The nutritional composition and cell size of microbial biomass for food applications are defined by the growth conditions.

Amino acid profile Growth rate Nucleic acid Nutritional quality Protein profile

Journal

Microbial cell factories
ISSN: 1475-2859
Titre abrégé: Microb Cell Fact
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139812

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 15 07 2023
accepted: 02 12 2023
medline: 11 12 2023
pubmed: 11 12 2023
entrez: 10 12 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

It is increasingly recognized that conventional food production systems are not able to meet the globally increasing protein needs, resulting in overexploitation and depletion of resources, and environmental degradation. In this context, microbial biomass has emerged as a promising sustainable protein alternative. Nevertheless, often no consideration is given on the fact that the cultivation conditions affect the composition of microbial cells, and hence their quality and nutritional value. Apart from the properties and nutritional quality of the produced microbial food (ingredient), this can also impact its sustainability. To qualitatively assess these aspects, here, we investigated the link between substrate availability, growth rate, cell composition and size of Cupriavidus necator and Komagataella phaffii. Biomass with decreased nucleic acid and increased protein content was produced at low growth rates. Conversely, high rates resulted in larger cells, which could enable more efficient biomass harvesting. The proteome allocation varied across the different growth rates, with more ribosomal proteins at higher rates, which could potentially affect the techno-functional properties of the biomass. Considering the distinct amino acid profiles established for the different cellular components, variations in their abundance impacts the product quality leading to higher cysteine and phenylalanine content at low growth rates. Therefore, we hint that costly external amino acid supplementations that are often required to meet the nutritional needs could be avoided by carefully applying conditions that enable targeted growth rates. In summary, we demonstrate tradeoffs between nutritional quality and production rate, and we discuss the microbial biomass properties that vary according to the growth conditions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
It is increasingly recognized that conventional food production systems are not able to meet the globally increasing protein needs, resulting in overexploitation and depletion of resources, and environmental degradation. In this context, microbial biomass has emerged as a promising sustainable protein alternative. Nevertheless, often no consideration is given on the fact that the cultivation conditions affect the composition of microbial cells, and hence their quality and nutritional value. Apart from the properties and nutritional quality of the produced microbial food (ingredient), this can also impact its sustainability. To qualitatively assess these aspects, here, we investigated the link between substrate availability, growth rate, cell composition and size of Cupriavidus necator and Komagataella phaffii.
RESULTS RESULTS
Biomass with decreased nucleic acid and increased protein content was produced at low growth rates. Conversely, high rates resulted in larger cells, which could enable more efficient biomass harvesting. The proteome allocation varied across the different growth rates, with more ribosomal proteins at higher rates, which could potentially affect the techno-functional properties of the biomass. Considering the distinct amino acid profiles established for the different cellular components, variations in their abundance impacts the product quality leading to higher cysteine and phenylalanine content at low growth rates. Therefore, we hint that costly external amino acid supplementations that are often required to meet the nutritional needs could be avoided by carefully applying conditions that enable targeted growth rates.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
In summary, we demonstrate tradeoffs between nutritional quality and production rate, and we discuss the microbial biomass properties that vary according to the growth conditions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38072930
doi: 10.1186/s12934-023-02265-1
pii: 10.1186/s12934-023-02265-1
pmc: PMC10712164
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

254

Subventions

Organisme : Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen
ID : CO2PERATE
Organisme : Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen
ID : HBC.2019.2601
Organisme : Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen
ID : HBC.2018.0188
Organisme : Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen
ID : HBC.2020.2205
Organisme : Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
ID : 1286824N
Organisme : Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
ID : 1S27821N
Organisme : Universiteit Gent
ID : BOF19/STA/044

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2022 Nov 22;88(22):e0118822
pubmed: 36286523
J Bacteriol. 1969 Jan;97(1):261-70
pubmed: 5764333
Biotechnol Bioeng. 1986 Sep;28(9):1396-407
pubmed: 18561229
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 30;8(4):e62957
pubmed: 23646164
Bioresour Technol. 2022 Apr;349:126853
pubmed: 35176463
Biotechnol Adv. 2019 Nov 1;37(6):107365
pubmed: 30851362
Arch Mikrobiol. 1967;59(1):123-30
pubmed: 4880239
Nutrients. 2019 Nov 04;11(11):
pubmed: 31690027
J Gen Microbiol. 1982 Jul;128(7):1635-8
pubmed: 6889628
Biotechnol Bioeng. 1977 Aug;19(8):1155-69
pubmed: 560224
Am J Med. 1967 Jan;42(1):27-37
pubmed: 6016478
Adv Microb Physiol. 2012;60:91-210
pubmed: 22633059
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2022 Jun;75:102685
pubmed: 35033929
Prikl Biokhim Mikrobiol. 2010 Nov-Dec;46(6):624-9
pubmed: 21261071
Food Chem. 2022 Dec 15;397:133808
pubmed: 35914453
J Microbiol Methods. 2016 Dec;131:166-171
pubmed: 27720900
Elife. 2021 Nov 01;10:
pubmed: 34723797
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1976 Jan;31(1):91-8
pubmed: 942212
Foods. 2017 Jul 20;6(7):
pubmed: 28726744
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1996 Mar;45(1-2):137-40
pubmed: 8920188
FEBS J. 2015 May;282(10):2029-44
pubmed: 25754869
Nat Commun. 2022 May 20;13(1):2819
pubmed: 35595797
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2014 Sep;38(5):892-915
pubmed: 24597968
BMC Biophys. 2013 Oct 23;6(1):13
pubmed: 24152303
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jun 29;118(26):
pubmed: 34155098
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2002 Mar;58(4):421-7
pubmed: 11954786

Auteurs

Myrsini Sakarika (M)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium. myrsini.sakarika@ugent.be.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium. myrsini.sakarika@ugent.be.

Frederiek-Maarten Kerckhof (FM)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.
Kytos BV, IIC UGent, Frieda Saeysstraat 1/B, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.

Lotte Van Peteghem (L)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.

Alexandra Pereira (A)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.

Tim Van Den Bossche (T)

VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Robbin Bouwmeester (R)

VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Ralf Gabriels (R)

VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Delphi Van Haver (D)

VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Proteomics Core, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.

Barbara Ulčar (B)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.

Lennart Martens (L)

VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Francis Impens (F)

VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Proteomics Core, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.

Nico Boon (N)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.

Ramon Ganigué (R)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.

Korneel Rabaey (K)

Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Center for Advanced Process Technology for Urban Resource recovery (CAPTURE), Frieda Saeysstraat 1, Ghent, 9052, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH