| Literature DB >> 34055763 |
Qingbin Wang1,2, Chune Peng3, Liran Shi4, Zhiguang Liu1, Dafa Zhou3, Hui Meng2, Hongling Zhao2, Fuchuan Li3, Min Zhang1.
Abstract
Compared with endophytes, metabolites from endophytes (MEs) have great potential in agriculture. However, a technique for industrializing the production ofEntities:
Keywords: Paecilomyces variotii SJ1; agriculture; endophytes; large-scale application; metabolites
Year: 2021 PMID: 34055763 PMCID: PMC8149806 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.671879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Design and result of central composite design (CCD).
| X1: Proportion of material (%) | X2: Concentration of alcohol (%) | X3: Extraction time (min) | X4: Power (kW) | Y: Concentration of ZNC (mg⋅mL–1) |
| 20 | 0 | 60 | 3.0 | 5.75 |
| 20 | 40 | 60 | 3.0 | 7.27 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 3.0 | 7.06 |
| 20 | 20 | 0 | 3.0 | 3.86 |
| 10 | 10 | 90 | 4.5 | 2.42 |
| 30 | 10 | 90 | 1.5 | 8.93 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 3.0 | 6.98 |
| 30 | 10 | 30 | 4.5 | 8.02 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 3.0 | 5.95 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 0.0 | 7.2 |
| 40 | 20 | 60 | 3.0 | 12.78 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 3.0 | 7.2 |
| 10 | 30 | 30 | 1.5 | 2.84 |
| 30 | 30 | 90 | 1.5 | 9.68 |
| 10 | 30 | 30 | 4.5 | 3.34 |
| 30 | 30 | 90 | 4.5 | 10.87 |
| 10 | 10 | 90 | 1.5 | 2.48 |
| 30 | 10 | 30 | 1.5 | 9.04 |
| 20 | 20 | 120 | 3.0 | 5.86 |
| 30 | 30 | 30 | 4.5 | 11.43 |
| 30 | 30 | 30 | 1.5 | 9.68 |
| 10 | 10 | 30 | 1.5 | 2.19 |
| 10 | 30 | 90 | 1.5 | 3.36 |
| 10 | 30 | 90 | 4.5 | 4.54 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 3 | 6 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 6 | 6.47 |
| 0 | 20 | 60 | 3 | 0 |
| 10 | 10 | 30 | 4.5 | 2.3 |
| 20 | 20 | 60 | 3 | 6.04 |
| 30 | 10 | 90 | 4.5 | 7.79 |
FIGURE 1Schematic illustration and realistic picture of extract from Paecilomyces variotii SJ1 (ZNC). (A,B) Schematic illustration of industrial extraction and evaluation of ZNC, respectively; and (C,D) realistic picture of extraction and evaluation of ZNC, respectively.
Analysis of variances (ANOVA) for the quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of squares | d | Mean square | |||
| 271.26 | 14 | 19.38 | 54.24 | <0.0001 | Significant | |
| X1-Proportion of material | 199.02 | 1 | 199.02 | 557.10 | <0.0001 | |
| X2-Concentration of alcohol | 12.97 | 1 | 12.97 | 36.31 | <0.0001 | |
| X3-Extraction time | 0.8836 | 1 | 0.8836 | 2.47 | 0.1366 | |
| X4-Power | 0.1778 | 1 | 0.1778 | 0.4977 | 0.4913 | |
| X1X2 | 0.6360 | 1 | 0.6360 | 1.78 | 0.2020 | |
| X1X3 | 0.5738 | 1 | 0.5738 | 1.61 | 0.2244 | |
| X1X4 | 0.0564 | 1 | 0.0564 | 0.1579 | 0.6967 | |
| X2X3 | 0.0743 | 1 | 0.0743 | 0.2079 | 0.6550 | |
| X2X4 | 2.83 | 1 | 2.83 | 7.92 | 0.0131 | |
| X3X4 | 0.0018 | 1 | 0.0018 | 0.0051 | 0.9443 | |
| 0.0273 | 1 | 0.0273 | 0.0765 | 0.7859 | ||
| 0.0001 | 1 | 0.0001 | 0.0002 | 0.9893 | ||
| 4.70 | 1 | 4.70 | 13.16 | 0.0025 | ||
| 0.1742 | 1 | 0.1742 | 0.4875 | 0.4957 | ||
| 5.36 | 15 | 0.3572 | ||||
| 3.57 | 10 | 0.3569 | 0.9974 | 0.5362 | Not significant | |
| Pure error | 1.79 | 5 | 0.3579 | |||
| 276.61 | 29 | |||||
| 30.574 | 0.9625 | 0.9160 | ||||
FIGURE 2Three-dimensional response plots (A1–F1) and contour plots (A2–F2) for optimized process parameters. (A1,A2) Proportion of material versus concentration of alcohol. (B1,B2) Proportion of material versus time. (C1,C2) Proportion of material versus power. (D1,D2) Concentration of alcohol versus time. (E1,E2) concentration of alcohol versus power. (F1,F2) time versus power.
FIGURE 3Main components and molecular weight distribution of ZNC. (A) Organic and inorganic contents in ZNC. (B) Main component in organic matter of ZNC. (C) Average molecular weight of ZNC determined by size exclusion chromatography, and the numbers above the characteristic peaks indicate the molecular weight of the molecule with that retention time. (D,E) Molecular weight distribution of the ZNC as determined by LC-ESI-MS under positive-ion mode and negative-ion mode, respectively. (a,b) enhanced view of D and E in the mass-charge ratio range of 400–1,000.
FIGURE 4Similarity evaluation system of traditional Chinese medicine chromatographic fingerprinting (SES-TCMCF) of ZNC. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of ZNC with different elution conditions. (A) 30% methanol, (B) 60% methanol, (C) 90% methanol, (D) 95% methanol for 5 min followed by linear gradients from 95 to 90% methanol from 5 to 10 min, from 90 to 60% methanol over 10–20 min, and from 60 to 0% methanol over 20–28 min; finally, 0% methanol was maintained from 28 to 43 min, (E) characteristic peaks used for quantitative analysis of ZNC; (F) similarity and HPLC among different batches of ZNC using SES-TCMCF; (G–J) similarity and chromatograms for comparing extractions with different process parameters (red line) and extractions with optimal process parameters (batch1).
Analysis of variances of characteristic peak.
| Treatment | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 |
| 0.997 | 0.997 | 0.990 | 0.996 | 0.991 | 0.9984 | |
| RSD of retention time | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
| RSD of peak area | 0.36 | 1.42 | 0.75 | 0.64 | 0.49 | 0.39 |
FIGURE 5Multiple antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MA-ELISA) for ZNC established using indirect-ELISA. (A) Schematic illustration, (B) antigen sensitivity, (C) antibody titer, and (D) linear correlation coefficient of ZNC using MA-ELISA. Note: Means on top of each column followed by the same letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on one-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) followed by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Quality and yield of fresh potato with different treatments.
| Treatment | Soluble protein (mg⋅kg–1) | Starch (%) | Soluble sugar (%) | Nitrate (g⋅kg–1) | Vitamin C (mg⋅kg–1) | Yield (Mg/hm2) | Average increment versus control (%) |
| U2/3Z0 | 9.55 c | 12.16 b | 0.93 b | 0.47 bc | 13.41 b | 11.00 e | - |
| U2/3Z1 | 13.44 a | 12.21 b | 0.91 b | 0.43 c | 12.81 b | 12.14 d | 10.41* |
| U1Z0 | 10.53 bc | 12.31 b | 1.23 a | 0.57 a | 14.02 b | 13.32 c | - |
| U1Z1 | 11.51 b | 12.54 b | 1.13 a | 0.53 ab | 19.94 a | 14.10 b | 5.82* |
| U4/3Z0 | 14.15 a | 10.58 c | 1.19 a | 0.58 a | 17.61 a | 14.70 b | - |
| U4/3Z1 | 11.45 b | 13.78 a | 0.33 c | 0.49 bc | 21.14 a | 15.35 a | 4.43* |
FIGURE 6Distribution coefficient of macroelements in potato tubers. Note: Means within each column followed by the same letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on one-way ANOVAs followed by Duncan’s multiple range test.