| Literature DB >> 34945444 |
Fengpei Zhang1,2, Fanzheng Xue1, Hui Xu1,2, Yuan Yuan1,2, Xiaoping Wu1,2, Junli Zhang3, Junsheng Fu1,2.
Abstract
Melanin has good nutritional and medicinal value; however, its extraction rate is extremely low. This study explored the edible and medicinal fungus Inonotus hispidus fruiting body melanin (IHFM) extraction process and solid-state fermentation conditions. The results showed that the best way to extract IHFM is the compound enzymatic method, with complex enzyme 26.63 mg/g, liquid material ratio 5:1, enzymatic hydrolysis 80 min, pH 4.61, and enzymolysis temperature at 36.07 °C. The yield of IHFM was 23.73 ± 0.57%, which was equivalent to 1.27 times before optimization. The best solid medium formula was normal pH, rice 20 g per cultivation bottle, maltose 22 g/L, beef extract 4.4 g/L, carbon-nitrogen ratio 5:1, and liquid-to-material ratio 1.1:1, where the IHFM yield was 31.80 ± 1.34%, which was equivalent to 1.7 times that before optimization. In summary, solid-state fermentation and extraction optimization greatly improved the yield of melanin, provided a reference to produce melanin, and laid a foundation for the development and utilization of melanin.Entities:
Keywords: Inonotus hispidus; melanin; optimization; structure
Year: 2021 PMID: 34945444 PMCID: PMC8700211 DOI: 10.3390/foods10122893
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Factors and levels of the Box–Behnken test.
| Level | Factors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Enzyme Addition (mg/g) | B: Enzymolysis pH | C: Enzymolysis | |
| −1 | 20 | 4 | 30 |
| 0 | 25 | 4.5 | 35 |
| 1 | 30 | 5 | 40 |
Factors and levels of the orthogonal experiment.
| Level | Factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Source | Nitrogen Source | pH | Liquid: Solid | |
| 1 | Maltose | Beef extract | Nature | 1.1:1 |
| 2 | Fructose | Ammoniumtatrat | 6 | 1.5:1 |
| 3 | Mannitol | Tryptone | 7 | 1.4:1 |
Figure 1Effect of different enzymatic hydrolysis factors on the melanin yield of Inonotus hispidus. (A) Enzyme ratio; (B) Enzyme addition; (C) Liquid-to-material ratio; (D) Enzymatic pH; (E) Enzymatic hydrolysis temperature; (F) Enzymatic hydrolysis time. (A,B) compared with the blank group; (C–F) compared with the front group. Superscript characters indicate significant variation, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Response surface design and test results.
| No. | A: Enzyme Amount (mg/g) | B: Enzymatic Hydrolysis pH | C: Enzymatic Hydrolysis Temperature (°C) | Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25 | 4.5 | 35 | 23.33 ± 0.25 |
| 2 | 25 | 4 | 40 | 21.93 ± 0.25 |
| 3 | 20 | 4.5 | 30 | 21.60 ± 0.16 |
| 4 | 25 | 4.5 | 35 | 23.53 ± 0.57 |
| 5 | 20 | 4 | 35 | 21.33 ± 0.25 |
| 6 | 20 | 5 | 35 | 21.80 ± 0.43 |
| 7 | 25 | 4 | 30 | 21.07 ± 0.41 |
| 8 | 20 | 4.5 | 40 | 22.20 ± 0.59 |
| 9 | 25 | 5 | 40 | 22.67 ± 0.57 |
| 10 | 25 | 5 | 30 | 22.33 ± 0.25 |
| 11 | 30 | 5 | 35 | 22.80 ± 0.43 |
| 12 | 30 | 4.5 | 30 | 22.27 ± 0.52 |
| 13 | 25 | 4.5 | 35 | 23.27 ± 0.09 |
| 14 | 30 | 4.5 | 40 | 22.87 ± 0.50 |
| 15 | 25 | 4.5 | 35 | 23.60 ± 0.16 |
| 16 | 25 | 4.5 | 35 | 23.67 ± 0.50 |
| 17 | 30 | 4 | 35 | 22.13 ± 0.81 |
Variance analysis and significance tests.
| Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Squares | F |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 10.28 | 9 | 1.14 | 33.27 | <0.0001 |
| A | 1.23 | 1 | 1.23 | 35.76 | 0.0006 |
| B | 1.23 | 1 | 1.23 | 35.76 | 0.0006 |
| C | 0.7200 | 1 | 0.7200 | 20.98 | 0.0025 |
| AB | 0.0100 | 1 | 0.0100 | 0.2914 | 0.6061 |
| AC | 0.0000 | 1 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
| BC | 0.0711 | 1 | 0.0711 | 2.07 | 0.1932 |
| A2 | 1.59 | 1 | 1.59 | 46.41 | 0.0003 |
| B2 | 3.03 | 1 | 3.03 | 88.30 | <0.0001 |
| C2 | 1.68 | 1 | 1.68 | 48.96 | 0.0002 |
| Lack of fit | 0.1211 | 3 | 0.0404 | 1.36 | 0.3758 |
| Residual error | 0.2402 | 7 | 0.0343 | ||
| Pure error | 0.1191 | 4 | 0.0298 | Adj | |
| Total | 10.52 | 16 |
Note: A: Enzyme amount (mg/g); B: Enzymatic hydrolysis pH; C: Enzymatic hydrolysis temperature (°C).
Figure 2Response surface plot showing the effect of (A1,A2) enzymatic hydrolysis pH and enzyme amount; (B1,B2) enzymatic hydrolysis temperature and enzyme amount; (C1,C2) enzymatic hydrolysis temperature and enzymatic hydrolysis pH.
Figure 3Effect of different factors on the melanin yield of Inonotus hispidus. (A) Carbon source; (B) Nitrogen source; (C) Carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; (D) Liquid-to-material ratio; (E) pH; (F) Tyrosine. (A,B,E) compared with the blank group; (C,D,F) compared with the front group. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Intuitionistic analysis of the orthogonal test results on melanin content in the fruiting body of Inonotus hispidus.
| No. | Carbon Source | Nitrogen Source | pH | Solid-Liqui Ratio | Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maltose | Beef extract | Normal | 1.1:1 | 31.8 ± 1.34 |
| 2 | Maltose | Ammonium Tartrate | 6 | 1.5:1 | 28.5 ± 0.86 |
| 3 | Maltose | Tryptone | 7 | 1.4:1 | 29.8 ± 0.59 |
| 4 | Fructose | Beef extract | 7 | 1.5:1 | 30.9 ± 0.57 |
| 5 | Fructose | Ammonium Tartrate | Normal | 1.4:1 | 29.8 ± 1.64 |
| 6 | Fructose | Tryptone | 6 | 1.1:1 | 27.8 ± 0.33 |
| 7 | Mannitol | Beef extract | 6 | 1.4:1 | 29.1 ± 0.25 |
| 8 | Mannitol | Ammonium Tartrate | 7 | 1.1:1 | 29.7 ± 0.52 |
| 9 | Mannitol | Tryptone | Normal | 1.5:1 | 29.2 ± 0.49 |
| Mean 1 | 30.033 | 30.600 | 30.267 | 29.767 | |
| Mean 2 | 29.500 | 29.333 | 28.467 | 29.533 | |
| Mean 3 | 29.333 | 28.933 | 30.133 | 29.567 | |
| Range | 0.700 | 1.667 | 1.800 | 0.234 |
Variance analysis of melanin content in the fruiting body of Inonotus hispidus.
| Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon source | 0.802 | 2 | 0.401 | 0.280 | <0.05 * |
| Nitrogen source | 4.542 | 2 | 2.271 | 1.583 | <0.05 * |
| Solid-liqui ratio | 0.096 | 2 | 0.048 | 0.033 | <0.05 * |
| pH | 6.036 | 2 | 3.018 | 2.104 | <0.05 * |
| Error | 11.48 | 8 |
* p < 0.05 means statistical significance.
Figure 4Actual yield of melanin in the compound enzyme group and the non-complex enzyme group. Group A: Compound enzyme group; Group B: Solid fermentation optimization group; Group A + B: Compound enzyme with solid fermentation optimization group. Compared with the front group. Different lowercase letters represent significant differences (p < 0.05, Duncan).
Figure 5(A) Infrared absorption spectrum of soluble IHFM; (B) Scanning electron micrograph of soluble IHFM, (a) 10 µm; (b) 400 nm; (c) 100 nm.