| Literature DB >> 26034686 |
Sheetal Bandhu1, Diptarka Dasgupta1, Jawed Akhter1, Pankaj Kanaujia2, Sunil K Suman1, Deepti Agrawal1, Savita Kaul1, Dilip K Adhikari1, Debashish Ghosh1.
Abstract
Single cell oil production from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate by oleaginous yeast Rhodotorula sp. IIP-33 was analyzed using a two stage statistical design approach based on Response Surface Methodology. Variables like pentose sugar, (NH4)2SO4, KH2PO4, yeast extract, pH and temperature were found to influence lipid production significantly. Under optimized condition in a shake flask, yield of lipid was 2.1199 g with fat coefficient of 7.09 which also resembled ~99% similarity to model predicted lipid production. In this paper we are presenting optimized results for production of non polar lipid which could be later deoxygenated into hydrocarbon. A qualitative analyses of selective lipid samples yielded a varying distribution of free acid ranging from C6 to C18, majoring C16:0, C18:0 and C18:1 under different fermentation conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Lignocellulosic biomass; Pentose sugar; Response surface methodology; Rhodotorula sp; Yeast lipid
Year: 2014 PMID: 26034686 PMCID: PMC4447748 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Plackett burman design for initial screening of factors
| Run order | Std. order | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | Response variable: Lipid wt. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xylose | (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 | Na 2 HPO 4 | KH 2 PO 4 | Yeast extract | MgSO 4 | Time | pH | Temp | Experimental | Predicted | ||
| g | g | g | g | g | g | h | - | °C | g | g | ||
| 1 | 7 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | 1.4363 | 1.4482 |
| 2 | 8 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | 1.0892 | 1.089 |
| 3 | 9 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | 0.7101 | 0.710 |
| 5 | 10 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | 1.3764 | 1.3883 |
| 6 | 6 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | 1.7299 | 1.7418 |
| 7 | 1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0.5932 | 0.5932 |
| 8 | 5 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | 1.0931 | 1.0931 |
| 9 | 4 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 1.4091 | 1.3972 |
| 10 | 3 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | 2.6138 | 2.6019 |
| 11 | 12 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0.5911 | 0.5792 |
| 12 | 11 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | 1.8509 | 1.8509 |
Box Behnken design for lipid production
| Std order | Run order | A | B | C | D | E | F | Lipid weight | Model predicted response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xylose | (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 | KH 2 PO 4 | Yeast extract | pH | Temperature | ||||
| g | g | g | g | - | °C | g | g | ||
| 32 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 1.492 | 1.4913 |
| 45 | 2 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0.776 | 0.779 |
| 42 | 3 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 1.177 | 1.1767 |
| 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 1.465 | 1.4742 |
| 17 | 5 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 1.253 | 1.252 |
| 24 | 6 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 1.206 | 1.205 |
| 25 | 7 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 1.326 | 1.3231 |
| 12 | 8 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1.752 | 1.7539 |
| 38 | 9 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 1.364 | 1.3654 |
| 9 | 10 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 1.410 | 1.4097 |
| 27 | 11 | 1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1.972 | 1.9689 |
| 6 | 12 | -1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0.878 | 0.8754 |
| 4 | 13 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1.226 | 1,2276 |
| 20 | 14 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 1.545 | 1.5445 |
| 28 | 15 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 1.938 | 1.9378 |
| 1 | 16 | -1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0.844 | 0.8457 |
| 14 | 17 | +1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1.872 | 1.8731 |
| 44 | 18 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 0 | 0.868 | 0.8691 |
| 36 | 19 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 1.380 | 1.381 |
| 39 | 20 | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 0 | 0.892 | 0.8917 |
| 35 | 21 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1.153 | 1.1542 |
| 34 | 22 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 1.683 | 1.6848 |
| 37 | 23 | -1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0.746 | 0.7466 |
| 16 | 24 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 2.09 | 2.065 |
| 18 | 25 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0.741 | 0.742 |
| 31 | 26 | -1 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 0.899 | 0.8989 |
| 26 | 27 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 0 | 2.024 | 2.0251 |
| 43 | 28 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 1.459 | 1.4607 |
| 52 | 29 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1.307 | 1.3061 |
| 7 | 30 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1.380 | 1.3795 |
| 30 | 31 | +1 | -1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 1.992 | 1.9918 |
| 3 | 32 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.624 | 1.6243 |
| 29 | 33 | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1.817 | 1.818 |
| 5 | 34 | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 1.023 | 1.0229 |
| 13 | 35 | -1 | -1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 0.997 | 0.9969 |
| 41 | 36 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 0 | 1.802 | 1.8019 |
| 40 | 37 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 1.514 | 1.5157 |
| 11 | 38 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | 2.0743 | 2.0744 |
| 2 | 39 | -1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0.981 | 0.9829 |
| 21 | 40 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 1.282 | 1.2834 |
| 8 | 41 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0.882 | 0.8825 |
| 19 | 42 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | +1 | 1.291 | 1.2855 |
| 46 | 43 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 1.593 | 1.5935 |
| 22 | 44 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 1.604 | 1.6027 |
| 15 | 45 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | 1.854 | 1.8554 |
| 23 | 46 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 1.445 | 1.4476 |
| 33 | 47 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 1.354 | 1.355 |
Variables with their coded levels
| Serial number | Variables | Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (-1) | (0) | (+1) | ||
| 1 | Xylose (g) | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| 2 | (NH4)2SO4 (g) | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 |
| 3 | Na2HPO4 (g) | 0.188 | 0.2815 | 0.375 |
| 4 | (KH2PO4) (g) | 0.35 | 0.525 | 0.70 |
| 5 | Yeast extract (g) | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 |
| 6 | MgSO4 (g) | 0.175 | 0.3375 | 0.50 |
| 7 | Time (h) | 18 | 24 | 30 |
| 8 | pH | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 9 | Temp (°C) | 30 | 34 | 38 |
Relative fatty acid of 13 selective lipid samples
| Sl. No. | Temperature | C/N | Lipid | pH | Flask | C 5 sugar δ | Fat coefficient ψ | ≤ C 6 to ≥ C 14 | C 16:0 | C 16:1 | C 18:0 | C 18:1 | C 18:2 | C 18:3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | °C | ~ | g | - | # | g | % | relative presence of fatty acids of corresponding carbon numbers | ||||||
| 1 | 30 | 25 | 0.8780 | 5 | 12 | 10 | 8.78 | ++ | + | - | + | + | - | + |
| 2 | 30 | 50 | 1.4650 | 5 | 4 | 20 | 7.33 | + | ++ | + | + | + | - | + |
| 3 | 30 | 75 | 1.9720 | 5 | 11 | 30 | 6.57 | ++ | ++ | + | + | ++ | - | + |
| 4 | 34 | 25 | 0.8990 | 5 | 26 | 10 | 8.99 | + | + | - | - | + | + | - |
| 5 | 34 | 50 | 1.9380 | 5 | 15 | 30 | 6.46 | + | ++ | + | + | ++ | ++ | - |
| 6 | 34 | 75 | 2.0243 | 6 | 27 | 10 | 20.24η | + | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | - |
| 7 | 34 | 75 | 2.0900 | 6 | 24 | 30 | 6.96 | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | - |
| 8 | 34 | 100 | 1.8720 | 5 | 17 | 30 | 6.24 | + | ++ | - | ++ | ++ | ++ | - |
| 9 | 34 | 100 | 1.9920 | 5 | 31 | 30 | 6.64 | + | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | - |
| 10 | 38 | 25 | 0.8820 | 5 | 42 | 10 | 8.82 | ++ | + | + | + | + | + | - |
| 11 | 38 | 50 | 1.5140 | 6 | 38 | 20 | 7.57 | + | + | + | + | + | ++ | - |
| 12 | 38 | 75 | 2.0740 | 5 | 39 | 30 | 6.91 | ++ | ++ | - | + | ++ | ++ | - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ indicates presence of fatty acids with corresponding carbon numbers as per GC/MS; ++ indicates presence of corresponding fatty acids in higher quantity as per GC/MS; δ gram of pentose sugar (C5) present in prehydrolysate as carbon source in all flasks; ψ (yielded lipid/consumed sugar) × 100 = fat coefficient (%); η maximum fat coefficient due to low carbon content and high C/N ratio (very low nitrogen content); not considered as model data; * fat coefficient as per validated model.
Figure 1Pareto chart for Placket Burman screening of variables.
Regression analysis for PBD
| Term | Effect | Coefficient | Standard Error | T Value | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| C:Na2HPO4 | 0.0842 | 0.0421 | 0.0207 | 2.0361 | 0.2906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F:MgSO4 | -0.2661 | -0.1331 | 0.0206 | -6.456 | 0.0978 |
| G:Time | 0.1269 | 0.0635 | 0.0103 | 6.1584 | 0.1025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Significant variables have been indicated in bold.
ANOVA data table for BBD
| Source of Variation | Degrees of freedom | Sum of squares [Partial] | Mean Squares [Partial] | F Ratio | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 27 | 7.1309 | 0.2641 |
|
|
|
| 6 | 7.091 | 1.1818 |
|
|
|
| 15 | 0.0329 | 0.0022 |
|
|
|
| 6 | 0.0047 | 0.0008 |
|
|
| Residual | 20 | 0.0002 | 1.01E-05 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 20 | 0.0002 | 1.01E-05 | ||
| Total | 47 | 7.1311 |
*Significant model effects have been indicated in bold.
Significance of term coefficients for BBD
| Term | Coefficient | Standard error | T value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.0026 | 517.7999 |
|
|
|
| 0.0006 | 795.4539 |
|
|
|
| 0.0006 | -58.9734 |
|
|
|
| 0.0007 | 116.0206 |
|
|
|
| 0.0007 | 99.6837 |
|
|
|
| 0.0006 | 181.5286 |
|
|
|
| 0.0007 | 76.8728 |
|
|
|
| 0.0011 | 9.7794 |
|
|
|
| 0.0011 | 26.3607 |
|
|
|
| 0.0008 | -10.2154 |
|
|
|
| 0.0011 | 47.4151 |
|
| AF | -5.00E-04 | 1.10E-03 | -0.451 | 0.6568 |
| BC | 0 | 0.0011 | 0 | 1 |
| BD | 0.0003 | 0.0011 | 0.2355 | 0.8162 |
| BE | -0.0016 | 0.0008 | -1.9723 | 0.0626 |
| BF | 9.00E-04 | 1.10E-03 | 0.8353 | 0.4134 |
| CD | -0.0023 | 0.0013 | -1.8153 | 0.0845 |
|
|
| 0.0011 | 2.593 |
|
| CF | 1.00E-03 | 9.00E-04 | 1.1744 | 0.254 |
| DE | 0.001 | 0.0011 | 0.9209 | 0.3681 |
|
|
| 1.30E-03 | 8.6233 |
|
| EF | -2.00E-04 | 1.10E-03 | -0.1742 | 0.8634 |
|
|
| 0.0013 | 9.2964 |
|
| BB | 8.72E-05 | 0.0014 | 0.0637 | 9.50E-01 |
|
|
| 0.0015 | 5.9536 |
|
|
|
| 0.0013 | 7.6217 |
|
|
|
| 1.10E-03 | 8.2952 |
|
|
|
| 6.00E-04 | 15.4471 |
|
*Significant variables have been indicated in bold.
Figure 2Effects of Xylose and (NH ) SO conc. on lipid production; Hold values C =0 (KH PO = 0.525 g), D =0 (Yeast extract = 0.5 g), E =0 (pH = 5), F =0 (Temperature = 34°C).
Figure 3Effects of (NH ) SO conc. and pH on lipid production; Hold values A =0 (Xylose conc. =20 g), C =0 (KH PO = 0.525 g), D =0 (Yeast extract = 0.5 g), F =0 (Temperature = 34°C).
Figure 4Effects of KH PO and Temperature on lipid production; Hold values A =0 (Xylose =20 g), D =0 (Yeast extract = 0.5 g), E =0 (pH = 5), B =0 ((NH ) SO = 0.75 g).
Figure 5Optimization conditions for maximizing lipid yield predicted by Reliasoft DOE.