| Literature DB >> 31357395 |
Agnieszka Kuźniar1, Karolina Furtak2, Kinga Włodarczyk3, Zofia Stępniewska3, Agnieszka Wolińska3.
Abstract
Microorganisms play an important role in animal nutrition, as they can be used as a source of food or feed. The aim of the study was to determine the nutritional elements and fatty acids contained in the biomass of methanotrophic bacteria. Four bacterial consortia composed of Methylocystis and Methylosinus originating from Sphagnum flexuosum (Sp1), S. magellanicum (Sp2), S. fallax II (Sp3), S. magellanicum IV (Sp4), and one composed of Methylocaldum, Methylosinus, and Methylocystis that originated from coalbed rock (Sk108) were studied. Nutritional elements were determined using the flame atomic absorption spectroscopy technique after a biomass mineralization stage, whereas the fatty acid content was analyzed with the GC technique. Additionally, the growth of biomass and dynamics of methane consumption were monitored. It was found that the methanotrophic biomass contained high concentrations of K, Mg, and Fe, i.e., approx. 9.6-19.1, 2.2-7.6, and 2.4-6.6 g kg-1, respectively. Consequently, the biomass can be viewed as an appropriate feed and/or feed additive for supplementation with macroelements and certain microelements. Moreover, all consortia demonstrated higher content of unsaturated acids than saturated ones. Thus, methanotrophic bacteria seem to be a good solution, in natural supplementation of animal diets.Entities:
Keywords: fatty acids; feed ingredients; methanotrophic bacteria; nutritional values
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31357395 PMCID: PMC6696423 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16152674
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
List of samples with DNA content (± SD).
| Symbols | Explanations | DNA Concentration (ng·µL−1) |
|---|---|---|
| Sp1 | Consortium of methanotrophs from | 26.47 ± 0.04 |
| Sp2 | Consortium of methanotrophs from | 32.22 ± 0.05 |
| Sp3 | Consortium of methanotrophs from | 29.74 ± 0.11 |
| Sp4 | Consortium of methanotrophs from | 39.85 ± 0.16 |
| Sk108 | Consortium of methanotrophs from coalbed rock | 43.55 ± 0.12 |
Figure 1Studied biomass of methanotrophs during culture growth.
Figure 2Dynamics of methane consumption by methanotrophs.
Contents of fatty acids in methanotrophic bacteria (nd–not detected).
| Type of Biomass | Saturated Fatty Acids | Unsaturated Fatty Acids | Unknown Fatty Acids | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C14:0 | C15:0 | C16:0 | C18:0 | C16:1ω5 | C16:1ω7 | C16:1ω9 | C18:1ω9 | C18:2ω6 | ||
| Sp1 | 1.53 | nd | nd | 3.26 | nd | nd | 2.73 | 92.48 | nd | - |
| Sp2 | nd | nd | 3.52 | 0.77 | nd | 1.34 | 0.50 | 92.39 | nd | 1.48 |
| Sp3 | 0.90 | 0.15 | 12.31 | 1.68 | 1.36 | 19.75 | 22.91 | 38.04 | 0.93 | 1.97 |
| Sp4 | nd | nd | 11.50 | 7.19 | 3.01 | 6.80 | 10.63 | 60.87 | nd | - |
| Sk108 | 27.21 | 29.65 | 43.14 | 1.09 | nd | nd | nd | 67.15 | nd | - |
Contents of macronutrients in methanotrophic biomass.
| Biomass | Macronutrients | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K [g·kg−1] | Mg [g·kg−1] | Ca [g·kg−1] | Fe [g·kg−1] | Na [g·kg−1] | |
| Sp1 | 10.031 ± 0.01 d | 6.086 ± 0.006 b | 2.664 ± 0.001 c | 3.286 ± 0.001 c | 1.910 ± 0.0002 a |
| Sp2 | 10.316 ± 0.01 c | 2.243 ± 0.002 e | 2.618 ± 0.001 c | 2.436 ± 0.001 d | 1.562 ± 0.0006 b |
| Sp3 | 12.556 ± 0.01 b | 3.274 ± 0.003 c | 2.850 ± 0.001 b | 4.408 ± 0.0003 b | 1.331 ± 0.001 d |
| Sp4 | 9.592 ± 0.01 e | 2.274 ± 0.001 d | 2.008 ± 0.001 d | 2.480 ± 0.001 d | 1.373 ± 0.0003 c,d |
| Sk108 | 19.100 ± 0.02 a | 7.594 ± 0.002 a | 3.274 ± 0.001 a | 6.594 ± 0.002 a | 1.422 ± 0.001 c |
The presented values are the average of three replicates (n = 3); ± standard deviation (SD); means marked with different letters (a–e) are significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 3) as shown by Tukey’s HSD test.
Contents of micronutrients in methanotrophic biomass.
| Biomass | Micronutrients | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zn [g·kg−1] | Cu [g·kg−1] | Mn [g·kg−1] | Cr [g·kg−1] | |
| Sp1 | 0.108 ± 0.006 c | 0.476 ± 0.021 a | 0.479 ± 0.022 b,c | <0.005 c |
| Sp2 | 0.087 ± 0.008 d | 0.175 ± 0.033 c | 0.556 ± 0.042 b | 0.009 ± 0.035 b |
| Sp3 | 0.142 ± 0.004 a | 0.279 ± 0.019 b | 0.720 ± 0.081 a | 0.166 ± 0.096 a |
| Sp4 | 0.096 ± 0.002 c,d | 0.185 ± 0.033 c | 0.395 ± 0.001 c | 0.047 ± 0.012 a,b |
| Sk108 | 0.126 ± 0.003 b | 0.416 ± 0.029 a | 0.267 ± 0.017 d | <0.005 c |
The values are the average of three replicates (n = 3); ± standard deviation (SD); means marked with different letters (a–c) are significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 3) as shown by Tukey’s HSD test.
Estimated daily supplementation [%] of macronutrients for selected animals with the use of methanotrophic bacterial biomass originating from different consortia. Each value is calculated for 1 kg of bacterial biomass (according to references [31,32,33,34]).
| Sample | K | Mg | Ca | Na | Fe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Sp1 | 191.80 | 494.80 | 14.14 | 62.01 | 2.67 |
| Sp2 | 197.25 | 182.36 | 13.90 | 50.71 | 1.98 |
| Sp3 | 240.08 | 266.18 | 15.13 | 43.21 | 3.58 |
| Sp4 | 183.40 | 184.88 | 10.66 | 44.58 | 2.02 |
| Sk108 | 365.20 | 617.40 | 17.38 | 46.17 | 5.36 |
|
| |||||
| Sp1 | 3.34 | 22.21 | 0.39 | 1.91 | 53.87 |
| Sp2 | 3.44 | 8.19 | 0.39 | 1.56 | 39.93 |
| Sp3 | 4.19 | 11.95 | 0.42 | 1.33 | 72.26 |
| Sp4 | 3.20 | 8.30 | 0.30 | 1.37 | 40.66 |
| Sk108 | 6.37 | 27.72 | 0.48 | 1.42 | 108.10 |
|
| |||||
| Sp1 | 13.78 | 36.23 | 4.23 | 13.64 | 1.81 |
| Sp2 | 14.17 | 13.35 | 4.16 | 11.16 | 1.34 |
| Sp3 | 17.25 | 19.49 | 4.52 | 9.51 | 2.42 |
| Sp4 | 13.18 | 13.54 | 3.19 | 9.81 | 1.36 |
| Sk108 | 26.24 | 45.20 | 5.20 | 10.16 | 3.62 |
|
| |||||
| Sp1 | 83.59 | 1014.33 | 8.33 | 39.79 | 4.11 |
| Sp2 | 85.97 | 373.83 | 8.18 | 32.54 | 3.05 |
| Sp3 | 104.63 | 545.67 | 8.91 | 27.73 | 5.51 |
| Sp4 | 79.93 | 379.00 | 6.28 | 28.60 | 3.10 |
| Sk108 | 159.17 | 1265.67 | 10.23 | 29.63 | 8.24 |
Estimated daily supplementation [%] of microelements for selected animals with the use of methanotrophic bacterial biomass originating from different consortia. Each value is calculated for 1 g of bacterial biomass (according to references [31,32,33,34]).
| Sample | Zn | Cu | Mn |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Sp1 | 0.07 | 5.16 | 7.79 |
| Sp2 | 0.06 | 1.90 | 9.05 |
| Sp3 | 0.09 | 3.03 | 11.71 |
| Sp4 | 0.06 | 2.01 | 6.43 |
| Sk108 | 0.08 | 4.51 | 4.35 |
|
| |||
| Sp1 | 1.58 | 62.68 | 126.12 |
| Sp2 | 1.28 | 23.12 | 146.41 |
| Sp3 | 2.08 | 36.75 | 189.55 |
| Sp4 | 1.41 | 24.37 | 104.04 |
| Sk108 | 1.85 | 54.76 | 70.41 |
|
| |||
| Sp1 | 0.04 | 0.26 | 0.19 |
| Sp2 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.22 |
| Sp3 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.29 |
| Sp4 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.16 |
| Sk108 | 0.04 | 0.23 | 0.11 |
|
| |||
| Sp1 | 0.27 | 5.95 | 0.80 |
| Sp2 | 0.22 | 2.20 | 0.93 |
| Sp3 | 0.36 | 3.49 | 1.20 |
| Sp4 | 0.24 | 2.32 | 0.66 |
| Sk108 | 0.32 | 5.20 | 0.45 |
Methanotrophic activity and viability of the analyzed biomass in the storage options.
| Storage Options | Methanotrophic Activity [µM CH4 mL−1d−1] | Viability [%] | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sp1 | Sp2 | Sp3 | Sp4 | Sk108 | Sp1 | Sp2 | Sp3 | Sp4 | Sk108 | |
| Ambient temperature | 1841 c,v | 2127 a,u | 1462 d,v | 1947 b,c,u | 1429 d,u | 82,145 c,v | 75,250 d,v | 89,008 a,v | 85,131 b,v | 86,705 a,b,v |
| Dry condition | 0.147 a,y | 0.091 b,x | 0.138 a,x | 0.144 a,x | 0.075 b,x | 55,031 a,w | 50,230 b,w | 15,085 c,y | 10,833 d,z | 0.909 e,z |
| Low temperature | 1146 b,w | 1546 a,v | 0.954 c,w | 0.871 c,v | 0.431 d,w | 82,462 a,b,v | 74,125 d,v | 82,014 b,c,w | 80,146 c,w | 84,264 a,w |
| Heat temperature | 2173 a,u | 0.488 d,w | 0.974 b,w | 2013 a,u | 0.714 c,v | 5,231 e,y | 11,565 b,y | 6894 d,z | 33,586 a,x | 8,542 c,y |
| Deep freezing | 0.819 a,x | 0.072 b,c,x | 0.034 b,c,x | 0.025 c,x | 0.098 b,x | 12,159 e,x | 14,957 d,x | 23,595 b,x | 24,959 a,y | 17,507 c,x |
| Optimal condition of culture | 1954 a,b,uv | 2123 a,u | 1756 b,u | 1994 a,b,u | 1364 c,u | 96,354 b,c,u | 97,365 a,b,u | 95,654 c,u | 96,468 b,c,u | 98,654 a,u |
Different letters indicate significant differences as shown by Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05. Values with different letters “a–e” (in the rows) indicate significant difference for different biomass at the same storage options, and “u–z” (in the columns) indicate significant difference for the same biomass in different storage options; both at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.