4.6 Article

Metabolomic profiling coupled with metabolic network reveals differences in Gluconacetobacter xylinus from static and agitated cultures

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 85-98

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2015.05.002

关键词

Agitation; Cellulose; Gluconacetobacter xylinus; Metabolomics; Physiology; Scale-Up

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21106105, 20976133, 51178311]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin [15JCZDJC32600]
  3. Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT1166]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both static and agitated culture methods have their own disadvantages on producing bacterial cellulose (BC). To reveal the metabolic differences between these two culture methods, the intracellular metabolic profile characterization of Gluconacetobacter xylinus was investigated using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. A total of 79 intracellular metabolites in G. xylinus were detected and quantified. Trehalose was mainly responsible for the discrimination among different cultural groups. Coupled with metabolic network, BC production was divided into two stages in agitated culture. At the first stage, glucose was more converted to gluconic acid at high rotational speeds, resulting in a low conversion rate of glucose to BC. At the second stage, gluconic acid acted as carbon source pool for BC synthesis under glucose-limited conditions. However, the accumulation of self-protection metabolites (trehalose, amino acids and gluconic acid) on the 2nd day at 280 rpm branches much carbon source from BC synthesis, resulting in the inhibition of BC synthesis. The highest conversion rate of glucose to BC was observed in static culture, attributing to the inhibition of Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and the accumulation of by-products. These might be the possible reasons that G. xylinus in static and agitated cultures gave distinct BC yields. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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