| Literature DB >> 28324477 |
Shuchi Singh1, Vijayanand S Moholkar2,3, Arun Goyal4,5.
Abstract
In this paper, we have attempted optimization of production of enzyme carboxymethylcellulase or endoglucanase from the bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SS35. Optimization has been carried out in two stages using statistical experimental design, viz. medium optimization and optimization of fermentation parameters. For medium optimization, Plackett-Burman design followed by central composite design (CCD) was used, while for optimization of fermentation parameters one-variable-at-a-time method followed by CCD was used. Carbon and nitrogen sources in the medium have been revealed to be the significant factors for enzyme production (carboxymethylcellulose 18.05 g/L; yeast extract 8 g/L and peptone 2 g/L). The inorganic salts have been found to be insignificant components of medium. Optimum fermentation parameters for optimized medium were: initial medium pH 5.65, incubation temperature = 40 °C, shaking speed = 120 rpm, and inoculum size = 6.96 %, v/v. Interestingly, the influence of all four parameters was almost independent with no interlinks. Secondly, the overall effect of all parameters was also low, as indicated by linear, square and interaction regression coefficients that were at least one order of magnitude lower than the intercept in the model equation. These results essentially meant that medium components dominate overall enzyme production process in comparison to fermentation parameters.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens; Carboxymethylcellulase; Central composite design; Fermentation parameter optimization; Medium optimization
Year: 2013 PMID: 28324477 PMCID: PMC4145630 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-013-0169-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.406
Statistical analysis for the results from Plackett–Burman experimental design
| Model term | Coefficient estimate | Computed | Confidence level (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Coefficient values, | |||||
| Intercept | 0.33265 | 51.00 | 0* | 100 | |
| CMC ( | 0.11625 | 17.82 | 0* | 100 | |
| Yeast extract ( | 0.04215 | 6.46 | 0* | 100 | |
| Peptone ( | 0.02675 | 4.10 | 0.001* | 99.9 | |
| K2HPO4 ( | 0.00755 | 1.16 | 0.268 | 73.2 | |
| MgSO4·7H2O ( | −0.01105 | −1.69 | 0.114 | 88.6 | |
| NaCl ( | 0.00755 | 1.16 | 0.268 | 73.2 | |
DF degrees of freedom, SS sum of squares, MS mean square
* Significant p values, p ≤ 0.05; R2 = 0.9671; predicted R2 = 0.9220; adjusted R2 = 0.9519
Results of statistical (CCD) analysis for medium optimization
| Model term | Coefficient estimate | Computed | Confidence level (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| prob > | |||||
| (a) Model coefficient estimated by regressions | |||||
| Intercept | 0.443596 | 56.21 | 0* | 100 | |
| CMC ( | 0.087215 | 16.657 | 0* | 100 | |
| Yeast extract ( | −0.028983 | −5.535 | 0* | 100 | |
| Peptone ( | −0.008664 | −1.655 | 0.129 | 87.1 | |
| CMC × CMC | −0.045706 | −8.967 | 0* | 100 | |
| Yeast extract × yeast extract | 0.008741 | 1.715 | 0.117 | 88.3 | |
| Peptone × peptone | −0.011942 | −2.343 | 0.041* | 95.9 | |
| CMC × yeast extract ( | 0.0175 | 2.558 | 0.028* | 97.2 | |
| CMC × peptone ( | 0.02175 | 3.179 | 0.01* | 99 | |
| Yeast extract × peptone ( | 0.02975 | 4.349 | 0.001* | 99.9 | |
DF degrees of freedom, SS sum of squares, MS mean square
* Significant p values, p ≤ 0.05; R2 = 0.9776; predicted R2 = 0.8642; adjusted R2 = 0.9575
Fig. 1Contour plots for CMCase production showing the interactive effects of medium components: a concentrations of yeast extract and CMC, b concentrations of yeast extract and peptone, c concentrations of CMC and peptone
Fig. 2Evaluation of individual effect of fermentation parameters on CMCase production (one-variable-at-a-time method): a effect on incubation temperature at medium pH 7.0, shaking speed = 180 rpm, and inoculum size = 2 % v/v; b effect of initial medium pH at temperature = 37 °C, shaking speed = 180 rpm, and inoculum size = 2 % v/v; c effect of shaking speed at medium pH 7.0, temperature = 37 °C, inoculum size = 2 % v/v; d effect of inoculum size at temperature = 37 °C, shaking speed = 180 rpm, and medium pH 7.0
Results of statistical (CCD) analysis for optimization of fermentation parameters
| Model term | Coefficient estimate | Computed | Confidence level (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Model coefficient estimated by regressions | |||||
| Intercept | 0.637714 | 184.607 | 0* | 100 | |
| Temperature ( | 0.008208 | 4.4 | 0* | 100 | |
| Medium pH ( | −0.021208 | −11.368 | 0* | 100 | |
| Shaking ( | −0.006125 | −3.283 | 0.005* | 99.5 | |
| Inoculum size ( | 0.004958 | 2.658 | 0.017* | 98.3 | |
| Temperature × temperature | −0.028564 | −16.713 | 0* | 100 | |
| pH × pH | −0.007314 | −4.279 | 0.001* | 99.9 | |
| Shaking × shaking | 0.008811 | 5.155 | 0* | 100 | |
| Inoculum size × inoculum size | −0.002689 | −1.573 | 0.135 | 86.5 | |
| Temperature × medium pH ( | 0.003563 | 1.559 | 0.139 | 86.1 | |
| Temperature × shaking ( | −0.007438 | −3.255 | 0.005* | 99.5 | |
| Temperature × inoculum size ( | 0.005938 | 2.599 | 0.019* | 98.1 | |
| Medium pH × shaking ( | 0.001187 | 0.520 | 0.610 | 39 | |
| Medium × inoculum size pH ( | 0.000313 | 0.137 | 0.893 | 10.7 | |
| Shaking × inoculum size ( | 0.000063 | 0.027 | 0.979 | 2.1 | |
DF degrees of freedom, SS sum of squares, MS mean square
* Significant p values, p ≤ 0.05; R2 = 0.9701; predicted R2 = 0.9422; adjusted R2 = 0.8473
Fig. 3Contour plot for CMCase production showing the interactive effects of fermentation parameters: a medium pH and inoculum size; b shaking speed and inoculum size; c shaking speed and medium pH; d temperature and inoculum size; e temperature and medium pH; f temperature and shaking speed
Comparison of various optima reported in literature for CMCase production by Bacillus sp.
| Source of isolation | Medium component to optimize | Method | Optimum conc. (g/L) | Scale of experiments | Cellulase activity (U/mL) | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Representative literature review for optimization of medium components | |||||||
| | Soil | Glucose | OVAT | 50 | Shake flask | 1.0 | Sethi et al. ( |
| Ammonium sulphate | 5 | ||||||
| – | – | ||||||
| | Cow dung | CMC | Plackett–Burman and CCD | 18 | Shake flask | 0.43 | Deka et al. ( |
| Yeast extract | 4.79 | ||||||
| Peptone | 8 | ||||||
| | Soil from hot spring | CMC | OVAT | 10 | Shake flask | 0.63 | Singh et al. ( |
| Tryptone | 5 | ||||||
| – | – | ||||||
| | Sea water | Rice bran | OVAT | 20 | 7-L Bioreactor | 137 | Lee et al. ( |
| Yeast extract | 2.5 | ||||||
| – | – | ||||||
| | Soil | Rice hull | OVAT | 20 | 7-L Bioreactor | 153 | Lee et al. ( |
| Peptone | 2.5 | ||||||
| Ammonium sulphate | 0.6 | ||||||
| | Product of sugar factory | Molasses + cellulose | OVAT | 1.0 | Shake flask | 35 | Shabeb et al. ( |
| (NH4)2 PO4 or tryptone | 2.0 | ||||||
| – | – | ||||||
| | Oil palm empty fruit bunch | CMC | OVAT | 10 | Shake flask | 0.076 | Ariffin et al. ( |
| Yeast extract | 2.5 | ||||||
| Ammonium sulphate | 2.5 | ||||||
| | Rhinoceros dung | CMC | Plackett–Burman and CCD | 19.05 | Shake flask | 0.55 | This study |
| Yeast extract | 8.0 | ||||||
| Peptone | 2.0 | ||||||
ND not determined