier between our food and fuel production or we will end up being reliant on others again for one of our two greatest needs; food or power.

Reply

Guest (Britt Borden)

  • 1000 Days Ago
  • 05/19/2009

Will Create Food Science Jobs

Food science professionals often work with E. coli. This work should be funded by President Obama's new energy funding, and this should create food science jobs which will help to stimulate the economy.

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

Printing Parts

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

American Superconductor

Novartis

Novomer

Crowdcast

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement