Open Access

Effects of abiotic stressors on lutein production in the green microalga Dunaliella salina

  • Weiqi Fu1Email author,
  • Giuseppe Paglia1,
  • Manuela Magnúsdóttir1,
  • Elín A Steinarsdóttir1,
  • Steinn Gudmundsson1,
  • Bernhard Ø Palsson1, 2,
  • Ólafur S Andrésson1, 4 and
  • Sigurður Brynjólfsson1, 3
Microbial Cell Factories201413:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-13-3

Received: 27 September 2013

Accepted: 6 January 2014

Published: 8 January 2014

Abstract

Background

Recent years have witnessed a rising trend in exploring microalgae for valuable carotenoid products as the demand for lutein and many other carotenoids in global markets has increased significantly. In green microalgae lutein is a major carotenoid protecting cellular components from damage incurred by reactive oxygen species under stress conditions. In this study, we investigated the effects of abiotic stressors on lutein accumulation in a strain of the marine microalga D. salina which had been selected for growth under stress conditions of combined blue and red lights by adaptive laboratory evolution.

Results

Nitrate concentration, salinity and light quality were selected as three representative influencing factors and their impact on lutein production in batch cultures of D. salina was evaluated using response surface analysis. D. salina was found to be more tolerant to hyper-osmotic stress than to hypo-osmotic stress which caused serious cell damage and death in a high proportion of cells while hyper-osmotic stress increased the average cell size of D. salina only slightly. Two models were developed to explain how lutein productivity depends on the stress factors and for predicting the optimal conditions for lutein productivity. Among the three stress variables for lutein production, stronger interactions were found between nitrate concentration and salinity than between light quality and the other two. The predicted optimal conditions for lutein production were close to the original conditions used for adaptive evolution of D. salina. This suggests that the conditions imposed during adaptive evolution may have selected for the growth optima arrived at.

Conclusions

This study shows that systematic evaluation of the relationship between abiotic environmental stresses and lutein biosynthesis can help to decipher the key parameters in obtaining high levels of lutein productivity in D. salina. This study may benefit future stress-driven adaptive laboratory evolution experiments and a strategy of applying stress in a step-wise manner can be suggested for a rational design of experiments.

Keywords

Dunaliella salina Adaptive laboratory evolution Response surface methodology Lutein production Osmotic stress Short-term response

Background

Photosynthetic microalgae have recently been exploited for the commercial production of foods, feeds and cosmetics, as well as active pharmaceutical ingredients [15]. Microalgae have exclusive advantages over higher plants for the sustainable production of both valuable compounds and biomass, since they do not compete with agricultural crops for land. D. salina is a model species of green microalgae which has been widely cultivated outdoors for β-carotene production [6]. In a previous study [7] we demonstrated that D. salina developed for β-carotene production by adaptive evolution is also a potential producer of lutein under environmental stress conditions in contrast to the original Dunaliella strain (UTEX LB #200). Lutein has been widely used as a feed additive and a food coloration agent in industry [8] and it may also protect against age-related macular degeneration in humans [8, 9]. Lutein demand in the global market has been increasing rapidly in recent years [8, 10]. At present, lutein is mainly produced from the flowers of marigold, but the content is low, 0.3 milligram per gram dry biomass [1]. This has led to considerable interest in other sources of lutein, notably microalgae [8].

Changes in environmental conditions, such as heat shock, nutrient deprivation, osmotic pressure and radiation impose oxidative stress on organisms through the production and accumulation of reactive oxygen intermediates [11]. In adaptation to stress conditions, plants and microalgae show similar patterns of signal transduction, e.g. involving the extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway [12] and generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) as secondary messengers and mediators [13]. Both enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants play important roles in the defense mechanism against oxidative damage, both by scavenging ROS and by inhibiting their generation. Nonenzymatic antioxidants usually refer to ascorbic acid, glutathione, tocopherols, carotenoids and other small molecule antioxidants [11]. Lutein is a major carotenoid in the light harvesting antenna of green algae and higher plants. It plays an important role in harvesting blue light and in transferring energy to the photosystem reaction center, as well as protecting the photosynthetic apparatus against oxidative stress caused by ROS [14]. Lutein is therefore likely to be accumulated in response to different stress conditions involving ROS generation and degradation in cells. However, some stress conditions could exceed the capabilities of Dunaliella cells to acclimate, resulting in irreparable damage and cell death instead of adaptation. The original D. salina strain (UTEX LB #200) is not suitable for industrial production of lutein since it is sensitive to red light and unable to grow fast at high light intensities, e.g. 170 μE/m2/s or higher [7]. We have previously evolved a derivative of D. salina UTEX LB #200, named HI 001, which can withstand high light stress and has shown promise as a lutein producer [7]. It is therefore interesting to examine systematically the effects of representative abiotic stressors on the lutein production of D. salina HI 001 in batch culture.

Many abiotic stress factors such as irradiance, salinity, and nitrogen deprivation have been widely applied to trigger carotenoid accumulation in D. salina[2]. In addition, emerging light-emitting diode (LED) technology makes it possible to study the effects of monochromatic light, e.g. red light, with a narrow spectrum on microalgae [15]. Our previous study suggested that light quality was critical both for Dunaliella growth and for carotenoid accumulation [7]. Increasing the photon flux of red LED light alone damaged Dunaliella cells (UTEX LB #200) significantly and hindered the accumulation of carotenoids. Combining red LED light with blue LED light allowed growth at a higher total photon flux and the application of adaptive laboratory evolution led to increased accumulation of carotenoids [7]. We have therefore selected light quality, osmotic stress and nitrate concentration as three representative stressors and set out to examine their effects on lutein production in batch cultures of D. salina HI 001. Response surface methodology (RSM) is an effective statistical tool used in bioprocess engineering for experimental design, model construction, model validation and process optimization [1619]. As it is unknown whether the conditions used for adaptive evolution are optimal for lutein production in D. salina HI 001. With the aid of RSM, we have set out to study the robustness and flexibility of adaptive evolution for optimizing lutein production in D. salina as well as cell adaptability under varied environmental stimuli. The framework of the study design is shown schematically in Figure 1.
Figure 1

A schematic design of the study for the optimization of lutein production in D. salina .

Results

Response surface experimental design

Nitrogen availability (as indicated by the level of KNO3 in the medium), osmotic stress (as indicated by the NaCl level in the medium) and light quality (as indicated by the percentage of the blue LEDs of the total LEDs), were selected as three factors influencing Dunaliella growth and associated pigment accumulation. These factors were used as experimental variables in a Box–Behnken type experimental design [20] and the software Design Expert (Stat-Ease Inc., Minneapolis, U.S.A.) was used to analyze the data. A fixed photon flux of 170 μE/m2/s was supplied to the PBRs in all the RSM experiments and the center point of the design was chosen as 1.5 M NaCl, 31.2 mM KNO3 and 25% blue LEDs. The NaCl concentration was based on previous studies [21, 22]. A KNO3 concentration of 31.2 mM was previously found to support biomass capacity of 5 gDCW/L [7], and 25% blue LEDs was adopted from our previous study [7]. These growth conditions were previously applied to D. salina HI 001 for enhancing growth and carotenoid accumulation through adaptive evolution [7]. Details of the experimental design, including both coded and actual values of the variables are given in Table 1.
Table 1

Coded and actual values of variables in experiments of BoxBehnken design

Experiment number

Coded a and actual values of variables b

X 1 (%)

X 2 (mM)

X 3 (M)

1

0 (-1)

0.2 (-1)

1.5 (0)

2

50 (1)

0.2 (-1)

1.5 (0)

3

0 (-1)

62.2 (1)

1.5 (0)

4

50 (1)

62.2 (1)

1.5 (0)

5

0 (-1)

31.2 (0)

0.5 (-1)

6

50 (1)

31.2 (0)

0.5 (-1)

7

0 (-1)

31.2 (0)

2.5 (1)

8

50 (1)

31.2 (0)

2.5 (1)

9

25 (0)

0.2 (-1)

0.5 (-1)

10

25 (0)

62.2 (1)

0.5 (-1)

11

25 (0)

0.2 (-1)

2.5 (1)

12

25 (0)

62.2 (1)

2.5 (1)

13

25 (0)

31.2 (0)

1.5 (0)

14

25 (0)

31.2 (0)

1.5 (0)

15

25 (0)

31.2 (0)

1.5 (0)

a Coded values were in brackets.

b X 1 : Blue LED percentage (% of total LEDs); X 2 : KNO3 concentration (mM); X 3 : NaCl concentration (M).

Effects of abiotic stressors on growth and lutein production

The results of the experiments are shown in Tables 2 and Additional file 1: Table S1. Obvious differences in biomass and lutein productivities as well as chlorophylls and lutein content in cells were observed among the different growth conditions. In addition, lutein accumulation was in good agreement with the chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b content in D. salina (Figure 2). These results suggested that lutein accumulation in D. salina was regulated in the same manner as chlorophyll synthesis [7]. The correlation between lutein productivity and biomass productivity further confirmed that lutein was a growth-coupled primary metabolite (Additional file 1: Figure S2).
Table 2

Results a of design experiments

Experiment number

Lutein productivity b (mg/L/day)

Lutein content (% of dry biomass )

Chlorophyll a (% of dry biomass)

Chlorophyll b (% of dry biomass)

1

0.67 ± 0.04

0.27 ± 0.02

3.40 ± 0.26

0.22 ± 0.02

2

0.58 ± 0.01

0.35 ± 0.02

4.47 ± 0.22

0.31 ± 0.01

3

1.35 ± 0.11

0.52 ± 0.02

9.84 ± 0.31

0.63 ± 0.01

4

1.53 ± 0.07

0.60 ± 0.01

10.62 ± 0.21

0.75 ± 0.01

5

0.08 ± 0.02

0.05 ± 0.009

0.67 ± 0.08

0.05 ± 0.004

6

0.18 ± 0.02

0.15 ± 0.03

2.99 ± 0.54

0.25 ± 0.04

7

1.54 ± 0.01

0.63 ± 0.03

12.01 ± 0.49

0.86 ± 0.04

8

1.16 ± 0.01

0.47 ± 0.04

8.73 ± 0.22

0.66 ± 0.04

9

0.02 ± 0.01

0.02 ± 0.003

0.25 ± 0.04

0.02 ± 0.004

10

0

0.02 ± 0.003

0.29 ± 0.02

0.03 ± 0.005

11

0.44 ± 0.004

0.24 ± 0.02

3.37 ± 0.38

0.25 ± 0.03

12

1.22 ± 0.15

0.45 ± 0.04

10.14 ± 0.21

0.84 ± 0.01

13

2.71 ± 0.18

0.56 ± 0.03

10.92 ± 0.26

0.84 ± 0.05

14

3.45 ± 0.37

0.70 ± 0.07

12.36 ± 0.44

0.95 ± 0.02

15

2.43 ± 0.15

0.51 ± 0.04

9.99 ± 0.13

0.74 ± 0.03

a Values were averaged from three independent experiments (mean ± SD).

b Lutein productivity was calculated by multiplying lutein content by biomass productivity (see Additional file 1: Table S1).

Figure 2

Correlations between the lutein content and chlorophyll a and b content in D. salina cells (data shown in Table 2 ). Correlation coefficients (Kendall’s tau) were 0.90 and 0.81 for lutein content with chlorophyll a content and with chlorophyll b content, respectively.

The following quadratic model was obtained after averaging the triplicate measurements (resulting in 15 data points available for model estimation).
Y = 2.9112 + 0.0639 X 1 + 0.0676 X 2 + 4.5330 X 3 + 0.000087 X 1 X 2 0.0048 X 1 X 3 0.0065 X 2 X 3 0.0012 X 1 2 0.0011 X 2 2 1.3682 X 3 2
(1)

where Y is the daily lutein productivity (mg/L/day), X 1 is the percentage of blue LED (% of total), X 2 is the KNO3 concentration (mM) and X 3 is the NaCl concentration (M) in the medium. The model in coded values is given by Additional file 1: Equation S1.

The quadratic model was used to predict optimal conditions for lutein production. For the tree-based model, all 3»15 = 45 data points were used. This model was then used to study the effects of each of the three variables on lutein production (Figure 3). The model predicts that the highest levels of lutein are achieved close to the center point of the experiment (Figure 3, bottom-right most plot). Comparison of the three variables in terms of their relative influence on lutein production levels showed that NaCl has the greatest influence, followed by KNO3 and the percentage of blue LED has the least influence (data not shown). The strongest variable interactions were between KNO3 and NaCl levels while the interaction strength between the percentage of blue LED light with the two other variables was considerably lower (Additional file 1: Table S2).
Figure 3

Evaluation of abiotic stressors on lutein production using a boosted trees model. Each of the contour plots shows lutein productivity as a function of KNO3 (mM) levels and blue LED percentage for fixed levels of NaCl. Purple represents low productivity and cyan represents high productivity. The NaCl levels are indicated by X3 (from low to high). The predictive model is piecewise linear which results in a rectangular partition of the variable space.

Adaptation of D. salina to osmotic stress

It is important to test the capability of D. salina to regain optimal growth in face of changing environmental conditions since lutein production was found to be growth-coupled (Additional file 1: Figure S2). It was found that osmotic stress, especially hypo-osmotic stress, led to extremely low lutein productivity as well as low chlorophyll a content in D. salina (Tables 2 and Additional file 1: Table S1, and Figure 2). Comparisons between the values predicted by the quadratic model (Equation 1) and the experimental data (Additional file 1: Table S3) revealed that the model has relatively low prediction accuracy for the hypo-osmotic stress conditions. This was also the case for the tree-based model (data not shown). We conjecture that D. salina is sensitive to hypo-osmotic stress and that it might fail to adapt to such osmotic changes. Previous studies have found that D. salina is capable of thriving in NaCl solutions between 0.05 M to 5.5 M [23]. However, the sensitivity or tolerance of D. salina to hyper-osmotic and hypo-osmotic changes has not been examined, to the best of our knowledge.

To determine morphological responses of D. salina responds to osmotic changes, we measured the cell size for ten days under both hypo-osmotic and hyper-osmotic conditions (Figures 4 and 5). The cell size was distributed mainly between 7.0 μm and 11.0 μm initially (at 0 h). The cells were usually oval in shape rather than spherical and the average cell size was 8.0 μm (Figures 4-I and 5-I). After a hypo-osmotic shift, the D. salina cells changed their volume rapidly and the average cell size increased to 9.0 μm at 48 h. Two similar cycles of increase and decrease in average cell size were observed from 24 h to 192 h (Figure 4B) and revealed that the cells were experiencing serious swelling (increasing cell size), cell burst and death (decreasing cell size). The cell size then stabilized after 192 h (Figure 4B).
Figure 4

Average cell sizes and their schematic distributions during D. salina response after hypo-osmotic shock. D. salina: immediate response over the first two hours (A) and pre-adaptation over ten days (B); cell size distribution at 0 h (I), 144 h (II), and 240 h (III). D. salina cells were cultivated in Gg-8 medium containing 1.5 M NaCl for five days and then the concentrated cells were transferred to Gg-8 medium containing 0.5 M NaCl. The cell size values are averaged from three independent experiments. The error bars indicate the standard deviation.

Figure 5

Average cell sizes and their schematic distributions during D. salina response after hyper-osmotic shock. D. salina: immediate response over the first two hours (A) and pre-adaptation over ten days (B); cell size distributions at 0 h (I), at 48 h (II), and at 96 h (III). D. salina cells were cultivated in Gg-8 medium containing 1.5 M NaCl for five days and then concentrated cells were transferred to Gg-8 medium containing 2.5 M NaCl. The average cell size values are averaged from three independent experiments. The error bars indicate the standard deviation.

In contrast, after a hyper-osmotic shift, average cell size decreased immediately to 7.2 μm at 0.5 h and increased to 8.8 μm at 24 h. Average cell size then decreased gradually to 8.4 μm and stabilized in ten days (Figure 5B). The cell size distributions over the time course were unchanged, indicating that there was no significant cell damage. It appears that D. salina cells are more tolerant to hyper-osmotic stress than to hypo-osmotic stress.

To summarize, hypo-osmotic stress caused significant changes of cell size distributions and average cell size for 192 h (Figure 4) upon osmotic shift while hyper-osmotic stress just slightly increased the average cell size of D. salina (Figure 5). These results indicated that D. salina had difficulties adapting to the hypo-osmotic shift with substantial die-off due to irreparable damages when the imposed stress exceeded the capabilities of Dunaliella cells to acclimate.

Prediction of optimal conditions for lutein production

The quadratic model was used to predict the optimal conditions for lutein production (Additional file 1: Table S4). We then conducted three independent experiments in the same PBR system by setting the levels of the variables to the optimal values predicted by the model: blue LED 24.4% of total; nitrogen concentration 36.0 mM; NaCl concentration 1.7 M. This set of values also corresponds to the region of maximum lutein production for the tree-based model (bottom-right most plot in Figure 3). The resulting lutein productivity was 3.68 ± 0.44 mg/L/day and the lutein content was 8.87 ± 1.31 mg/gDCW. This shows that the models are useful for predicting the optimal conditions for lutein production. The conditions predicted by the model are similar to the conditions obtained by adaptive laboratory evolution (Additional file 1: Table S5) as indicated by the small differences in variable values as well as in lutein productivity. Combined with the observation that lutein productivity is positively correlated with biomass productivity, these results indicate that the previous conditions used for adaptive evolution restrict the space of optimal conditions for growth-coupled metabolite production in D. salina.

Discussion

Microalgae have attracted considerable attention recently as they have potential as platform sources in the bio-based industry. This study has provided new data on the production of lutein using photosynthetic microalgae. As the original D. salina (UTEX LB #200) is unable to grow fast under red light at high intensities, e.g. 170 μE/m2/s, and is therefore not suitable for industrial applications, the Dunaliella strain HI 001 previously derived by ALE treatment was studied further in connection to lutein production. We modeled the dependence of lutein productivity on the percentage of blue LEDs of total LED illumination, as well as KNO3 and NaCl levels in the medium. A study of the response of D. salina to osmotic stress revealed that excessive stress induced by hypo-osmotic changes led to serious cell damage and death rather than adaptation. By utilizing the optimal conditions predicted by quadratic modeling, the productivity achieved was 3.68 ± 0.44 mg/L/day with a lutein content of 8.87 ± 1.31 mg/gDCW. The high similarity between the model optimum for lutein production and the conditions in which Dunaliella strain HI 001 had undergone ALE treatment, suggests that the conditions used for adaptive evolution had influenced the optimum arrived at in growth-coupled lutein production by batch cultures of the HI 001 strain.

Several abiotic stress factors are known to inhibit growth in higher plants as well as in microalgae [12]. In response to unfavorable conditions, higher plants and microalgae generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) leading to adaptation by initiation of a phosphorylation cascade and activation of major stress-response genes [24]. Under hyper-osmotic conditions, Dunaliella most probably responds by adjusting the concentration of intracellular compatible solutes, primarily glycerol, decreasing the trans-membrane osmotic gradient caused by the high extracellular NaCl concentration [23, 25, 26]. In this study, salinity-induced osmotic stress played an important physiological role in the Dunaliella cells. Hyper-osmotic stress (extracellular NaCl increasing from 1.5 M to 2.5 M) led to salt tolerance of Dunaliella, most likely by up-regulating the glycerol metabolism (Figures 5 and Additional file 1: Table S5) while hypo-osmotic stress (extracellular NaCl decreasing from 1.5 M to 0.5 M) damaged cells and led to significant cell death (Figures 4 and Additional file 1: Table S4). It has been reported that hypo-osmotic stress inhibits enzyme activities and expression levels of carbonic anhydrase accompanied by significant induction of ROS production in D. salina and consequently algal photosynthesis and growth are suppressed [27]. Lesser [11] also suggested that hypo-osmotic stress led to ROS-induced programmed cell death.

Adaptive laboratory evolution [28, 29] has proven successful in developing microbes with improved fitness to specific conditions and increased tolerance to environmental stresses. Since the antioxidant lutein is functional in the detoxification of the ROS produced [14] and its production is also growth-coupled, stress-driven adaptation is highly important for lutein production in microalgae. However, extreme stress can lead to adverse consequences as shown in our previous study [7]. When excess stress was imposed by red light at high intensity, cells failed to acclimate, and an alternative strategies, i.e. partly replacing the red light with blue light, was adopted and found to be beneficial to cell adaptation at the same light intensity [7]. Interestingly, after experiencing ALE under combined blue and red light conditions D. salina gained enhanced light tolerance under red light only conditions at the same total photon flux of 170 μE/m2/s [7]. It has also been found that blue light is necessary in diatoms for photoacclimation to high light intensities [30]. These phenomena confirm the importance of studying the effects of varying environmental stimuli systematically, since microalgae have developed varying capabilities in acclimating to different stress factors during natural evolution. Furthermore, the percentage of blue LED has limited influence on lutein productivity. As the D. salina HI 001 strain had already gained enhanced tolerance to red LED illumination (Additional file 1: Figure S1), it is expected that providing nonlethal stress with either red LED or combined blue and red LED illumination would result in increased lutein accumulation in cells. It should also be noted that the original D. salina strain UTEX LB #200 was recognized and suggested as D. viridis based on its morphological and biochemical characters [31] while it was grouped with D. pseudosalina CONC 010 on the basis of molecular data [32]. As lutein is the main carotenoid produced by D. viridis[31], the strain D. salina HI 001 used in this study, a derivative of strain UTEX LB #200 is very likely also a good lutein producer.

Conclusions

Systematic evaluation of the relationship between abiotic environmental stresses and lutein biosynthesis helped to determine the key impact factors and yield high levels of lutein productivity in D. salina. Assessment of stress conditions revealed that Dunaliella cells displayed varying adaptations to different environmental changes. This study suggests a new guideline for future stress-driven adaptive evolution experiments and a strategy of applying stress in a step-wise manner can be proposed for rational design of experiments.

Materials and methods

Microalga and growth conditions

D. salina strain was originally obtained from the University of Texas at Austin (UTEX LB #200) and developed by adaptive laboratory evolution (ALE) by means of a semi-continuous culture system with repeated five day cycles [7]. Specifically, D. salina after ALE treatment, referred to as HI 001, was successfully cultivated under 170 μE/m2/s of red LED light (Additional file 1: Figure S1) [7]. Culture pH of all experiments was maintained between 6.5 and 7.5 by the buffer systems in the medium. For the RSM experiments, seed cultures of D. salina cells (HI 001) were grown in Gg-8 medium under the same conditions as the previous ALE treatment, i.e. a total photon flux of 170 μE/m2/s consisting of blue LED (42 μE/m2/s) and red LED (128 μE/m2/s) lights until late exponential phase and then used for subsequent experiments. For all the RSM experiments, D. salina was cultivated in batch culture for 5 days under different light conditions with a fixed total photon flux of 170 μE/m2/s and a Gg-8 medium which was modified in order to obtain different levels of NaCl and KNO3. Detailed growth conditions for all the RSM experiments are shown in Table 1. The biomass concentration during batch culture for all the experiments was relatively high (A 660nm ≥ 1.0) and the supplied light, as measured on the inner surface of the PBR, was assumed to be all absorbed by the D. salina cells [7]. All the experiments were performed in triplicates.

Parameters for the photobioreactors

Cylindrical bubble column photobioreactors with H = 30 cm, D = 4.0 cm, and a working volume of 300 ± 5 ml [15] were used. The input gas level was 90 ml/min of 2.5% CO2 in air.

Artificial light supply and setup

Blue (Part number: VAOL-5LSBY2) and red (Part number: SSL-LX5093SRC) LED arrays with narrow output spectra (20 nm bandwidth at half peak height) of 470 ± 20 nm and 660 ± 20 nm, respectively, were purchased from LUMEX Inc. (Taiwan, China). The photon flux of the light supplied to the PBRs was measured on the inner surface of each PBR by using a quantum sensor (SR. NO. Q40526 of QUANTUM, Model LI-1400, LI-COR biosciences, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.). For this study, average photon flux was fixed at 170 μE/m2/s by using the duty cycles at a frequency of 10 kHz of flashing light [15, 33].

Adaptation of D. salina to osmotics stress

For the adaptation study, D. salina cells were first adapted to Gg-8 medium under a total photon flux of 170 μE/m2/s red light for five days and used as seed culture. Cell pellets of seed culture were then harvested by centrifugation (1000 × g for 10 min) and cultivated in two modified Gg-8 media, i.e. Gg-8 medium containing 2.5 M NaCl for the hyper-osmotic stress study and Gg-8 medium containing 0.5 M NaCl for the hypo-osmotic stress study, respectively.

Biomass determination

Alga samples of culture suspension were filtered and collected on a mixed cellulose membrane (pore size: 0.45 μm), washed with de-ionized water twice and dried overnight at 60°C before weighing [7].

Determination of cell size

The cell size was measured by a Countess automated cell counter (Life Technologies Corporation, Carlsbad, California, U.S.A.). D. salina cell size was detected in bead mode without using trypan blue dye staining.

Chlorophyll and carotenoid analysis

The cell pellets were collected by centrifugation (1000 × g for 10 min) at 4°C and then extracted with 3ml of ethanol: hexane 2:1 (v/v) containing 0.1% (w/v) butylated hydroxytoluene till colorless [34]. To the mixed solution, 2 ml de-ionized water and 4 ml hexane were added and the mixture was vigorously shaken and centrifuged again at 1000 × g for 5 min [7]. An aliquot of 4 ml of the upper hexane layer was evaporated under nitrogen at 25 ± 2°C, reconstituted in a mixture of methyl tertiary butyl ether : acetonitrile (50:50) and analyzed by ultra- performance liquid chromatography, UV and mass spectrometry detection (UPLC-UV-MS) according to the procedures described previously [35].

Modeling approaches for simulations and predictions

Two types of models were created for studying the effects of light quality, nitrogen availability and osmotic stress on lutein productivity (the response variable). The predictor variables were the percentage of blue light, the amount of KNO3 and the amount of NaCl. The first model was a traditional quadratic model where the model parameters were obtained with least squares regression. The second model was a nonparametric model, meaning that no assumptions are made about the data generating mechanism. The model was based on gradient boosted regression trees which have received considerable attention in recent years for their superior predictive performance and their usefulness in data exploration [36]. The boosted tree model was obtained with the GBM package for R [37]. The GBM parameters were set as follows: Squared error loss was used, the number of trees was 700 (determined by minimizing the out-of-bag error), shrinkage was set to 0.005, the subsampling fraction to 0.5 and three-way interactions were used.

Abbreviations

ALE: 

Adaptive laboratory evolution

ERK: 

Extracellular signal-regulated kinase

LED: 

Light-emitting diode

PBRs: 

Photobioreactors

ROS: 

Reactive oxygen species

RSM: 

Response surface methodology

UPLC-UV-MS: 

Ultra-performance liquid chromatography, UV and mass spectrometry.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Icelandic Technology Development Fund and the Geothermal Research Group (GEORG) Fund.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Center for Systems Biology, University of Iceland
(2)
Department of Bioengineering, University of California
(3)
Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Iceland
(4)
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland

References

  1. Erickson B, Nelson JE, Winters B: Perspective on opportunities in industrial biotechnology in renewable chemicals. Biotechnol J. 2012, 7: 176-185. 10.1002/biot.201100069.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Lichtenthaler FW, Peters S: Carbohydrates as green raw materials for the chemical industry. C R Chim. 2004, 7: 65-90. 10.1016/j.crci.2004.02.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. SBI Reports: The World Market for Bio-Based Chemicals. 2012, Rockville, 2Google Scholar
  4. Lee JW, Na D, Park JM, Lee J, Choi S, Lee SY: Systems metabolic engineering of microorganisms for natural and non-natural chemicals. Nat Chem Biol. 2012, 8: 536-546. 10.1038/nchembio.970.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Atsumi S, Wu TY, Eckl EM, Hawkins SD, Buelter T, Liao JC: Engineering the isobutanol biosynthetic pathway in Escherichia coli by comparison of three aldehyde reductase/alcohol dehydrogenase genes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010, 85: 651-657. 10.1007/s00253-009-2085-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer W: Methacrylic acid and derivatives. Methacrylic Acid and Derivatives, vol. 23. 2012, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 1-12.Google Scholar
  7. Zhang KC, Woodruff AP, Xiong MY, Zhou J, Dhande YK: A synthetic metabolic pathway for production of the platform chemical isobutyric acid. ChemSusChem. 2011, 4: 1068-1070. 10.1002/cssc.201100045.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Koch H: Production of carboxylic acids. US patent. 1958, 2: 831-877.Google Scholar
  9. Wierckx NJ, Ballerstedt H, de Bont JA, Wery J: Engineering of solvent-tolerant Pseudomonas putida S12 for bioproduction of phenol from glucose. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005, 71: 8221-8227. 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8221-8227.2005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer CR, Klein-Marcuschamer D, Stephanopoulos G: Selection and optimization of microbial hosts for biofuels production. Metab Eng. 2008, 10: 295-304. 10.1016/j.ymben.2008.06.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Stephanopoulos G: Challenges in engineering microbes for biofuels production. Science. 2007, 315: 801-804. 10.1126/science.1139612.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Heipieper HJ, Neumann G, Cornelissen S, Meinhardt F: Solvent-tolerant bacteria for biotransformations in two-phase fermentation systems. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007, 74: 961-973. 10.1007/s00253-006-0833-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Halan B, Buehler K, Schmid A: Biofilms as living catalysts in continuous chemical syntheses. Trends Biotechnol. 2012, 30: 453-465. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.05.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Halan B, Schmid A, Buehler K: Maximizing the productivity of catalytic biofilms on solid supports in membrane aerated reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2010, 106: 516-527. 10.1002/bit.22732.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gross R, Buehler K, Schmid A: Engineered catalytic biofilms for continuous large scale production of n-octanol and (S)-styrene oxide. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2013, 110: 424-436. 10.1002/bit.24629.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Wackett LP: Pseudomonas putida - a versatile biocatalyst. Nat Biotechnol. 2003, 21: 136-138. 10.1038/nbt0203-136.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Spanggord RJ, Spain JC, Nishino SF, Mortelmans KE: Biodegradation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene by a Pseudomonas sp. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991, 57: 3200-3205.Google Scholar
  18. Haigler BE, Spain JC: Biodegradation of 4-nitrotoluene by Pseudomonas sp. strain 4NT. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993, 59: 2239-2243.Google Scholar
  19. Poblete-Castro I, Becker J, Dohnt K, dos Santos VM, Wittmann C: Industrial biotechnology of Pseudomonas putida and related species. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012, 93: 2279-2290. 10.1007/s00253-012-3928-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Escapa IF, Garcia JL, Buhler B, Blank LM, Prieto MA: The polyhydroxyalkanoate metabolism controls carbon and energy spillage in Pseudomonas putida. Environ Microbiol. 2012, 14: 1049-1063. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02684.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Blank LM, Ionidis G, Ebert BE, Buhler B, Schmid A: Metabolic response of Pseudomonas putida during redox biocatalysis in the presence of a second octanol phase. FEBS J. 2008, 275: 5173-5190. 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2008.06648.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Vemuri GN, Altman E, Sangurdekar DP, Khodursky AB, Eiteman MA: Overflow metabolism in Escherichia coli during steady-state growth: Transcriptional regulation and effect of the redox ratio. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006, 72: 3653-3661. 10.1128/AEM.72.5.3653-3661.2006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Nijkamp K, Westerhof RG, Ballerstedt H, de Bont JA, Wery J: Optimization of the solvent-tolerant Pseudomonas putida S12 as host for the production of p-coumarate from glucose. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007, 74: 617-624. 10.1007/s00253-006-0703-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Verhoef S, Wierckx N, Westerhof RG, de Winde JH, Ruijssenaars HJ: Bioproduction of p-hydroxystyrene from glucose by the solvent-tolerant bacterium Pseudomonas putida S12 in a two-phase water-decanol fermentation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009, 75: 931-936. 10.1128/AEM.02186-08.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Wierckx NJ, Ballerstedt H, de Bont JA, de Winde JH, Ruijssenaars HJ, Wery J: Transcriptome analysis of a phenol-producing Pseudomonasputida S12 construct: genetic and physiological basis for improved production. J Bacteriol. 2008, 190: 2822-2830. 10.1128/JB.01379-07.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Witholt B, Kessler B: Perspectives of medium chain length poly(hydroxyalkanoates), a versatile set of bacterial bioplastics. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 1999, 10: 279-285. 10.1016/S0958-1669(99)80049-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang HH, Zhou XR, Liu Q, Chen GQ: Biosynthesis of polyhydroxyalkanoate homopolymers by Pseudomonasputida. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011, 89: 1497-1507. 10.1007/s00253-010-2964-x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Husken LE, Beeftink R, de Bont JAM, Wery J: High-rate 3-methylcatechol production in Pseudomonas putida strains by means of a novel expression system. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001, 55: 571-577. 10.1007/s002530000566.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Panke S, Witholt B, Schmid A, Wubbolts MG: Towards a biocatalyst for (S)-styrene oxide production: characterization of the styrene degradation pathway of Pseudomonas sp. strain VLB120. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998, 64: 3546-3546.Google Scholar
  30. Nielsen DR, Leonard E, Yoon SH, Tseng HC, Yuan C, Prather KL: Engineering alternative butanol production platforms in heterologous bacteria. Metab Eng. 2009, 11: 262-273. 10.1016/j.ymben.2009.05.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Schrewe M, Julsing MK, Buhler B, Schmid A: Whole-cell biocatalysis for selective and productive C-O functional group introduction and modification. Chem Soc Rev. 2013, 42: 6346-6377. 10.1039/c3cs60011d.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuhn D, Buhler B, Schmid A: Production host selection for asymmetric styrene epoxidation: Escherichia coli vs. solvent-tolerant Pseudomonas. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012, 39: 1125-1133. 10.1007/s10295-012-1126-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Connor MR, Liao JC: Engineering of an Escherichia coli strain for the production of 3-methyl-1-butanol. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008, 74: 5769-5775. 10.1128/AEM.00468-08.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Marshall VD, Sokatch JR: Regulation of caline catabolism in Pseudomonas putida. J Bacteriol. 1972, 110: 1073-1081.Google Scholar
  35. Mooney BP, Miernyk JA, Randall DD: The complex fate of α-ketoacids. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2002, 53: 357-375. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135251.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Goodhue CT, Schaeffe JR: Preparation of L(+) β-hydroxyisobutyric acid by bacterial oxidation of isobutyric acid. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1971, 13: 203-214. 10.1002/bit.260130204.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Adelberg EA, Mandel M, Chen GCC: Optimal conditions for mutagenesis by N-methyl-N’-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine in Escherichia coli K12. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1965, 18: 788-795. 10.1016/0006-291X(65)90855-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Nijkamp K, Luijk N, Bont JAM, Wery J: The solvent-tolerant Pseudomonas putida S12 as host for the production of cinnamic acid from glucose. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005, 69: 170-177. 10.1007/s00253-005-1973-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolff JA, Macgregor CH, Eisenberg RC, Phibbs PV: Isolation and characterization of catabolite repression control mutants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO. J Bacteriol. 1991, 173: 4700-4706.Google Scholar
  40. Martin RR, Marshall VD, Sokatch JR, Unger L: Common enzymes of branched-chain amino-acid catabolism in Pseudomonas putida. J Bacteriol. 1973, 115: 198-204.Google Scholar
  41. Rodriguez GM, Atsumi S: Isobutyraldehyde production from Escherichia coli by removing aldehyde reductase activity. Microb Cell Fact. 2012, 11: 90-10.1186/1475-2859-11-90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim CH, Hong WK, Lee IY, Choi ES, Rhee SK: Enhanced production of D-β-hydroxyisobutyric acid through strain improvement. J Biotechnol. 1999, 69: 75-79. 10.1016/S0168-1656(99)00003-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim HS, Ju JY, Suh JH, Shin CS: Optimized fed-batch fermentation of L-β-hydroxy isobutyric acid by Yarrowia lipolytica. Bioprocess Eng. 1999, 20: 189-193.Google Scholar
  44. Aberhart DJ: A stereochemical study on the metabolism of isobutyrate in Pseudomonas putida. Bioorg Chem. 1977, 6: 191-201. 10.1016/0045-2068(77)90020-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Stieb M, Schink B: Anaerobic degradation of isobutyrate by methanogenic enrichment cultures and by a Desulfococcus multivorans strain. Arch Microbiol. 1989, 151: 126-132. 10.1007/BF00414426.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Steele MI, Lorenz D, Hatter K, Park A, Sokatch JR: Characterization of the mmsAB operon of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO encoding methylmalonate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase and 3-hydroxyisobutyrate dehydrogenase. J Biol Chem. 1992, 267: 13585-13592.Google Scholar
  47. Harper M, Lee CJ: Genome-wide analysis of mutagenesis bias and context sensitivity of N-methyl-N ’-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (NTG). Mutat Res-Fundam Mol Mech Mutag. 2012, 731: 64-67. 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2011.10.011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Lokanath NK, Ohshima N, Takio K, Shiromizu I, Kuroishi C, Okazaki N, Kuramitsu S, Yokoyama S, Miyano M, Kunishima N: Crystal structure of novel NADP-dependent 3-hydroxyisobutyrate dehydrogenase from Thermus thermophilus HB8. J Mol Biol. 2005, 352: 905-917. 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.07.068.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Mai XH, Adams MWW: Purification and characterization of two reversible and ADP-dependent acetyl coenzyme a synthetases from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus. J Bacteriol. 1996, 178: 5897-5903.Google Scholar
  50. Terpe K: Overview of bacterial expression systems for heterologous protein production: from molecular and biochemical fundamentals to commercial systems. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006, 72: 211-222. 10.1007/s00253-006-0465-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Staijen IE, Marcionelli R, Witholt B: The P alkBFGHJKL promoter is under carbon catabolite repression control in Pseudomonas oleovorans but not in Escherichia coli alk(+) recombinants. J Bacteriol. 1999, 181: 1610-1616.Google Scholar
  52. Troeschel SC, Thies S, Link O, Real CI, Knops K, Wilhelm S, Rosenau F, Jaeger KE: Novel broad host range shuttle vectors for expression in Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas putida. J Biotechnol. 2012, 161: 71-79. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2012.02.020.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. del Castillo T, Ramos JL, Rodriguez-Herva JJ, Fuhrer T, Sauer U, Duque E: Convergent peripheral pathways catalyze initial glucose catabolism in Pseudomonas putida: genomic and flux analysis. J Bacteriol. 2007, 189: 5142-5152. 10.1128/JB.00203-07.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Poblete-Castro I, Binger D, Rodrigues A, Becker J, dos Santos VAPM, Wittmann C: In-silico-driven metabolic engineering of Pseudomonas putida for enhanced production of poly-hydroxyalkanoates. Metab Eng. 2013, 15: 113-123.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Lu J, Brigham CJ, Gai CS, Sinskey AJ: Studies on the production of branched-chain alcohols in engineered Ralstonia eutropha. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012, 96: 283-297. 10.1007/s00253-012-4320-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Krause FS, Blombach B, Eikmanns BJ: Metabolic engineering of Corynebacterium glutamicum for 2-ketoisovalerate production. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010, 76: 8053-8061. 10.1128/AEM.01710-10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Blombach B, Riester T, Wieschalka S, Ziert C, Youn JW, Wendisch VF, Eikmanns BJ: Corynebacterium glutamicum tailored for efficient isobutanol production. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011, 77: 3300-3310. 10.1128/AEM.02972-10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Levintow L, Novelli GD: The synthesis of coenzyme A from pantetheine - preparation and properties of pantetheine kinase. J Biol Chem. 1954, 207: 761-765.Google Scholar
  59. Radmacher E, Vaitsikova A, Burger U, Krumbach K, Sahm H, Eggeling L: Linking central metabolism with increased pathway flux: L-valine accumulation by Corynebacterium glutamicum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002, 68: 2246-2250. 10.1128/AEM.68.5.2246-2250.2002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Sahm H, Eggeling L: D-pantothenate synthesis in Corynebacterium glutamicum and use of panBC and genes encoding L-valine synthesis for D-pantothenate overproduction. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999, 65: 1973-1979.Google Scholar
  61. Atsumi S, Hanai T, Liao JC: Non-fermentative pathways for synthesis of branched-chain higher alcohols as biofuels. Nature. 2008, 451: 86-90. 10.1038/nature06450.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Shimazaki M, Hasegawa J, Kan K, Nomura K, Nose Y, Kondo H, Ohashi T, Watanabe K: Synthesis of captopril starting from an optically-active beta-hydroxy acid. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 1982, 30: 3139-3146. 10.1248/cpb.30.3139.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Hanahan D: Studies on transformation of Escherichia coli with plasmids. J Mol Biol. 1983, 166: 557-580. 10.1016/S0022-2836(83)80284-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Martinez-Garcia E, de Lorenzo V: Engineering multiple genomic deletions in gram-negative bacteria: analysis of the multi-resistant antibiotic profile of Pseudomonas putida KT2440. Environ Microbiol. 2011, 13: 2702-2716. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02538.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Chowdhury EK, Akaishi Y, Nagata S, Misono H: Cloning and overexpression of the 3-hydroxyisobutyrate dehydrogenase gene from Pseudomonas putida E23. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2003, 67: 438-441. 10.1271/bbb.67.438.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Smits TH, Seeger MA, Witholt B, van Beilen JB: New alkane-responsive expression vectors for Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas. Plasmid. 2001, 46: 16-24. 10.1006/plas.2001.1522.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenau F, Jaeger KE: Overexpression and secretion of biocatalysts in Pseudomonas. Enzyme Functionality. 2003, CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  68. Quandt J, Hynes MF: Versatile suicide vectors which allow direct selection for gene replacement in Gram-negative bacteria. Gene. 1993, 127: 15-21. 10.1016/0378-1119(93)90611-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Choi K-H, Gaynor JB, White KG, Lopez C, Bosio CM, Karkhoff-Schweizer RR, Schweizer HP: A Tn7-based broad-range bacterial cloning and expression system. Nat Methods. 2005, 2: 443-448. 10.1038/nmeth765.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Bertani G: Studies on lysogenesis.1. The mode of phage liberation by lysogenic Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1951, 62: 293-300.Google Scholar
  71. Sambrook J, Russel DW: Molecular cloning - a laboratory manual. 2001, Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 3Google Scholar
  72. Panke S, Meyer A, Huber CM, Witholt B, Wubbolts MG: An alkane-responsive expression system for the production of fine chemicals. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999, 65: 2324-2332.Google Scholar
  73. Lang Z-F, Shen J-J, Cai S, Zhang J, He J, Li S-P: Expression, characterization, and site-directed mutation of a multiple herbicide-resistant acetohydroxyacid synthase (rAHAS) from Pseudomonas sp. Lm10. Curr Microbiol. 2011, 63: 145-150. 10.1007/s00284-011-9953-x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Leyval D, Uy D, Delaunay S, Goergen JL, Engasser JM: Characterisation of the enzyme activities involved in the valine biosynthetic pathway in a valine-producing strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum. J Biotechnol. 2003, 104: 241-252. 10.1016/S0168-1656(03)00162-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Atsumi S, Higashide W, Liao JC: Direct photosynthetic recycling of carbon dioxide to isobutyraldehyde. Nat Biotechnol. 2009, 27: 1177-1180. 10.1038/nbt.1586.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Choi K-H, Kumar A, Schweizer HP: A 10-min method for preparation of highly electrocompetent Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells: application for DNA fragment transfer between chromosomes and plasmid transformation. J Microbiol Methods. 2006, 64: 391-397. 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.06.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Fu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement