» Articles » PMID: 23218315

A New Cellulose-producing Bacterium, Rhodococcus Sp. MI 2: Screening and Optimization of Culture Conditions

Overview
Journal Carbohydr Polym
Specialty Biochemistry
Date 2012 Dec 11
PMID 23218315
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A total of 59 bacterial strains were isolated from ripe fruits and vegetables and tested for their ability to produce cellulose. Only one identified as Rhodococcus sp. MI 2 based on its taxonomic characteristics and 16S rDNA sequence analysis. The glucose was the only product of digestion by cellulase confirmed by TLC and reversed phase HPLC. Rhodococcus sp. MI 2 produced significantly more cellulose with the SH medium containing glucose than with the coconut juice medium. Rhodococcus sp. MI 2 initially produced 3.91 ± 0.091, 2.20 ± 0.090 and 0.19 ± 0.051 g/L/6 days cellulose under static, agitated and stirred conditions, respectively, whereas A. xylinum 998 produced 1.17 ± 0.065, 1.34 ± 0.115 and 0.12 ± 0.046 g/L/6 days cellulose under the same conditions, respectively. The optimum culture conditions for cellulose production in SH medium were room temperature (25 °C), a 5% (v/v) inoculum, peptone 0.7%, yeast extract 0.9%, and sucrose 1.5%, at a pH of 3.5. The cellulose yield was increased by adding 0.5% CaCO(3) to the SH medium with sucrose but added agar had no effect. The cellulose yield under optimum and static conditions was increased about twice, from 3.7 to 7.4 g/L/14 days.

Citing Articles

Exploring the Acetobacteraceae family isolated from kombucha SCOBYs worldwide and comparing yield and characteristics of biocellulose under various fermentation conditions.

Khiabani A, Sarabi-Jamab M, Shakeri M, Pahlevanlo A, Emadzadeh B Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):26616.

PMID: 39496750 PMC: 11535285. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-77305-w.


Production and analysis of synthesized bacterial cellulose by Enterococcus faecalis strain AEF using Phoenix dactylifera and Musa acuminata fruit extracts.

Al-Hasabe A, Abdull Razis A, Baharum N, Yu C, Mat Isa N World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024; 40(11):362.

PMID: 39446188 DOI: 10.1007/s11274-024-04159-9.


How Far Is the Nanocellulose Chip and Its Production in Reach? A Literature Survey.

Bencurova E, Chinazzo A, Kar B, Jung M, Dandekar T Nanomaterials (Basel). 2024; 14(18).

PMID: 39330692 PMC: 11435016. DOI: 10.3390/nano14181536.


Bacterial cellulose biosynthesis: Optimization strategy using iranian nabat industry waste.

Khiabani A, Sarabi-Jamab M, Shakeri M, Pahlevanlo A, Emadzadeh B Heliyon. 2024; 10(16):e35986.

PMID: 39247360 PMC: 11379586. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35986.


GO-Enabled Bacterial Cellulose Membranes by Multistep, In Situ Loading: Effect of Bacterial Strain and Loading Pattern on Nanocomposite Properties.

Gabrys T, Fryczkowska B, Jancic U, Trcek J, Gorgieva S Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(3).

PMID: 36770302 PMC: 9921428. DOI: 10.3390/ma16031296.