| Literature DB >> 35436410 |
Ruschoni Ucm1, Mera Aem1, Zamudio Lhb1, Vinod Kumar2, Mohammad J Taherzadeh3, Vijay Kumar Garlapati4, Anuj Kumar Chandel1.
Abstract
The growing, existing demand for low-cost and high-quality hyaluronic acid (HA) needs an outlook of different possible production strategies from renewable resources with the reduced possibility of cross-infections. Recently, the possibility of producing HA from harmless microorganisms appeared, which offers the opportunity to make HA more economical, without raw material limitations, and environmentally friendly. HA production is mainly reported with Lancefield Streptococci A and C, particularly from S. equi and S. zooepidemicus. Various modes of fermentation such as batch, repeated batch, fed-batch, and continuous culture have been investigated to optimize HA production, particularly from S. zooepidemicus, obtaining a HA yield of 2.5 g L-1 - 7.0 g L-1. Among the different utilized DSP approaches of HA production, recovery with cold ethanol (4°C) and cetylpyridinium chloride is the ideal strategy for lab-scale HA production. On the industrial scale, besides using isopropanol, filtration (0.22 um), ultrafiltration (100 kDa), and activated carbon absorption are employed to obtain HA of low molecular weight and additional ultrafiltration to purify HA of higher MW. Even though mature technologies have already been developed for the industrial production of HA, the projections of increased sales volume and the expansion of application possibilities require new processes to obtain HA with higher productivity, purity, and specific molecular weights. In this review, we have put forth the progress of HA technological research by discussing the microbial biosynthetic aspects, fermentation and downstream strategies, industrial-scale scenarios of HA, and the prospects of HA production to meet the current and ongoing market demands.Entities:
Keywords: Hyaluronic acid; downstream processing; fermentation; industrial scenario; streptococcus zooepidemicus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35436410 PMCID: PMC9161949 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2022.2057760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 6.832
Figure 1.A structure of hyaluronic acid monomers(Blue colour denotes the hydrophilic functional groups, yellow colour depicts the hydrophobic moieties and green-dashed lines shows the presence of hydrogen bonds).
HA production via varying microbial routes under different medium of fermentations
| Microorganism | Media Composition and Production conditions | Fermentation parameters | Biomass/ HA yield | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose (45 g L−1), tryptone (12 g L−1), yeast extract (10 g L−1),K2HPO4 (0.2 g L−1), MgSO4·7H2O (0.2 g L−1), (NH4)2SO4 (0.4 g L−1), KH2PO4 [2 g L−1) | 500 rpm of agitation without aeration, and pH controlled with NaCl and NaOH. | 0.435 g L−1 with the addition of 20 mg L−1of Fe3O4-GA nanoparticles | 7 | |
| Lactose (20 g L−1], Trace elements (1.27 ml L−1), nitrogen sources (3 g L−1) | 37°C | 0,25 HA g L−1, and 1.7 g L−1 after response surface method (RSM) was used and a HA synthase gene was incorporated. HA was of low MW (<27 kDa). | Chahukiet al., 2019 | |
| Sucrose (20 g L-1), K2HPO4 · 3H2O(9.15 g L−1),(NH4)2SO4 (1 g L−1), Trisodium citrate·2H2O (g L−1), KH2PO4 (3 g L−1), casamino acids (2.5 g L−1), Yeast extract (10 g L−1), CaCl2 (5.5 mg L−1), FeCl2 · 6H2O (13.5 mg L−1). | Cultures were grown at 37°C, 280 rpm, and the induction process was done with xylose (0.75% wt/v) 1.5 h after incubation. | From 0.3 to around 1.0 g L−1 depending on the clone. | (Westbrooket al., 2018) | |
| Hestrin-Schramm (HS) medium (Glucose 20.0 g L−1, yeast extract 5.0 g L−1, Bacterial peptone 5.0 g L−1, Citric acid 1.15 g L−1, Sodium phosphate dibasic 2.7 g L−1, Magnesium sulfate 1.0 g L−1, pH: 5.0). | 0.8 vvmwith circled silicone tubing. Media culture was circulated at 1.5 mL/min. | From 0.08 to 0.12 g L−1 of HA production. | (Liu andCatchmark, 2019) | |
| Fermentation medium: corn syrup powder: 20 g L−1, glucose: 40 g L−1, MnSO4 · 7H2O: 10 g L−1, FeSO4 · 7H2O: 10 mg L−1, and kanamycin, 50 μg mL−1; (NH4)2SO4: 30 g L−1, KH2PO4: 1 g L−1, K2HPO4: 0.5 g L−1. | Fermentation medium with 2.5% v/v inoculum in 300 mL flask.After 3 h culture at 28°C, 1 mM isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactoside (IPTG) was added to induce the HA synthase expression and thus HA biosynthesis | 0.49 ± 0.02 ng of HA per cell, and 5.1 ± 0.9 cells/liter (pEC-AB). 7.12 ± 0.18 ng of HA per cell, and 0.32 ± 0.05 cells/liter (pEC-AB-FtsZ). | [ |
HA production under different fermentation conditions by Streptococci sp
| Microorganism | Fermentation | Culture medium nutrients | Fermentationparameters | Biomass/ HA yield/MW | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Batch 2 L | Marine by-products: Mussel processing wastewater (50 g L−1), tuna peptone (8 g L−1) | 500 rpm | 3.67 g L−1/ 2.46 g L−1/ 2.5MDa | [ | |
| Batch bioreactor | By-products: Sugarcane molasses and corn steep liquor | 500 rpm | 3.48 g L−1/ 3.8MDa | (Amado et al., 2017) | |
| Batch 2.5 L | Maltose (g L−1) increasing Carbon source consumed in CDM | 600 rpm | 2 g L−1/ | (Chong andNelsen, 2003) | |
| Chemostatsbioreactor giving Continuousform | Chemically defined medium (CDM) | High dilution rate | HA production 25% higher than batch cultures | [ | |
| Batch5L with strategy plus pulsed carbohydrate added | Glucose (40 g L−1), polypeptone (20 g L−1), YE (10 g L−1) | 10–80% DO | 3.5 g L−1/ 2.19MDa | [ | |
| Fed-batch 7 L | Sucrose (70 g L−1), YE (25 g L−1) | 200 rpm | 16.3 g L−1/ 6.6 g L−1/ n.d. | (Liu et al., 2009) | |
| Batch 10 L | Sucrose (50 g L−1), casein hydrolysate (10 g L−1) | 400 rpm | 6.5 g L−1/ 5.1 g L−1/ 3.9 MDa | [ | |
| Batch 75 L | Glucose (4%), YE (0.75%), casein peptone (1%), Gln+Glu+ oxalic acid | 400rpm 0.5 vvm | 3 g L−1/ 6.94 g L−1/ 5.9 MDa | (Imet al., 2009) | |
| Batch 3 L | Glucose (20 g L−1), YE (10 g L−1 + acetoin and acetate | 300 rpm | 2.43 g L−1/ 2.15 g L−1/ n.d. | Wu | |
| Batch 2 L | Glucose (60 g L−1), CDM | 600 rpm | 3.5 g L−1/ 4.2 g L−1/ 3.2MDa | [ |
CDM: Chemically defined medium. NTG: N-methyl-N’-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidin. phbCAB genes: polyhydroxybutyratesynthesis genes. YE: yeast extract
Figure 2.Biosynthesis of Hyaluronic acid in S. zooepidemicus [Modified and adapted from 78].
Figure 3.Representation of metabolic fluxes map of HA biosynthesis in S.zooepidemicus groups A and C(Modified and adapted from Prasad et al., 2012).
Figure 4.General representation of unit’s operations evolved in HA production by fermentation pathway (Modified and adapted from[77,78].
Extraction and purification methods to obtain HA from terrestrial and marine sources
| Source | Environment | ExtractionMethod | Separation/Purification method | Concentration | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggshellmembrane | Terrestrial | Enzymatic extraction | Centrifugation | Trypsin: 44.82 mg HA/g eggshell. | (Ürgeova and Vulganova, 2016] |
| Eggshellmembrane | Terrestrial | Isopropanolandsodiumacetate | Silica gel and activated carbon purification | 5.3 mg HA/g eggshell | (Khanmohammadi et al., 2014) |
| Molluskbivalve | Marine | Acetone and enzymatic extraction | Ion-exchange chromatography | 4.2 mg HA/g d w of tissue | (Kanchana et al., 2013) |
| RoosterComb | Terrestrial | Organic solvent and sodium acetate | Centrifugation | n/d | (Kulkarni et al., 2018) |
| Sharkeyeballs | Marine | Alkalineprocess | Ultrafiltration, diafiltration and protein eletrodeposition | 0.3 g HA/L of vitreous humor | (Murado et al., 2012) |
| StingrayLiver | Marine | Enzymaticextraction (Papain) | Anionexchangechromatography | 6.1 mg HA/g dry weight of tissue | (Sadhasivam et al., 2013) |
| SwordfishEyeballs | Marine | Alkalineprocess | Ultrafiltration, diafiltration and protein eletrodeposition | 0.055 g HA/L of vitreous humor | (Murado et al., 2012) |
n/d: not detected
Summary of different economic parameters for HA production using wild and recombinant microbial strains
| Scenarios/economic parameters | A | B | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | SE1 | BS1 | BS2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | 34a | 34b | 17 | ||||||
| Technology | |||||||||
| Total capital investment (million US$) | 41.8 | 86.844 | 53.5 | 44.3 | 107 | 89.6 | 106.5 | 82.7 | 223.3 |
| Unit production cost (US$/kg) | 931 | 1665 | 1115 | 946 | 1691 | 1449 | 113 | 67 | 43 |
| Return on investment (ROI in %) | 46.12 | 50.64 | 32.6 | 43.5 | 42.5 | 53.1 | 43.6 | 66.4 | 78.3 |
| Payback time (years) | 2.17 | 1.97 | 3.07 | 2.30 | 2.35 | 1.88 | - | - | - |
| Net present value (NPV) (million US$) | 118.0 | 281.6 | 92.4 | 115.3 | 276.5 | 308.7 | 244.5 | 124.6 | 285.3 |
| Product for topical use (kg/year) | 20,000 | 17,944 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 19,067 | 19,067 | 1,222,357 | 622,912 | 1,426,255 |
| Product for injectable use (kg/year) | 0 | 2,056 | 0 | 0 | 871 | 871 | |||
| Percentual of HA diverted to injectable use | 10.28% | 4.36% | |||||||