| Literature DB >> 27919272 |
Mouna Dammak1, Sandra Mareike Haase2, Ramzi Miladi1, Faten Ben Amor1, Mohamed Barkallah1, David Gosset3, Chantal Pichon3, Bernhard Huchzermeyer4, Imen Fendri5, Michel Denis6, Slim Abdelkafi7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing demand for microalgae lipids as an alternative to fish has encouraged researchers to explore oleaginous microalgae for food uses. In this context, optimization of growth and lipid production by the marine oleaginous V2-strain-microalgae is of great interest as it contains large amounts of mono-unsaturated (MUFAs) and poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).Entities:
Keywords: Flow cytometry; Lipids; Microalgae; Poly-unsaturated fatty acids; Response surface methodology; Tetraselmis sp.
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27919272 PMCID: PMC5139129 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-016-0375-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Variables and experimental levels for optimising culture conditions
| Factors | Coded symbol | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levels | −1 | 0 | +1 | |
| Salinity | X1 | 20 | 30 | 40 |
| Light intensity (μmol photons.m−2.s−1) | X2 | 84 | 133 | 182 |
| pH | X3 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
Results from Box-Behnken experiments: optimizing culture conditions for V2 strain growth and lipid production
| Exp no. | Salinity (X1) | Light intensity (X3) (μmol photons. m−2.s−1) | pH (X3) | Growth (A680 nm) (Y1) | Lipids (a.u.) (Y2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30 | 84 | 6 | 0.54 ± 0.013 | 1836.05 ± 0.08 |
| 2 | 40 | 133 | 6 | 0.56 ± 0.0205 | 2031.44 ± 0.285 |
| 3 | 30 | 182 | 6 | 0.57 ± 0.0305 | 2198.52 ± 0.075 |
| 4 | 20 | 133 | 6 | 0.57 ± 0.012 | 1103.61 ± 0.012 |
| 5 | 20 | 84 | 7 | 0.44 ± 0.016 | 978.00 ± 0.26 |
| 6 | 40 | 84 | 7 | 0.51 ± 0.033 | 1491.41 ± 0.21 |
| 7 | 40 | 182 | 7 | 0.52 ± 0.022 | 2675.11 ± 0.2 |
| 8 | 20 | 182 | 7 | 0.60 ± 0.001 | 980.76 ± 0.06 |
| 9 | 30 | 84 | 8 | 0.45 ± 0.0015 | 1860.83 ± 0.32 |
| 10 | 20 | 133 | 8 | 0.57 ± 0.02 | 1400.50 ± 0.025 |
| 11 | 30 | 182 | 8 | 0.59 ± 0.019 | 2604.73 ± 0.035 |
| 12 | 40 | 133 | 8 | 0.47 ± 0.0025 | 2021.83 ± 0.12 |
| 13 | 30 | 133 | 7 | 0.71 ± 0.003 | 2401.15 ± 0.14 |
| 14 | 30 | 133 | 7 | 0.70 ± 0.012 | 2250.30 ± 0.035 |
| 15 | 30 | 133 | 7 | 0.68 ± 0.009 | 2337.83 ± 0.055 |
Lipid content was given as area detected into standard experimental conditions
Variance analysis for cells abundance response
| Source of variation | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | Ratio | Significance (%) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 0.0962 | 9 | 0.0107 | 30.2537 | 0.0777a | Significant |
| Residual | 0.0018 | 5 | 0.0004 | |||
| Lack of fit | 0.0013 | 3 | 0.0004 | 1.8571 | 36.9 | Not significant |
| Error | 0.0005 | 2 | 0.0002 | |||
| Total | 0.0980 | 14 |
R2 = 0.982, aSignificant at 99.9%
Variance analysis for lipid production response
| Source of variation | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | Ratio | Significance (%) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 4.45871 | 9 | 4.95413E + 0005 | 35.8982 | 0.0514a | Significant |
| Residual | 6.90025 | 5 | 1.38001 | |||
| Lack of fit | 5.75269 | 3 | 1.92034 | 3.3420 | 23.9 | Not significant |
| Error | 1.14755 | 2 | 5.73777 | |||
| Total | 4.52772 | 14 |
R2 = 0.985, aSignificant at 99.9%
Coefficient statistical-analysis for cell abundance response
| Coefficients | Coefficient values | Student test | Significance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| b0 | 0.697 | 64.19 | <0.01a |
| b1 | −0.015 | −2.26 | 7.4 |
| b2 | 0.042 | 6.40 | 0.139b |
| b3 | −0.020 | −3.01 | 2.98c |
| b11 | −0.087 | −8.90 | 0.029a |
| b22 | −0.092 | −9.41 | 0.022a |
| b33 | −0.067 | −6.86 | 0.101b |
| b12 | −0.037 | −3.99 | 1.04c |
| b13 | −0.023 | −2.39 | 6.2 |
| b23 | 0.028 | 2.93 | 3.28c |
aSignificant at 99.9%, bSignificant at 99%, cSignificant at 95%
Fig. 1Contour plots and the corresponding cells abundance response surface plot. a Effects of salinity and light intensity on cell abundance. b Effects of pH and light intensity on cell abundance
Coefficient statistical analysis for lipid production response
| Coefficients | Coefficient values | Student test | Significance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| b0 | 2329.760 | 34.35 | <0.01a |
| b1 | 469.564 | 11.31 | <0.01a |
| b2 | 286.552 | 6.90 | 0.0980a |
| b3 | 89.784 | 2.16 | 8.3 |
| b11 | −642.012 | −10.50 | 0.0136a |
| b22 | −156.325 | −2.56 | 5.1 |
| b33 | −48.402 | −0.79 | 46.4 |
| b12 | 295.337 | 5.03 | 0.401b |
| b13 | −76.625 | −1.30 | 24.9 |
| b23 | 95.357 | 1.62 | 16.5 |
aSignificant at 99.9%, bSignificant at 99%
Fig. 2Contour plots and the corresponding lipid response surface plot. a Effects of salinity and light intensity on lipid production. b Effects of pH and light intensity on lipid production
Fig. 3Tetraselmis sp. lipid content (% DW) determined by the gravimetric method under different culture conditions
Fig. 4Cytograms of Tetraselmis sp. cells under various culture conditions (4, 5 and 7). a Unstained Tetraselmis sp. cells under culture conditions (4, 5 and 7). b Nile red stained Tetraselmis sp. cells under culture conditions (4, 5 and 7)
Median values of Tetraselmis sp. flow cytometric variables
| Conditions (4- 5–7) | Red fluorescence (a.u.) | Size (a.u.) | Structure (a.u.) | Orange fluorescence (a.u.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstained cells | ||||
| Condition 4 | 85 | 97 | 80 | 24.01 |
| Condition 4-R2 | 91.37 | 24.01 | ||
| Condition 4-R3 | 37.04 | 27.74 | ||
| Condition 5 | 27.74 | 89 | 53 | 24.89 |
| Condition 7 | 42.79 | 82 | 88 | 16.4 |
| Condition 7-R1 | 22.34 | 15.01 | ||
| Condition 7-R3 | 57.13 | 19.33 | ||
| Nile red stained cells | ||||
| Condition 4 | 73.56 | 90 | 79 | 481 |
| Condition 4-R1 | 34.46 | 81.98 | ||
| Condition 4-R3 | 85 | 1230.82 | ||
| Condition 5 | 24.89 | 82 | 54 | 557.69 |
| Condition 5-R1 | 26.76 | 44.75 | ||
| Condition 5-R3 | 27.74 | 811.97 | ||
| Condition 7 | 20.78 | 81 | 68 | 536.31 |
| Condition 7-R1 | 20.04 | 49.44 | ||
| Condition 7-R3 | 24.01 | 2724.55 | ||
Fig. 5Fluorescence microscopy images of Tetraselmis sp. grown under different conditions. (a, b and c) correspond to fluorescence images of cells stained with NR (Excitation wavelength centered at 555 nm and fluorescence emission wavelength centered at 600 nm) to highlight the lipid droplets (red) cultured under indicated conditions. (a’, b’ and c’) correspond to phase contrast images of corresponding culture conditions. (a and a’) culture condition 7. (b and b’) culture condition 4. (c and c’) culture condition 5. All images of epifluorescence microscopy were taken at × 20 magnification, while contrast images were taken at × 40 magnification. Scale bar represents 20 μm
Fatty acids composition and total lipid content of Tetraselmis sp.
| Name | % of the total FAME |
|---|---|
| Saturated fatty acids | |
| Myristic (14:0) | 0.82 |
| Palmitic (16:0) | 30.89 |
| Heptadecanoic (17:0) | 2.99 |
| Stearic (18:0) | 1.07 |
| (19:0) | 7.25 |
| Arachidic (20:0) | 1.62 |
| Total saturates | 44.68 |
| Monounsaturated fatty acids | |
| Palmitoleic (16:1) | 5.58 |
| Oleic (18:1) | 32.88 |
| Gadoleic (20:1) | 0.73 |
| Total monounsaturates | 39.20 |
| Polyunsaturated fatty acids | |
| Linoleic (18:2) | 8.12 |
| Linolenic (18:3) | 1.84 |
| Dihomolinoléic (20:2) | 1.85 |
| DGL (20:3) | 0.85 |
| EPA (20:5) | 3.43 |
| Total polyunsaturates | 16.10 |
| Total lipids (% DW) | 49 ± 2.1 |