Biosynthesis of testosterone (DHEA + yeast)

hjalmar

New Member
Hello folks. A lot has been speculated about the procedure in US patent 2,236,574 (biochemical manufacture of ketosteroids), I've seen the procedure posted here and on other forums:
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/process-of-making-testosterone.134361616/#post-1190550

and as usual I have seen a lot of speculation but little understanding of the process. Some think this will be child's play, but I don't think these persons have experience with attempting to filter or extract anything from a yeast suspension. Usually a centrifuge is used for these kind of processes. I will give it a try as soon as I can get to the welder's supply and buy a tank of oxygen. But before we do anything we must have a clear understanding of what is going on, that s why I researched the literature first. Especially since it is a patent, and patents are notorious for deliberately "forgetting" important details or adding "mistakes", so competitors won't be able to replicate their findings. A procedure from an academic journal is trustworthy and tries to be as exact as possible, as it is peer-reviewed, while patents are filed with the motive of owning not only a certain process but as many similar ones as possible, so the descriptions are often as vague as possible.

What makes this biosynthesis unusual is that two steps are performed by the same organism. Normally this organism, plain baker's or beer brewing yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisae) is under standard contitions only capable of performing reductive reactions, this is well known as yeast in used both industrially as in the lab as a selective reducing agent. Such a process is called a biochemical hydrogenation. In this particular case we are using "impoverished" yeast.

There's an excellent early review (Wieland 1932) on the preparation and properties of "impoverished" yeast ("verarmter" Hefe). I've included it here, but it is in German. I will translate here what is important for our goal. Impoverished yeast can be used as a biochemical dehydrogenation agent, thus promoting an oxidative process. The gem of this patent is, that it used both these qualities of yeast in situ, meaning that the intermediates do not have to be isolated. In this case of the impoverished yeast, after it has done its dehydrogenation of DHEA (forming 4-androstene-3,17-dione), the yeast is "fed" (adding the sugars) and does its usual selective hydrogenation, in our case only the ketone at the 17-position is reduced, forming testosterone. All this in the same vessel, the process is similar to brewing beer.

The procedure posted here has been adapted by an overly enthousiast arm-chair chemist, so let me post the real one from the patent:

8 grams of yeast (Milan flocculent ferment) are suspended in 30 cc of water, treated with 10 cc of N/5 Na2HPO4 solution and 10cc of N/5 KH2PO4 soluton and shaken for 20 hours in an oxygen atmosphere at 32°C. Then 200 mg of dehydroandrosterone [DHEA], suspended in 30 cc of water are introduced and the mixture was shaken for a further 48 hours in an oxygen atmosphere.

Thereupon a solution of 25 grams of invert sugar in 150 cc of water is introduced and the reaction mixture is allowed to stand in a fermentation vessel for 3 days at room temperature.

The reaction mixture is then extracted with ether and the ethereal solution washed with water, caustic soda lye, N/1 hydrochloric acid and water. After drying over sodium sulphate the ethereal solution is evaporated. The remaining residue is recrystallised from acetone and petrol ether. There are obtained 120 mg of a substance of M.P. 151°C, which is shown to be identical with testosterone.



Let us first look at the type of yeast used in the patent, there they call for "Milan flocculated yeast". According to wikipedia yeast flocculation typically refers to the clumping together (flocculation) of brewing yeast once the sugar in a wort has been fermented into beer. In the case of "top-fermenting" ale yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), the yeast creates a "head" on the top of the liquid, unlike with "bottom-fermenting" lager yeast (Saccharomyces pastorianus) where the yeast falls to the bottom of the brewing vessel. [...] For flocculation to occur the yeast must be flocculent and certain environmental conditions (such as agitation, absence of sugars, a microamount of Ca2+, ethanol, etc.; Jin and Speers 1999) must be present.

https://byo.com/mead/item/62-7-fascinating-facts-about-yeast
This site contains most information we need about the type of yeast to use. It appears that the cheapest option, regular baker's yeast, will probably not do for the first step of the process (the dehydrogenation). Most species of yeast are not flocculent. It is thought the reason brewer’s yeast is flocculent is the natural selection process that has taken place in brewing, dating back hundreds of years. The German review (Wieland 1932) also mentions that they used for all their research a flocculent type of bottom-fermenting, lager yeast (Saccharomyces carlsbergiensis) donated to them by the Münchener Löwenbrauerei, and that the uniformity of that material allowed them to use it instead of the more preferable flocculent types of top-fermenting yeast. They also mention that the yeast can be collected and re-used after the experiment, but that this should only be repeated "a couple of times". I was thinking that, in the case separation of the yeast proved too problematic, perhaps a bottom-fermenting type would be preferable with an eye on the subsequent extraction with ether (or toluene etc... any suitable organic solvent that floats on water). Or if it is heavily flocculent and top-fermenting, the yeast could be harvested "by hand" before extraction? Just thinking out loud, experiment will show.

Also, not every type of beer yeast is flocculent! From above-mentioned website: For example London is known to be home of a very flocculent yeast. This yeast will form very large clumps even before fermentation is finished. This intensive flocculation sometimes necessitates that a brewer rouse the yeast to get it back into solution to finish the fermentation. On the other hand this simplifies filtration and yeast recovery. Other ale strains such as American/California strains are powdery and do not flocculate out until the beer is chilled. These strains tend to be more attenuative since they are in suspension for a longer period of time. On the other side of the scale, German ale yeast strains from Bavaria that are used to produce hefe-weizens are usually non-flocculent, and this is a desired characteristic of this beer. One aspect worth noting is that hefe-weizen flavors closely resemble wild yeast flavors, and these yeast flocculate like wild yeast. So it is clear that the choice of yeast is an important step.

Next is the addition of a buffered (phosphates) aqueous solution. The person who adapted the process said " if possible", but they really should not be omitted, they are vital to this particular process! Both salts are cheap and easily available, and so widely used as buffer agents they will certainly not raise any eyebrow. It is best to prepare stock-solutions of both beforehand, N/5 = 0.2M.

Two very important details are omitted in the patent, when it comes to the first step. First of all the water, without phosphate buffers added, should first be saturated with toluene. This is as simple as shaking the aqueous solution with toluene in a separatory funnel. The patent mentions on the first page: As particularly advantageous has proved the application of the so-called "impoverished” yeast as is obtainable for example according to Wieland, “Annalen 'der Chemie,” vol. 492, page 183 et seq. by shaking yeast suspensions in toluene-water with oxygen. But nowhere in the preparation this is mentioned. Toluene-saturated water is used as an antiseptic, as under conditions to generate "impoverished" yeast, bacterial infection often occurs without it. Also, toluene-saturated water does not affect yeast performance and oxygen uptake, in contrast to other antiseptic agents such as chloroform or thymol.

This is the procedure to produce "impoverished" yeast according to Wieland, translated from German:

We were able to fully confirm the observation already made by Firth and Lieben that the aerobic respiration in the yeast cell can be greatly accelerated by mechanical agitation. We have shaken suspensions of 2 grams of fresh, thoroughly washed yeast in 35 cc of buffered, semi-saturated toluene-water in a big, flat 150 cc volume Barcroft-Warburg apparatus for 15 hours at 30°C (thermostat) in an oxygen atmosphere. The inner flask [of the Barcroft-Warburg apparatus] contained a 50% KOH solution to prevent any dilution of the atmosphere with CO2.

We can forget about the Barcroft-Warburg apparatus (unless you have exceptional skills as a glass blower) but we see here the other "detail" omitted in the patent: the carbon dioxide gas generated by the living yeast has to be absorbed from the atmosphere. The Germans used a saturated KOH solution, but a strong NaOH solution (sold as drain cleaner) will do just as fine. The idea is that this base solution can never contact the shaking/stirring yeast suspension but is placed above it, or the oxygen atmosphere is bubbled through it. The bubbling isn't necessary, a solution placed above it in a closed vessel will readily absorb any CO2 generated (which chemically reacts and forms carbonate/bicarbonate).

Basically we need a flask-type reactor, placed on a magnetic sirrer, with a balloon on top to provide a slight overpressure of oxygen gas. Attached inside the top of the flask is a small vessel containing some concentrated NaOH-solution. The whole is best placed in a water-bath heated and regulated at 32°C with the type of submergable heating element/thermostat using for tropical fish aquaria.

The second part of the reaction is much easier, a regular bucket-type fermentor with a water-trap for homebrewing beer is used. The suspension is added to this together with the solution of invert sugar. As invert sugar is just a 50/50 (by weight) mixture of glucose and fructose, that can be used too. But better not start messing with brown sugar and honey like advised by our adaptor, these are impure substances that contain things like wax and molasses that can end up in your final extract. Not to mention the horrible emulsions things like honey can cause. Extracting a yeast emulsion will be enough a headbreaker without a centrifuge. Better choose as flocculent a yeast as possible.

I think that is about it when it comes to the outlines. I have almost everything and will be able to follow up this post with some practical experiments. It was a long-winded post, but I assure you everything in it is essential as preparation for the actual work to come.
 

Attachments

Very interested what your results are when you give this a go...
 
Very interested what your results are when you give this a go...

If you or anyone would reproduce my results then we have a valid method. I'll go to the store to buy a can of oxygen tomorrow, and order some suitable beer yeast. I'll be able to post first results soon.
 
f you would reproduce my results then we have a valid method

I wish I could say that I was that talented or that my wife would let me get away with this type of chemistry in the house:)
 
I wish I could say that I was that talented or that my wife would let me get away with this type of chemistry in the house:)

It's not real chemistry, it is very close to brewing beer. ;)

Anyway I'll be sure to post results with pics, the chemisry part is no problem for me, but I have to learn from you guys about the pharmaceutical aspects... dosage levels, preparation, proper handling etc..; I have been reading around here a bit but there is still much to learn.
 
I have a centrifuge, distilling kit, 24/40 full glass line, etc... I can give this a go and see if I can reproduce your results. Amateur org chemist, not pro by any means FYI. My career is in biology but I can get by in chem.
 
I have a centrifuge, distilling kit, 24/40 full glass line, etc... I can give this a go and see if I can reproduce your results. Amateur org chemist, not pro by any means FYI. My career is in biology but I can get by in chem.

Mate that would be really great. You are perfectly equipped and skilled for the task.

Can I ask you about your centrifuge? What is the volume it can hold? Is it electrical, or a small mechanical bench-screw model with a handle? Sure the last one is "from before the Great War", but with time and patience it also does the job.

I have been looking second-hand centrifuges for sale at lab auction sites but generally they are really expensive. I have been toying with the idea of converting the motor of a large powerful fan into a McGyver-style centrifuge... after all, we don't have to handle corrosives or even glass containers with the biofermentation route.

Do you also have a good magnetic stirrer? Vac. pump and Buchner filtration setup? The last is optional but preferred, BTW I use a refrigerator compressor (salvaged from discarded refrigerator) as vacuum source now, they are pretty decent (30mmHg vac. at least), I have even used them for 24h+ vacuum distillations in the past, they heat up a bit after hours of running but a fan on it easily takes care of that. Much better than a hand vacuum pump like people use for sterile microfiltration, I paid 50€ for a Chinese bric-a-brac handpump model and it broke after using it twice.

I have tried the two-step procedure with 1) NaBH4 reduction to 5-AD and 2) gamma-MnO2 in acetone to T several times with consistent results. I now will swap acetone for petroleum ether, 5-AD is partly soluble in it and it is a better solvent for this type of oxidation. Another idea for later would be to prepare barium manganate, it has the same action as active MnO2 but in solution and reduced volume should allow for somewhat larger scale batches and less messy workup. All necessary chemicals except NaBH4 can be obtained from a ceramics hobby supply house.

The biofermentation route I will begin asap. Would you be interested in repeating both routes, or only the biosynthesis?

I will also take pics of both routes, just have to remember to erase EXIF data as it apparently contains gps coordinates of where the pic was taken.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
My centrifuge is industrial, semi industrial. 6x 1000ml, not sure of the max rpm, my last use was at 3200 rpm, can check when I get home, not a cheap model by any means, probably could sell for 8 to 12k at its current age. Vwr scientific hot plate stirrers, vac pump is only so so, maybe a 300$ model priced new. Certainly enough for filtering.

I need to re up on some ancillary chems, but we just had pay day, so give me a week or so.

I don't get to play much anymore with this gear, so I'd like to try to repeat both. I can provide pics as well, I have a dslr no gps that was cash paid so I could care less if the serial gets out there or not. But I still try to remove exif to be proactive.
 
Back
Top