| Literature DB >> 22536017 |
Dhouha Ghribi1, Lobna Abdelkefi-Mesrati, Ines Mnif, Radhouan Kammoun, Imen Ayadi, Imen Saadaoui, Sameh Maktouf, Semia Chaabouni-Ellouze.
Abstract
During the last years, several applications of biosurfactants with medical purposes have been reported. Biosurfactants are considered relevant molecules for applications in combating many diseases. However, their use is currently extremely limited due to their high cost in relation to that of chemical surfactants. Use of inexpensive substrates can drastically decrease its production cost. Here, twelve solid substrates were screened for the production of Bacillus subtilis SPB1 biosurfactant and the maximum yield was found with millet. A Plackett-Burman design was then used to evaluate the effects of five variables (temperature, moisture, initial pH, inoculum age, and inoculum size). Statistical analyses showed that temperature, inoculum age, and moisture content had significantly positive effect on SPB1 biosurfactant production. Their values were further optimized using a central composite design and a response surface methodology. The optimal conditions of temperature, inoculum age, and moisture content obtained under the conditions of study were 37°C, 14 h, and 88%, respectively. The evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of this compound was carried out against 11 bacteria and 8 fungi. The results demonstrated that this biosurfactant exhibited an important antimicrobial activity against microorganisms with multidrug-resistant profiles. Its activity was very effective against Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus xylosus, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella pneumonia, and so forth.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22536017 PMCID: PMC3321739 DOI: 10.1155/2012/373682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol ISSN: 1110-7243
The Plackett-Burman experimental design matrix for screening culture condition factors affecting biosurfactant production by B. subtilis SPB1 strain.
| Run order | Temperature | Moisture | Initial | Inoculum size | Inoculum | Biosurfactant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (°C) | (%) | pH | (CFU/mL) | age (h) | mg/g | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 45 | 100 | 9 | 106 | 24 | 16.3 |
| 2 | 25 | 100 | 9 | 108 | 4 | 13.9 |
| 3 | 25 | 50 | 9 | 108 | 24 | 14.1 |
| 4 | 45 | 50 | 2 | 108 | 24 | 16.3 |
| 5 | 25 | 100 | 2 | 106 | 24 | 12.7 |
| 6 | 45 | 50 | 9 | 106 | 4 | 11.5 |
| 7 | 45 | 100 | 2 | 108 | 4 | 17.5 |
| 8 | 25 | 50 | 2 | 106 | 4 | 9.2 |
Design of experiment and response of the central composite experimental design for the production of biosurfactant using B. subtilis SPB1.
| Run order |
|
|
| Biosurfactant (mg/g)experimental values | Biosurfactant (mg/g) csalculated values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25 | 50 | 04 | 15.22 | 15.44 |
| 2 | 45 | 50 | 04 | 12.47 | 13.15 |
| 3 | 25 | 100 | 04 | 15.40 | 15.18 |
| 4 | 45 | 100 | 04 | 17.40 | 17.14 |
| 5 | 25 | 50 | 24 | 14.90 | 15.59 |
| 6 | 45 | 50 | 24 | 14.20 | 14.88 |
| 7 | 25 | 100 | 24 | 15.85 | 15.88 |
| 8 | 45 | 100 | 24 | 19.10 | 19.42 |
| 9 | 18 | 75 | 14 | 16.20 | 15.93 |
| 10 | 52 | 75 | 14 | 17.40 | 16.99 |
| 11 | 35 | 33 | 14 | 16.58 | 15.72 |
| 12 | 35 | 117 | 14 | 19.50 | 19.32 |
| 13 | 35 | 75 | 01 | 12.50 | 12.26 |
| 14 | 35 | 75 | 31 | 14.50 | 14.30 |
| 15 | 35 | 75 | 14 | 14.30 | 14.35 |
| 16 | 35 | 75 | 14 | 12.80 | 14.35 |
| 17 | 35 | 75 | 14 | 14.91 | 14.35 |
| 18 | 35 | 75 | 14 | 13.20 | 14.35 |
| 19 | 35 | 75 | 14 | 15.80 | 14.35 |
| 20 | 35 | 75 | 14 | 14.49 | 14.35 |
| 21 | 28 | 65 | 11 | 14.42 | 14.45 |
| 22 | 42 | 69 | 11 | 14.74 | 14.12 |
| 23 | 35 | 95 | 11 | 14.48 | 15.73 |
| 24 | 35 | 75 | 23 | 15.95 | 14.59 |
Antibacterial, antifungal, and antiyeast activities of the crude biosurfactant at different concentrations (0.5–2 g/L).
| Microorganisms | Zone of inhibition diameter (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 g/L | 1 g/L | 2 g/L | ||
| Bacteria | ||||
|
| 19 ± 1 | 23 ± 2 | 28 ± 2 | |
|
| 12 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | 19 ± 1 | |
|
| 08 ± 1 | 11 ± 2 | 13 ± 2 | |
|
| 08 ± 1 | 10 ± 1 | 12 ± 1 | |
|
| 14 ± 2 | 18 ± 1 | 20 ± 2 | |
|
| 12 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 | |
|
| 11 ± 1 | 13 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | |
|
| 10 ± 1 | 13 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | |
|
| 11 ± 1 | 13 ± 1 | 16 ± 1 | |
|
| 07 ± 2 | 09 ± 2 | 12 ± 2 | |
|
| 16 ± 12 | 19 ± 2 | 23 ± 2 | |
|
| 09 ± 1 | 14 ± 1 | 19 ± 1 | |
|
| ||||
| Fungi | ||||
|
| — | — | — | |
|
| 11 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | 20 ± 1 | |
|
| — | — | — | |
|
| — | — | — | |
|
| 03 ± 2 | 06 ± 2 | 09 ± 2 | |
|
| 10 ± 12 | 14 ± 2 | 18 ± 2 | |
|
| 04 ± 1 | 07 ± 1 | 09 ± 2 | |
|
| 18 ± 2 | 21 ± 2 | 25 ± 2 | |
— = no inhibition.
Different letters indicates the difference between two means is statistically significant (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Evaluation of biosurfactant production by B. subtilis SPB1 strain during 72 h of fermentation using different cheap substrates.
Estimated effect, regression coefficient, and corresponding t and P values for surfactin production in eight variable Plackett-Burman design experiments.
| Code | Estimate coefficient |
| Standard deviation |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 13.937 | 0.238 | 58.36 | <0.01*** | |
|
| 1.463 | 1.00 | 0.238 | 6.12 | * |
|
| 1.162 | 1.00 | 0.238 | 4.87 | * |
|
| 0.013 | 1.00 | 0.238 | 0.05 | 93.3 |
|
| 1.512 | 1.00 | 0.238 | 6.33 | * |
|
| 0.912 | 1.00 | 0.238 | 3.82 | 6.2 |
***P < 0.01 (very significant).
*(Significant).
Estimate regression coefficients for biosurfactant production using data in coded units.
| Number | Estimate coefficient |
| Standard deviation |
| Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 14.356 | 0.334 | 43.02 | *** | |
|
| 0.313 | 1.00 | 0.250 | 1.26 | *** |
|
| 1.070 | 1.00 | 0.250 | 4.29 | *** |
|
| 0.607 | 1.00 | 0.250 | 2.43 | *** |
|
| 0.746 | 1.01 | 0.243 | 3.07 | *** |
|
| 1.119 | 1.01 | 0.243 | 4.61 | *** |
|
| −0.379 | 1.01 | 0.242 | −1.57 | NS |
|
| 1.064 | 1.00 | 0.334 | 3.18 | *** |
|
| 0.396 | 1.00 | 0.336 | 1.18 | *** |
|
| 0.138 | 1.00 | 0.336 | 0.41 | NS |
(***): Significant at the level 99.9%; (NS): nonsignificant at the level 95%.
ANOVA analysis for response surface quadratic model.
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
|
| Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prob > | ||||||
| Regression | 63.6369 | 9 | 7.0708 | 7.7595 | <0.001 | *** |
| Residual | 12.7574 | 14 | 0.9112 | |||
| Lack of fit | 6.6542 | 9 | 0.7394 | 0.6057 | 0.0758 | NS |
| Pure error | 6.1032 | 5 | 1.2206 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Total | 76.3943 | 23 | ||||
(NS): nonsignificant at the level 95%.
Figure 2Effect of physical factors on the production of biosurfactant: response surface plot (left) and its contour plot (right) of interaction between (a) moisture and temperature, (b) inoculum age and moisture, (c) inoculum age and temperature.
Figure 3Kinetics of surfactin production by Bacillus subtilis: (▲) surfactin production (mg/g) before optimization; (■) surfactin production after optimization.
Figure 4Effect of temperature (a) and pH (b) on the activity (■) and the stability (▲) of the crude biosurfactant produced by Bacillus subtilis SPB1.