| Literature DB >> 22701637 |
Xiang-Ling Fang1, Li-Rong Han, Xue-Qiang Cao, Ming-Xuan Zhu, Xing Zhang, Yong-Hong Wang.
Abstract
The production of secondary metabolites with antibiotic properties is a common characteristic to entomopathogenic bacteria Xenorhabdus spp. These metabolites not only have diverse chemical structures but also have a wide range of bioactivities of medicinal and agricultural interests. Culture variables are critical to the production of secondary metabolites of microorganisms. Manipulating culture process variables can promote secondary metabolite biosynthesis and thus facilitate the discovery of novel natural products. This work was conducted to evaluate the effects of five process variables (initial pH, medium volume, rotary speed, temperature, and inoculation volume) on the antibiotic production of Xenorhabdus bovienii YL002 using response surface methodology. A 2(5-1) factorial central composite design was chosen to determine the combined effects of the five variables, and to design a minimum number of experiments. The experimental and predicted antibiotic activity of X. bovienii YL002 was in close agreement. Statistical analysis of the results showed that initial pH, medium volume, rotary speed and temperature had a significant effect (P<0.05) on the antibiotic production of X. bovienii YL002 at their individual level; medium volume and rotary speed showed a significant effect at a combined level and was most significant at an individual level. The maximum antibiotic activity (287.5 U/mL) was achieved at the initial pH of 8.24, medium volume of 54 mL in 250 mL flask, rotary speed of 208 rpm, temperature of 32.0°C and inoculation volume of 13.8%. After optimization, the antibiotic activity was improved by 23.02% as compared with that of unoptimized conditions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22701637 PMCID: PMC3368850 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Experimental ranges and levels of the independent variables.
| Variable | Parameter | Range and level | ||||
| −2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
|
| pH | 4.0 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 8.5 | 10.0 |
|
| Medium volume (mL) | 25 | 50 | 75 | 100 | 125 |
|
| Rotary speed (rpm) | 80 | 115 | 150 | 185 | 220 |
|
| Temperature (°C) | 20.00 | 24.25 | 28.50 | 32.75 | 37.0 |
|
| Inoculation volume (%) | 1.0 | 4.5 | 8.0 | 11.5 | 15.0 |
x = coded value of the variable X
x 1 = (pH–7)/1.5; x 2 = (Medium volume–75)/25; x 3 = (Rotary speed–150)/35;
x 4 = (Temperature–28.5)/4.25; x 5 = (Inoculation volume–8)/3.5.
Parameter estimates for factorial design experiments.
| Effect | ParameterEstimate | Standarddeviation (±) | Computed |
|
| Intercept | 214.2431 | 3.525866 | 60.7632 | 0.000000 |
|
| 6.9583 | 2.308221 | 3.0146 | 0.008710 |
|
| −22.7396 | 1.998978 | −11.3756 | 0.000000 |
|
| −12.1250 | 2.308221 | −5.2530 | 0.000097 |
|
| −0.6146 | 1.998978 | −0.3074 | 0.762729 |
|
| 22.2083 | 2.308221 | 9.6214 | 0.000000 |
|
| 4.5104 | 1.998978 | 2.2564 | 0.039403 |
|
| −5.7083 | 2.308221 | −2.4730 | 0.025843 |
|
| −18.8646 | 1.998978 | −9.4371 | 0.000000 |
|
| 4.2083 | 2.308221 | 1.8232 | 0.088264 |
|
| 2.5104 | 1.998978 | 1.2559 | 0.228380 |
|
| −6.8125 | 2.826982 | −2.4098 | 0.029258 |
|
| 0.5625 | 2.826982 | 0.1990 | 0.844954 |
|
| −8.6875 | 2.826982 | −3.0731 | 0.007731 |
|
| 8.0625 | 2.826982 | 2.8520 | 0.012118 |
|
| −1.6875 | 2.826982 | −0.5969 | 0.559459 |
|
| 0.4375 | 2.826982 | 0.1548 | 0.879075 |
|
| 3.0625 | 2.826982 | 1.0833 | 0.295777 |
|
| 4.0625 | 2.826982 | 1.4370 | 0.171236 |
|
| −4.5625 | 2.826982 | −1.6139 | 0.127381 |
|
| 2.4375 | 2.826982 | 0.8622 | 0.402137 |
Analysis of variance for parameter estimates for factorial design experiments.
| Effect | SS | DF | MS |
|
| Partial eta-squared | Non-centrality | Observed power (alpha = 0.05) |
| Intercept | 472115.2 | 1 | 472115.2 | 3692.172 | 0.000000 | 0.995954 | 3692.172 | 1.000000 |
|
| 1162.0 | 1 | 1162.0 | 9.088 | 0.008710 | 0.377276 | 9.088 | 0.804329 |
|
| 16546.8 | 1 | 16546.8 | 129.404 | 0.000000 | 0.896125 | 129.404 | 1.000000 |
|
| 3528.4 | 1 | 3528.4 | 27.594 | 0.000097 | 0.647835 | 27.594 | 0.998327 |
|
| 12.1 | 1 | 12.1 | 0.095 | 0.762729 | 0.006262 | 0.095 | 0.059573 |
|
| 11837.0 | 1 | 11837.0 | 92.571 | 0.000000 | 0.860558 | 92.571 | 1.000000 |
|
| 651.0 | 1 | 651.0 | 5.091 | 0.039403 | 0.253403 | 5.091 | 0.559968 |
|
| 782.0 | 1 | 782.0 | 6.116 | 0.025843 | 0.289636 | 6.116 | 0.637905 |
|
| 11387.9 | 1 | 11387.9 | 89.059 | 0.000000 | 0.855851 | 89.059 | 1.000000 |
|
| 425.0 | 1 | 425.0 | 3.324 | 0.088264 | 0.181403 | 3.324 | 0.400112 |
|
| 201.7 | 1 | 201.7 | 1.577 | 0.228380 | 0.095141 | 1.577 | 0.217510 |
|
| 742.6 | 1 | 742.6 | 5.807 | 0.029258 | 0.279096 | 5.807 | 0.615596 |
|
| 5.1 | 1 | 5.1 | 0.040 | 0.844954 | 0.002632 | 0.040 | 0.053997 |
|
| 1207.6 | 1 | 1207.6 | 9.444 | 0.007731 | 0.386346 | 9.444 | 0.819011 |
|
| 1040.1 | 1 | 1040.1 | 8.134 | 0.012118 | 0.351598 | 8.134 | 0.759853 |
|
| 45.6 | 1 | 45.6 | 0.356 | 0.559459 | 0.023204 | 0.356 | 0.086576 |
|
| 3.1 | 1 | 3.1 | 0.024 | 0.879075 | 0.001594 | 0.024 | 0.052416 |
|
| 150.1 | 1 | 150.1 | 1.174 | 0.295777 | 0.072561 | 1.174 | 0.173808 |
|
| 264.1 | 1 | 264.1 | 2.065 | 0.171236 | 0.121013 | 2.065 | 0.270040 |
|
| 333.1 | 1 | 333.1 | 2.605 | 0.127381 | 0.147955 | 2.605 | 0.327032 |
|
| 95.1 | 1 | 95.1 | 0.743 | 0.402137 | 0.047222 | 0.743 | 0.127504 |
| Error | 1918.0 | 15 | 127.9 |
Figure 1Pareto chart of t-values for coefficients.
Analysis of variance for the quadratic model.
| Source of variations | DF | SS | MS |
|
|
| Model | 10 | 48885.450 | 4888.545 | 35.39577 | 0.0000 |
| Residual | 25 | 3452.774 | 138.1110 | ||
| Lack of fit | 16 | 2692.374 | 168.2734 | 1.991663 | 0.147895 |
| Pure error | 9 | 760.400 | 84.48889 | ||
| Total | 35 | 52338.224 |
R 2 = Coefficient of determination = 0.934030; R = Coefficient of correlation = 0.966452.
Figure 2Residual diagnostics of contour surface of the quadratic model.
(A) The predicted vs. observed antibiotic activity of Xenorhabdus bovienii YL002. (B) Plot of internally studentized residuals vs. predicted responses.
Figure 3Response surface plot and contour plot.
(A) The combined effect of pH and medium volume on the antibiotic activity of Xenorhabdus bovienii YL002. (B) The combined effect of pH and temperature on the antibiotic activity of X. bovienii YL002. (C) The combined effect of medium volume and rotary speed on the antibiotic activity of X. bovienii YL002.
Figure 4Desirability charts of variables for maximum response.
Experimental validation of the combined effect of variables under unoptimized and optimized conditions on the antibiotic activity Xenorhabdus bovienii YL002.
| Variable | Parameter | Level | Antibiotic activity (U/mL) | |||
| Unoptimized | Optimized | Unoptimized | Optimized (Predicted) | Optimized (Experimental) | ||
|
| pH | 7.0 | 8.24 | 233.7 | 268.1 | 287.5 |
|
| Medium volume (mL) | 50.0 | 54.3 | |||
|
| Rotary speed (rpm) | 150 | 208 | |||
|
| Temperature (°C) | 28.0 | 32.0 | |||
|
| Inoculation volume (%) | 8.0 | 13.8 | |||
Figure 5Differential metabolite profiles.
Xenorhabdus bovienii YL002 was cultured under optimized condition and unoptimized condition, and organic extracts were assessed by high-pressure liquid chromatography (280 nm).