| Literature DB >> 29449173 |
Saad A M Moghannem1, Mohamed M S Farag2, Amr M Shehab2, Mohamed S Azab2.
Abstract
Exopolysaccharide (EPS) biopolymers produced by microorganisms play a crucial role in the environment such as health and bio-nanotechnology sectors, gelling agents in food and cosmetic industries in addition to bio-flocculants in the environmental sector as they are degradable, nontoxic. This study focuses on the improvement of EPS production through manipulation of different culture and environmental conditions using response surface methodology (RSM). Plackett-Burman design indicated that; molasses, yeast extract and incubation temperature are the most effective parameters. Box-Behnken RSM indicated that; the optimum concentration for each parameter was 12% (w/v) for molasses, 6g/L yeast extract and 30°C for incubation temperature. The most potent bacterial isolate was identified as Bacillus velezensis KY498625. After production, EPS was extracted, purified using DEAE-cellulose, identified using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), gel permeation chromatography (GPC) and gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). The result indicated that; it has molecular weight 1.14×105D consisting of glucose, mannose and galactose.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial exopolysaccharide; Box–Behnken; DEAE-cellulose; Plackett–Burman
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29449173 PMCID: PMC6066745 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjm.2017.05.012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Microbiol ISSN: 1517-8382 Impact factor: 2.476
Plackett–Burman experimental design for screening of culture conditions affecting EPS production.
| RUN | EPS g/L observed | Predicted | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5.8 ± 0.21 | 5.8 |
| 2 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 5.42 ± 0.16 | 5.55 |
| 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 6.48 ± 0.22 | 6.61 |
| 4 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 3.01 ± 0.31 | 3.14 |
| 5 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 7.05 ± 0.28 | 7.18 |
| 6 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 6.76 ± 0.44 | 6.76 |
| 7 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 2.92 ± 0.13 | 3.05 |
| 8 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 2.15 ± 0.35 | 2.15 |
| 9 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 3.69 ± 0.37 | 3.69 |
| 10 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.44 ± 0.21 | 2.57 |
| 11 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.96 ± 0.14 | 1.96 |
| 12 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | −1.00 | 1.00 | 4.65 ± 0.65 | 4.65 |
| 13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.84 ± 0.29 | 4.69 |
| 14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.13 ± 0.22 | 4.69 |
| 15 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.94 ± 0.51 | 4.69 |
X1, yeast extract (g/L); X2, molasses (g/L); X3, MgSO4 (g/L); X4, K2HPO4 (g/L); X5, KH2PO4 (g/L); X6, peptone (g/L); X7, incubation time (h); X8, inocolum size (%); X9, incubation temperature (°C); X10, pH; X11, shaking (rpm).
Experimental design and results of Box–Behnken optimization experiment.
| Trials | EPS (g/L) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coded level | Real level (%) | Coded level | Real level (g/L) | Coded level | Real level (°C) | Observed | Predicted | |
| 1 | 0.00 | 8 | 1.00 | 6 | −1.00 | 30 | 6.92 ± 0.21 | 7.05 |
| 2 | 1.00 | 12 | −1.00 | 2 | 0.00 | 35 | 4.55 ± 0.07 | 4.53 |
| 3 | 0.00 | 8 | 1.00 | 6 | 1.00 | 40 | 7.78 ± 0.51 | 7.48 |
| 4 | 1.00 | 12 | 0.00 | 4 | −1.00 | 30 | 6.90 ± 0.09 | 6.62 |
| 5 | −1.00 | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 1.00 | 40 | 5.31 ± 0.02 | 4.99 |
| 6 | 1.00 | 12 | 0.00 | 4 | 1.00 | 40 | 5.44 ± 0.11 | 5.59 |
| 7 | 1.00 | 12 | 1.00 | 6 | 0.00 | 35 | 7.16 ± 0.19 | 7.29 |
| 8 | 0.00 | 8 | −1.00 | 2 | −1.00 | 30 | 5.36 ± 0.44 | 5.65 |
| 9 | −1.00 | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | −1.00 | 30 | 4.78 ± 0.66 | 4.62 |
| 10 | −1.00 | 4 | −1.00 | 2 | 0.00 | 35 | 3.97 ± 0.08 | 3.83 |
| 11 | 0.00 | 8 | −1.00 | 2 | 1.00 | 40 | 4.69 ± 0.02 | 4.55 |
| 12 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | 35 | 5.88 ± 0.11 | 5.64 |
| 13 | −1.00 | 4 | 1.00 | 6 | 0.00 | 35 | 5.39 ± 0.09 | 5.40 |
| 14 | −1.00 | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 1.00 | 40 | 4.41 ± 0.58 | 4.99 |
| 15 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | 35 | 5.41 ± 0.06 | 5.64 |
X1, molasses (%); X2, yeast extract (g/L) and X3, incubation temperature (h).
Fig. 1The two selection criteria for the most potent bacterial isolate were: (A) EPS precipitation using ethanol 70% and (B) is the ropy strand formed by 9I strain.
Fig. 2Correlation between bacterial growth curve and exopolysaccharide production of bacterial isolate 9I (55).
Fig. 3Effect of different carbon sources on EPS production.
Fig. 4Effect of different nitrogen sources on EPS production.
Identification of significant variables for EPS production of strain (9I) using PB design.
| EPS production | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Coefficients | Standard error | |||
| Intercept | 4.69 | 0.12 | 39.01 | 3.71 | |
| Yeast extract | 1.28 | 0.14 | 9.13 | 0.002 | |
| Sugarcane molasses | 1.57 | 0.57 | 2.75 | 0.070 | |
| MgSO4 | −1.18 | 0.48 | −2.42 | 0.093 | |
| K2HPO4 | 0.58 | 0.14 | 4.12 | 0.025 | |
| KH2PO4 | −0.49 | 0.14 | −3.47 | 0.04 | |
| Peptone | 0.65 | 0.14 | 4.61 | 0.01 | |
| Incubation time | −0.13 | 0.14 | −0.95 | 0.41 | |
| Inoculum size | −0.47 | 0.14 | −3.34 | 0.044 | |
| Temperature | 1.01 | 0.14 | 7.19 | 0.005 | |
| pH | −0.32 | 0.14 | −2.30 | 0.10 | |
| Shaking | 0.037 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.80 | |
| Regression statistics | |||||
| Multiple | 0.995 | Adjusted | 0.954 | ||
| 0.990 | Standard error | 0.360 | |||
Fig. 5Effect of environmental and media composition on EPS production by PB design.
Identification of significant variables for EPS production of strain (9I) using PB design.
| ANOVA | df | SS | MS | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 9 | 16.7 | 1.85 | 10.08 | 0.01 |
| Residual | 5 | 0.91 | 0.18 | ||
| Total | 14 | 17.6 |
Multiple R = 0.973; R2 (coefficient of determination) = 0.947; Adj. R2 (adjusted coefficient of determination) = 0.853; model are significant.
Fig. 6Response surface plots of three variables in medium on EPS production. (A) Interaction of molasses and yeast extract; (B) interaction of temperature and yeast extract; (C) interaction of molasses and temperature.
Fig. 7Neighbor-joining tree of 16S rDNA of the local isolate 9I with respect to closely related sequences available in GenBank databases.
Fig. 8Estimation of bacterial polysaccharide by phenol sulfuric acid methods.
Fig. 9FTIR spectroscopy analysis of Bacillus velezensis polysaccharide extracted showing the transmittance trough at different wave number.
Fig. 10GPC chromatogram of partially purified exopolysaccharide from B. velezensis.
Fig. 11(A) Gas chromatographic of standard sugar are as follows: 1. Galactose; 2. Fucose; 3. Mannose; 4. Xylose; 5. Glucose; 6. Arabinose; 7. Mannuronic acid; 8. Glucuronic acid; 9. Galacturonic acid; 10. Mannuronic acid. (B) Gas chromatograms of extracellular polysaccharides produced by B. velezensis.