Method for producing an aqueous solution containing d-mannitol

Abstract

The invention relates to a method for producing an aqueous solution containing D-mannitol by reducing D-fructose, which is present in a dissolved state in an aqueous solution, to D-mannitol enzymatically in vitro using an NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductase, thereby forming an oxidized cofactor NAD(P)'. The method is characterized in that the oxidized cofactor NAD(P)' produced by the reduction is reduced to NAD(P)H using an alcohol dehydrogenase and a secondary alcohol, thereby forming a ketone. The NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductase is mannitol dehydrogenase I (EC 1.1.1.67, NADH-dependent) or mannitol dehydrogenase II (EC 1.1.1.38, NADPH-dependent).

Description

[0001] Method for the preparation of an aqueous solution containing D-mannitol

[0002] The present invention relates to an enzymatic process for the production of an aqueous solution containing D-mannitol.

[0003] Background of the invention

[0004] D-Mannitol is a hexavalent sugar alcohol that has applications as a non-cariogenic and low-calorie sweetener (for diabetic food), a pharmaceutical (diuretic, for the treatment of kidney failure or as an excipient in tablets and inhalers) for the production of specialty chemicals (Saha et al., 2011; Bhatt et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2020).

[0005] Since natural sources (for example in fruits and vegetables, but also in seaweed) cannot meet the increasing demand for D-mannitol (Saha et al., 2011), methods for the synthetic production of D-mannitol have been and are being developed.

[0006] More than 50,000 tons of D-mannitol per year are produced by hydrogenating a syrup consisting of 50% D-fructose and 50% D-glucose at high pressures and temperatures using a Raney nickel catalyst. The resulting product is a mixture of the two diastereomers D-mannitol and D-sorbitol (25:75), since only half of the D-fructose is converted to D-mannitol. Separating the two sugar alcohols requires complex and expensive processes (Bhatt et al., 2013).

[0007] An alternative to catalytic hydrogenation are biocatalytic processes such as fermentations.

[0008] In general, microorganisms such as yeasts, filamentous fungi, and homo- and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria are able to fermentatively produce D-mannitol from various substrates such as D-glucose, D-fructose, sucrose, or glycerol. In homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, D-mannitol is produced from D-fructose-6-phosphate via D-mannitol-L-phosphate, which in turn can be obtained from D-fructose and D-glucose. In heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria, D-fructose is directly reduced to D-mannitol (by means of a mannitol dehydrogenase), while D-glucose serves only as a carbon source for growth. Due to their advantageous metabolism, heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus or Leuconostoc are preferentially used for the fermentative production of D-mannitol (Martinez-Miranda et al., 2022).

[0009] US Patent 7358072 B2 describes a continuous fed-batch fermentation using Lactobacillus intermedius NRRL B-3693, which produced 166 g / L of D-mannitol (232 g of D-mannitol in a calculated volume of 1.4 liters) from D-fructose (295 g total) and D-glucose (140 g total, as a secondary carbon source) in 22 hours. Overall, only about 53% of the added sugars (D-fructose / D-glucose) were converted to D-mannitol.

[0010] Zhang et al. (2017) describe a fermentation using Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides CTCC G123, with inulin from chicory roots serving as the carbon source. This yielded 76.4 g / l D-mannitol from 91.0 g / l D-fructose, requiring an additional 25.1 g / l D-glucose, which was metabolized by cellular processes to byproducts such as lactate and acetate. The mannitol yield was 0.84 g / g D-fructose or 0.66 g / g (D-fructose + D-glucose). By modulating the cells' redox metabolism with the addition of nicotinic acid (50 mg / l), the final D-mannitol concentration was increased to 88.1 g / l and the yield to 0.94 g / g D-fructose.

[0011] The fermentative processes described here (using heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria) have several disadvantages: 1. inefficient conversion of the sugars used, 2. formation of byproducts such as lactate or acetate, 3. need for complex and expensive nitrogen sources (yeast, peptone or meat extracts), and 4. long fermentation times, especially to achieve higher D-mannitol titers (Martinez-Miranda et al., 2022).

[0012] These disadvantages can be circumvented using cell-free methods (in vitro), in which the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol is accomplished with a mannitol dehydrogenase (MDH), which requires either nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) (EC 1.1.1.67) or nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP) (EC 1.1.1.138) as a cofactor (Martinez-Miranda et al., 2022).

[0013] US 7867740 B2 describes a thermostable mannitol dehydrogenase from Thermotoga maritima, which in immobilized form was used together with a (also thermostable) glucose isomerase to convert D-glucose to D-mannitol at 60 °C in an electrochemical reactor system.

[0014] Other mannitol dehydrogenases are known from Pseudomonas fluorescens (Kavanagh et al., 2002) or from Aspergillus fumigatus (Krahulec et al., 2011).

[0015] In order to enable the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol with significant product yields, the cofactor NAD(P)H required for this must be regenerated in a thermodynamically favored reaction.

[0016] A commonly used enzymatic cofactor regeneration system is glucose dehydrogenase (GDH) with D-glucose as a substrate, which is regenerated via NAD(P) +It is oxidized to D-gluconolactone, forming NAD(P)H. The lactone hydrolyzes in aqueous solution to D-gluconic acid / D-gluconate. Kulbe et al. (1987) coupled an NADH-dependent mannitol dehydrogenase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae with an NAD + -dependent glucose dehydrogenase (GDH) from Bacillus megaterium to convert a mixture of D-fructose and D-glucose to D-mannitol and D-gluconate.

[0017] As an alternative to GDH, formate dehydrogenase (FDH), which breaks down formate and NAD, can also be used. +The conversion of D-fructose to CO2 and NADH can be used for cofactor regeneration. For example, a combination of FDH and a recombinant MDH from Pseudomonas fluorescens DSM 50106 was used by Slatner et al. (1998) to convert D-fructose (80% conversion) to 72 g / L D-mannitol. A similar system consisting of a recombinant MDH from the thermotolerant bacterium Caldicellulosiruptor morganii Rt8.B8 and an FDH from Ogataea parapolymorpha was used by Xu et al. (2020) to reduce 400 mM (72.1 g / L) D-fructose to 80% D-mannitol in 50 h.

[0018] Neither cofactor regeneration using GDH nor using FDH is suitable for large-scale cell-free production processes of D-mannitol, as they have some serious disadvantages.

[0019] When using GDH, large amounts of water-soluble D-gluconate are produced, which must be separated. Furthermore, due to the formation of D-gluconic acid, equimolar amounts of base (e.g., NaOH) are required to maintain a constant pH of the reaction.

[0020] The use of FDH for cofactor regeneration is characterized by the following disadvantages: 1. Formation of climate-damaging CO2 as an oxidation product of formate, 2. Shift of the pH of the reaction into the basic range (Neuhauser et al., 1998; Kratzer et al., 2015), 3. Production of large quantities of waste consisting of unreacted sodium formate and sodium sulfate (when sulfuric acid is used for pH control), and 4. the low specific activity of formate dehydrogenases (Boldt & Ansorge-Schumacher, 2020; Tishkov & Popov, 2004).

[0021] In a review article, Bhatt et al. wrote in 2013 that the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol via mannitol dehydrogenase is not technically applied because suitable cofactor regeneration systems for NAD(P)H are lacking (Bhatt et al., 2013).

[0022] To make matters worse, mannitol dehydrogenases such as those from Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Kulbe et al., 1986), Candida magnoliae (Lee et al., 2003) or Tuber borchii (Ceccaroli et al., 2007) are generally subject to significant product inhibition (Soetaert et al., 1999), which makes the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol economically unattractive.

[0023] Not only product inhibition, but also the inhibition of mannitol dehydrogenases by other organic compounds has been described. In conference papers by Cosse et al. (2021) and Cosse et al. (2022), a method for the oxidation of ethanol to acetaldehyde using alcohol dehydrogenase was presented, in which NAD regeneration is used. + An MDH from Pseudomonas fluorescens (wild type and N191D mutant) was used. Inhibition of the MDH used by ethanol and acetaldehyde was observed (Cosse et al., 2021) – this is consistent with previous reports of the inhibition of another MDH (from Candida magnoliae) by ethanol (Lee et al., 2008; Bhatt et al., 2013). The acetaldehyde and D-mannitol yields of the procedure are not described (Cosse et al., 2021; Cosse et al., 2022).

[0024] The present invention addresses this issue and aims to provide an enzymatic process for the production of an aqueous solution containing D-mannitol, which does not have the disadvantages described above and thus enables higher yields.

[0025] Detailed description of the invention

[0026] The problem of producing an aqueous solution containing D-mannitol is solved according to the invention by enzymatically reacting D-fructose, which is dissolved in an aqueous solution, in vitro with cofactor NAD(P)H to form D-mannitol with the formation of oxidized cofactor NAD(P) + is reduced and is characterized by the fact that the oxidized cofactor NAD(P) produced by the reduction + is reduced to NAD(P)H by an alcohol dehydrogenase and a secondary alcohol, forming a ketone.

[0027] Preferably, an NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductase is used for the enzymatic reduction of D-fructose.

[0028] The secondary alcohol is preferably 2-propanol (isopropanol), which is oxidized to acetone.

[0029] A preferred variant of the process according to the invention is shown schematically in the accompanying figure 1, where A stands for D-fructose, B for D-mannitol, C for 2-propanol and D for acetone, 1 for mannitol dehydrogenase and 2 for alcohol dehydrogenase.

[0030] The use of alcohol dehydrogenases for cofactor regeneration in combination with 2-propanol as a cosubstrate has already been described in US 10113192 B2, US 9644227 B2, US 10253340 B2 and by Xu et al. (2021).

[0031] Surprisingly, it has been shown that by using an alcohol dehydrogenase to reduce the oxidized cofactor NAD(P) +by reacting with a secondary alcohol to form NAD(P)H and a ketone, overcoming the disadvantages described above.

[0032] In a further preferred embodiment of the process according to the invention, the enzymes are present in a suspension, in the homogenate, and / or in the lysate of the corresponding cells that produce them, with lysates being particularly preferred. In this context, suspension means a suspension of resting cells. These are harvested after cultivation (separated from the nutrient medium) and suspended in a suitable buffer system. In contrast to fermentative processes, which also utilize whole cells, the resting cells, due to the removal of carbon sources and nutrients, can no longer grow but serve only for the conversion of substrates (Lin & Tao, 2017). In this context, homogenate refers to a physically and / or chemically treated suspension (e.g., treated by pressure, lysozyme, or ultrasound), whereby the cell components are released from the cells.A lysate is obtained when the insoluble cell components of the homogenate are removed, for example by filtration or centrifugation (see Production of Enzymes & Preparation of Lysates for details).

[0033] In another variant, the enzymes can also be modified at the N-terminus with a water-soluble polymer such as polyethylene glycol, immobilized in or on a solid matrix, or be part of a fusion protein.

[0034] The NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductase for the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol is preferably a mannitol dehydrogenase (NADH-dependent: EC 1.1.1.67; NADPH-dependent: EC 1.1.1.138) or a sorbose reductase (EC 1.1.1.289), with the mannitol dehydrogenase being particularly preferred.

[0035] The mannitol dehydrogenase preferably comprises an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of: i) an amino acid sequence having at least 80% identity with SEQ ID No. 2 or 4, ii) an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleic acid having at least 80% identity with SEQ ID No. 1 or 3, and iii) an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleic acid that binds under stringent conditions to a complementary strand of a nucleic acid molecule or to a nucleic acid molecule with the nucleic acid sequence SEQ ID No. 1 or 3, wherein stringent conditions preferably include one or more washing steps at 65 °C and a salt concentration of 0.1x to 2x SSC.

[0036] SEQ ID No. 1:

[0037] ATGTCACACCCAACATCAGTTATTAACGAGCAGGTAGGCCCATTACCAACTAAGGCCCACAACTTTC TAAGAATGTGAATGATTTGTTCTCATTAAAGGGTAAGGTAGCTTCTGTCACCGGTTCTCAGGAGGGA TTGGTTGGCTGTAGCTGAAGCTTATGCCCAAGCAGGAGCAGAGCAGCGTTGCTGTTTGGTACAATTCTAA AAATGCAGATGCTAAGGCTGAATACTTAACTAAGACTTACGGTTGGAAGTCGAAGGCATACAAGTGT AACATTTCTGATCCAGAAAGGTAATTGGACAAATTGAAAAGGATTTCGGTACCATTG ACGTTTTCGTTGCCAATGCCGGTGTTTCCATGGACAGAAGGTAGAAGTATTGAAGTTGAAGGATATGA

[0038] TTCGTGGAAAAGGTTATAGATTTGGACTTGAGTGGTGTCTACTATTGCGCTAAGGCTGTCGGAAAG

[0039] ATTTTCAAGAAGAATGGTAAGGGTTCGCTTGTGTTCACAGCATCAATGTCTGGCCACATTGTGAATGT

[0040] TCCACAATTGCAAGCTCCATACACGCCGCAAAGGCCGGTGTTTTGCACTTGAGTAAGTCATTAGCTG

[0041] TCGAATGGGCCCCATTCGCTAGAGTTAACACCATTTCACCTGGTTATATTGCCACAGAAATTTCCGACT

[0042] TCGTTCCGGACGATGTCAAGGCTAAGTGGTGGCAATTAATTCCATTAGGAAGGAAGCTCTTCCACA

[0043] AGAATTAGTTGGTGCTTACTTATATTTTGCATCCGATGCGTCTACTTACACTACAGGATCGGACTTATT AGTCGATGGTGGTTACTCTGCTCCATAA

[0044] SE ID Nr. 2:

[0045] MSHPTSVINEQVGPLPTKAPQLSKNVNDLFSLKGKVASVTGSSGGIGWAVAEAYAQAGADVAVWYNSK

[0046] NADAKAEYLTKTYGVKSKAYKCNISDPEDVEKVIGQIEKDFGTIDVFVANAGVPWTEGRSIEVEGYDSWKK

[0047] VIDLDLSGVYYCAKAVGKIFKKNGKGSLVFTASMSGHIVNVPQLQAPYNAAKAGVLHLSKSLAVEWAPFA

[0048] RVNTISPGYIATEISDFVPDDVKAKWWQLIPLGREALPQELVGAYLYFASDASTYTTGSDLLVDGGYSAP

[0049] SEQ ID Nr. 3:

[0050] ATGATCCTGACTTCCCAGACCCTGTCCCACCTGCCGGACTCCATCCTGACGTCGTCCTACGACCGGGAT

[0051] GCGGTGACGCCTGGCATTGTCCATCTGAGCGTCGGCAATTTCCATCGTGCCCATCAGGCCGTCTATAC

[0052] GGACCGCGCGCTTGCGCTGGCGGGCCAGTCAGGCTGGGGCATTGTCGGGATGGGTCTGATGGACCA

[0053] TCCGGCGGAAGTGGCGAAAGCCGAGGCCCTGCATGCGCAGAACGGGCTCTACACCCTGCGCGAATG

[0054] CCCGCCGAACCGGCCTGATACGGTCCGGGTGGTGAAGTCGCTGGTCGAATACATCCATGCCCCGACC

[0055] GATCGTGACGCCGCGCTGAAGCGTCTGACGGACCCGGCCATCCGCATCGTCAGCATGACCGTGACCG

[0056] AAGGCGGCTACTACATGGATGAGGCCGGACGGTTCATGACCGAACATCCCGCCATTGCCGAAGACCT

[0057] GCACCGTCCGGTCCCGCACACGGCGTTCGGCCTGATGACCGAAGCCCTGCGCCAGCGCCGGGATGCC

[0058] GGTGTTGCGCCATTCACCATCCTGTCCTGCGACAACGTTCCCGCAAACGGCGATGTCGCGCGCAATGC

[0059] CGTGCTGTCCTTCGCCCGCCTGCGCGACGCGGAACTGGCGGAGTGGATCGAGGCCAATGTCGCCTTC

[0060] CCGTCCTGCATGGTCGATCGCATCACCCCGGCCGTCCACCCGGCCGACGTGGCGCGTCTGGATGCAC

[0061] AGAGCGGGATCGAGGACCGCGTTCCCGTGTTCTGTGAGGACTTCATCCAGTGGGTTGTGGAAGACCA

[0062] CTTCCCGGCCGGACGTCCGGCCTGGGAGCAGGTCGGCGTGCTGTTCACGGACGATGTCGAGCCTTAC

[0063] GAACAGGTCAAGCTGCGGATGCTGAACGCGTCCCATTCCACGCTGGCTCTGCCGGGCGTTCTGATGG

[0064] GATACCGGCTGGTCGATGAGGCCATGGGCGACGAACATCTGGCCGCCCTGCTGGAGCAGTTCCTGCG

[0065] TCATGACGTCGAGCCGCAGCTCACCGCCCCTCCGGGCATCAGCCTGCCGGACTATGCCGCCCAGCTTC

[0066] TGCAGCGGTTCCGCAACCATGCCGTCAGTGACCAGCTTCTGCGCATCACATCCGACAGCACGTCCAAG

[0067] CTGCCGGTCTTCCTGCGTGCCACGGCCGAGGACATTTTGAAAAAGGCTCAGGACCCGCGCCGGATCG

[0068] CTTTCGTCCTCGCCTGTTACTGTGCCTATCTGACCGGCCGCGATGACGTGGAAGCCACATTCGCCGTC ACGGAACCGCGCCTCAGCGCCGAAGACCGCGCTCTGGCGCTGGACGCCAACCCCGCCAAGGCGCTG GAGATGAGCGTGTTCGCCGGGTGGGGCCTTGAGAACTCCGCCGAGTTCCTCACCCGCTTCATCCAGA CCCGCGAAGACCTGAAAACGCGCGGTACGGCCGCCGTCCTGAAGGATCTGGTCGCAAACGTATAA

[0069] SEQ ID Nr. 4:

[0070] M ILTSQTLSHLPDSILTSSYDRDAVTPGIVHLSVGNFHRAHQAVYTDRALALAGQSGWGIVGMGLMDHP AEVAKAEALHAQNGLYTLRECPPNRPDTVRVVKSLVEYIHAPTDRDAALKRLTDPAIRIVSMTVTEGGYYM DEAGRFMTEHPAIAEDLHRPVPHTAFGLMTEALRQRRDAGVAPFTILSCDNVPANGDVARNAVLSFARL RDAELAEWIEANVAFPSCMVDRITPAVHPADVARLDAQSGIEDRVPVFCEDFIQWVVEDHFPAGRPAW EQVGVLFTDDVEPYEQVKLRM LNASHSTLALPGVLMGYRLVDEAMGDEHLAALLEQFLRHDVEPQLTAP PGISLPDYAAQLLQRFRNHAVSDQLLRITSDSTSKLPVFLRATAEDILKKAQDPRRIAFVLACYCAYLTGRDD VEATFAVTEPRLSAEDRALALDANPAKALEMSVFAGWGLENSAEFLTRFIQTREDLKTRGTAAVLKDLVAN V

[0071] The oxidoreductase for the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol preferably comprises or consists of an amino acid sequence having at least 80% identity with SEQ ID No. 2 or 4, more preferably 85%, more preferably 90%, more preferably 95%, more preferably 98%, more preferably 99%, and particularly preferably 100%. The oxidoreductase according to the invention for the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol particularly preferably comprises or consists of the amino acid sequence SEQ ID No. 2 or 4.

[0072] Alternatively, the oxidoreductase for the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol from D-fructose preferably comprises or consists of an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleic acid exhibiting at least 80%, more preferably 85%, more preferably 90%, more preferably 95%, more preferably 98%, more preferably 99%, and particularly 100% identity with SEQ ID No. 1 or 3. Particularly preferably, the nucleic acid encoding the oxidoreductase according to the invention for the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol comprises or consists of the nucleic acid sequence SEQ ID No. 1 or 3.

[0073] The term “identity,” as used here, refers to the percentage of identical nucleotide or amino acid matches between at least two nucleotide or amino acid sequences aligned using a standardized algorithm. Such an algorithm can, in a standardized and reproducible manner, introduce gaps into the compared sequences to optimize the alignment between two sequences and thus achieve a more meaningful comparison. The percentage identity between sequences can be determined using one or more computer algorithms or programs known in the prior art or described herein. According to the invention, the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) provided by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) (Altschul et al., 1990) is used to determine the identity.The BLAST software suite includes various programs, including a tool called "BLAST 2 Sequences," which is used for the direct pairwise comparison of two nucleotide or amino acid sequences. "BLAST 2 Sequences" can also be accessed and used interactively via the NCBI World Wide Web. The blastn program (for nucleotide sequences) uses a word length (W) of 28, an expectation (E) of 0.05, M = 1, N = -2, and compares both strands. For amino acid sequences, the blastp program uses a word length of 3, an expectation (E) of 0.05, and the BLOSUM62 scoring matrix (Henikoff & Henikoff, 1989), alignments (B) of 50, an expectation (E) of 0.05, M = 1, N = -2.

[0074] Alternatively, the oxidoreductase for the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol preferably comprises or consists of an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleic acid that binds under stringent conditions to a complementary strand of a nucleic acid molecule or to a nucleic acid molecule with the nucleic acid sequence SEQ. ID No. 1 or 3. As used herein, the stringent conditions refer to conditions under which so-called specific hybrids, but no non-specific hybrids, are formed.

[0075] For example, hybridization can be carried out using conventionally known methods, such as those described by J. Sambrook et al. in Molecular Cloning, A Laboratory Manual, 2nd Ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (1989). Stringent conditions refer to conditions in which washing is performed at 65 °C and a salt concentration of 0.1x to 2x SSC (where 1xSSC is understood to be a mixture of 0.15 M sodium chloride / 0.015 M sodium citrate).

[0076] The particularly preferred concentration of D-fructose is between 50 and 300 g / l.

[0077] The particularly preferred temperature range for the method according to the invention is between 20 and 40 °C.

[0078] The particularly preferred pH range is between 7.0 and 9.0.

[0079] The enzymes can be separated, for example, by centrifugation or ultrafiltration. Solid D-mannitol can be obtained from the aqueous solution by crystallization or spray drying. Chromatographic separation of byproducts or the substrate is not necessary.

[0080] materials

[0081] D-Mannitol, 2-Butanol, 2-Pentanol and 4-Methyl-2-pentanol were synthesized by Sigma-Aldrich, D-Fructose, 2-Propanol, Acetonitrile, NAD + , NADH disodium salt, NADP + -Disodium salt and NADPH-tetrasodium salt were sourced from PanReac AppliChem (ITW Reagents), IPTG (isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactopyranoside), potassium dihydrogen phosphate, di-potassium hydrogen phosphate, and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) were sourced from Carl Roth, and triethanolamine (TEA) was sourced from Chem-Lab NV.

[0082] Production of enzymes & production of lysates

[0083] General information on the expression of recombinant enzymes in E. coli

[0084] For recombinant enzyme production in an Escherichia co / / strain, the gene to be expressed was first amplified in PCR using genomic DNA or its synthetically adapted equivalent (adapted to the codon usage of E. coli) as a template, along with specific oligonucleotides that additionally carry recognition sequences for restriction endonucleases. The resulting DNA fragment was then isolated from the reaction mixture. After nucleic acid digestion with the restriction enzymes Sphl and Hindll, the gene fragment encoding the target enzyme was ligated into the Sphl-Hindll backbone of the expression vector pQE70-Kan. The ligation product was transformed into chemically competent E. co / / cells (ToplOF'), and the resulting colonies were used for plasmid isolation and restriction analysis.

[0085] The result of the cloning step was verified by restriction enzyme digestion and DNA sequencing. The resulting construct carries the target gene under the IPTG-inducible T5 promoter.

[0086] For the overexpression of the enzyme in E. coli, the resulting expression plasmid was transformed into competent expression cells RB791. After 24 h incubation at 37 °C, the resulting colonies were inoculated into LB medium for expression assays.

[0087] The following day, expression cultures with an optical density (OD550) of 0.02 were inoculated and shaken at 37 °C until an OD550 of 0.3 was reached. The temperature was then lowered to 25 °C, and the cultures were induced with 0.1 mM IPTG when an OD550 of 0.5 was reached. After 22 h, the cultures were harvested (separated from the medium by centrifugation into a cell pellet) and analyzed for the expression of the recombinant enzyme using SDS-gel electrophoresis and activity determination (for use in a use test or optical zymatic assay).

[0088] Production of cell lysates using Sonifier digestion

[0089] To prepare a cell suspension, the cell pellet produced according to the above procedure was weighed into a suitable container and mixed with buffer and lysozyme (final concentration 0.5 mg / ml) (e.g., triethanolamine (TEA)-HCl) and dissolved with stirring. The biomass fraction is typically 20% by mass, the remainder being the buffer.

[0090] A Branson Sonifier 450 was used for cell disruption. The suspension was treated three times with 15 ultrasonic pulses each (device settings: Timer = 15; Duty Cycle = 50; Output Control = 3-5).

[0091] The resulting homogenate was centrifuged for 10 min at 4 °C and 16000 rpm (Eppendorf centrifuge 5417R) to separate the insoluble cell fragments and obtain the lysate.

[0092] Table 1. Enzyme classes and donor organisms for the enzymes used in the examples.

[0093] * Note: In the NCBI database entry, mannitol dehydrogenase I is classified as a sorbose reductase; however, region 27 to 276 in the entry is also described as "mannitol dehydrogenase (MDH)-Iike, classical (c) SDRs; cd05352". The MDH activity of sorbose reductases is also known from the literature (e.g.,

[0094] Sugisawa et al., 1991).

[0095] Analytical methods High Performance Liquid Chromatography

[0096] D-fructose and D-mannitol were quantified using HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) on an Agilent HPLC 1260 Infinity II Series system. Detection was performed using a refractive index detector (RI detection). A Phenomenex Rezex RPM monosaccharide Ca2+ (8%) column with a suitable guard column was used for the measurement and isocratically eluted with 3.5 v% 2-propanol (flow rate 0.5 ml / min).

[0097] Determination of enzyme activities (optical-enzymatic assay)

[0098] Enzyme activities in the lysates were determined using a Shimadzu UV-1900 spectrophotometer. The formation and consumption of NAD(P)H at a wavelength of 340 nm were monitored by measuring changes in absorption. The measurements were performed with 0.2 mM cofactor (NAD(P)H). + or NAD(P)H). For this purpose, 20 µl of a 10 mM stock solution of the cofactor were placed in a cuvette (Greiner bio-one semi-micro cuvette made of polystyrene), and the desired pH was adjusted with 100 mM TEA-HCl buffer (870 µl). 10 µl of lysate (diluted or undiluted) and 100 µl of substrate solution were added to the cuvette, and the measurement was started immediately thereafter. The measurements were carried out at 25 °C as standard. The extinction coefficient of NADH / NADPH at 340 nm (E = 6220 L mol) was used. 1 cm 1The enzyme activity of the lysate can be determined in U / ml (based on the volume of the lysate) or U / g (based on the biomass used for production). 1 U represents 1 pmol of substrate conversion per minute (1 U = 1 pmol / min = 1.67 - 10⁻¹⁰ min⁻¹). 8 cat).

[0099] The following examples describe preferred variants of the process according to the invention in more detail. The lysates used in these examples were produced according to the processes described above.

[0100] Example 1

[0101] Reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol

[0102] The following components were mixed in a 2 ml glass vial (Raw 1): 211 pl of deionized water, 50 pl of a 500 mM TEA-HCl buffer (pH 8), 125 pl of a 600 g / l D-fructose solution (final concentration 150 g / l), and 10 pl of a 5 mM NAD +-solution (final concentration 0.1 mM). To initiate the reaction, 30 U of MDH I I-lysate (SEQ ID No. 4) and 26 U of ADH I I-lysate were added to the mixture. The mixture was incubated at 30 °C for a total of 45 h with continuous shaking. In a 2 mL glass vial (result 2), the following components were mixed: 176 pL of deionized water, 50 pL of a 500 mM TEA-HCl buffer (pH 8), 125 pL of a 600 g / L D-fructose solution (final concentration 150 g / L), and 10 pL of a 2.5 mM NADP + -solution (final concentration 0.05 mM). To start the reaction, 30 U of MDH I-lysate (SEQ. ID No. 2) and 29 U of ADH I-lysate were added to the mixture. The mixture was incubated at 30 °C for a total of 45 h with continuous shaking.

[0103] In both approaches, 20 pl 2-propanol and 30 pl deionized water were added after 15.5 h, 15 pl 2-propanol after 24 h, 20 pl 2-propanol and 30 pl deionized water after 39.5 h, and 8 pl 2-propanol after 43.5 h to compensate for losses due to evaporation (2-propanol and water) and reaction (2-propanol to acetone).

[0104] For analysis, 50 µl of a solution containing 200 µl of acetonitrile was added and incubated in an Eppendorf Thermomixer at 85 °C and 1200 rpm for 15 min. The sample was briefly centrifuged, mixed with 750 µl of deionized water, vortexed, and then centrifuged for 5 min at max. g. 200 µl of the supernatant were transferred to an HPLC vial and analyzed by HPLC (Rl detection).

[0105] In this way, the D-fructose (150 g / l) could be completely converted to D-mannitol in both approaches.

[0106] Example 2

[0107] Reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol - cofactor regeneration with various secondary alcohols

[0108] The following components (see Table 2 below for details) were mixed in eight 2 ml glass vials: 25 pl of a 500 mM TEA-HCl buffer (pH 8), 125 pl of a 600 g / l D-fructose solution (final concentration 150 g / l), 15 pl of a 10 mM NAD + -solution or 10 pl of a 5 mM NADP + -solution (final concentration 0.3 mM NAD) + or 0.05 mM NADP + ), 30 U MDH lysate, 26 U ADH lysate and 50 pl of a secondary alcohol (see Table 2). The mixtures were made up to 500 pl with deionized water.

[0109] The samples were incubated at 30 °C for a total of 24 hours with continuous shaking.

[0110] For analysis, 50 pl of a solution containing 200 pl of acetonitrile was added and incubated in an Eppendorf Thermomixer at 85 °C and 1200 rpm for 15 min. The sample was briefly centrifuged, mixed with 750 pl of deionized water, vortexed, and then centrifuged for 5 min at max. g. 200 pl of the supernatant were transferred to an HPLC vial and analyzed by HPLC (Rl detection).

[0111] The results are shown in Table 2 below.

[0112] Table 2.

[0113] Table 2 shows that the oxidized cofactor NAD(P) + not only with 2-propanol, but also with other secondary alcohols such as 2-butanol, 2-pentanol or 4-methyl-2-pentanol, it can be reduced to NAD(P)H, which is then available again for the reduction of D-fructose.

[0114] literature

[0115] Saha, B. C., & Racine, F. M. (2011). Biotechnological production of mannitol and its applications. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 89, 879-891. https: / / doi.org / 10.1007 / s00253-010-2979-3

[0116] Bhatt, S. M., Mohan, A., & Srivastava S. K. (2013). Challenges in enzymatic route of mannitol production. ISRN Biotechnology, 2013, 914187. https: / / doi.org / 10.5402 / 2013 / 914187

[0117] Chen, M., Zhang, W., Wu, H., Guang, C., & Mu, W. (2020). Mannitol: physiological functionalities, determination methods, biotechnological production, and applications. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 104, 6941-6951. https: / / doi.org / 10.1007 / s00253-020-10757-y

[0118] Martinez-Miranda, J. G., Chairez, I., & Durän-Päramo, E. (2022). Mannitol Production by Heterofermentative Lactic Acid Bacteria: a Review. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 194, 2762-2795. https: / / doi.org / 10.1007 / sl2010-022-03836-5

[0119] Zhang, M., Gu, L., Cheng, C., Zhu, J., Wu, H., Ma, J., Dong, W., Kong, X., Jiang, M., & Ouyang, P. (2017). High-yield production of mannitol by Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides CTCC G123 from chicory- derived inulin hydrolysate. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 44(8), 1237-1244. https: / / doi.org / 10.1007 / sl0295-017-1953-9

[0120] Kavanagh, K. L., Klimacek, M., Nidetzky, B., & Wilson, D. K. (2002). Crystal structure of Pseudomonas fluorescens mannitol 2-dehydrogenase binary and ternary complexes. Specificity and catalytic mechanism. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 277(45), 43433-43442. https: / / doi.org / 10.1074 / jbc.M206914200

[0121] Krahulec, S., Armao, G. C., Klimacek, M., & Nidetzky, B. (2011). Enzymes of mannitol metabolism in the human pathogenic fungus Aspergillus fumigatus - kinetic properties of mannitol-l-phosphate 5- dehydrogenase and mannitol 2-dehydrogenase, and their physiological implications. FEBS Journal, 278(8), 1264-1276. https: / / doi.Org / 10.llll / j.1742-4658.2011.08047.x

[0122] Kulbe, K. D., Schwab, U., & Gudernatsch, W. (1987). Enzyme-Catalyzed Production of Mannitol and Gluconic Acid - Product Recovery by Various Procedures. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 506(1), 552-568. https: / / doi.Org / 10.llll / j.1749-6632.1987.tb23850.x

[0123] Slatner, M., Nagi, G., Haltrich, D., Kulbe, K. D., & Nidetzky, B. (1998). Enzymatic Production of Pure D-Mannitol at High Productivity. Biocatalysis and Biotransformation, 16(5), 351-363. https: / / doi.org / 10.3109 / 10242429809003628 Xu, W., Lu, F., Wu, H., Zhang, W., & Guang, C. (2020). Identification of a highly thermostable mannitol 2-dehydrogenase from Caldicellulosiruptor morganii Rt8.B8 and its application for the preparation of D-mannitol. Process Biochemistry, 96, 194-201. https: / / doi.Org / 10.1016 / j.procbio.2020.05.014

[0124] Neuhauser, W., Steininger, M., Haltrich, D., Kulbe, K. D., & Nidetzky, B. (1998). A pH-Controlled Fed- Batch Process Can Overcome Inhibition by Formate in NADH-Dependent Enzymatic Reductions Using Formate Dehydrogenase-Catalyzed Coenzyme Regeneration. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 60(3), 277-282. https: / / doi.org / 10.1002 / (SICI)1097-0290(19981105)60:3<277::AID-BIT2>3.0.CO;2-E

[0125] Scratcher, R., Woodley, J.M., & Nidetzky, B. (2015). Rules for biocatalyst and reaction engineering to implement effective, NAD(P)H-dependent, whole cell bioreductions. Biotechnology Advances, 33(8), 1641-1652. https: / / doi.Org / 10.1016 / j.biotechadv.2015.08.006

[0126] Boldt, A., & Ansorge-Schumacher, MB (2020). Formate Dehydrogenase from Rhodococcus jostii (RjFDH) - A High-Performance Tool for NADH Regeneration. Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis, 362(19), 4109-4118. https: / / doi.org / 10.1002 / adsc.202000536

[0127] Tishkov, VI, & Popov, VO (2004). Catalytic Mechanism and Application of Formate Dehydrogenase. Biochemistry (Moscow), 69(11), 1252-1267. https: / / doi.org / 10.1007 / sl0541-005-0071-x

[0128] Kulbe, KD, Schwab, U., Howaldt, M., & Kimmerle, K. (1986). Application of membrane processes for the simultaneous production of mannitol and gluconic acid from sucrose by conjugated NAD +-ABHÄNGIGE DEHYDROGENASEN. Technische Membranen in der Biotechnologie, 189-200. http: / / hdl.handle.net / 10033 / 623390

[0129] Lee, J.-K., Koo, B.-S., Kim, S.-Y., & Hyun, H.-H. (2003). Purification and characterization of a novel mannitol dehydrogenase from a newly isolated strain of Candida magnoliae. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 69(8), 4438-4447. https: / / doi.Org / 10.1128 / AEM.69.8.4438-4447.2003

[0130] Ceccaroli, P., Saltarelli, R., Guescini, M., Polidori, E., Buffalini, M., Menotta, M., Pierleoni, R., Barbieri, E., & Stocchi, V. (2007). Identification and characterization of the Tuber borchii D-mannitol dehydrogenase which defines a new subfamily within the polyol-specific medium chain dehydrogenases. Fungal Genetics and Biology, 44(10), 965-978. https: / / doi.Org / 10.1016 / j.fgb.2007.01.002

[0131] Soetaert, W., Vanhooren, P. T., Vandamme, E. J. (1999). The Production of Mannitol by Fermentation. In: Bucke, C. (eds) Carbohydrate Biotechnology Protocols. Methods in Biotechnology™, vol 10. Humana Press, https: / / doi.org / 10.1007 / 978-l-59259-261-6_21 Cosse, K., Sharma, V., Allgeier, A., & McFarlane, J. (2021). Pseudomonas fluorescens Mannitol-2- Dehydrogenase as an NAD + Recycling Enzyme in the Conversion of Ethanol to Acetaldehyde. The FASEB Journal, 35(S1). https: / / doi.org / 10.1096 / fasebj.2021.35.Sl.01896

[0132] Cosse, K. J., Sharma, V. K., Allgeier, A. M., & McFarlane, J. S. (2022). Enzymatic production of acetaldehyde using a Pseudomonas fluorescens mannitol-2-dehydrogenase mutant to regenerate NAD+. The FASEB Journal, 36(S2). https: / / doi.org / 10.1096 / fasebj.2022.36.Sl.R2882

[0133] Lee, J.-K., Song, J.-Y., & Kim, S.-Y. (2008). Controlling Substrate Concentration in Fed-Batch Candida magnoliae Culture Increases Mannitol Production. Biotechnology Progress, 19(3), 768-775. https: / / doi.org / 10.1021 / bp034025o

[0134] Xu, J., Zhou, H., Yu, H., Deng, T., Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Wu, J., & Yang, L. (2021). Computational design of highly stable and soluble alcohol dehydrogenase for NADPH regeneration. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 8, 12. https: / / doi.org / 10.1186 / s40643-021-00362-w

[0135] Lin, B., & Tao, Y. (2017). Whole-cell biocatalysts by design. Microbial Cell Factories, 16, 106. https: / / doi.org / 10.1186 / sl2934-017-0724-7

[0136] Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990). Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology, 215(3), 403-410. https: / / doi.org / 10.1016 / S0022-2836(05)80360-2

[0137] Henikoff, S., & Henikoff, J. G. (1992). Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89(22), 10915-10919. https: / / doi.org / 10.1073 / pnas.89.22.10915

[0138] Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. R., & Maniatis, T. (1989). Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (2nd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

[0139] Protein [Internet], Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US), National Center for Biotechnology Information. Accession No. WP_041111406.1, mannitol dehydrogenase family protein [Gluconobacter oxydans], Verfügbar unter: https: / / www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gOv / protein / WP_041111406.l

[0140] Protein [Internet], Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US), National Center for Biotechnology Information. Accession No. XP_015465740.1, Sorbose reductase S0U1 [Debaryomyces fabryi] . Verfügbar unter: https: / / www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gOv / protein / XP_015465740.l

[0141] Sakoda, H., & Imanaka, T. (1992). Cloning and sequencing of the gene coding for alcohol dehydrogenase of Bacillus stearothermophilus and rational shift of the optimum pH. Journal of Bacteriology, 174(A), 1397-1402. https: / / doi.Org / 10.1128 / jb.174.4.1397-1402.1992 Protein [Internet], Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US), National Center for Biotechnology Information. Accession No. ABY93890.1, Alcohol dehydrogenase, zinc-binding domain protein [Thermoanaerobacter pseudethanolicus ATCC 33223], Verfügbar unter: https: / / www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gOv / protein / ABY93890.l

[0142] Sugisawa, T., Hoshino, T., & Fujiwara, A. (1991). Purification and Properties of NADPH-Linked L-Sorbose Reductase from Gluconobacter melanogenus N44-1. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 55(8), 2043-2049. https: / / doi.org / 10.1080 / 00021369.1991.10870899

Claims

Patent claims 1. Process for the preparation of an aqueous solution containing D-mannitol by enzymatically reacting D-fructose, which is dissolved in an aqueous solution, in vitro with cofactor NAD(P)H to form D-mannitol with the formation of oxidized cofactor NAD(P) + is reduced, characterized in that the oxidized cofactor NAD(P) produced by the reduction + is reduced to NAD(P)H by an alcohol dehydrogenase and a secondary alcohol, forming a ketone.

2. Method according to claim 1, characterized in that an NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductase is used for the reduction of D-fructose.

3. Method according to one of claims 1 or 2, characterized in that the secondary alcohol is 2-propanol.

4. Method according to claim 2, characterized in that the NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductase is present as a lysate of the corresponding cells producing it.

5. Method according to one of claims 1 to 4, characterized in that the NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductase for the reduction of D-fructose to D-mannitol is a mannitol dehydrogenase.

6. The method of claim 5, characterized in that the mannitol dehydrogenase preferably comprises an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of: i) an amino acid sequence having an identity to SEQ ID No. 2 or 4 of at least 80%, ii) an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleic acid having an identity to SEQ ID No. 1 or 3 of at least 80%, and iii) an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleic acid which binds under stringent conditions to a complementary strand of a nucleic acid molecule with the nucleic acid sequence SEQ ID No. 1 or 3.

Images