4.8 Article

Consolidated bioprocessing of plant biomass to polyhydroxyalkanoate by co-culture of Streptomyces sp. SirexAA-E and Priestia megaterium

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 376, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128934

关键词

Biomass; Synthetic consortium; Consolidated bioprocess; Polyhydroxyalkanoate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated the consolidated bioconversion of plant biomass to polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) by co-culturing two specialized bacteria, Streptomyces sp. SirexAA-E and Priestia megaterium. The co-culture produced poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) using purified polysaccharides and various plant biomass as carbon sources. The optimized co-culture ratio of S. sp. SirexAA-E to P. megaterium produced 40 mg PHB/g Miscanthus using 0.5% biomass loading. This study provides a proof-of-concept for one-pot bioconversion of plant biomass into PHB without separate saccharification processes.
Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) production from plant biomass is an ideal way to realize sustainable PHA-based bioplastic. The present study demonstrated consolidated bioconversion of plant biomass to PHA by coculturing two specialized bacteria, cellulolytic Streptomyces sp. SirexAA-E and PHA producing Priestia megaterium. In monoculture, S. sp. SirexAA-E does not produce PHA, while P. megaterium did not grow on plant polysaccharides. The co-culture showed poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) production using purified polysaccharides, including cellulose, xylan, mannan and their combinations, and plant biomass (Miscanthus, corn stalk and corn leaves) as sole carbon sources, confirmed by GC-MS. The co-culture inoculated with 1:4 (v/v) ratio of S. sp. SirexAA-E to P. megaterium produced 40 mg PHB/g Miscanthus using 0.5% biomass loading. Realtime PCR showed -85% S. sp. SirexAA-E and -15% P. megaterium in the co-culture. Thus, this study provides a concept of proof for one-pot bioconversion of plant biomass into PHB without separate saccharification processes.

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

4.8
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