Cited by 14

Dynamic metabolomic crosstalk between Chlorella saccharophila and its new symbiotic bacteria enhances lutein production in microalga without compromising its biomass

Makaranga, Abdalah, Jutur, Pannaga Pavan·2023·Enzyme and Microbial Technology

Abstract

The microalgae Chlorella saccharophila UTEX247 was co-cultured with its symbiotic indigenous isolated bacterial strain, Exiguobacterium sp., to determine the possible effects of bacteria on microalgae growth and lutein productivity. Under optimal conditions, the lutein productivity of co-culture was 298.97 µg L -1 d -1 , which was nearly 1.45-fold higher compared to monocultures i.e., 103.3 µg L -1 d -1 . The highest lutein productivities were obtained in co-cultures, accompanied by a significant increase in cell biomass up to 0.84-fold. These conditions were analyzed using an untargeted metabolomics approach to identify metabolites enhancing valuable renewables, i.e., lutein, without compromising growth. Our qualitative metabolomic analysis identified nearly 30 (microalgae alone), 41 (bacteria alone), and 75 (co-cultures) metabolites, respectively. Among these, 46 metabolites were unique in the co-culture alone. The co-culture interactions significantly altered the role of metabolites such as thiamine precursors, reactive sugar anomers like furanose and branched-chain amino acids (BCAA). Nevertheless, the central metabolism cycle upregulation depicted increased availability of carbon skeletons, leading to increased cell biomass and pigments. In conclusion, the co-cultures induce the production of relevant metabolites which regulate growth and lutein simultaneously in C. saccharophila UTEX247, which paves the way for a new perspective in microalgal biorefineries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2023.110291

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Makaranga, A., & Jutur, P. P.
Venue
Enzyme and Microbial Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-10
Volume
170
Pages
110291
ISSN
0141-0229
Cited by
14
References
1
Language
en
Funders
  • Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
  • Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BT/PR31155/PBD/26/725/2019, BT/SB0078/02/19)

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