| Literature DB >> 23724323 |
Priyanka Chandra1, Daljit Singh Arora.
Abstract
A three-step optimization strategy which includes one-factor-at-a-time classical method and different statistical approaches (Plackett-Burman design and response surface methodology) that were applied to optimize the antioxidant potential of Penicillium granulatum. Antioxidant activity was assayed by different procedures and compared with total phenolic content. Primarily, different carbon and nitrogen sources were screened by classical methods, which revealed sucrose and NaNO3 to be the most suitable. In second step, Plackett-Burman design also supported sucrose and NaNO3 to be the most significant. In third step, response surface analysis showed 4.5% sucrose, 0.1% NaNO3, and incubation temperature of 25°C to be the optimal conditions. Under these conditions, the antioxidant potential assayed through different procedures was 78.2%, 70.1%, and 78.9% scavenging effect for DPPH radical, ferrous ion, and nitric oxide ion, respectively. The reducing power showed an absorbance of 1.6 with 68.5% activity for FRAP assay.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23724323 PMCID: PMC3658632 DOI: 10.5402/2012/452024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Microbiol
Effect of various carbon sources on antioxidant potential of Penicillium granulatum.
| % activity | Dextrose | Maltose | Lactose | Starch | Glycerol | Sucrose |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPHa assay | 72 ± 0.2 | 62.8 ± 0.11 | 64.3 ± 0.1 | 60.2 ± 0.1 | 50.2 ± 0.9 | 72.4 ± 0.21 |
| Reducing power | 0.90 ± 0.8 | 0.53 ± 0.8 | 0.686 ± 0.2 | 0.52 ± 0.02 | 0.32 ± 0.08 | 0.980 ± 0.18 |
| Fe2+ scavenging activity | 64.8 ± 0.3 | 54.3 ± 0.2 | 45.2 ± 0.32 | 40.3 ± 0.2 | 42.4 ± 0.5 | 64.2 ± 0.17 |
| FRAPb assay | 60.2 ± 0.21 | 50.8 ± 0.3 | 40.3 ± 0.35 | 38.2 ± 0.5 | 40.2 ± 0.2 | 61.9 ± 0.04 |
| NOc scavenging activity | ||||||
| 30 min | 46.2 ± 0.03 | 20.8 ± 0.01 | 20.1 ± 0.2 | 22.1 ± 0.02 | 22.7 ± 0.2 | 35.01 ± 0.01 |
| 60 min | 48.0 ± 0.1 | 37.3 ± 0.1 | 24.2 ± 0.1 | 24.2 ± 0.31 | 25.1 ± 0.05 | 42.8 ± 0.01 |
| 90 min | 51.4 ± 0.9 | 41.2 ± 0.5 | 36.7 ± 0.011 | 29.3 ± 0.011 | 28.9 ± 0.1 | 53.16 ± 0.16 |
| 120 min | 60.3 ± 0.1 | 48.2 ± 0.06 | 38.4 ± 0.01 | 37.4 ± 0.71 | 30.5 ± 0.2 | 62.98 ± 0.04 |
| 180 min | 65.2 ± 0.1 | 52.3 ± 0.5 | 42.3 ± 0.9 | 40.7 ± 0.8 | 38.5 ± 0.05 | 68.2 ± 0.21 |
| TPCd (mg/mL) | 7.1 ± 0.03 | 4.0 ± 0.1 | 4.3 ± 0.02 | 3.4 ± 0.02 | 2.2 ± 0.06 | 7.28 ± 0.02 |
| Biomass (g/L) | 4.5 ± 0.005 | 2.3 ± 0.045 | 2.01 ± 0.076 | 4.08 ± 0.09 | 1.50 ± 0.02 | 3.05 ± 0.005 |
aDPPH-1.1-diphenyl-2-picryl hydrazyl; bFRAP- ferric reducing antioxidant power; cNO-nitric oxide; dTPC-total phenolic content.
Effect of various nitrogen sources on antioxidant potential of Penicillium granulatum.
| Nitrogen sources | DPPHa assay | Reducing power | Fe2+ scavenging activity | FRAPb assay | NOc scavenging activity | TPCd (mg/mL) | Biomass (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrogen rich organic supplements | |||||||
| Yeast extract | 72.0 ± 0.12 | 0.9 ± 0.8 | 63.2 ± 0.02 | 60.2 ± 0.1 | 65.8 ± 0.21 | 7.3 ± 0.33 | 4.2 ± 0.08 |
| Peptone | 71.2 ± 0.3 | 0.93 ± 0.6 | 60.8 ± 0.52 | 59.8 ± 0.2 | 63.2 ± 0.5 | 6.9 ± 0.1 | 4.25 ± 0.05 |
| Malt extract | 62.6 ± 0.1 | 0.62 ± 0.02 | 50.2 ± 0.2 | 48.2 ± 0.6 | 45.4 ± 0.91 | 4.0 ± 0.12 | 3.0 ± 0.08 |
| Casein | 60.8 ± 0.2 | 0.374 ± 0.23 | 32.7 ± 0.3 | 30.2 ± 0.3 | 27.3 ± 0.1 | 3.1 ± 0.42 | 3.0 ± 0.002 |
| Soyabean meal | 68.2 ± 0.56 | 0.63 ± 0.1 | 60.2 ± 0.56 | 55.8 ± 0.67 | 56.3 ± 0.54 | 4.1 ± 0.21 | 2.45 ± 0.08 |
| Urea | 30.8 ± 0.4 | 0.103 ± 0.21 | 22.3 ± 0.34 | 20.8 ± 0.78 | — | 1.2 ± 0.34 | 0.9 ± 0.06 |
| Inorganic nitrogen sources | |||||||
| KNO3 | 60.3 ± 0.3 | 0.50 ± 0.45 | 56.3 ± 0.56 | 54.2 ± 0.98 | 50.2 ± 0.32 | 3.4 ± 0.21 | 2.3 ± 0.07 |
| (NH4)2 SO4 | 53.8 ± 0.56 | 0.29 ± 0.6 | 50.6 ± 0.78 | 49.7 ± 0.21 | 48.8 ± 0.5 | 2.8 ± 0.03 | 2.25 ± 0.07 |
| (NH4)H2 SO4 | 50.6 ± 0.2 | 0.22 ± 0.8 | 42.8 ± 0.89 | 40.6 ± 0.3 | 36.7 ± 0.8 | 2.1 ± 0.04 | 2.3 ± 0.03 |
| NH4NO3 | 55.4 ± 0.6 | 0.31 ± 0.98 | 53.2 ± 0.34 | 51.2 ± 0.9 | 50.2 ± 0.5 | 3.1 ± 0.7 | 2.3 ± 0.06 |
| NaNO3 | 72.4 ± 0.21 | 0.98 ± 0.18 | 64.2 ± 0.17 | 61.9 ± 0.04 | 68.2 ± 0.21 | 7.28 ± 0.02 | 3.0 ± 0.005 |
| (NH4)2Cl | 60.2 ± 0.2 | 0.47 ± 0.24 | 54.8 ± 0.23 | 52.8 ± 0.5 | 50.6 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.5 | 2.45 ± 0.07 |
aDPPH-1.1-diphenyl-2-picryl hydrazyl; bFRAP- ferric reducing antioxidant power; cNO-nitric oxide; dTPC-total phenolic content.
Plackett-Burman design variables with different antioxidant potential as response.
| Variables (%) | Antioxidant activity (% activity) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Sucrose | NaNO3 | K2HPO4 | MgSO4 | KCl | DPPH Assay | Reducing power | Fe2+ scavenging activity | FRAP assay | NO scavenging activity | TPC (mg/mL) |
| 1 | 5.0 | 0.000 | 0.18 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 60.8 | 0.63 | 50.8 | 46.7 | 52.7 | 4.1 |
| 2 | 5.0 | 0.350 | 0.00 | 0.090 | 0.000 | 70.5 | 0.73 | 60.9 | 58.6 | 63.8 | 5.1 |
| 3 | 0.0 | 0.350 | 0.18 | 0.000 | 0.090 | 22.5 | 0.22 | 15.5 | 13.2 | 16.7 | 1.2 |
| 4 | 5.0 | 0.000 | 0.18 | 0.090 | 0.000 | 50.7 | 0.58 | 40.9 | 40.8 | 45.3 | 3.2 |
| 5 | 5.0 | 0.350 | 0.00 | 0.090 | 0.090 | 72.8 | 0.96 | 63.8 | 60.5 | 66.8 | 6.2 |
| 6 | 5.0 | 0.350 | 0.18 | 0.000 | 0.090 | 64.5 | 0.68 | 55.7 | 52.8 | 60.9 | 5.8 |
| 7 | 0.0 | 0.350 | 0.18 | 0.090 | 0.000 | 18.6 | 0.18 | 10.9 | 8.9 | 12.4 | 0.8 |
| 8 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0.18 | 0.090 | 0.090 | 44.8 | 0.50 | 36.7 | 36.5 | 40.7 | 2.8 |
| 9 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.090 | 0.090 | 20.7 | 0.18 | 15.5 | 12.2 | 14.6 | 0.9 |
| 10 | 5.0 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.090 | 61.8 | 0.65 | 50.6 | 48.6 | 55.8 | 4.8 |
| 11 | 0.0 | 0.350 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 54.3 | 0.59 | 44.1 | 42.7 | 48.6 | 3.2 |
| 12 | 0.0 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 13 | 2.5 | 0.175 | 0.09 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 73.2 | 0.98 | 65.7 | 62.9 | 69.3 | 7.9 |
| 14 | 2.5 | 0.175 | 0.09 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 72.8 | 0.98 | 64.6 | 62.8 | 68.7 | 7.8 |
Box-Behnken designs of different variables with their responses.
| Variables (%) | Antioxidant activity (% activity) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Sucrose | NaNO3 | Temperature | DPPH assay | Reducing power | Fe2+ scavenging activity | FRAP assay | NO scavenging activity | TPC (mg/mL) |
| 1 | 1 | 0.05 | 25 | 50.20 | 0.540 | 48.3 | 46.1 | 52.90 | 3.1 |
| 2 | 5 | 0.05 | 25 | 77.40 | 1.320 | 68.9 | 66.9 | 74.80 | 12.6 |
| 3 | 1 | 0.35 | 25 | 76.20 | 1.260 | 66.6 | 65.2 | 72.90 | 6.4 |
| 4 | 5 | 0.35 | 25 | 46.40 | 0.300 | 40.9 | 40.2 | 45.70 | 2.1 |
| 5 | 1 | 0.2 | 15 | 45.50 | 0.345 | 40.7 | 41.9 | 44.80 | 2.2 |
| 6 | 5 | 0.2 | 15 | 48.10 | 0.460 | 42.3 | 43.2 | 47.60 | 2.8 |
| 7 | 1 | 0.2 | 35 | 68.30 | 0.770 | 62.3 | 60.4 | 62.80 | 6.9 |
| 8 | 5 | 0.2 | 35 | 76.20 | 1.250 | 66.8 | 65.8 | 74.80 | 6.1 |
| 9 | 3 | 0.05 | 15 | 66.90 | 0.650 | 60.5 | 58.6 | 64.60 | 4.2 |
| 10 | 3 | 0.35 | 15 | 67.90 | 0.689 | 62.9 | 54.5 | 70.60 | 5.7 |
| 11 | 3 | 0.05 | 35 | 75.40 | 1.200 | 66.7 | 65.7 | 74.90 | 12.1 |
| 12 | 3 | 0.35 | 35 | 73.44 | 1.180 | 65.5 | 62.5 | 70.90 | 8.1 |
| 13 | 3 | 0.2 | 25 | 72.70 | 0.980 | 64.2 | 61.8 | 68.90 | 7.4 |
| 14 | 3 | 0.2 | 25 | 73.80 | 1.020 | 64.3 | 61.8 | 68.90 | 7.8 |
| 15 | 3 | 0.2 | 25 | 72.80 | 0.970 | 64.7 | 61.6 | 68.90 | 8.5 |
| 16 | 3 | 0.2 | 25 | 73.90 | 1.100 | 65.7 | 62.6 | 69.99 | 8.6 |
| 17 | 3 | 0.2 | 25 | 72.06 | 1.100 | 65.8 | 64.7 | 70.10 | 8.3 |
Regression coefficients for different antioxidant potential as responses.
| Term | DPPH Assay | Reducing power | Fe2+ scavenging activity | FRAP assay | NO scavenging activity | TPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | −13.71 | −1.483** | −7.73* | −1.38 | −1.57 | −21.30*** |
| Sucrose | 24.75*** | 0.504** | 21.60** | 18.06*** | 21.30** | 6.87*** |
| NaNO3 | 142.02* | 3.966** | 104.91* | 101.89* | 114.35* | 40.84** |
| Temperature | 2.00* | 0.080** | 1.75* | 1.51* | 1.48* | 1.00** |
| Sucrose × sucrose | −2.74*** | −0.050** | −2.45** | −1.92*** | −2.57 | −0.64*** |
| NaNO3 × NaNO3 | 19.62 | 0.989 | 46.89 | −8.89 | 110.38 | 21.22* |
| Temperature × temperature | −0.03* | −0.001 | −0.02* | −0.02* | −0.02 | −0.01* |
| Sucrose × NaNO3 | −47.50*** | −1.450*** | −38.58*** | −38.17*** | −40.92*** | −11.50*** |
| Sucrose × temperature | 0.07 | 0.005* | 0.04 | 0.05* | 0.11* | −0.02 |
| NaNO3 × temperature | −0.49 | −0.010 | −0.60 | 0.15 | −1.67* | −0.92** |
|
| 90.7 | 94.1 | 86.8 | 92.1 | 87.6 | 94.8 |
*P ≤ 0.5; **P ≤ 0.05; ***P ≤ 0.005.
Figure 1(a–f) Contour plot showing effect of different variables on antioxidant potential (hold value: 0.05% of sodium nitrate). (a) DPPH assay (% activity); (b) reducing power (absorbance); (c) FRAP assay (% activity); (d) nitric oxide ion scavenging activity (% activity); (e) ferrous ion scavenging activity (% activity); (f) total phenolic content (mg/ml).