| Literature DB >> 31015862 |
Qinhua Liu1, Junfeng Li1, Jie Zhao1, Jingxing Wu1, Tao Shao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Butyric fermentation and a substantial loss of dry matter (DM) often occur in alfalfa silage during the rainy season, which is not conducive to subsequent biofuel production. Currently, there have been negative effects on the combination of cellulases and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) on processing high-moisture alfalfa silage; however, transgenically engineered LAB strains that secrete cellulase have been proposed as an alternative approach to avoid the above problem. The objective of the present study was to construct engineered Lactococcus lactis strains with high-efficiency secretory-expressing cellulase genes from Trichoderma reesei and to investigate the effects of the combination of transgenically engineered L. lactis strains HT1/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2, and HT1/pMG36e-usp45-egl3 (HT2) on fermentation quality, structural carbohydrate degradability and nonstructural carbohydrate fermentation kinetics of high-moisture alfalfa silage treated without additive as a negative control (Control), or/and with cellulase (EN), wild-type L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363 (HT1) and the combination of HT1 and EN (HT1 + EN) as positive additive controls.Entities:
Keywords: Cellulase; Ensiling; Lactococcus lactis; Lignocellulose
Year: 2019 PMID: 31015862 PMCID: PMC6469111 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-019-1429-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study
| Strain and plasmid | Relevant trait(s) | Source or reference |
|---|---|---|
| Strains | ||
| | supE44 Δlac U169 (Φ80 lacZ ΔM15) hsdR17 recA1, endA1 gyrA96 thi-l relA1 | This laboratory |
| | A plasmid-free derivative of NCDO712; source of | This laboratory |
| | Type culture | China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| | This study | |
| Plasmids | ||
| pMD18-T | Ampr | Takara Biotechnology Co., Ltd. |
| pMD18-T- | Ampr, clone | This study |
| pMD18-T- | Ampr, clone | This study |
| pMD18-T- | Ampr, clone | This study |
| pMG36e | Emr; expression vector with the P32 promoter, multiple cloning sites (MCF) and prtP translational terminator | Liu et al. [ |
| pMG36e- | Emr; expression of | This study |
| pMG36e- | Emr; expression of | This study |
| pMG36e- | Emr; expression of | This study |
| pMG36e- | Emr, secretory expression of | This study |
| pMG36e- | Emr, secretory expression of | This study |
| pMG36e- | Emr, secretory expression of | This study |
Fig. 1Experimental schematic
Fig. 2Effects of recombinants expressing β-glucosidase, cellobiohydrolase and endoglucanase on the media containing sodium carboxymethylcellulose. a BC, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e; BK, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-egl3; BZ, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-egl3. b CC, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e; CK, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-egl3; CZ, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-egl3. c EC, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e; EK, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-egl3; EZ, L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-egl3
Fig. 3SDS-PAGE of the recombinant strains. a M, protein molecular weight marker; lane a, intracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363; lanes b and c, intracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-egl3; lane d, intracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e; lane e, extracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e; lanes f and g, extracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-egl3; b lanes 1 and 2, extracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2; lanes 3 and 4, intracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2; lanes 5 and 6, intracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e; lanes 7 and 8, extracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e; lanes 9 and 10, extracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1; lanes 11 and 12, intracellular protein of L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1; M, protein molecular weight marker
Fig. 4The activities of secreting enzyme in each recombinant and their combination on degrading paper. HT1, wild-type L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363; BGL1, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1; CBH2, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2; EGL3, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-egl3; combination, the mixed strains of BGL1, CBH2 and EGL3
Fermentative characteristics of high-moisture alfalfa silages after ensiling
| Items | Additives | Time (days) | SEM | Significance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 18 | 60 | Additives | Time | Additives × time | |||
| pH | Control | 5.80aA | 4.57aB | 4.39aB | 5.35aA | 0.059 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| EN | 5.80aA | 4.42abC | 4.17bcD | 4.62bB | |||||
| HT1 | 4.95cB | 4.42abC | 4.32abC | 5.22aA | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 5.23bA | 4.40abB | 4.29abcC | 4.47bB | |||||
| HT2 | 4.76dA | 4.20bC | 4.12cC | 4.49bB | |||||
| Lactic acid (g/kg DM) | Control | 8.67bB | 40.1bA | 41.1bA | 16.3bB | 2.914 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| EN | 10.3bC | 45.2abAB | 56.6aA | 33.8bB | |||||
| HT1 | 16.4aC | 40.3bB | 49.4abA | 18.3bC | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 16.1aC | 52.5aB | 50.1abB | 69.0aA | |||||
| HT2 | 17.4aD | 41.9bC | 58.2aB | 67.1aA | |||||
| Acetic acid (g/kg DM) | Control | 12.0aC | 22.8abBC | 32.4abAB | 42.5bA | 3.027 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| EN | 12.2aC | 24.8aBC | 33.6aB | 79.2aA | |||||
| HT1 | 2.10bC | 16.0bcBC | 24.6bB | 46.2bA | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 5.09bD | 19.0abC | 30.9abB | 39.9bA | |||||
| HT2 | 1.70bD | 9.56cC | 24.3bB | 32.4bA | |||||
| Propionic acid (g/kg DM) | Control | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.69 | 1.028 | 0.150 | 0.011 | 0.110 |
| EN | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| HT1 | 0.00B | 0.00B | 0.00B | 3.79A | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| HT2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Butyric acid (g/kg DM) | Control | 0.00B | 0.00B | 0.59B | 36.94aA | 2.700 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| EN | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| HT1 | 0.00B | 0.00B | 0.00B | 29.89aA | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00b | |||||
| HT2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00b | |||||
| Ammonia-N (g/kg N) | Control | 50.2aB | 103aB | 113aB | 246aA | 11.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| EN | 48.2abC | 79.2bB | 87.1bB | 129bA | |||||
| HT1 | 35.6bcB | 65.8bcB | 83.26bB | 210abA | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 37.7abcD | 64.7bcC | 91.0bB | 108bA | |||||
| HT2 | 34.0cD | 51.9cC | 81.1bB | 106bA | |||||
| LA/AA | Control | 0.74 dBC | 1.77bA | 1.26cAB | 0.38bC | 0.254 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| EN | 0.84dB | 1.83bA | 1.68bcAB | 0.44bC | |||||
| HT1 | 7.84bA | 2.64bB | 2.04abBC | 0.43bC | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 3.16cA | 2.81bA | 1.65bcB | 1.75aB | |||||
| HT2 | 10.33 aA | 4.40 aB | 2.39 aC | 2.08aC | |||||
| V-score | Control | 99.6abA | 85.9cA | 79.8bA | 38.2bcB | 2.519 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| EN | 99.5bA | 91.7bB | 87.9aB | 68.8abC | |||||
| HT1 | 100aA | 95.6abAB | 88.8aB | 36.5cC | |||||
| HT1 + EN | 100aA | 95.4abA | 88.3aB | 79.7aC | |||||
| HT2 | 100aA | 99.5aA | 91.7aB | 83.6aC | |||||
Values with different superscript lowercase letters show significant differences among treatments in the same ensiling day, values with different superscript capital letters show significant differences among ensiling days in the same treatment (P < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test
Control, silage treated without additives; DM, dry matter; EN, cellulase; HT1, wild-type L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363; HT1 + EN, combination of HT1 and EN; HT2, combination of transgenically engineered L. lactis strains HT1/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2, and HT1/pMG36e-usp45-egl3; N, nitrogen; LA/AA, ratio of lactic acid to acetic acid; SEM, standard error of the means
Fig. 5Changes in NDF, ADF, ADL, cellulose and hemicellulose in alfalfa silages during ensiling for 60 days. Different lowercase letters (a–c) indicated difference at P < 0.05 among additive treatments on the same ensiling day. Control, silage treated without additives; EN, cellulase; HT1, wild-type L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363; HT1 + EN, combination of HT1 and EN; HT2, combination of transgenically engineered L. lactis strains HT1/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2, and HT1/pMG36e-usp45-egl3
Fig. 6Changes in WSC, glucose, xylose and fructose in alfalfa silages during ensiling for 60 days. Different lowercase letters (a–d, from top to bottom orderly corresponding to additive treatments) indicated difference at P < 0.05 among additive treatments on the same ensiling day. WSC, water-soluble carbohydrates. Control, silage treated without additives; EN, cellulase; HT1, wild-type L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363; HT1 + EN, combination of HT1 and EN; HT2, combination of transgenically engineered L. lactis strains HT1/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2, and HT1/pMG36e-usp45-egl3
Kinetic parameters of nonstructural carbohydrates reduction in alfalfa silages based on first-order exponential decay model y = y0 + a*e(−
| Additives | WSC | Glucose | Fructose | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Control | 8.98e | 43.6a | 0.69c | 0.00b | 5.81a | 1.99 | 0.84c | 4.20b | 1.67a |
| EN | 11.4c | 41.3c | 0.77b | 0.05b | 5.76a | 1.77 | 1.28b | 3.76c | 1.33b |
| HT1 | 10.2d | 42.3b | 0.77b | 0.00b | 5.81a | 2.00 | 0.73d | 4.31a | 1.35b |
| HT1 + EN | 12.0b | 40.6d | 0.73bc | 0.04b | 5.77a | 1.75 | 1.50a | 3.56d | 0.65c |
| HT2 | 13.2a | 39.5e | 0.85a | 0.13a | 5.64b | 1.70 | 1.51a | 3.53d | 1.35b |
| SEM | 0.014 | 0.125 | 0.017 | 0.015 | 0.035 | 0.108 | 0.010 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Significance | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.054 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Means within a symbol with different superscript lowercase letters (a–e) differ (P < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test
According to Li et al. [28], first-order exponential decay model was y = y0 + ae (−: y (g/kg DM) is the residue at any time x (day); y0 (g/kg DM) is the total residual fraction after 60 days of ensiling; a (g/kg DM) is the consumable fraction; b (day−1) is the fractional consumption rate of a and x is the ensilage time (day)
EN, cellulase; HT1, wild-type L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363; HT1 + EN, combination of HT1 and EN; HT2, combination of transgenically engineered L. lactis strains HT1/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2, and HT1/pMG36e-usp45-egl3; SEM, standard error of the means
Fig. 7DM, DM recovery, crude protein and microbial composition of alfalfa silage after ensiling for 60 days. Means within a column with different letters (a–c) differ (P < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test. Control, silage treated without additives; EN, cellulase; HT1, wild-type L. lactis subsp. lactis MG1363; HT1 + EN, combination of HT1 and EN; HT2, combination of transgenically engineered L. lactis strains HT1/pMG36e-usp45-bgl1, HT1/pMG36e-usp45-cbh2, and HT1/pMG36e-usp45-egl3