| Literature DB >> 33613070 |
Ricardo Iván González-Vega1, José Luis Cárdenas-López1, José Antonio López-Elías1, Saúl Ruiz-Cruz2, Aline Reyes-Díaz1, Liliana Maribel Perez-Perez1, Francisco Javier Cinco-Moroyoqui1, Ramón Enrique Robles-Zepeda1, Jesús Borboa-Flores1, Carmen Lizette Del-Toro-Sánchez1.
Abstract
Navicula incerta is a marine microalga distributed in Baja California, México, commonly used in aquaculture nutrition, and has been extended to human food, biomedical, and pharmaceutical industries due to its high biological activity. Therefore, the study aimed to optimize culture conditions to produce antioxidant pigments. A central composite experimental design and response surface methodology (RSM) was employed to analyze the best culture conditions. The medium (nitrogen-deficient concentrations), salinity (PSU = Practical Salinity Unity [g/kg]), age of culture (days), and solvent extraction (ethanol, methanol, and acetone) were the factors used for the experiment. Chlorophyll a (Chl a) and total carotenoids (T-Car), determined spectroscopically, were used as the response variables. The antioxidant capacity was evaluated by DPPH• and ABTS•+ radical inhibition, FRAP, and anti-hemolytic activity. According to the overlay plots, the optimum growth conditions for Chl a and T-Car production were the following conditions: medium = 0.44 mol·L-1 of NaNO3, salinity = 40 PSU, age of culture: 3.5 days, and solvent = methanol. The pigment extracts obtained in these optimized conditions had high antioxidant activity in ABTS•+ (86.2-92.1% of inhibition) and anti-hemolytic activity (81.8-96.7% of hemolysis inhibition). Low inhibition (33-35%) was observed in DPPH•. The highest value of FRAP (766.03 ± 16.62 μmol TE/g) was observed in the acetonic extract. The results demonstrated that RSM could obtain an extract with high antioxidant capacity with potential applications in the biomedical and pharmaceutical industry, which encourages the use of natural resources for chemoprevention of chronic-degenerative pathologies.Entities:
Keywords: AAPH, (2,2′-azobis-[2-methylpropionamidine]); ABTS, 2,2′-azinobis (3-ethylbenzothiazolin)-6-sulfonic acid; ANOVA, analysis of variance; AOAC, Association of Official Analytical Chemists; AOX, antioxidant; Antioxidant capacity; CCD, central composite design; CICECE, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada; CL, crude lipid; CP, crude protein; Chemoprevention; Chl a, chlorophyll a; DOE, design of experiment; DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power; HAT, hydrogen atom transfer; IC50, Concentration mean inhibitory; Navicula incerta; Optimization; PSU, salinity expressed as practical salinity unity (g/kg); Pigment production; RBC, red blood cells; RSM, response surface methodology; Response surface methodology; SET, single electron transfer; T-Car, total carotenoids; TE, trolox equivalent
Year: 2020 PMID: 33613070 PMCID: PMC7878836 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.11.076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Fig. 1Effect of different nitrogen-limited concentrations medium and salinity level on growth kinetic, cell density, and growth rate of N. incerta. (A) Growth kinetic of N. incerta in medium F/2 (0.88 mol·L-1 of N), (B) in medium F/4 (0.44 mol·L-1 of N), (C) in medium F/8 (0.22 mol·L-1 of N). (D) Maximum cell concentration and growth rate of N. incerta in medium F/2 (0.88 mol·L-1 of N). (E), in medium F/4 (0.44 mol·L-1 of N), (F) in medium F/8 (0.22 mol·L-1 of N). PSU = Practical Salinities Unity (g of dissolved salts/kg of water). The maximum cell concentration considered in D, E and F was for F/2 (day 4), F/4 (day 5), and F/8 (day 3), where these data correspond at the maximum increase during the growth period for each case. Each data point corresponds to the average of 3 determinations (n ≥ 3), and error bars correspond to the standard deviation.
Fig. 2Biomass yield (mg·L-1 of culture medium) of different culture conditions. The microalga was harvest at the end of the exponential phase. A different letter for each medium represents a significant difference (P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA per medium). Error bars correspond to standard deviation of triplicate cultures (n ≥ 3).
Effect of different N-limited media and salinity level on chemical composition of N. incerta.
| Media | Salinity (PSU) | Ash (%) | Protein (%) | Lipids (%) | Carbohydrates (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F/2 | 25 | 34.9 ± 3.3 d,e | 28.9 ± 1.7 a | 26.3 ± 0.8b | 9.7 ± 1.9 d |
| 35 | 49.6 ± 0.6 a | 19.8 ± 0.4 d | 25.5 ± 0.1b | 5.0 ± 0.8 e | |
| 45 | 34.6 ± 0.6c,d | 22.3 ± 0.4c | 21.8 ± 1.6c | 21.3 ± 1.2b | |
| 55 | 33.1 ± 1.3 d | 24.7 ± 1.9b,c | 16.3 ± 1.6 d | 25.81 ± 2.6 a | |
| F/4 | 25 | 39.6 ± 1.7b,c,d | 25.8 ± 0.4b,c | 24.6 ± 0.3b | 9.8 ± 0.8 d |
| 35 | 49.9 ± 0.8 a | 16.8 ± 0.9 ef | 25.1 ± 0.3b | 8.0 ± 0.3b | |
| 45 | 28.9 ± 1.6 e | 26.7 ± 1.3 a,b | 30.4 ± 0.8 a | 13.9 ± 1.9 d | |
| 55 | 49.9 ± 5.2 a | 22.3 ± 0.4c | 15.4 ± 0.1 d | 12.3 ± 1.9 d | |
| F/8 | 25 | 38.7 ± 1.4b,c,d | 20.8 ± 1.0c,d | 20.4 ± 0.1c | 20.0 ± 0.9 bc |
| 35 | 44.5 ± 1.0 ª,b | 12.5 g ± 0.4 g | 26.3 ± 0.1b | 16.6 ± 1.0c | |
| 45 | 45.4 ± 3.1 ª,b | 14.8 ± 1.7f | 22.3 ± 0.2c | 17.3 ± 1.7c | |
| 55 | 42.7 ± 1.4 a,b,c | 16.6 ± 0.1c | 22.2 ± 0.1c | 18.3 ± 1.6c |
Values are mean ± standard deviation of at least three repetitions (n ≥ 3). Means followed by different lowercase letter in a same column are different at a significance level of 0.05. PSU = Practical Salinities Unity (g/kg).
Central Composite design (CCD) matrix. Optimization of pigment production from microalgae N. incerta.
| Experimental variables | Responses | Predicted Responses | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Pattern | X1 (Medium) | X2 (Salinity) | X3 (Day) | X4 (Solvent) | Chl | T-Car μg·mL−1 | Chl | T-Car μg·mL−1 |
| 1 | ++−+ | 3 | 55 | 1 | 3 | 0.381 | 0.114 | 0.458 | 0.168 |
| 2 | 00a0 | 2 | 40 | 1 | 2 | 0.458 | 0.139 | 0.546 | 0.205 |
| 3 | +++− | 3 | 55 | 6 | 1 | 0.734 | 0.232 | 0.760 | 0.218 |
| 4 | −−−− | 1 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 0.391 | 0.098 | 0.407 | 0.125 |
| 5 | 000A | 2 | 40 | 3.5 | 3 | 0.631 | 0.225 | 0.686 | 0.208 |
| 6 | +−−− | 3 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 0.559 | 0.054 | 0.483 | 0.018 |
| 7 | 0a00 | 2 | 25 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.444 | 0.144 | 0.573 | 0.201 |
| 8 | +−−+ | 3 | 25 | 1 | 3 | 0.507 | 0.154 | 0.461 | 0.102 |
| 9 | A000 | 3 | 40 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.631 | 0.229 | 0.626 | 0.246 |
| 10 | a000 | 1 | 40 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.737 | 0.266 | 0.743 | 0.242 |
| 11 | 00A0 | 2 | 40 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.918 | 0.347 | 0.831 | 0.275 |
| 12 | −−−+ | 1 | 25 | 1 | 3 | 0.570 | 0.156 | 0.567 | 0.153 |
| 13 | −+−+ | 1 | 55 | 1 | 3 | 0.633 | 0.191 | 0.534 | 0.166 |
| 14 | −−+− | 1 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 0.832 | 0.279 | 0.779 | 0.209 |
| 15 | 000a | 2 | 40 | 6 | 1 | 0.713 | 0.180 | 0.658 | 0.191 |
| 16 | −++− | 1 | 55 | 6 | 1 | 0.866 | 0.088 | 0.888 | 0.158 |
| 17 | +−+− | 3 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 0.546 | 0.173 | 0.621 | 0.216 |
| 18 | ++++ | 3 | 55 | 6 | 3 | 0.696 | 0.233 | 0.655 | 0.224 |
| 19 | 0A00 | 2 | 55 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.754 | 0.271 | 0.626 | 0.208 |
| 20 | +−++ | 3 | 25 | 6 | 3 | 0.546 | 0.173 | 0.531 | 0.179 |
| 21 | −+−− | 1 | 55 | 1 | 1 | 0.349 | 0.118 | 0.388 | 0.095 |
| 22 | ++−− | 3 | 55 | 1 | 1 | 0.490 | 0.050 | 0.494 | 0.041 |
| 23 | −+++ | 1 | 55 | 6 | 3 | 0.866 | 0.088 | 0.965 | 0.107 |
| 24 | 0000 | 2 | 40 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.678 | 0.240 | 0.676 | 0.248 |
| 25 | 0000 | 2 | 40 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.678 | 0.240 | 0.676 | 0.249 |
| 26 | −−++ | 1 | 25 | 6 | 3 | 0.900 | 0.089 | 0.872 | 0.116 |
| 1 | 35 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.687 | 0.243 | 0.253 | 0.217 | ||
| 2 | 40 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.891 | 0.369 | 0.856 | 0.321 | ||
Chl a = Chlorophyll a. T-Car = Total carotenoids.
Media: (1) F/2 = 0.88 mol·L-1, (2) F/4 = 0.44 mol·L-1, (3) F/8 = 0.22 mol·L-1 of nitrogen concentration. Salinity = PSU (Practical salinity Unity [g/kg]). Solvent: (1) Acetone, (2) methanol, (3) ethanol. g
Control: 0.88 mol·L-1 of nitrogen; 35 PSU, measured at the end of the exponential phase and extracted with methanol.
OT (Optimized treatment): 0.44 mol·L-1 of nitrogen; 40 PSU, 3.5 and extracted with methanol.
Coefficients of the second order equations, prediction models for chlorophyll a production.
| Analysis of variance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of variation | DF | Sum of squares | Mean Square | F-Value | |
| Model | 14 | 0.58 | 0.04 | 4.447 | |
| Error | 11 | 0.10 | 0.01 | Prob > F | |
| C. Total | 25 | 0.68 | 0.0087 | ||
| Lack of Fit | |||||
| Lack-of-Fit | 10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | Prob > F | |
| Pure Error | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| Total Error | 11 | 0.10 | |||
| Parameter estimates | |||||
| Source | DF | Coefficient | Standard error | F-Value | |
| Interceptor | 1 | 0.680 | 0.038 | 18.96 | < 0.0001* |
| X1 (Medium: 1,3) | 1 | −0.059 | 0.022 | 15.83 | < 0.0001* |
| X2 (salinity: 25,55) | 1 | 0.026 | 0.022 | 62.89 | < 0.0001* |
| X3 (Day: 1,6) | 1 | 0.140 | 0.022 | 673.3 | < 0.0001* |
| X4 (Solvent: 1,3) | 1 | 0.013 | 0.022 | 1.22 | 0.2939 |
| X12 (Medium*Medium) | 1 | 0.008 | 0.060 | 0.14 | 0.5546 |
| X22 (salinity*salinity) | 1 | −0.077 | 0.060 | 0.08 | 0.7753 |
| X32 (Day*Day) | 1 | 0.012 | 0.060 | 40.04 | < 0.0001* |
| X32 (Solvent*Solvent) | 1 | −0.004 | 0.060 | 0.06 | 0.1213 |
| X1 X2 (Medium*Salinity) | 1 | 0.008 | 0.024 | 38.59 | < 0.0001* |
| X1 X3 (Medium*Day) | 1 | −0.059 | 0.024 | 51–16 | < 0.0001* |
| X1 X4 (Medium*Solvent) | 1 | −0.046 | 0.024 | −1.89 | < 0.0001* |
| X2 X3 (Salinity*Day) | 1 | 0.032 | 0.024 | 1.33 | 0.0003** |
| X2 X4 (Salinity*Solvent) | 1 | −0.004 | 0.024 | 42.04 | < 0.0001* |
| X3 X4 (Day*Solvent) | 1 | −0.017 | 0.024 | 7.04 | 0.0010** |
Fig. 3Effects of the processing factors on chlorophyll a production: (A) Salinity ∗ Medium; (B) Day ∗ Salinity; (C) Day ∗ Medium and (D) Salinity ∗ Medium (control treatment).
Coefficients of the second order equations, prediction models for total carotenoids production.
| Analysis of variance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of variation | DF | Sum of squares | Mean Square | F-Value | |
| Model | 14 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 2.105 | |
| Error | 11 | 0.04 | 0.03 | Prob > F | |
| C. Total | 25 | 0.15 | 0.1102 | ||
| Lack of Fit | |||||
| Lack-of-Fit | 10 | 0.04 | 0.04 | Prob > F | |
| Pure Error | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| Total Error | 11 | 0.04 | |||
| Parameter Estimates | |||||
| Source | DF | Coefficient | Standard error | F-Value | |
| Interceptor | 1 | 0.248 | 0.024 | 6.78 | < 0.0001* |
| X1 (Medium: 1,3) | 1 | −0.002 | 0.014 | 7.51 | 0.0006** |
| X2 (salinity: 25,55) | 1 | 0.003 | 0.014 | 26.85 | < 0.0001* |
| X3 (Day: 1,6) | 1 | 0.034 | 0.014 | 457.75 | < 0.0001* |
| X4 (Solvent: 1,3) | 1 | 0.008 | 0.014 | 46.01 | < 0.0001* |
| X12 (Medium*Medium) | 1 | −0.004 | 0.038 | 3.63 | 0.0003** |
| X22 (salinity*salinity) | 1 | −0.044 | 0.038 | 24.22 | < 0.0001* |
| X32 (Day*Day) | 1 | −0.008 | 0.038 | 5.1 | 0.0234*** |
| X32 (Solvent*Solvent) | 1 | −0.049 | 0.038 | −1.30 | 0.0320*** |
| X1 X2 (Medium*Salinity) | 1 | 0.013 | 0.015 | 17.46 | < 0.0001* |
| X1 X3 (Medium*Day) | 1 | 0.029 | 0.015 | 43.92 | < 0.0001* |
| X1 X4 (Medium*Solvent) | 1 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 41.96 | < 0.0001* |
| X2 X3 (Salinity*Day) | 1 | −0.005 | 0.015 | 4.08 | 0.0436*** |
| X2 X4 (Salinity*Solvent) | 1 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 5.25 | 0.0055** |
| X3 X4 (Day*Solvent) | 1 | −0.032 | 0.015 | 15.99 | < 0.0001* |
Fig. 4Effects of the processing factors on total carotenoids production of N. incerta: (A) Day ∗ Salinity; (B) Day ∗ Medium; (C) Solvent ∗ Salinity and (D) Solvent ∗ Salinity (control treatment).
Fig. 5Experimental vs.predicted value for pigment production by an extract from N. incerta.
Ferric reducing antioxidant power of extracts obtained from N. incerta.
| Extracts | μmol TE/g dry biomass ± SD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRAP value at different times (min) | ||||
| 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | |
| Acetonic | 672.9 ± 18.2 aB | 685.9 ± 16.6 aB | 678.5 ± 28.2 aB | 766.0 ± 16.6 aA |
| Methanolic | 573.9 ± 23.3 bB | 582.0 ± 13.1 bAB | 608.5 ± 21.3 bAB | 630.4 ± 23.3 bA |
| Ethanolic | 390.1 ± 6.7 cC | 427.2 ± 15.5 cB | 479.9 ± 15.8cA | 483.2 ± 6.7 cA |
1Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD) of three repetitions. One-way ANOVA, with post hoc analysis (Tukey test), is indicated by a different letter for each response variable (per extract and reaction time). Means followed by a different lowercase letter in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the extracts tested. Values followed by a different uppercase letter in the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the reaction time tested for each extract.
Percentage of inhibition of DPPH, ABTS and AAPH assays exposed of the different extracts of pigments from N. incerta by effect of free radical-scavenging capacity assay.
| Extract | % of inhibition | IC50 (μg/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH | ABTS | AAPH | DPPH | ABTS | AAPH | |
| Acetonic | 35.3 ± 0.3 a | 92.1 ± 0.1 a | 89.2 ± 0.7b | >780 | 202.4 ± 8.5 a | 101.7 ± 8.1b |
| Methanolic | 35.2 ± 0.2 a | 91.0 ± 0.2 a | 96.7 ± 1.1 a | >780 | 232.6 ± 6.6b | 21.4 ± 1.1 a |
| Ethanolic | 33.4 ± 0.4 a | 86.2 ± 0.1b | 81.8 ± 3.2c | >780 | 251.83 ± 12.1b | 535.8 ± 13.3c |
The concentration of the extracts was 780 μg·mL−1
IC50 Minimum inhibitory concentration to inhibit at least 50% or the radical (n ≥ 3).
1Values are mean ± standard deviation of at least three repetitions. Means followed by different lowercase letter in a same column are different at a significance level of 0.05.
Fig. 6Protective activity on oxidative damage in human erythrocytes. Micrographs of human erythrocytes (100x). Induction of hemolysis with the radical AAPH. (A) Control (-): erythrocytes without radical. (B) Control (+): erythrocytes with radical (hemolysis). (C) Reference control: autoimmune hemolytic anemia. (D) Acetone extract with radical (E) Methanolic extract with radical (F) Ethanolic extract with radical.