Enhancing microalgal biomass productivity by engineering a microalgal-bacterial community
Abstract
This study demonstrates that ecologically engineered bacterial consortium could enhance microalgal biomass and lipid productivities through carbon exchange. Phycosphere bacterial diversity analysis in xenic Chlorella vulgaris (XCV) confirmed the presence of growth enhancing and inhibiting microorganisms. Co-cultivation of axenic C. vulgaris (ACV) with four different growth enhancing bacteria revealed a symbiotic relationship with each bacterium. An artificial microalgal-bacterial consortium (AMBC) constituting these four bacteria and ACV showed that the bacterial consortium exerted a statistically significant (P<0.05) growth enhancement on ACV. Moreover, AMBC had superior flocculation efficiency, lipid content and quality. Studies on carbon exchange revealed that bacteria in AMBC might utilize fixed organic carbon released by microalgae, and in return, supply inorganic and low molecular weight (LMW) organic carbon influencing algal growth and metabolism. Such exchanges, although species specific, have enormous significance in carbon cycle and can be exploitated by microalgal biotechnology industry.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cho et al. cultivated C. vulgaris with isolated bacteria from the same culture and observed that the artificial microalgae-bacteria consortia had flocculation efficiency, lipid content, and quality superior to that of the axenic microalgae culture.
“Likewise, Cho et al. [81] cultivated C. vulgaris with isolated bacteria from the same culture and observed that the artificial microalgae–bacteria consortia had flocculation efficiency, lipid content, and quality superior to that of the axenic microalgae culture.”
From Toward the Enhancement of Microalgal Metabolite Production through Microalgae–Bacteria Consortia (2021) · cites this paper as [81]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 305
- Authors
- Cho, D.-H., Ramanan, R., Heo, J., Lee, J., Kim, B.-H., Oh, H.-M., & Kim, H.-S.
- Affiliations
- Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Kim, Byung-Hyuk
- Kim, Hee-Sik
- Venue
- Bioresource Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 175
- Pages
- 578-585
- ISSN
- 0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1981985232
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8
- FWCI
- 3.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- KRIBB Repository (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (ABC-2011-0031351)
- Korean Ministry of Knowledge Economy (2012T100201665)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
- Keywords
- Chlorella vulgaris, microalgae productivity, lipid productivity, carbon exchange, bacterial growth enhancement, flocculation, symbiosis, microalgal biotechnology
- MeSH terms
- Bacteria, Biotechnology, Carbon, Flocculation, Lipids, Symbiosis, Biomass, Chlorella vulgaris, Lipid Metabolism, Microalgae, Microbial Consortia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
