| Literature DB >> 26753128 |
T A Beacham1, V Mora Macia2, P Rooks1, D A White2, S T Ali1.
Abstract
Microalgae have potential as a chemical feed stock in a range of industrial applications. Nannochloropsis salina was subject to EMS mutagenesis and the highest lipid containing cells selected using fluorescence-activated cell sorting. Assessment of growth, lipid content and fatty acid composition identified mutant strains displaying a range of altered traits including changes in the PUFA content and a total FAME increase of up to 156% that of the wild type strain. Combined with a reduction in growth this demonstrated a productivity increase of up to 76%. Following UV mutagenesis, lipid accumulation of the mutant cultures was elevated to more than 3 fold that of the wild type strain, however reduced growth rates resulted in a reduction in overall productivity. Changes observed are indicative of alterations to the regulation of the omega 6 Kennedy pathway. The importance of these variations in physiology for industrial applications such as biofuel production is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Biofuels; Lipid; Microalgae; Nannochloropsis; Random mutation; UV
Year: 2015 PMID: 26753128 PMCID: PMC4691955 DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2015.05.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Rep (Amst) ISSN: 2215-017X
Fig. 1FAME analysis of mixed populations of enriched cultures following EMS mutagenesis and FACS analysis. Panel (a) refers to exponential growth phase; panel (b) refers to stationary growth phase.
Fatty acid profile of wild type N. Salina and FACs sorted EMS mutated populations. Data expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4).
| Fatty acids (% total FAME) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C14:0 | C16:0 | C16:1 | C18:0 | C18:1 | C18:2 | C20:4 | C20:5 | ||
| Exponential | NBF1 | 3.1 ± 0.0 | 31.6 ± 0.2 | 37.0 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 4.5 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 13.7 ± 0.3 |
| NBF2 | 2.8 ± 0.0 | 36.5 ± 0.5 | 36.2 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 3.7 ± 0.1 | 9.3 ± 0.2 | |
| NBF3 | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 32.7 ± 0.9 | 34.7 ± 0.5 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 5.0 ± 0.1 | 14.1 ± 0.3 | |
| NBF4 | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 36.3 ± 1.0 | 35.4 ± 0.5 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.4 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 10.0 ± 0.2 | |
| NBF5 | 3.5 ± 0.0 | 28.9 ± 0.3 | 36.1 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.0 | 4.7 ± 0.1 | 16.7 ± 0.2 | |
| NBF6 | 2.8 ± 0.0 | 36.6 ± 0.3 | 35.8 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.0 | 4.6 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 4.1 ± 0.1 | 10.2 ± 0.1 | |
| NBF7 | 2.4 ± 0.0 | 38.5 ± 0.5 | 36.5 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 5.0 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 3.2 ± 0.1 | 7.9 ± 0.1 | |
| NBF8 | 2.2 ± 0.0 | 37.1 ± 0.2 | 36.4 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 3.6 ± 0.1 | 9.3 ± 0.1 | |
| WT | 3.9 ± 0.1 | 24.8 ± 1.0 | 32.2 ± 1.0 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 3.1 ± 0.6 | 2.7 ± 0.0 | 4.8 ± 0.2 | 24.3 ± 0.3 | |
| Stationary | NBF1 | 1.4 ± 0.0 | 38.4 ± 0.1 | 38.3 ± 0.1 | 1.9 ± 0.0 | 13.5 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 2.6 ± 0.2 |
| NBF2 | 1.4 ± 0.0 | 38.9 ± 0.3 | 37.7 ± 0.5 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 13.2 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 2.8 ± 0.0 | |
| NBF3 | 1.3 ± 0.0 | 37.5 ± 0.1 | 37.6 ± 0.3 | 2.1 ± 0.0 | 14.4 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.0 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 3.1 ± 0.1 | |
| NBF4 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 38.5 ± 1.0 | 37.2 ± 1.3 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 13.6 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 3.2 ± 0.0 | |
| NBF5 | 1.9 ± 0.0 | 38.8 ± 0.1 | 37.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 12.8 ± 0.0 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 3.4 ± 0.0 | |
| NBF6 | 1.5 ± 0.0 | 38.3 ± 0.1 | 37.8 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | 14.6 ± 0.2 | 1.5 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 2.8 ± 0.0 | |
| NBF7 | 1.3 ± 0.0 | 40.1 ± 0.4 | 37.5 ± 0.8 | 1.9 ± 0.0 | 12.9 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 0.0 | |
| NBF8 | 1.3 ± 0.0 | 39.2 ± 0.5 | 38.0 ± 0.8 | 2.1 ± 0.0 | 13.8 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 1.1 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 3.1 ± 0.1 | |
| WT | 2.4 ± 0.1 | 38.8 ± 0.6 | 36.5 ± 0.6 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 11.7 ± 0.3 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 5.5 ± 0.2 | |
Fig. 2FAME analysis of EMS mutants during late exponential grow phase. Total FAME expressed as means ± SEM (n = 4).
Fatty acid profile (major fatty acids) of wild type N. Salina and FACs sorted clonal EMS mutated strains during late exponential growth phase. Data expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4).
| Fatty acids (% total FAME) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C16:0 | C16:1 | C18:0 | C18:1 | C18:2 | C18:3 | C20:4 | C20:5 | |
| NBF7-3 | 14.4 ± 2.4 | 10.0 ± 17 | 3.9 ± 2.2 | 29.6 ± 16 | 3.1 ± 1.7 | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 12.1 ± 6.8 | 9.5 ± 5.3 |
| NBF7-10 | 41.5 ± 0.4 | 30.3 ± 0.4 | 1.6 ± 0.0 | 9.8 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 4.9 ± 0.0 | 4.2 ± 0.1 |
| NBF8-3 | 40.3 ± 0.7 | 29.7 ± 1.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 8.6 ± 1.6 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 4.8 ± 1.7 | 6.5 ± 0.2 |
| NBF6-7 | 43.4 ± 1.6 | 33.0 ± 2.1 | 1.6 ± 0.0 | 11.8 ± 0.9 | 1.6 ± 0.4 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| NBF2-5 | 42.1 ± 0.7 | 34.9 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 12.3 ± 0.7 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 2.5 ± 0.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| WT | 42.5 ± 0.7 | 34.5 ± 0.5 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 11.9 ± 0.4 | 1.6 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 01 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0 |
Fig. 3Growth characteristics of EMS mutants over a 26 day period. Specific exponential growth rates are: WT = 1.27, NBF7-3 = 0.77, NBF8-3 = 1.25, NBF7-10 = 1.04, NBF2-5 = 0.11, NBF6-7 = 0.74.
Fig. 4Comparison of growth between wild type and dual (EMS + UV) mutagenized strains of Nannochloropsis. Data fitted with 6 order polynomial trend line and error bars SEM (n = 4).
Productivity analysis of EMS mutagenized and dual mutagenized (EMS + UV radiation) strains. Total FAME (% of biomass) and Fatty acid profile relates to sampling at mid exponential phase. Data expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4).
| Exponential growth rate relative to WT (%) | Max cell density (cell/mL) | Total FAME (%) | Max. FAME productivity (μg mL−1 day−1) | Fatty acid profile | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUFA | MUFA | PUFA | |||||
| WT | 100.0 | 1.1.E + 08 | 17.5 ± 0.3 | 44.5 | 39.0 ± 0.2 | 35.0 ± 0.1 | 26.0 ± 0.1 |
| NBF6-7 | 57.8 | 5.3.E + 07 | 26.4 ± 1.1 | 33.3 | 49.6 ± 1.8 | 45.2 ± 1.2 | 5.1 ± 0.6 |
| NBF6-7UV30 | 5.1 | 6.9.E + 07 | 57.3 ± 5.1 | 35.2 | 40.0 ± 4.3 | 44.0 ± 5.9 | 16.0 ± 1.6 |
| NBF7-10 | 81.8 | 4.9.E + 07 | 34.1 ± 0.8 | 49.0 | 47.8 ± 0.3 | 40.7 ± 0.0 | 11.5 ± 0.3 |
| NBF7-10UV5 | 44.2 | 8.9.E + 07 | 78.7 ± 6.2 | 37.1 | 47.0 ± 4.2 | 34.0 ± 5.8 | 19.0 ± 1.6 |
Fig. 5Fatty acid biosynthesis acid in eustigmatophytes—modified from Guschina and Harwood (2006) and Napier (2007).