| Literature DB >> 23109862 |
Peiqin Li1,2, Liang Xu1, Yan Mou1, Tijiang Shan1, Ziling Mao1, Shiqiong Lu1, Youliang Peng1, Ligang Zhou1.
Abstract
Berkleasmium sp. Dzf12, an endophytic fungus from Dioscorea zingiberensis, is a high producer of spirobisnaphthalenes with various bioactivities. The exopolysaccharide (EPS) produced by this fungus also shows excellent antioxidant activity. In this study, the experimental designs based on statistics were employed to evaluate and optimize the medium for EPS production in liquid culture of Berkleasmium sp. Dzf12. For increasing EPS yield, the concentrations of glucose, peptone, KH(2)PO(4), MgSO(4)·7H(2)O and FeSO(4)·7H(2)O in medium were optimized using response surface methodology (RSM). Both the fractional factorial design (FFD) and central composite design (CCD) were applied to optimize the main factors which significantly affected EPS production. The concentrations of glucose, peptone and MgSO(4)·7H(2)O were found to be the main effective factors for EPS production by FFD experimental analysis. Based on the further CCD optimization and RSM analysis, a quadratic polynomial regression equation was derived from the EPS yield and three variables. Statistical analysis showed the polynomial regression model was in good agreement with the experimental results with the determination coefficient (adj-R(2)) as 0.9434. By solving the quadratic regression equation, the optimal concentrations of glucose, peptone and MgSO(4)·7H(2)O for EPS production were determined as 63.80, 20.76 and 2.74 g/L, respectively. Under the optimum conditions, the predicted EPS yield reached the maximum (13.22 g/L). Verification experiment confirmed the validity with the actual EPS yield as 13.97 g/L, which was 6.29-fold in comparison with that (2.22 g/L) in the original basal medium. The results provide the support data for EPS production in large scale and also speed up the application of Berkleasmium sp. Dzf12.Entities:
Keywords: center composite design; endophytic fungus Berkleasmium sp. Dzf12; exopolysaccharide; fractional factorial design; medium optimization; response surface methodology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23109862 PMCID: PMC3472754 DOI: 10.3390/ijms130911411
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
The matrix of fractional factorial design (FFD) and the experimental results.
| Run | Glucose (g/L) | Peptone (g/L) | KH2PO4 (g/L) | MgSO4·7H2O (g/L) | FeSO4·7H2O (g/L) | EPS Yield (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30 | 10 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 1.20 |
| 2 | 60 | 10 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.01 | 1.42 |
| 3 | 30 | 20 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.01 | 2.80 |
| 4 | 60 | 20 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 3.67 |
| 5 | 30 | 10 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.01 | 1.12 |
| 6 | 60 | 10 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 2.36 |
| 7 | 30 | 20 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 3.85 |
| 8 | 60 | 20 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.01 | 6.62 |
| 9 | 30 | 10 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 0.05 | 2.82 |
| 10 | 60 | 10 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 0.01 | 5.37 |
| 11 | 30 | 20 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 0.01 | 5.08 |
| 12 | 60 | 20 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 0.05 | 13.63 |
| 13 | 30 | 10 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.01 | 2.97 |
| 14 | 60 | 10 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.05 | 6.84 |
| 15 | 30 | 20 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.05 | 5.57 |
| 16 | 60 | 20 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.01 | 10.89 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the fractional factorial design (FFD) experiments.
| Source | Sum of squares | d.f. | Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | 40.29 | 1 | 12.67 | 0.0052 | |
| Peptone | 49.04 | 1 | 15.42 | 0.0028 | |
| KH2PO4 | 1.12 | 1 | 0.35 | 0.5664 | |
| MgSO4·7H2O | 56.74 | 1 | 17.84 | 0.0018 | |
| FeSO4·7H2O | 1.84 | 1 | 0.58 | 0.4641 |
significance of the variable: p = 0.01.
Figure 1Effects of the concentrations (g/L) of glucose (A); peptone (B); and MgSO4·7H2O (C) in medium on exopolysaccharide (EPS) production in fermentation culture of Berkleasmium sp. Dzf12. The error bars represent standard deviations from three independent samples. Different letters indicate significant differences among the treatments at p = 0.05 level.
Coded values (x) and uncoded values (X) of variables in the central composite design (CCD) experiments.
| Variable (g/L) | Symbol | Coded level | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Uncoded | Coded | −1.682 | −1 | 0 | 1 | +1.682 | |
| Glucose | 43.18 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 76.82 | ||
| Peptone | 21.59 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 38.41 | ||
| MgSO4·7H2O | 1.66 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.34 | ||
CCD experimental matrix and the results.
| EPS Yield (g/L) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Run | Experimental | Predicted | ||||
| 1 | 0 | −1.682 | 0 | 6.07 | 6.23 | −0.17 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 1.682 | 9.30 | 9.59 | −0.29 |
| 3 | 0 | 1.682 | 0 | 10.22 | 9.99 | 0.23 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 2.71 | 2.45 | 0.26 |
| 5 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 7.89 | 7.52 | 0.36 |
| 6 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 7.32 | 7.81 | −0.49 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10.01 | 10.31 | −0.30 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.43 | 12.52 | 0.91 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.95 | 12.52 | −0.57 |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 4.47 | 4.88 | −0.41 |
| 11 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 6.01 | 6.00 | 0.01 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 4.87 | 4.52 | 0.35 |
| 13 | 1.682 | 0 | 0 | 8.51 | 8.39 | 0.13 |
| 14 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 4.12 | 4.18 | −0.06 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.09 | 12.52 | −0.43 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.73 | 12.52 | 0.21 |
| 17 | −1.682 | 0 | 0 | 3.94 | 4.00 | −0.06 |
| 18 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 11.64 | 11.20 | 0.44 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.02 | 12.52 | 0.50 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.89 | 12.52 | −0.43 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the fitted quadratic polynomial model.
| Source | Sum of squares | d.f. | Mean square | Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 228.02 | 9 | 25.34 | 78.46 | <0.0001 |
| Lack of fit | 1.20 | 5 | 0.24 | 0.59 | 0.71 |
| Pure error | 2.03 | 5 | 0.41 | ||
| Corrected total | 231.25 | 19 |
R2 = 0.9735; adj-R2 = 0.9434; R = 0.9867; adj-R = 0.9712; CV (%) = 6.60.
Regression coefficient and their significance test of the quadratic polynomial model.
| Model term | Coefficient estimate | Standard error | Sum of squares | d.f. | Mean square | Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 12.52 | 0.23 | |||||
| 1.30 | 0.15 | 23.18 | 1 | 23.18 | 71.79 | <0.0001 | |
| 1.12 | 0.15 | 17.06 | 1 | 17.06 | 52.83 | <0.0001 | |
| 1.51 | 0.15 | 31.12 | 1 | 31.12 | 96.36 | <0.0001 | |
| −1.06 | 0.20 | 8.96 | 1 | 8.96 | 27.75 | <0.0001 | |
| 1.15 | 0.20 | 10.58 | 1 | 10.58 | 32.76 | 0.0004 | |
| −0.50 | 0.20 | 2.01 | 1 | 2.01 | 6.24 | 0.0002 | |
| −2.24 | 0.15 | 72.04 | 1 | 72.04 | 223.09 | 0.0316 | |
| −1.56 | 0.15 | 34.99 | 1 | 34.99 | 108.36 | <0.0001 | |
| −1.93 | 0.15 | 53.80 | 1 | 53.80 | 166.61 | <0.0001 |
Figure 2The 3D-response surface and 2D-contour plots of EPS yield (g/L) versus the tested variables (g/L): glucose and peptone (A,B); glucose and MgSO4·7H2O (C,D); peptone and MgSO4·7H2O (E,F).
The coded and actual values in the 25-1 FFD experiments.
| Variable (g/L) | Level | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| −1 | +1 | |
| Glucose | 30 | 60 |
| Peptone | 10 | 20 |
| KH2PO4 | 0.5 | 2.0 |
| MgSO4·7H2O | 0.5 | 2.0 |
| FeSO4·7H2O | 0.01 | 0.05 |