4.7 Article

Microbial lipid production by oleaginous Rhodococci cultured in lignocellulosic autohydrolysates

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 99, 期 17, 页码 7369-7377

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-015-6752-5

关键词

Autohydrolysis; Hardwood; Softwood; Fatty acid methyl ester; Oleaginous; Rhodococcus; Fermentation

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. DOE [EE0006112]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51039001, 51378190]
  4. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT-13R17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic synthesis of single cell oils (SCOs) for biodiesel application by heterotrophic oleaginous microorganisms is being hampered by the high cost of culture media. This study investigated the possibility of using loblolly pine and sweetgum autohydrolysates as economic feedstocks for microbial lipid production by oleaginous Rhodococcus opacus (R. opacus) PD630 and DSM 1069. Results revealed that when the substrates were detoxified by the removal of inhibitors (such as HMF-hydroxymethyl-furfural), the two strains exhibited viable growth patterns after a short adaptation/lag phase. R. opacus PD630 accumulated as much as 28.6 % of its cell dry weight (CDW) in lipids while growing on detoxified sweetgum autohydrolysate (DSAH) that translates to 0.25 g/l lipid yield. The accumulation of SCOs reached the level of oleagenicity in DSM 1069 cells (28.3 % of CDW) as well, while being cultured on detoxified pine autohydrolysate (DPAH), with the maximum lipid yield of 0.31 g/l. The composition of the obtained microbial oils varied depending on the substrates provided. These results indicate that lignocellulosic autohydrolysates can be used as low-cost fermentation substrates for microbial lipid production by wild-type R. opacus species. Consequently, the variety of applications for aqueous liquors from lignocellulosic pretreatment has been expanded, allowing for the further optimization of the integrated biorefinery.

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

4.7
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