| Literature DB >> 35883811 |
Vasilis Andriopoulos1, Maria D Gkioni2, Eleni Koutra1, Savvas G Mastropetros1, Fotini N Lamari2, Sophia Hatziantoniou2, Michael Kornaros1.
Abstract
There has been growing interest in microalgal biomolecules for health and cosmetics, as well as in the use of microalgae as aquaculture feed due to the need to replace fishmeal and fish oil with sustainable yet equally nutritious alternatives. Aim of this study is to evaluate the potential of five marine microalgal species, namely Chlorella minutissima, Dunaliella salina, Isochrysis galbana, Nannochloropsis oculata and Tisochrysis lutea, for the co-production of antioxidants and aquaculture feed. Batch cultivation was performed under saturating light intensity and continuous aeration. Freeze-dried biomass was extracted sequentially with water and methanol and evaluated for phenolic content and antioxidant activity, as well as proximate composition and fatty acid profile. Methanolic extracts of C. minutissima presented the highest phenolic content, measured with the Folin-Ciocalteu assay, and antioxidant activity. However, HPLC and LC-MS showed the presence of non-pigment compounds only in T. lutea. Total phenolic content and antioxidant activity were correlated to chlorophyll content. N. oculata and T. lutea were rich in eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, respectively, as well as in protein. In conclusion, N. oculata and T. lutea are suitable candidates for further optimization, while the data presented suggest that pigment effects on the Folin-Ciocalteu method require reconsideration.Entities:
Keywords: DHA; DPPH radical-scavenging activity; EPA; FRAP; GC-MS; Pearson correlation; antioxidant activity; in situ transesterification; iron chelating activity; principal component analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35883811 PMCID: PMC9311600 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11071320
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Nutrient consumption, pH, final OD750, final TSS, and μmax ± the standard deviation.
| Species * |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 48.05 ± 0.10 ab | 44.91 ± 1.42 b | 49.44 ± 0.33 a | 49.77 ± 0.02 a | 48.96 ± 0.06 a |
|
| 4605.95 ± 0.05 a | 4605.66 ± 0.01 b | 4605.97 ± 0.03 a | 4605.80 ± 0.02 ab | 4605.69 ± 0.04 b |
|
| 8.65 ± 0.05 ab | 8.55 ± 0.25 ab | 9.50 ± 0.11 a | 8.31 ± 0.07 b | 8.62 ± 0.28 ab |
|
| 6.85 ± 0.18 a | 2.17 ± 0.35 b | 6.21 ± 0.69 a | 2.24 ± 0.16 b | 2.52 ± 0.12 b |
|
| 1.35 ± 0.13 a | 0.82 ± 0.14 ab | 1.25 ± 0.05 a | 0.83 ± 0.02 ab | 0.69 ± 0.10 b |
|
| 0.31 ± 0.04 a | 0.28 ± 0.18 a | 0.45 ± 0.05 a | 0.45 ± 0.11 a | 0.29 ± 0.04 a |
* Absence of common lowercase letter superscripts in the same row indicates significant differences for each variable (Tukey–Kramer Test).
Figure 1OD750 (a), and TSS concentration values upon cultivation of the marine microalgal species C. minutissima (b), D. salina (c), N. oculata (d), I. galbana (e), and T. lutea (f).
Figure 2pH values upon cultivation of the marine microalgal species C. minutissima, D. salina, N. oculata, I. galbana, and T. lutea.
Biomass composition, lipid analysis and EPA/DHA content of C. minutissima, D. salina, N. oculata and T. lutea during the late stationary phases. Values are given ± the standard deviation.
| Species |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 8.30 ± 1.54 de | 10.08 ± 0.01 cde | 3.81 ± 0.21 e | 12.81 ± 3.16 bcde | 10.85 ± 0.35 cde |
|
| 18.00 ± 3.43 abcde | 20.32 ± 2.48 abcde | 21.48 ± 10.62 abcde | 10.04 ± 1.67 ce | 8.81 ± 2.59 de |
|
| 31.08 ± 0.93 abcd | 36.72 ± 5.05 ab | 27.71 ± 3.12 abcde | 39.69 ± 5.03 ab | 31.40 ± 4.32 abcd |
|
| 11.11 ± 0.15 cde | 9.23 ± 3.24 de | 36.70 ± 3.30 ab | 7.39 ± 0.45 de | 8.77 ± 0.56 de |
|
| 26.63 ± 5.46 abcde | 22.23 ± 5.44 abcde | 9.91 ± 9.91 cde | 28.35 ± 2.95 abcde | 44.06 ± 11.65 a |
|
| 2.80 ± 0.16 a | 0.88 ± 0.24 bc | 0.71 ± 0.31 bcd | 0.95 ± 0.06 bc | 1.01 ± 0.25 bc |
|
| 1.01 ± 0.05 bc | 0.29 ± 0.04 cd | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 0.00 ± 0.00 d | 0.08 ± 0.03 d |
|
| 1.07 ± 0.08 b | 0.24 ± 0.08 cd | 0.35 ± 0.12 bcd | 0.77 ± 0.07 bcd | 0.27 ± 0.02 cd |
|
| 3.86 ± 0.84 f | 11.42 ± 0.45 ef | 36.58 ± 0.35 bcd | 15.36 ± 3.10 def | 22.38 ± 2.16 cde |
|
| 59.44 ± 0.57 a | 44.27 ± 6.63 abc | 13.45 ± 0.50 ef | 45.86 ± 6.25 ab | 29.40 ± 3.81 bcd |
|
| 27.42 ± 0.34 bcde | 44.31 ± 6.19 abc | 49.97 ± 0.86 ab | 38.79 ± 9.35 abc | 48.22 ± 1.64 ab |
|
| 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 28.19 ± 0.03 a | 2.91 ± 2.9 c | 1.97 ± 1.97 c |
|
| 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 21.56 ± 2.04 ab | 14.93 ± 2.76 b |
* Absence of common letter superscripts in each group indicate significant differences (Tukey–Kramer test). Groups: (1) Ash, Carbohydrates, Protein, Lipids, Other (2) Chla, Chlb, Car (3) MUFA, PUFA, SFA, (4) EPA, DHA.
Figure 3FA profile during the late stationary phase. Concentrations of FAs are expressed as percentage of total FAs.
Biomass composition, lipid analysis and EPA/DHA content of N. oculata and T. lutea during the early stationary phase. Values are given ± the standard deviation.
| Species * ** *** |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| 2.10 ± 0.61 e | 14.93 ± 2.90 cd |
|
| 14.92 ± 1.83 cd | 7.21 ± 0.10 d |
|
| 39.88 ± 1.72 ab | 43.30 ± 1.33 a |
|
| 26.39 ± 3.00 abc | 9.45 ± 0.30 d |
|
| 14.21 ± 3.48 abcd | 22.20 ± 4.15 cd |
|
| 1.86 ± 0.11 aA | 1.95 ± 0.11 aA |
|
| 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 0.02 ± 0.00 c |
|
| 0.64 ± 0.13 b | 0.92 ± 0.02 b |
|
| 31.68 ± 0.25 ab | 17.10 ± 0.81 b |
|
| 19.38 ± 3.29 b | 45.71 ± 3.09 a |
|
| 48.94 ± 3.54 a | 37.19 ± 2.28 a |
|
| 33.74 ± 9.98 a | 2.80 ± 1.81 b |
|
| 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 31.31 ± 2.92 a |
* The variable groups of Table 2 also apply in this table. ** Absence of common lower case superscripts indicate significant difference between the two species at the early stationary phase (Tukey–Kramer test). *** Capital letters indicate significant difference of the presented value with its corresponding value from the late stationary phase for the same species (Tukey–Kramer test).
TPC, FRAP, DPPH RSA, and ICA of aqueous and methanolic extracts during the early and late stationary phase. Values are given ± the standard deviation.
| Species * | Phase | Solvent | TPC | FRAP | DPPH RSA | ICA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| 3.00 ± 0.30 def | 0.47 ± 0.04 d | 1.07 ± 0.18 c | 9.47 ± 0.12 abc |
|
| 9.04 ± 0.68 a | 18.24 ± 0.8 a | 3.74 ± 0.23 a | 19.61 ± 0.09 ab | ||
|
|
| 2.81 ± 0.24 def | 0.84 ± 0.03 d | 0.83 ± 0.02 c | 8.84 ± 0.12 c | |
|
| 6.23 ± 0.52 abcd | 11.16 ± 0.35 b | 2.50 ± 0.05 b | 17.42 ± 0.18 abc | ||
|
|
|
| 6.44 ± 0.93 abc | 0.25 ± 0.03 d | 1.32 ± 0.27 c | 9.53 ± 0.34 abc |
|
| 2.25 ± 1.20 def | 3.84 ± 1.69 cd | 0.16 ± 0.14 c | 18.51 ± 0.50 ab | ||
|
|
| 8.78 ± 1.49 a | 0.34 ± 0.07 d | 0.70 ± 0.07 c | 9.60 ± 0.36 bc | |
|
| 1.30 ± 0.37 ef | 2.04 ± 0.92 d | 0.15 ± 0.15 c | 18.13 ± 0.50 ab | ||
|
|
|
| 3.46 ± 1.24 cdef | 0.29 ± 0.12 d | 0.29 ± 0.29 c | 13.58 ± 4.18 abc |
|
| 3.32 ± 0.10 cdef | 6.73 ± 0.73 c | 0.75 ± 0.13 c | 15.41 ± 3.53 abc | ||
|
|
| 3.81 ± 0.90 cdef | 0.21 ± 0.08 d | 0.51 ± 0.51 c | 13.69 ± 4.03 abc | |
|
| 1.30 ± 0.26 ef | 3.63 ± 2.16 cd | 0.24 ± 0.04 c | 14.95 ± 2.63 abc | ||
|
|
|
| 4.43 ± 0.57 bcdef | 0.55 ± 0.15 d | 0.90 ± 0.29 c | 14.34 ± 1.64 abc |
|
| 2.32 ± 0.36 def | 2.59 ± 0.43 cd | 0.36 ± 0.21 c | 16.10 ± 0.62 abc | ||
|
|
| 4.75 ± 0.53 bcde | 0.92 ± 0.06 d | 0.54 ± 0.08 c | 15.95 ± 0.48 abc | |
|
| 1.25 ± 0.44 ef | 1.47 ± 0.01 cd | 0.25 ± 0.11 c | 13.28 ± 0.57 abc | ||
|
|
|
| 8.13 ± 0.39 ab | 0.39 ± 0.50 d | 0.42 ± 0.04 c | 16.74 ± 0.10 abc |
|
| 2.03 ± 0.18 def | 3.05 ± 0.01 cd | 0.25 ± 0.16 c | 17.23 ± 0.15 ab | ||
|
|
| 6.49 ± 0.51 abc | 0.51 ± 0.27 d | 0.98 ± 0.19 c | 8.93 ± 0.76 abc | |
|
| 1.78 ± 0.0 f | 1.58 ± 0.33 d | 0.62 ± 0.39 c | 19.04 ± 0.84 abc |
* In each column, average values without common letter superscripts differ significantly (Tukey–Kramer test).
Average, maximum and minimum values of TPC for various genera of microalgae and cyanobacteria. The number of references from which the average values were calculated is also provided.
| Genus | N of Ref | TPC | Min | Solvent | Ref | Max | Solvent | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 6.4 | Acetone | [ | ||||
|
| 4 | 6.7 ± 7.0 | 0.6 | Hexane | [ | 24.5 | Hexane, Chlorophorm, Ethyl Acetate, Ethanol 70%, Water | [ |
|
| 3 | 6.4 ± 5.4 | 0.0 | Hexane | [ | 22.5 | Hexane, Chlorophorm, Ethyl Acetate, Ethanol 70%, Water | [ |
|
| 1 | 10.2 ± 3.1 | 7.1 | Acetone | [ | 13.2 | Acetone | [ |
|
| 1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.2 | Water | [ | 0.7 | Hexane | [ |
|
| 1 | 5.0 ± 2.4 | 2.4 | Water | [ | 8.1 | Hexane | [ |
|
| 11 | 4.8 ± 6.7 | 0.0 | Hexane | [ | 39.1 | Hexane, Chlorophorm, Ethyl Acetate, Ethanol 70%, Water | [ |
|
| 1 | 2.9 ± 0.7 | 2.2 | Water | [ | 3.7 | Ethanol | [ |
|
| 1 | 3.0 ± 0.4 | 2.5 | Hexane | [ | 3.4 | Ethyl acetate | [ |
|
| 1 | 3.8 ± 4.2 | 0.9 | Ethyl acetate | [ | 12.7 | Hexane | [ |
|
| 1 | 7.8 | Methanol | [ | ||||
|
| 1 | 38.5 | Hexane, Chlorophorm, Ethyl Acetate, Ethanol 70%, Water | [ | ||||
|
| 3 | 2.3 ± 2.1 | 0.1 | Hexane | [ | 5.9 | Methanol | [ |
|
| 1 | 2.3 ± 1.8 | 0.4 | Hexane | [ | 5.0 | Water | [ |
|
| 1 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.5 | Ethanol/Water 3:1 | [ | 1.2 | Ethanol/Water 3:1 | [ |
|
| 2 | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 0.2 | Water | [ | 3.9 | Methanol | [ |
|
| 1 | 1.5 ± 1.5 | 0.2 | Hexane | [ | 3.7 | Water | [ |
|
| 4 | 2.9 ± 3.1 | 0.1 | Water | [ | 8.0 | Acetone | [ |
|
| 1 | 9.8 | Acetone | [ | ||||
|
| 1 | 2.9 ± 0.7 | 2.4 | Ethyl acetate or Hexane | [ | 3.9 | Water | [ |
|
| 3 | 6.4 ± 8.9 | 0.3 | Hexane | [ | 39.9 | Hexane | [ |
|
| 2 | 17.4 ± 6.2 | 8.0 | Water | [ | 24.5 | Hexane, Chlorophorm, Ethyl Acetate, Ethanol 70%, Water | [ |
|
| 1 | 1.4 | Ethanol/Water 3:1 | [ | ||||
|
| 1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.1 | Hexane | [ | 0.3 | Ethyl acetate | [ |
|
| 3 | 4.2 ± 2.3 | 2.1 | Ethanol/Water 3:1 | [ | 9.9 | Acetone | [ |
|
| 1 | 28.0 | Hexane, Chlorophorm, Ethyl Acetate, Ethanol 70%, Water | [ | ||||
|
| 1 | 6.5 | Acetone | [ | ||||
|
| 1 | 0.0 | Methanol or Hexane | [ | ||||
|
| 2 | 15.5 ± 13.6 | 1.9 | Ethanol/Water 3:1 | [ | 29.1 | Hexane, Chlorophorm, Ethyl Acetate, Ethanol 70%, Water | [ |
|
| 1 | 3.3 ± 4.7 | 0.0 | Ethyl acetate or Hexane | [ | 13.6 | Hexane | [ |
|
| 1 | 9.5 ± 2.9 | 6.6 | Methanol | [ | 12.4 | Methanol | [ |
|
| 1 | 3.5 ± 1.5 | 2.1 | Hexane | [ | 5.6 | Ethyl acetate | [ |
|
| 4 | 2.8 ± 5.2 | 0.0 | Hexane | [ | 20.0 | Acetone | [ |
|
| 1 | 2.2 ± 1.3 | 1.2 | Ethyl acetate | [ | 4.0 | Hexane | [ |
|
| 1 | 1.4 ± 1.2 | 0.2 | Hexane | [ | 3.0 | Water | [ |
Figure 4Correlation matrix (Pearson). Color bar at the bottom indicated the Pearson correlation coefficient value. Stars (*) indicate difference from 0 with a significance level alpha = 0.05. Figure created in Matlab with code provided by Layden et al. [63].
Figure 5(a,b) * ** Biplots of the first three PCA components on proximate composition (84.07% of the explained variance). EPA and DHA here represent the percentage in the dry biomass, while SFA, MUFA, and PUFA are percentages in the total lipids. Markers represent data (color indicates species and marker type indicates growth phase) and are grouped by similarity. The variation of data is expressed by the position of datapoints in a three-dimensional plot of three components that are composed of all the characteristics under analysis. Lines that originate from the origin of the graph represent the characteristics used to synthesize the principal components. The length of each line is proportional to the contribution of the corresponding characteristic to the principal components. The angle between two lines indicates positive (close to 0°), negative (close to 180°) or no (close to 90°) correlation between the variables. Red: C. minutissima, yellow: D. salina, green: I. galbana, blue: N. oculata, purple: T. lutea, circles: early stationary phase, diamonds: late stationary phase. (c) The explained variance and explained cumulative variance as a function of the number of components. * TPC and antioxidant data of aqueous and methanolic extracts have been omitted from a and b, respectively, for clarity. ** Other data used for PCA were also omitted for clarity. The full data set and 3D figure can be found in the supplementary materials.