| Literature DB >> 23227312 |
Camila Florencio1, Sonia Couri, Cristiane Sanchez Farinas.
Abstract
The viability of converting biomass into biofuels and chemicals still requires further development towards the reduction of the enzyme production costs. Thus, there is a growing demand for the development of efficient procedures for selection of cellulase-producing microorganisms. This work correlates qualitative screening using agar plate assays with quantitative measurements of cellulase production during cultivation under solid-state fermentation (SSF). The initial screening step consisted of observation of the growth of 78 preselected strains of the genus Trichoderma on plates, using microcrystalline cellulose as carbon source. The 49 strains that were able to grow on this substrate were then subjected to a second screening step using the Congo red test. From this test it was possible to select 10 strains that presented the highest enzymatic indices (EI), with values ranging from 1.51 to 1.90. SSF cultivations using sugarcane bagasse and wheat bran as substrates were performed using selected strains. The CG 104NH strain presented the highest EGase activity (25.93 UI·g(-1)). The EI results obtained in the screening procedure using plates were compared with cellulase production under SSF. A correlation coefficient (R(2)) of 0.977 was obtained between the Congo red test and SSF, demonstrating that the two methodologies were in good agreement.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23227312 PMCID: PMC3514834 DOI: 10.1155/2012/793708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Enzyme Res ISSN: 2090-0414
Figure 1Observation of the clear zone around a colony of T. reesei Rut C30 using Congo red dye.
Enzymatic indices of filamentous fungi belonging to the genus Trichoderma.
| Strain | Mean Øc* | Mean Øh** | EI | SD*** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rut C30 | 10.0 | 29.8 | 2.98 | 0.190 |
| 90 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 1.01 | 0.010 |
| 97 | 12.9 | 13.5 | 1.05 | 0.019 |
| 139 | 15.3 | 27.6 | 1.74 | 0.215 |
| 145 | 15.2 | 22.0 | 1.45 | 0.055 |
| 151 | 18.8 | 27.3 | 1.46 | 0.103 |
| 153 | 19.7 | 27.4 | 1.39 | 0.087 |
| 155 | 18.6 | 29.5 | 1.61 | 0.118 |
| 156 | 18.0 | 26.4 | 1.64 | 0.078 |
| 159 | 17.3 | 26.5 | 1.56 | 0.200 |
| 167 | 19.8 | 27.0 | 1.36 | 0.077 |
| 142 | 16.4 | 30.2 | 1.90 | 0.233 |
| 162 | 18.4 | 27.1 | 1.47 | 0.035 |
| 201 | 16.1 | 24.0 | 1.51 | 0.183 |
| 202 | 16.3 | 23.2 | 1.45 | 0.280 |
| 209 | 17.4 | 24.2 | 1.39 | 0.121 |
| 210 | 17.1 | 24.1 | 1.41 | 0.084 |
| 219 | 18.8 | 27.9 | 1.48 | 0.031 |
| 223 | 23.0 | 28.2 | 1.22 | 0.021 |
| 237 | 15.8 | 23.3 | 1.48 | 0.039 |
| 238 | 17.2 | 26.7 | 1.57 | 0.137 |
| 240 | 12.7 | 18.4 | 1.45 | 0.056 |
| 241 | 10.1 | 17.2 | 1.63 | 0.131 |
| 242 | 13.8 | 20.3 | 1.48 | 0.044 |
| 248 | 15.4 | 23.3 | 1.51 | 0.071 |
| 02 | 23.8 | 32.4 | 1.36 | 0.053 |
| 03 | 27.8 | 33.5 | 1.24 | 0.251 |
| 05 | 21.8 | 30.9 | 1.42 | 0.044 |
| 06 | 24.9 | 34.3 | 1.38 | 0.060 |
| 11 | 24.7 | 31.9 | 1.31 | 0.148 |
| 50 | 25.1 | 34.7 | 1.39 | 0.072 |
| 51 | 30.6 | 37.0 | 1.21 | 0.070 |
| 58 | 26.7 | 36.6 | 1.37 | 0.034 |
| 58′ | 26.2 | 36.7 | 1.40 | 0.082 |
| 67 | 25.2 | 29.2 | 1.16 | 0.048 |
| 71 | 25.4 | 32.8 | 1.29 | 0.036 |
| 73 | 27.5 | 33.9 | 1.25 | 0.111 |
| 87 | 21.1 |
| 0.00 |
|
| 88 | 22.4 | 31.1 | 1.40 | 0.245 |
| 92 | 24.3 | 35.2 | 1.45 | 0.224 |
| 94 | 18.9 | 25.5 | 1.36 | 0.127 |
| 98C | 22.5 | 30.3 | 1.34 | 0.048 |
| 98D | 24.1 | 32.3 | 1.35 | 0.089 |
| 100NH | 23.3 | 26.4 | 1.13 | 0.026 |
| 104NH | 16.2 | 27.9 | 1.72 | 0.197 |
| 111 | 21.1 | 27.9 | 1.32 | 0.086 |
| 124 | 29.5 | 33.5 | 1.27 | 0.040 |
| 128 | 25.5 | 31.4 | 1.24 | 0.116 |
| 140 | 22.5 | 26.9 | 1.20 | 0.061 |
| 141 | 23.6 | 32.6 | 1.39 | 0.072 |
| 141′ | 26.0 | 32.8 | 1.28 | 0.133 |
| 144 | 28.1 | 36.1 | 1.29 | 0.077 |
*Øc: halo colonies; **Øh: halo hydrolysis; ***SD: standard deviation.
Figure 2Production of EGase in tubes: (-○-) T. harzianum CEN 139; (-□-) T. harzianum CEN 155; (-⋄-) T. sp104 NH; (-×-) T. reesei Rut C30; (-∗-) T. asperelum CEN 201; (-●-) T. harzianum CEN 241; (-◆-) T. harzianum CEN 248; (-■-) T. harzianum CEN 238; (-+-) T. sp CEN 156; (-▲-) T. koningii CEN 142; (-∆-) T. sp CEN 159; (-▹-) T. sp CEN 90; (-◃ -) T. sp CEN 97.
Figure 3EGase production (UI·mL−1) versus enzymatic index of strains selected for fermentation in tubes.
Figure 4Production of EGase using solid-state fermentation of selected Trichoderma strains and comparison with T. reesei Rut C30.
Figure 5EGase production (UI·g−1) versus enzymatic index of strains selected for solid-state fermentation.