| Literature DB >> 24886410 |
Guanjing Cai, Wei Zheng, Xujun Yang, Bangzhou Zhang, Tianling Zheng1.
Abstract
Controlling harmful algae blooms (HABs) using microbial algicides is cheap, efficient and environmental-friendly. However, obtaining high yield of algicidal microbes to meet the need of field test is still a big challenge since qualitative and quantitative analysis of algicidal compounds is difficult. In this study, we developed a protocol to increase the yield of both biomass and algicidal compound present in a novel algicidal actinomycete Streptomyces alboflavus RPS, which kills Phaeocystis globosa. To overcome the problem in algicidal compound quantification, we chose algicidal ratio as the index and used artificial neural network to fit the data, which was appropriate for this nonlinear situation. In this protocol, we firstly determined five main influencing factors through single factor experiments and generated the multifactorial experimental groups with a U15(155) uniform-design-table. Then, we used the traditional quadratic polynomial stepwise regression model and an accurate, fully optimized BP-neural network to simulate the fermentation. Optimized with genetic algorithm and verified using experiments, we successfully increased the algicidal ratio of the fermentation broth by 16.90% and the dry mycelial weight by 69.27%. These results suggested that this newly developed approach is a viable and easy way to optimize the fermentation conditions for algicidal microorganisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24886410 PMCID: PMC4051378 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-13-75
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Figure 1The effects of different nutrients on the growth of RPS. (i) Carbon sources. (ii) Nitrogen sources. (iii) Inorganic nutrients content. a) 0.5 g/L K2HPO4, 0.5 g/L MgSO4•7H2O, b) 0.75 g/L K2HPO4, 0.5 g/L MgSO4•7H2O, c) 0.25 g/L K2HPO4, 0.5 g/L MgSO4•7H2O, d) 0.5 g/L K2HPO4, 0.75 g/L MgSO4•7H2O, e) 0.5 g/L K2HPO4, 0.25 g/L MgSO4•7H2O.
Figure 2The effects of different cultivation conditions inoculum size on the growth of RPS. (i) Initial pH. (ii) Inoculum size. (iii) Loaded volume. (iv) Salinity values. (v) Fermentation time.
Uniform-design-table and the results
| N1 | 16 | 0.3 | 4.5 | 5 | 108 | 89.5686% | 0.05715 |
| N2 | 17 | 1.4 | 10.5 | 9 | 168 | 76.9796% | 0.1079 |
| N3 | 11 | 0.4 | 7.5 | 10 | 204 | 81.6116% | 0.08085 |
| N4 | 19 | 1.5 | 8 | 4 | 96 | 81.0957% | 0.05875 |
| N5 | 12 | 1.7 | 7 | 5.5 | 192 | 79.7349% | 0.12175 |
| N6 | 15 | 1 | 9.5 | 4.5 | 228 | 84.5514% | 0.2283 |
| N7 | 20 | 0.9 | 6.5 | 9.5 | 60 | 8.3172% | 0.03545 |
| N8 | 9 | 0.8 | 6 | 3.5 | 156 | 12.5545% | 0.0001 |
| N9 | 18 | 0.7 | 3.5 | 8 | 180 | 86.3218% | 0.11275 |
| N10 | 8 | 1.1 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 120 | 84.6537% | 0.0412 |
| N11 | 14 | 1.6 | 5 | 10.5 | 132 | 76.7769% | 0.04345 |
| N12 | 21 | 1.2 | 5.5 | 7 | 216 | 74.7522% | 0.1718 |
| N13 | 10 | 1.3 | 4 | 6.5 | 72 | 67.7670% | 0.02315 |
| N14 | 13 | 0.6 | 10 | 7.5 | 84 | 77.7472% | 0.04345 |
| N15 | 22 | 0.5 | 9 | 6 | 144 | 80.3603% | 0.12165 |
Error of the artificial neural network with different numbers of hidden neurons
| 3 | 0.011 | 0.05911 | 0.08859 | 0.53504 |
| 4 | 0.0024 | 0.08869 | 0.02129 | 0.66232 |
| 5 | 0.00212 | 0.05847 | 0.00561 | 0.6092 |
| 6 | 0.00414 | 0.06218 | 0.00556 | 0.50672 |
| 7 | 0.00438 | 0.06918 | 0.00523 | 0.40763 |
| 8 | 0.00377 | 0.06369 | 0.01004 | 0.54822 |
| 9 | 0.0018 | 0.05719 | 0.00412 | 0.40388 |
| 10 | 0.00186 | 0.06579 | 0.0047 | 0.44591 |
| 11 | 0.00216 | 0.07613 | 0.00467 | 0.46936 |
| 12 | 0.002 | 0.07142 | 0.00448 | 0.31169 |
Figure 3Fitness curves for the optimization of neural networks. (a) Optimization for algicidal ratio. (b) Optimization for dry mycelial weight.
Verification of optimal fermentation conditions
| Algicidal ratio | Experimental results | 88.59 ± 3.46% | 92.15 ± 1.12% | 78.83 ± 2.76% |
| Improvement compared to control | 12.38% | 16.90% | / | |
| Prediction | 103.00% | 90.50% | / | |
| Prediction error | 16.27% | 1.79% | / | |
| Dry mycelial weight | Experimental results | 0.2127 ± 0.0191 g | 0.2165 ± 0.072 g | 0.1279 ± 0.0116 g |
| Improvement compared to control | 66.30% | 69.27% | / | |
| Prediction | 0.2598 g | 0.2283 g | / | |
| Prediction error | 22.14% | 5.45% | / | |