4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Productivity and selective accumulation of carotenoids of the novel extremophile microalga Chlamydomonas acidophila grown with different carbon sources in batch systems

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10295-010-0841-3

关键词

Extremophile microalgae; Mixotrophic growth; Energy source; Carotenoid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cultivation of extremophile microorganisms has attracted interest due to their ability to accumulate high-value compounds. Chlamydomonas acidophila is an acidophile green microalga isolated by our group from Tinto River, an acidic river that flows down from the mining area in Huelva, Spain. This microalga accumulates high concentrations of lutein, a very well-known natural antioxidant. The aim of this study is to assess use of different carbon sources (CO2, glucose, glycerol, starch, urea, and glycine) for efficient growth of and carotenoid production by C. acidophila. Our results reveal that growth of the microalga on different carbon sources resulted in different algal biomass productivities, urea being as efficient as CO2 when used as sole carbon source (similar to 20 g dry biomass m(-2) day(-1)). Mixotrophic growth on glucose was also efficient in terms of biomass production (similar to 14 g dry biomass m(-2) day(-1)). In terms of carotenoid accumulation, mixotrophic growth on urea resulted in even higher productivity of carotenoids (mainly lutein, probably via alpha-carotene) than obtained with photoautotrophic cultures (70% versus 65% relative abundance of lutein, respectively). The accumulated lutein concentrations of C. acidophila reported in this work (about 10 g/kg dry weight, produced in batch systems) are among the highest reported for a microalga. Glycerol and glycine seem to enhance beta-carotene biosynthesis, and when glycine is used as carbon source, zeaxanthin becomes the most accumulated carotenoid in the microalga. Strategies for production of lutein and zeaxanthin are suggested based on the obtained results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据