| Literature DB >> 27722071 |
Kavita R Pandey1, Chetan Joshi2, Babu V Vakil1.
Abstract
Probiotics are microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer health benefits to the host. A leading pharmaceutical company producing Bacillus coagulans as a probiotic was facing the problem of recurring phage attacks. Two mutants viz. B. co PIII and B. co MIII that were isolated as phage resistant mutants after UV irradiation and MMS treatment of phage sensitive B. coagulans parental culture were characterized at functional and molecular level and were noted to have undergone interesting genetic changes. The non-specific genetic alterations induced by mutagenesis can also lead to alterations in cell performance. Hence, in the current study the parental strain and the two mutants were selected for shake flask optimization. Plackett-Burman design was used to select the significant culture variables affecting biomass production. Evolutionary operation method was applied for further optimization. The study showed wide variations in the nutritional requirements of phage resistant mutants, post exposure to mutagens. An increment of 150, 134 and 152 % was observed in the biomass productions of B. coagulans (parental type) and mutants B.co PIII and B.co MIII respectively, compared to the yield from one-factor-at-a-time technique. Using Logistic and modified Leudeking-Piret equations, biomass accumulation and substrate utilization efficiency of the bioprocess were determined. The experimental data was in agreement with the results predicted by statistical analysis and modelling. The developed model may be useful for controlling the growth and substrate consumption kinetics in large scale fermentation using B. coagulans.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus coagulans; Evolutionary operation (EVOP); Plackett–Burman methodology; Probiotics; Random mutagenesis
Year: 2016 PMID: 27722071 PMCID: PMC5035293 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3325-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Schematic representation of the experimental plan (Walters et al. 1991)
Plackett–Burman design for shake flask optimization
| Runs | Variables | Response (biomass—g/l) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
| Mutant B. co PIII | Mutant B. co MIII | ||||
| Act. | Pred. | Act. | Pred. | Act. | Pred. | |||||||||
| 1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | 3.58 | 3.585 | 3.89 | 4.293 | 2.89 | 2.843 |
| 2 | −1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | 3.57 | 3.862 | 3.03 | 3.535 | 2.21 | 2.243 |
| 3 | +1 | +1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 2.95 | 3.198 | 3.89 | 4.183 | 2.52 | 2.400 |
| 4 | +1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 2.75 | 2.720 | 2.61 | 3.425 | 2.07 | 2.297 |
| 5 | +1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | 4.52 | 4.542 | 4.12 | 4.183 | 2.75 | 2.837 |
| 6 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | 2.37 | 2.13 | 2.41 | 2.303 | 2.37 | 2.157 |
| 7 | +1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | 5.35 | 5.043 | 5.1 | 4.657 | 3.41 | 3.317 |
| 8 | +1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | 4.8 | 4.877 | 4.91 | 4.657 | 3.23 | 3.257 |
| 9 | +1 | +1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | −1 | 6.12 | 6.110 | 5.89 | 5.415 | 4.48 | 4.353 |
| 10 | −1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | 2.67 | 2.882 | 2.82 | 2.303 | 1.64 | 1.660 |
| 11 | −1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | −1 | +1 | −1 | +1 | 4.23 | 4.173 | 4.03 | 4.293 | 3.57 | 3.777 |
| 12 | −1 | +1 | −1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 2.98 | 2.772 | 3.61 | 3.062 | 2.32 | 2.320 |
The variable codes and their lower (−1) and higher (+1) values are as follows: A: glucose concentration—10 and 30 g/l, B: C/N ratio—20 and 40, C: agitation—150 and 250 rpm, D: temperature—30 and 40 °C, E: pH—5.5–7.5; F: mineral concentration—1× and 5×, G: inoculum size—5 and 10 % and age of seed—18 and 24 h, Act.: experimental data, Pred.: response predicted by model, responses are average of three values
Calculation worksheet for analysis of effects, standard deviation and error limits for higher productivity
| Effect of variables | Formulae to calculate effects of variables |
|---|---|
| Glucose | 1/6 [X3 + X4 + X5 + X7 + X8 + X9] − [X1 + X2 + X6 + X10 + X11 + X12] |
| C/N | 1/6 [X1 + X3 + X5 + X9 + X11 + X12] − [X2 + X4 + X6 + X7 + X8 + X10] |
| Agitation | 1/6 [X1 + X2 + X7 + X8 + X9 + X11] − [X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X10 + X12] |
| Minerals conc. | 1/6 [X4 + X6 + X7 + X9 + X11 + X12] − [X1 + X2 + X3 + X5 + X8 + X10] |
X = response, C/N = carbon–nitrogen ratio
Multiple regression analysis of the data obtained by PB-design
| Cultures | SD (σ) | Adequate precision | p value | Model remark |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 0.63 | 8.915 | <0.05 | Significant |
| Mutant B.co PIII | 0.54 | 10.037 | ||
| Mutant B.co MIII | 0.43 | 8.779 |
Cycle-I of EVOP with five sets of conditions
| E13 (−1) | E14 (−2) | E15 (0) | E16 (+1) | E17 (+2) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conditions | |||||
| Glucose (g/l) | 5 | 6.25 | 7.50 | 8.75 | 10 |
| C/N ratio | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 |
| Agitation (rpm) | 150 | 175 | 200 | 225 | 250 |
| Responsea (biomass—g/l) | |||||
| Parent | 4.80 | 5.72 | 6.10 | 6.97 | 7.10 |
| Mutant B.co PIII | 4.74 | 5.19 | 5.81 | 5.88 | 5.23 |
| Mutant B.co MIII | 3.79 | 4.02 | 4.79 | 4.38 | 4.25 |
aResponses are average of three values
EVOP designing for the three probiotic cultures and effects of error limits
| Parameters | E18 (−1) | E19 (0) | E20 (+1) | E21 (−1) | E22 (0) | E23 (+1) | E24 (−1) | E25 (0) | E26 (+1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | |||||||||
| Glucose (g/l) | 53 | 55.8 | 59 | 57 | 59 | 60 | 58 | 59 | 59.5 |
| C/N ratio | 38 | 40 | 42 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 41.5 | 42 | 42.5 |
| Agitation (rpm) | 200 | 225 | 250 | 240 | 250 | 250 | 245 | 250 | 250 |
| Responsea (biomass—g/l) | 7.2 | 7.38 | 7.88 | 7.2 | 7.6 | 7.42 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 7.2 |
σ—standard deviation
aResponses are average of three values
Optimized shake flask conditions for maximum yields of probiotic strains
| Variables | Optimized shake flask conditions for probiotic strains | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mutant B. co PIII | Mutant B. co MIII | |
| Glucose (g/l) | 59 | 47 | 32.5 |
| C/N ratio | 42 | 36 | 31 |
| Agitation (rpm) | 225 | 250 | 220 |
| Biomassa (g/l) | 7.88 | 6.3 | 6.1 |
aResponses are average of three values
Maximum growth rates obtained on kinetic modelling of the three cultures
| S. no. | Strain | Actual µmax | Predicted µmax | Xm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Parental | 0.408 | 0.40 | 0.41 |
| 2 | Mutant MIII | 0.389 | 0.399 | 0.4 |
| 3 | Mutant PIII | 0.396 | 0.40 | 0.4 |
Fig. 2Plots of biomass produced (experimentally) by the 3 probiotic cultures—B. coagulans (parent) (a) and mutants B.co PIII (b) and B.co MIII (c), against the values predicted by model (experiments were run in triplicates)