| Literature DB >> 28324436 |
Rama Raju Baadhe1, Naveen Kumar Mekala2, Sreenivasa Rao Parcha2, Y Prameela Devi3.
Abstract
Isoprenoids are among the most diverse bioactive compounds synthesized by biological systems. The superiority of these compounds has expanded their utility from pharmaceutical to fragrances, including biofuel industries. In the present study, an engineered yeast strain Saccharomyces cerevisiae (YCF-AD1) was optimized for production of Amorpha-4, 11-diene, a precursor of anti-malarial drug using response surface methodology. The effect of four critical parameters such as KH2PO4, methionine, pH and temperature were evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively and further optimized for enhanced amorphadiene production by using a central composite design and model validation. The "goodness of fit" of the regression equation and model fit (R2) of 0.9896 demonstrate this study to be an effective model. Further, this model will be used to validate theoretically and experimentally at the higher level of amorphadiene production with the combination of the optimized values of KH2PO4 (4.0), methionine (1.49), pH (5.4) and temperature (33 °C).Entities:
Keywords: Amorphadiene; Isoprenoids; Response surface methodology; S. cerevisiae
Year: 2013 PMID: 28324436 PMCID: PMC4026448 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-013-0156-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.406
Design of experiments by central composite design for response surface methodology studies
| Std. order | Run order |
|
|
|
| Coefficients assessed by | Amorphadiene (mg/L) Experimental | Amorphadiene (mg/L) Predicted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | Full-factorial 24 design (16 expts) | 41.98 | 44.31 |
| 2 | 10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 40.12 | 38.01 | |
| 3 | 22 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 46.24 | 46.22 | |
| 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 42.37 | 39.63 | |
| 5 | 30 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 48.24 | 41.71 | |
| 6 | 2 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 39.21 | 41.31 | |
| 7 | 29 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 46.21 | 42.04 | |
| 8 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 40.35 | 41.35 | |
| 9 | 26 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 68.24 | 63.09 | |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 48.25 | 52.31 | |
| 11 | 18 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 58.23 | 56.02 | |
| 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 42.58 | 44.96 | |
| 13 | 21 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 58.24 | 60.87 | |
| 14 | 11 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 60.12 | 55.99 | |
| 15 | 15 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 54.27 | 52.23 | |
| 16 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 49.5 | 47.06 | |
| 17 | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Star points (8 expts) | 175 | 190.15 |
| 18 | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 182.54 | 184.42 | |
| 19 | 27 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 74.21 | 81.00 | |
| 20 | 20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 67.25 | 77.49 | |
| 21 | 19 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 174.35 | 177.81 | |
| 22 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 164 | 177.57 | |
| 23 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 159.77 | 169.90 | |
| 24 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 175.24 | 182.14 | |
| 25 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Central points (6 expts) | 205.34 | 190.77 |
| 26 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 201.27 | 190.77 | |
| 27 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 198.24 | 190.77 | |
| 28 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 195.28 | 190.77 | |
| 29 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 197.32 | 190.77 | |
| 30 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 198.25 | 190.77 |
Range and levels of the variables in coded units for response surface methodology studies
| Variables | −2 | −1 | 0 | +1 | +2 | ΔX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KH2PO4 ( | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 14 | 4 |
| Methionine ( | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 |
| pH, 5.5 ( | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 0.5 |
| Temperature, °C ( | 25 | 27 | 32 | 37 | 39 | 2 |
Model summary and analysis of variance for the quadratic model
| Source of variations | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square | Probability ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 132,761.320 | 14 | 9,482.95 | 101.69 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 1,398.780 | 15 | 93.25 | ||
| Total | 134,160.099 | 29 |
R = 0.9947, R2 = 0.9896, adjusted R2 = 0.9798, CV = 9.19 %
Model coefficients estimated by multiple linear regressions (significance of regression coefficients)
| Model term | Coefficient estimates | Standard error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 190.767 | 2.99967 | 101.692 | <0.0001 |
|
| −2.8672 | 2.27611 | 1.58686 | 0.227 |
|
| −1.7561 | 2.27611 | 0.59528 | 0.4524 |
|
| −0.1233 | 2.27611 | 0.00294 | 0.9575 |
|
| 6.12111 | 2.27611 | 7.23228 | 0.0168a |
|
| −0.0719 | 2.41418 | 0.00089 | 0.9766 |
|
| 1.47438 | 2.41418 | 0.37297 | 0.5505 |
|
| −1.1194 | 2.41418 | 0.21499 | 0.6495 |
|
| −0.3944 | 2.41418 | 0.02669 | 0.8724 |
|
| −2.2431 | 2.41418 | 0.86332 | 0.3675 |
|
| 0.09563 | 2.41418 | 0.00157 | 0.9689 |
|
| −3.4805 | 5.99933 | 0.33658 | 0.5704 |
|
| −111.52 | 5.99933 | 345.545 | <0.0001a |
|
| −13.076 | 5.99933 | 4.75021 | 0.0456a |
|
| −14.746 | 5.99933 | 6.04108 | 0.0266a |
aSignificant at P < 0.05
Fig. 1a–f 3-D surface and contour plot of amorphadiene production by S. cerevisiae (mg/L): the effect of two variables while the other two were held at 0 level