| Literature DB >> 31223338 |
Wenting Zhou1,2, Mou Tang1, Tao Zou1, Na Peng1, Mi Zhao3, Zhiwei Gong1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microbial lipids derived from various lignocellulosic feedstocks have emerged as a promising candidate for the biodiesel industry and a potential substitute for high value-added fats. However, lignocellulosic biomass, especially herbaceous biomass, such as water hyacinth, contains high concentrations of nitrogenous components. These compounds impede microbial lipid production, as lipid biosynthesis is commonly induced by imposing a nutrient deficiency, especially nitrogen starvation. Novel strategies and bioprocesses are pivotal for promoting lipid production from nitrogen-rich biomass.Entities:
Keywords: Acetate; Cutaneotrichosporon oleaginosum; Microbial lipid; Phosphorus limitation; Water hyacinth
Year: 2019 PMID: 31223338 PMCID: PMC6570911 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-019-1491-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1Effects of sulfuric acid loading for dilute acid pretreatment on the enzymatic hydrolysis of the regenerated water hyacinth. The raw water hyacinth was pretreated at 120 °C for 1 h at a solids loading of 10% (w/v). The regenerated samples (8%, w/v) were hydrolyzed at 50 °C for 48 h
Fig. 2Profiles of substrates consumption, cell growth, and lipid production on the water hyacinth enzymatic hydrolysates by C. oleaginosum
Cultivation results of C. oleaginosum on various water hyacinth enzymatic hydrolysates
| Entry | Phosphate removal | Acetate supplementation | Phosphorus (mg/L) | Nitrogen (g/L) | Initial TRS (g/L) | Cell mass (g/L) | Lipid titer (g/L) | Lipid content (%, w/w) | Lipid yield (g/100 g) | Lipid yielda (g/100 g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | × | × | 403.4 ± 6.6 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 34.7 ± 0.5 | 12.7 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 10.7 ± 0.8 | 5.6 ± 0.4 | 1.9 ± 0.2 |
| 2 | √ | × | 15.7 ± 0.3 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 33.6 ± 0.4 | 12.4 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.2 | 35.8 ± 1.7 | 17.9 ± 0.9 | 6.2 ± 0.3 |
| 3 | × | √ | 389.5 ± 0.7 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 33.0 ± 0.3 | 11.4 ± 0.4 | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 31.4 ± 0.7 | 9.2 ± 0.5 | 5.0 ± 0.3 |
| 4 | √ | √ | 25.8 ± 0.1 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 32.2 ± 0.5 | 12.2 ± 0.2 | 7.3 ± 0.1 | 59.7 ± 0.6 | 19.6 ± 0.4 | 10.1 ± 0.2 |
aLipid yield was calculated as Gram lipid produced per 100 g raw water hyacinth provided
Fig. 3Results of lipid production on the nutrients-rich media by C. oleaginosum in the presence of various amounts of phosphate. The initial C/N ratio was 12.3
Fig. 4Results of lipid production on the nutrients-rich media by C. oleaginosum in the presence of various amounts of acetate. The initial C/N ratio was set at 13.6
The experimental design and results of the central composite design
| Run | Factors | Responses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 (− 1) | 0 (− 1) | 5.4 | 48.3 |
| 2 | 0.2 (+ 1) | 0 (− 1) | 3.1 | 28.8 |
| 3 | 0 (− 1) | 15.0 (+ 1) | 5.1 | 57.5 |
| 4 | 0.2 (+ 1) | 15.0 (+ 1) | 3.5 | 33.2 |
| 5 | 0 (− 1) | 7.5 (0) | 6.3 | 54.3 |
| 6 | 0.2 (+ 1) | 7.5 (0) | 4.3 | 32.5 |
| 7 | 0.1 (0) | 0 (− 1) | 3.8 | 34.8 |
| 8 | 0.1 (0) | 15.0 (+ 1) | 3.8 | 40.0 |
| 9 | 0.1 (0) | 7.5 (0) | 4.9 | 37.7 |
| 10 | 0.1 (0) | 7.5 (0) | 4.7 | 36.8 |
| 11 | 0.1 (0) | 7.5 (0) | 4.7 | 36.7 |
| 12 | 0.1 (0) | 7.5 (0) | 4.8 | 37.4 |
| 13 | 0.1 (0) | 7.5 (0) | 4.7 | 36.8 |
Analysis of variances for lipid titer
| Source | Sum of squares |
| Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 8.74 | 5 | 1.75 | 393.96 | < 0.0001 |
| | 5.80 | 1 | 5.80 | 1307.39 | < 0.0001 |
| | 0.0017 | 1 | 0.0017 | 0.38 | 0.5594 |
| AB | 0.12 | 1 | 0.12 | 27.60 | 0.0012 |
| | 0.69 | 1 | 0.69 | 154.53 | < 0.0001 |
| | 2.77 | 1 | 2.77 | 624.53 | < 0.0001 |
| Residual | 0.031 | 7 | 0.0044 | ||
| Lack of fit | 0.0031 | 3 | 0.0010 | 0.15 | 0.9272 |
| Pure error | 0.028 | 4 | 0.007 | ||
| Corrected total | 8.77 | 12 | |||
|
| 0.9965 | ||||
| Adjusted | 0.9939 | ||||
| Predicted | 0.9923 | ||||
| Adequate precision | 69.8259 |
Analysis of variances for lipid content
| Source | Sum of squares |
| Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 868.12 | 5 | 173.62 | 348.02 | < 0.0001 |
| | 717.23 | 1 | 717.23 | 1437.66 | < 0.0001 |
| | 58.91 | 1 | 58.91 | 118.08 | < 0.0001 |
| AB | 5.76 | 1 | 5.76 | 11.55 | 0.0115 |
| | 79.72 | 1 | 79.72 | 159.79 | < 0.0001 |
| | 1.09 | 1 | 1.09 | 2.18 | 0.1833 |
| Residual | 3.49 | 7 | 0.50 | ||
| Lack of fit | 2.60 | 3 | 0.87 | 3.89 | 0.1114 |
| Pure error | 0.89 | 4 | 0.22 | ||
| Corrected total | 871.61 | 12 | |||
|
| 0.9960 | ||||
| Adjusted | 0.9931 | ||||
| Predicted | 0.9749 | ||||
| Adequate precision | 58.6297 |
Fig. 5Profiles of substrates consumption, cell growth and lipid production by C. oleaginosum. Cells were cultivated on the water hyacinth enzymatic hydrolysates with phosphate removal and acetate supplementation
Fig. 6Water hyacinth to microbial lipid mass balance analysis. The analysis was based on dilute sulfuric acid as feedstock pretreatment technology and C. oleaginosum as the lipogenic strain. Enzymatic hydrolysis was conducted at a solids loading of 8% (w/v)
Lipid production from various lignocellulosic biomass by different oleaginous species
| Oleaginous yeasts | Feedstocks | Cell mass (g/L) | Lipid titer (g/L) | Lipid content (%, w/w) | Lipid productivity (g/L/h) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Rice straw hydrolysates | 28.6 | 11.5 | 40.1 | 0.059 | [ |
|
| Sugarcane bagasse hydrolysates | 11.4 | 6.7 | 58.5 | 0.073 | [ |
|
| Laminaria residue hydrolysates | 12.7 | 4.8 | 37.6 | 0.067 | [ |
|
| Wheat straw hydrolysates | 64.5 | 39.5 | 61.3 | 0.334 | [ |
|
| Corn stover hydrolysates | 15.2 | 5.5 | 36.4 | 0.035 | [ |
|
| Corn stover hydrolysates | 54.3 | 29.0 | 53.4 | 0.215 | [ |
|
| Corn stover hydrolysates | 15.4 | 3.1 | 23.5 | 0.052 | [ |
|
| Corncob residues hydrolysates | 38.4 | 12.3 | 38.4 | 0.064 | [ |
|
| Elephant grass hydrolysates | 22.8 | 5.5 | 24.0 | 0.038 | [ |
|
| Groundnut shell hydrolysates | 13.7 | 6.3 | 46.0 | 0.044 | [ |
|
| Cardoon stalks hydrolysates | 23.8 | 13.2 | 55.6 | 0.071 | [ |
|
| Wheat straw hydrolysates | 17.2 | 5.8 | 33.5 | 0.040 | [ |
|
| Corn stover hydrolysates | 11.8 | 4.6 | 39.4 | 0.080 | [ |
|
| Waste paper hydrolysates | 15.2 | 5.8 | 37.8 | 0.080 | [ |
|
| Water hyacinth hydrolysates | 12.7 | 1.4 | 10.7 | 0.019 | This study |
|
| Water hyacinth hydrolysates | 12.2 | 7.3 | 59.7 | 0.087 | This study |
aFormerly Trichosporon fermentans
bFormerly Rhodosporidium toruloides
cFormerly Trichosporon cutaneum
dFormerly Cryptococcus psychrotolerans
eWater hyacinth hydrolysates were processed with phosphate removal and acetate supplementation