DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Biokinetics of Protein Degrading Clostridium cadaveris and Clostridium sporogenes in Batch and Continuous Mode of Operations

  • Koo, Taewoan (Division of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)) ;
  • Jannat, Md Abu Hanifa (Division of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)) ;
  • Hwang, Seokhwan (Division of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH))
  • Received : 2019.08.27
  • Accepted : 2020.01.10
  • Published : 2020.04.28

Abstract

A quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) was applied to estimate biokinetic coefficients of Clostridium cadaveris and Clostridium sporogenes, which utilize protein as carbon source. Experimental data on changes in peptone concentration and 16S rRNA gene copy numbers of C. cadaveris and C. sporogenes were fitted to model. The fourth-order Runge-Kutta approximation with non-linear least squares analysis was employed to solve the ordinary differential equations to estimate biokinetic coefficients. The maximum specific growth rate (μmax), half-saturation concentration (Ks), growth yield (Y), and decay coefficient (Kd) of C. cadaveris and C.sporogenes were 0.73 ± 0.05 and 1.35 ± 0.32 h-1, 6.07 ± 1.52 and 5.67 ± 1.53 g/l, 2.25 ± 0.75 × 1010 and 7.92 ± 3.71 × 109 copies/g, 0.002 ± 0.003 and 0.002 ± 0.001 h-1, respectively. The theoretical specific growth rate of C. sporogenes always exceeded that of C. cadaveris at peptone concentration higher than 3.62 g/l. When the influent peptone concentration was 5.0 g/l, the concentration of C.cadaveris gradually decreased to the steady value of 2.9 × 1010 copies/ml at 4 h Hydraulic retention time (HRT), which indicates a 67.1% reduction of the initial population, but the wash out occurred at HRTs of 1.9 and 3.2 h. The 16S rRNA gene copy numbers of C. sporogenes gradually decreased to steady values ranging from 1.1 × 1010 to 2.9 × 1010 copies/ml. C. sporogenes species was predicted to wash out at an HRT of 1.6 h.

Keywords

References

  1. Koo T, Yulisa A, Hwang S. 2009. Microbial community structure in full scale anaerobic mono-and co-digesters treating food waste and animal waste. Bioresour. Technol. 282: 439-446.
  2. Lee J, Shin SG, Han G, Koo T, Hwang S. 2017. Bacteria and archaea communities in full-scale thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digesters treating food wastewater: key process parameters and microbial indicators of process instability. Bioresour. Technol. 245: 689-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.015
  3. Koo T, Shin SG, Lee J, Han G, Kim W, Cho K, et al. 2017. Identifying methanogen community structures and their correlations with performance parameters in four full-scale anaerobic sludge digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 228: 368-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.118
  4. Vanwonterghem I, Jensen PD, Ho DP, Batstone DJ, Tyson GW. 2014. Linking microbial community structure, interactions and function in anaerobic digesters using new molecular techniques. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 27: 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.11.004
  5. Appels L, Baeyens J, Degreve J, Dewil R. 2008. Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. progress in energy and combustion Science 34: 755-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2008.06.002
  6. Yang K, Yu Y, Hwang S. 2003. Selective optimization in thermophilic acidogenesis of cheese-whey wastewater to acetic and butyric acids: partial acidification and methanation. Water Res. 37: 2467-2477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00006-X
  7. Shin SG, Han G, Lim J, Lee C, Hwang S. 2010. A comprehensive microbial insight into two-stage anaerobic digestion of food wasterecycling wastewater. Water Res. 44: 4838-4849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.019
  8. Lee J, Han G, Shin SG, Koo T, Cho K, Kim W, et al. 2016. Seasonal monitoring of bacteria and archaea in a full-scale thermophilic anaerobic digester treating food waste-recycling wastewater: correlations between microbial community characteristics and process variables. Chem. Eng. J. 300: 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.04.097
  9. McInerney. 1988. Anaerobic hydrolysis and fermentation of fats and proteins. Chemistry ID: 81101832
  10. Cho K, Shin SG, Kim W, Lee J, Lee C, Hwang S. 2017. Microbial community shifts in a farm-scale anaerobic digester treating swine waste: correlations between bacteria communities associated with hydrogenotrophic methanogens and environmental conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 601-602: 167-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.188
  11. Han G, Shin SG, Lee J, Shin J, Hwang S. 2017. A comparative study on the process efficiencies and microbial community structures of six full-scale wet and semi-dry anaerobic digesters treating food wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 245: 869-875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.167
  12. Shin SG, Koo T, Lee J, Han G, Cho K, Kim W, et al. 2016. Correlations between bacterial populations and process parameters in four full-scale anaerobic digesters treating sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 214: 711-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.021
  13. Koo T, Lee J, Hwang S. 2019. Development of an interspecies interaction model: an experiment on Clostridium cadaveris and Clostridium sporogenes under anaerobic condition. J. Environ. Manag. 237: 247-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.084
  14. Kim MD, Song M, Jo M, Shin SG, Khim JH, Hwang S. 2010. Growth condition and bacterial community for maximum hydrolysis of suspended organic materials in anaerobic digestion of food waste-recycling wastewater. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85: 1611-1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2316-x
  15. Li S-L, Whang L-M, Chao Y-C, Wang Y-H, Wang Y-F, Hsiao C-J, et al. 2010. Effects of hydraulic retention time on anaerobic hydrogenation performance and microbial ecology of bioreactors fed with glucose-peptone and starch-peptone. Int. J. Hydrogen energy. 35: 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.10.033
  16. Garrity G. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology: Volume 2: The Proteobacteria, Part B: The Gammaproteobacteria: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
  17. Lee C, Kim J, Hwang K, Hwang S. 2009. Fermentation and growth kinetic study of Aeromonas caviae under anaerobic conditions. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 83: 767-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-1983-y
  18. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. 1951. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193: 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(19)52451-6
  19. Hatree E. 1972. Determination of protein: a modification of the lowry method that gives a linear photometric response. Anal. Biochem. 48: 422-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(72)90094-2
  20. Ahn JH, Kim J, Lim J, Hwang S. 2004. Biokinetic evaluation and modeling of continuous thiocyanate biodegradation by Klebsiella sp. Biotechnol. Progress 20: 1069-1075. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp049967n
  21. Lee S, Kim J, Shin SG, Hwang S. 2008. Biokinetic parameters and behavior of Aeromonas hydrophila during anaerobic growth. Biotechnol. Lett. 30: 1011-1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-008-9660-2
  22. Cho K, Nguyen DX, Lee S, Hwang S. 2013. Use of real-time QPCR in biokinetics and modeling of two different ammonia-oxidizing bacteria growing simultaneously. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 40: 1015-1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-013-1297-z
  23. Klitgord N, Segre D. 2010. Environments that induce synthetic microbial ecosystems. PLoS Computat. Biol. 6(11): e1001002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001002
  24. Faust K, Raes J. 2012. Microbial interactions: from networks to models. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10: 538-550. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2832
  25. Phelan VV, Liu W-T, Pogliano K, Dorrestein PC. 2012. Microbial metabolic exchange[mdash]the chemotype-to-phenotype link. Nat. Chem. Biol. 8: 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.739
  26. Lee ASY, Song KP. 2005. LuxS/autoinducer-2 quorum sensing molecule regulates transcriptional virulence gene expression in Clostridium difficile. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 335: 659-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.07.131