4.7 Article

Effect of surfactants on the production of polysaccharides from Schizophyllum commune through submerged fermentation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.09.191

关键词

Surfactants; Submerged fermentation; Schizophyllum commune polysaccharide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the production of polysaccharides through submerged fermentation of S. commune with the addition of Tween 80 as a surfactant, which resulted in increased polysaccharide production and shortened production cycle. The addition of Tween 80 led to polysaccharides with similar monosaccharide composition but lower molecular weight, and also elevated the transcription levels of genes involved in polysaccharide synthesis pathway.
Schizophyllum commune (S. commune) polysaccharides are biomacromolecules with multiple biological activities and wide applications. In this study, polysaccharide production through submerged fermentation of S. commune using different surfactants was investigated. The addition of 1 g/L of polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate (Tween 80) at the beginning of the fermentation showed the best promotional effects on collective exopolysaccharide (EPS) production (which increased by 37.17%) while shortening the production cycle by 2 days. The monosaccharide composition of the EPS produced when the added Tween 80 was similar to that of the control; however, the molecular weight (Mw) was lower. Notably, the addition of Tween 80 significantly increased the ATP levels and the transcription levels of phosphoglucomutase and beta-glucan synthase genes in the polysaccharide synthesis pathway. The addition of Tween 80 reduced the pellet size of the mycelium compared to that of the control, but did not significantly change the microstructure of the mycelial cells. This study proposes an efficient strategy for the production of polysaccharides through submerged fermentation of S. commune, and elucidates the detailed mechanism of using Tween 80 as a fermentation stimulatory reagent.

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