| Literature DB >> 32363040 |
Abd El-Latif Hesham1,2, Yasser S Mostafa1, Laila Essa Omar AlSharqi1.
Abstract
Citric acid is a commercially valuable organic acid widely used in food, pharmaceutical, and beverage industries. In this study, 260 yeast strains were isolated from soil, bread, juices, and fruits wastes and preliminarily screened using bromocresol green agar plates for their ability to produce organic acids. Overall, 251 yeast isolates showed positive results, with yellow halos surrounding the colonies. Citric acid production by 20 promising isolates was evaluated using both free and immobilized cell techniques. Results showed that citric acid production by immobilized cells (30-40 g/L) was greater than that of freely suspended cells (8-19 g/L). Of the 20 isolates, two (KKU-L42 and KKU-L53) were selected for further analysis based on their citric acid production levels. Immobilized KKU-L42 cells had a higher citric acid production rate (62.5%), while immobilized KKU-L53 cells showed an ∼52.2% increase in citric acid production compared with free cells. The two isolates were accurately identified by amplification and sequence analysis of the 26S rRNA gene D1/D2 domain, with GenBank-based sequence comparison confirming that isolates KKU-L42 and KKU-L53 were Candida tropicalis and Pichia kluyveri, respectively. Several factors, including fermentation period, pH, temperature, and carbon and nitrogen source, were optimized for enhanced production of citric acid by both isolates. Maximum production was achieved at fermentation period of 5 days at pH 5.0 with glucose as a carbon source by both isolates. The optimum incubation temperature for citric acid production by C. tropicalis was 32 °C, with NH4Cl the best nitrogen source, while maximum citric acid by P. kluyveri was observed at 27 °C with (NH4)2 SO4 as the nitrogen source. Citric acid production was maintained for about four repeated batches over a period of 20 days. Our results suggest that apple and banana wastes are potential sources of novel yeast strains; C. tropicalis and P. kluyveri which could be used for commercial citric acid production.Entities:
Keywords: 26S rRNA gene sequencing and phylogenetic analysis; Citric acid production; optimization; repeated-batch culture; yeast immobilized cells
Year: 2020 PMID: 32363040 PMCID: PMC7178817 DOI: 10.1080/12298093.2020.1726854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mycobiology ISSN: 1229-8093 Impact factor: 1.858
Figure 1.Screening of citric acid producing yeasts. (A) Using free cells (F value= 3.518); (B) Using immobilized cells technique (F value = 3.518). Mean ± standard error (n = 3) were presented. Vertical bars indicate the standard errors of the means.
Figure 2.Phylogenetic analyses of the isolates using 26s rRNA gene sequences. (A) KKU-L42; (B) KKU-L53. The scale bar corresponds to a 0.02 nucleotide substitution per sequence position. The number in parentheses represents the accession number in GenBank.
Figure 3.Effect of time course on citric acid production. (A) C. tropicalis) F value = 207.428); (B) P. kluyveri (F value = 173.430). Mean ± standard error (n = 3) were presented. Vertical bars indicate the standard errors of the means.
Figure 4.Effect of initial pH on citric acid production. (A) C. tropicalis) F value =266.166); (B) P. kluyveri (F value = 216.574). Mean ± standard error (n = 3) were presented. Vertical bars indicate the standard errors of the means.
Figure 5.Effect of incubation temperature on citric acid production. (A) C. tropicalis (F-value =198.634); (B) P. kluyveri (F value= 92.764). Mean ± standard error (n = 3) were presented. Vertical bars indicate the standard errors of the means.
Effect of carbon sources on citric acid production by Candida tropicalis (F value = 279.651) and Pichia kluyveri (F value = 85.656).
| Carbon sources | Yeast isolates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citric acid (g/L) | Biomass (g/L) | Citric acid (g/L) | Biomass (g/L) | |
| Ethanol | 26.36 ± 0.40 | 6.53 ± 0.29 | 17.13 ± 0.31 | 7.30 ± 0.52 |
| Glycerol | 21.96 ± 0.88 | 10.76 ± 0.23 | 22.43 ± 0.65 | 9.80 ± 0.20 |
| Starch | 21.96 ± 0.94 | 7.10 ± 0.41 | 11.43 ± 0.29 | 4.20 ± 0.34 |
| Glucose | 49.36 ± 0.75 | 11.53 ± 0.44 | 27.06 ± 0.40 | 7.96 ± 0.23 |
| Sucrose | 17.06 ± 0.63 | 4.86 ± 0.31 | 21.33 ± 0.57 | 9.03 ± 0.29 |
| Fructose | 6.76 ± 0.80 | 1.08 ± 0.22 | 2.23 ± 0.59 | 3.30 ± 0.37 |
| Maltose | 35.33 ± 0.74 | 8.73 ± 0.52 | 9.13 ± 0.58 | 6.20 ± 0.47 |
| Mannitol | 28.66 ± 0.83 | 6.40 ± 0.32 | 14.66 ± 0.73 | 8.56 ± 0.31 |
Mean ± standard error (n = 3) were presented.
Effect of nitrogen sources on citric acid production by Candida tropicalis (F value= 107.536.) and Pichia kluyveri (F value = 44.401).
| Nitrogen sources | Yeast isolates | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citric acid (g/L) | Biomass (g/L) | Glucose consumed (%) | Citric acid (g/L) | Biomass (g/L) | Glucose consumed (%) | |
| Diammonium hydrogen phosphate | 40.90 ± 0.73 | 8.90 ± 0.79 | 82.96 ± 0.90 | 23.10 ± 0.92 | 9.36 ± 0.48 | 66.03 ± 0.58 |
| Ammonium dihydrogen phosphate | 30.60 ± 0.78 | 5.40 ± 0.51 | 65.60 ± 0.45 | 11.33 ± 0.98 | 8.36 ± 0.35 | 60.83 ± 0.99 |
| Ammonium chloride | 50.53 ± 0.83 | 11.40 ± 0.62 | 94.54 ± 0.92 | 26.56 ± 0.43 | 10.90 ± 0.37 | 71.50 ± 0.56 |
| Ammonium ferrous sulfate | 24.40 ± 0.72 | 6.43 ± 0.56 | 45.46 ± 0.64 | 14.66 ± 0.49 | 7.30 ± 0.52 | 30.43 ± 0.75 |
| Urea | 21.83 ± 0.58 | 3.43 ± 0.35 | 36.23 ± 0.84 | 8.43 ± 0.43 | 4.26 ± 0.17 | 22.10 ± 0.80 |
| Ammonium phosphate monobasic | 37.13 ± 0.72 | 9.16 ± 0.43 | 62.33 ± 0.99 | 17.36 ± 0.35 | 6.30 ± 0.47 | 37.16 ± 0.89 |
| Ammonium sulfate | 41.52 ± 0.46 | 10.53 ± 0.76 | 88.90 ± 0.46 | 35.40 ± 0.46 | 11.46 ± 0.40 | 81.56 ± 0.10 |
Mean ± standard error (n = 3) were presented.
Repeat batch culture for citric acid production by Candida tropicalis (F value =279.651) and Pichia kluyveri (F value = 374.689).
| Batches no. | Yeast isolates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citric acid (g/L) | Glucose consumed (%) | Citric acid (g/L) | Glucose consumed (%) | |
| 1.0 | 49.73 ± 0.753 | 94.53 ± 0.920 | 35.40 ± 0.461 | 81.56 ± 1.043 |
| 2.0 | 50.33 ± 0.491 | 94.56 ± 0.384 | 35.16 ± 0.648 | 81.96 ± 1.074 |
| 3.0 | 50.60 ± 1.121 | 95.10 ± 0.519 | 34.76 ± 0.437 | 81.93 ± 0.883 |
| 4.0 | 47.53 ± 0.779 | 86.03 ± 0.480 | 35.56 ± 0.825 | 80.46 ± 0.943 |
| 5.0 | 28.66 ± 1.065 | 45.26 ± 0.560 | 21.50 ± 0.680 | 45.46 ± 0.643 |
| 6.0 | 14.66 ± 0.731 | 7.30 ± 0.529 | 6.43 ± 0.643 | 14.66 ± 0.731 |
Mean ± standard error (n = 3) were presented.