| Literature DB >> 31936881 |
Parul Badhwar1, Ashwani Kumar2, Ankush Yadav3, Punit Kumar1, Ritu Siwach1, Deepak Chhabra2, Kashyap Kumar Dubey3.
Abstract
Pullulan production from Aureobasidium pullulans was explored to increase yield. Non-linear hybrid mathematical tools for optimization of process variables as well as the pullulan yield were analyzed. The one variable at a time (OVAT) approach was used to optimize the maximum pullulan yield of 35.16 ± 0.29 g/L. The tools predicted maximum pullulan yields of 39.4918 g/L (genetic algorithm coupled with artificial neural network (GA-ANN)) and 36.0788 g/L (GA coupled with adaptive network based fuzzy inference system (GA-ANFIS)). The best regression value (0.94799) of the Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm for ANN and the epoch error (6.1055 × 10-5) for GA-ANFIS point towards prediction precision and potentiality of data training models. The process parameters provided by both the tools corresponding to their predicted yield were revalidated by experiments. Among the two of them GA-ANFIS results were replicated with 98.82% accuracy. Thus GA-ANFIS predicted an optimum pullulan yield of 36.0788 g/L with a substrate concentration of 49.94 g/L, incubation period of 182.39 h, temperature of 27.41 °C, pH of 6.99, and agitation speed of 190.08 rpm.Entities:
Keywords: Pullulan; artificial neural network; fermentation; genetic algorithm
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31936881 PMCID: PMC7022329 DOI: 10.3390/biom10010124
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1Schematics of artificial neural network (ANN) (a) and adaptive network based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) (b) architecture. “x” and “y” represent the input variable whereas the “z” characterizes the output variable in both the ANN and ANFIS architecture. The oval structures in layer 1 and layer 4 represent the adaptive nodes. The pentagonal structures in layer 2, 3, and 5 are the predefined fixed nodes.
Figure 2Regression plot obtained by training and optimization of the genetic algorithm (GA)–ANN tool. The plots represent the correlation between outputs and targets corresponding to the optimal Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm (a). Convergence of GA–ANN for maximizing pullulan weight (b).
Significant regression ‘R’ values corresponding to Levenberg–Marquardt training algorithms ‘trainlm 1 and 2′.
| Sr. No | Training Algorithm | Code Name Used | Training: R | Validation: R | Test: R | All: R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) | trainlm1 | 0.97759 | 0.94728 | 0.92455 | 0.94799 |
| 2 | Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) | trainlm2 | 0.99775 | 0.95739 | 0.89542 | 0.95895 |
Optimized GA process parameters and outputs corresponding to best fitted ANN training algorithm.
| Sr. No. | ANN Training Algorithm | Optimized GA Value | Pullulan Yield | Pullulan Yield | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate ((g/L) | Time (h) | Temperature (°C) | pH | Agitation Speed (rpm) | ||||
| 1 | trainlm1 | 48.9 | 172.62 | 26.89 | 6.56 | 224.85 | 39.4918 | 39.3691 |
| 2 | trainlm2 | 44.9 | 172.33 | 27.85 | 6.99 | 210.56 | 35.5672 | 35.5552 |
Figure 3Training and optimization plots by the ANFIS tool for the optimization of pullulan yield. (a) ANFIS response surface figure. (b) ANFIS model structure for ‘trimf’. (c) Training routine of process variable (input) by ANFIS training rules.
Figure 4(a) Training error at three different epochs. (b) Training performance of FIS. (c) Convergence of GA–ANFIS for maximizing pullulan weight.
Various chosen ANFIS training membership functions (MFs) and resultant optimized GA process parameters (epoch error, best value, and mean value for pullulan yield) and their respective yields.
| Sr. No. | MF Type | Epoch 3: Error | Method Adopted to Generate FIS | Train FIS Optimized Method | Optimized GA Value | Pullulan Yield | Pullulan Yield | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate (g/L) | Time (h) | Temp. | pH | Agitation Speed | ||||||||
| 1 | Constant | gaussmf | 6.1055 × 10−5 | Grid-Partition | Hybrid | 49.94 | 182.39 | 27.41 | 6.99 | 190.08 | 36.0788 | 36.0425 |
| 2 | Constant | trimf | 4.7389 × 10−5 | Grid-Partition | Hybrid | 49.7 | 180.04 | 27.45 | 6.99 | 190.29 | 35.8462 | 35.1299 |
| 3 | Constant | gbellmf | 0.00011749 | Grid-Partition | Hybrid | 49.94 | 181.51 | 27.39 | 6.98 | 190.07 | 35.8332 | 35.6952 |
| 4 | Constant | gauss2mf | 0.0002537 | Grid-Partition | Hybrid | 49.902 | 179.99 | 27.46 | 6.95 | 190.01 | 35.7434 | 35.7379 |
| 5 | Constant | dsigmf | 0.00032176 | Grid-Partition | Hybrid | 49.92 | 179.42 | 27.52 | 6.98 | 190.17 | 35.6809 | 35.6671 |
Evaluation of optimization tools GA–ANN and GA–ANFIS with experimental data, with their optimized process parameters and outputs. Percentage accuracy of the 3 methods was also evaluated.
| Sr. No | Optimization Tool/Method | Optimized Process Parameters | Predicted Pullulan Yield | Experimental Pullulan Yield | Percentage of Accuracy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate (g/L) | Time (h) | Temp | pH | Agitation Speed (rpm) | |||||
| 1 | Laboratory | 45.00 | 180 | 27.5 | 7.5 | 200 | - | 35.55 | - |
| 2 | GA–ANN | 48.90 | 172.62 | 26.89 | 6.56 | 224.85 | 39.4918 | 37.642 ± 0.521 | 95.32 |
| 3 | GA–ANFIS | 49.94 | 182.39 | 27.41 | 6.99 | 190.08 | 36.0788 | 35.652 ± 0.348 | 98.82 |