Next Article in Journal
Selection of Producer of α-Ketoglutaric Acid from Ethanol-Containing Wastes and Impact of Cultivation Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Cyanide-Utilizing Bacteria and Sulfur Supplementation on Reducing Cyanide Concentration and In Vitro Degradability Using In Vitro Gas Production Technique
Previous Article in Journal
Continuous Fermentation by Lactobacillus bulgaricus T15 Cells Immobilized in Cross-Linked F127 Hydrogels to Produce ᴅ-Lactic Acid
Previous Article in Special Issue
Increase in Electrical Parameters Using Sucrose in Tomato Waste
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Potential of New Bacterial Strains for a Multiproduct Bioprocess Application: A Case Study Using Isolates of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Pineapple Silage of Costa Rican Agro-Industrial Residues

1
National Center for Biotechnological Innovations of Costa Rica (CENIBiot), San Jose 1174-1200, Costa Rica
2
Tropical Disease Investigation Center (CIET), Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Microbiology, University of Costa Rica, San Jose 11501-2060, Costa Rica
3
Food Microbiology Research and Training Laboratory (LIMA), Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Microbiology, University of Costa Rica, San Jose 11501-2060, Costa Rica
4
Food Technology Department, University of Costa Rica, San Jose 11501-2060, Costa Rica
5
National Center for Food Science and Technology (CITA), University of Costa Rica (UCR), San Jose 11501-2060, Costa Rica
6
Microbiome Biotechnology Department, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), 14469 Potsdam, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2022, 8(8), 361; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8080361
Received: 27 May 2022 / Revised: 21 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Food Waste Valorization)

Abstract

:
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) with potential for the development of multi-product processes are necessary for the valorization of side streams obtained during the biotechnological production of lactic acid (LA). In this study, 14 LAB strains isolated from pineapple agro-industrial residues in Costa Rica were cultivated in microplates, and the six strains with the highest growth were selected for fermentation in microbioreactors to evaluate the production of LA and acetic acid, and the consumption of glucose. Lacticaseibacillus paracasei 6710 and L. paracasei 6714 presented the highest OD600 values (1.600 and 1.602, respectively); however, the highest LA (in g/L) production was observed in L. paracasei 6714 (14.50 ± 0.20) and 6712 (14.67 ± 0.42). L. paracasei 6714 was selected for bioreactor fermentation and reached a maximum OD600 of 6.3062 ± 0.141, with a LA yield of 84.9% and a productivity of 1.06 g L−1 h−1 after 21 h of fermentation. Finally, lipoteichoic acid (LTA) detection from biomass was performed and the antimicrobial activity of the compounds present in the supernatant was studied. LTA was detected from L. paracasei 6714 biomass, and its supernatant caused significant inhibition of foodborne surrogate microorganisms. LAB isolated from pineapple silage have biotechnological potential for multiproduct processes.

1. Introduction

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are microorganisms defined as non-sporulating, acid-tolerant, catalase-negative, Gram-positive cocci or rods; they are characterized by the production of lactic acid (LA) as the major end-metabolic-product of carbohydrate fermentation [1,2,3]. LA production from LAB is a growing business given the broad applications of this compound, ranging from the food to the pharmaceutical industries, with a currently growing market based on the production of polylactic acid [4]. The worldwide demand for LA is expected to grow to a market value of $9.8 billion by 2025 [5]. However, the downstream processing (DSP) of LA accounts for 40–70% of the total production cost; thus, there is a need to develop a convenient and economic strategy for the exploitation of secondary products, such as antimicrobial peptides and cell biomass [6]. Among the products of biotechnological interest that could be simultaneously obtained with LA are other organic acids, antimicrobial substances (bacteriocins), and compounds derived from the bacterial cell wall [7].
Lactic acid bacteria produce bioactive peptides or proteins that display bactericidal activity, mainly against Gram-positive bacteria, which could be useful for food applications, among others [8]. Given that LA has poor solubility in organic solvents, a convenient separation strategy (based on organic extraction) could be applied to easily separate bacteriocins from this compound [7]. This is relevant as previous studies have shown that the overall recovery of LA yield from complex fermentation media is about 45%, which means that there is a large volume of fermentation broth considered as waste or losses [9]. The recovery of bacteriocins may be a suitable alternative for adding value to other metabolites in the fermentation media.
A similar situation is present in the case of cell biomass, which is normally treated as a by-product in most biotechnological processes (except for the industrial production of probiotics) [7]. LAB cells contain different compounds with potential commercial value, such as lipoteichoic acid (LTA), which is contained in the cell wall of Gram-positive bacteria [10,11]. At the beginning of the DSP (where cells are discarded), LTA could be separated, while the supernatant follows the pipeline. LTA molecules are composed of a covalently linked glycolipid and hydrophilic polymer of glycerophosphate [12,13]. Different studies have reported LTA structural and functional variations according to the genera and species of bacteria [14]. LTA has a wide range of potential applications, such as the development of new food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic products [15].
As LAB have the ability to metabolize different substrates for the simultaneous production of highly valuable compounds different to LA, they can be considered as good candidates for multi-product bioprocess applications and the development of integrated biorefineries [16]; these are defined as multi-product processes that are based on the conversion of renewable materials into bio-based products. Integrated biorefineries are considered as a practical way to improve industrial single-product biotechnological processes as they allow the valorization of residues [17]. The isolation, study, development, and application of robust microbial strains are pivotal in the development of biorefineries [18]. LAB strains with biotechnological potential are increasingly isolated from non-traditional biorefinery feedstocks [19], such as non-dairy fermented foods, vegetables, fruit juices, and vegetable waste [8,20]. As the pineapple industry in Costa Rica generates an important amount of organic residue, it is possible that it can also serve as an interesting source of new strains with biotechnological potential.
Given the above, this research explores the general metabolic profile of LAB strains isolated from pineapple agro-industrial residues in Costa Rica to establish their potential use for the development of a multi-product process for LA, antimicrobial compounds, and LTA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains and Growth Conditions

2.1.1. Lactic Acid Bacteria

Fourteen LAB isolated from silage pineapple peel residues in Costa Rica were selected for this research [21]. These isolates belong to the collection of the National Center for Food Science and Technology (CITA) at the University of Costa Rica, and they include both homofermentative and heterofermentative microorganisms; all isolates were considered for the experiments, as this is a preliminary study aimed to identify bacteria with potential for integrated biorefineries. The isolates were identified as follows: L. paracasei 6709, L. paracasei 6710, L. paracasei 6711, L. paracasei 6712, L. paracasei 6713, L. paracasei 6714, L. paracasei 6715, Limosilactobacillus fermentum 6702, L. fermentum 6704, Lentilactobacillus parafarraginis 6717, L. parafarraginis 6719, Weissella ghanensis 6706, Fructobacillus tropaeola 6705, and F. tropaeoli 6707. All the bacteria were kept with 20% (v/v) glycerol at −80 ± 2 °C in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS) (Difco, Le Pont de Claix, France). Precultures of each LAB were prepared in MRS broth and incubated overnight at 37 ± 1 °C for 24 h under static conditions.

2.1.2. LAB Growth Curves

Growth curves for each of the isolates were determined to define the growth kinetic parameters (µ max). The bacterial suspensions of each strain were diluted in fresh MRS broth to attain an absorbance of 0.05 at 600 nm (OD600). A 96-well microplate (Fisher Scientific, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) was filled with a constant volume (250 µL) of each bacterial suspension in quintuplicate. The growth kinetics were assessed by using the same incubation conditions reported above; bacterial growth was determined by measuring the OD600 every 15 min using a microplate reader (Sinergy HT, Biotek, Winooski, WI, USA).

2.2. Production of Metabolites

For the determination of metabolites of interest, i.e., LA, acetic acid (AA), and antimicrobial compounds, the strains showing the best growth performance were grown in MRS broth with an initial absorbance (OD600) of 0.05 and initial pH value of 6.8; the broth was incubated at 37 ± 1 °C for 24 h under static conditions. The fermentation was conducted in a microbioreactor (Applikon Biotechnology, Delft, The Netherlands) with a fermentation volume of 6 mL in triplicate. After fermentation, samples of each tube were centrifuged at 10,000× g for 5 min at room temperature. The supernatant was recovered and filtered using a 0.20 µm-pore-size syringe filter composed of regenerated cellulose; it was used for the quantification of organic acids and glucose by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; system Shimadzu, Columbia, MD, USA) equipped with an autosampler (Shimadzu, SIL-20A HT, Columbia, MD, USA), as well as for antagonistic activity assays.

2.3. Bioreactor Fermentation

One selected strain was fermented in a 7 L stirred-tank batch (Applikon, Delft, The Netherlands) with an operating volume of 4 L, 0.5 vvm, 150 rpm, pH of 6.8 (maintained by the automatic addition of 20 % NaOH), and temperature of 37 ± 1 °C for 30 h. Fermentation was evaluated by periodic sampling every 2 h (10 mL). For microbial quantification, the OD600 of the samples was measured using a spectrometer (Lambda 35, Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA). Additionally, the samples were centrifuged at 10,000× g for 5 min at room temperature and the supernatant was filtered using a 0.20 µm-pore-size syringe filter composed of regenerated cellulose and frozen at −20 °C. Lactic acid production and residual sugars were analyzed by the HPLC system (Shimadzu, Columbia, MD, USA). LTA was determined at the end of the fermentation. The LA yield and maximum productivity were estimated in terms of grams of lactic acid per liter of fermentation medium per hour [22].

2.4. Chemical Analytical Methods

2.4.1. HPLC Analysis

For the quantification of organic acid, 1 mL of sample was used. The detection was performed using HPLC and a photodiode array detector (Shimadzu, SPD-M20AV, 210 nm). The cleaning of the sample was conducted using Oasis HLB cartridges (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) and it was then filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter prior to an injection using a Hi-Plex H column (Agilent, 8 µm, 300 × 7.8 mm). The column temperature was 60 °C and the mobile phase (2.25 mM sulfuric acid) had a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min; the injection volume was 5 μL [23].
A HPLC system (1260 infinity, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped with an autosampler, and a refractive index detector (Agilent, G1362 A, Santa Clara, CA, USA) were used to analyze residual sugars. The sample was extracted using the method described in ISO 11868:2007 [24]; the final mixture was filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter and analyzed using a Zorbax Carbohydrate column (Agilent, 5 µm, 4.6 × 150 mm). The following experimental settings were used for the analysis: column temperature of 30 °C, flow rate of the mobile phase (75:25 acetonitrile:water) of 1.2 mL/min, and injection volume of 5 μL. For the quantification of the analytes, a standard curve was built and the LabSolutions and OpenLab CDS software was used for the integration of the peaks.

2.4.2. LTA Analysis

Lipoteichoic acid was purified after fermentation according to the procedure described by Morath et al. [25] with some modifications. Briefly, the biomass (3000× g) from each bioreactor was concentrated by centrifugation at 2000× g for 10 min and washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The biomass pellet was mixed with an equal volume of n-butanol at 400 rpm for 10 min at room temperature. After centrifugation, the aqueous phase was lyophilized (Christ, Osterode am Harz, Germany) [26,27].

2.4.3. Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis (PAGE) Analysis of LTA

Resolving gels (0.75 mm thickness) containing 20% (wt/vol) of 30/6% acrylamide/bisacrylamide were prepared in a 0.25 M Tris-borate buffer (pH 8.2). A total of 25 mg of the LTA extract was mixed with 1 mL of deionized water, and 20 µL of this mixture was loaded onto the gel. The LTA samples were analyzed using a BioRad Protean II Xi electrophoresis cell. The gels were run for 2 h at 80 mA/gel with a buffer containing 0.1 M tris base and 0.1 M tricine at pH 8.2. The gels were fixed and stained with 5 ppm Alcian blue in ethanol and AA (40% and 5% in water) at 25 °C overnight. Until this point, LTA bands were not visible; to show the staining pattern, the Bio-Rad silver stain kit (161-0449 Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) was used according to the manufacturer’s instructions [28,29]. Staphylococcus aureus was used as a positive LTA control.

2.5. Microbiological Analysis

2.5.1. Surrogate Bacteria and Growth Conditions

Before starting the evaluation of antimicrobial compounds, each bacterium and surrogate strain was grown in MRS or Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) at 35.0 ± 0.5 °C for 24 ± 2 h, respectively.

2.5.2. Antimicrobial Activity Determination

The antimicrobial activity of the supernatant of selected LAB strains against Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Listeria innocua 4.1, L. innocua 5.1, and Pseudomonas fluorescens 6.2, isolated from meat products, was determined as described previously [30]. Briefly, each sample was centrifuged at 10,000× g for 15 min. The supernatant was filtered (0.2 µm) using sterile test tubes and the pH of each sample was adjusted to 7.0 ± 0.2 using 2 M NaOH to avoid an inhibitory effect due to LA exposure. Individual tests were performed in each well of a 96-well microplate by mixing 50 µL of sterile TSB, 50 µL of each surrogate solution, and variable ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:4, and 1:8) of filtered supernatant adjusted with sterile MRS. The positive controls consisted of the mixture without the filtered supernatant (included sterile media instead), while negative controls included just fresh media (instead of bacterial suspension). The incubation of the microplates was conducted inside a humid chamber at 37.0 ± 0.5 °C for 24 h and OD600 was measured in a microplate reader. All determinations were performed in triplicate.

2.6. Data Analysis and Statistical Design

2.6.1. Bacterial Growth

Statistical analysis was carried out by an analysis of variance and Dunnett’s post hoc test to determine significant differences (p < 0.05) with the JMP Software package V.15 (SAS Institute Inc. 2019, Cary, NC, USA).

2.6.2. Antimicrobial Activity

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference test were used to determine the antimicrobial effect of the supernatant solutions on the test bacteria (p-value of <0.05). The analysis was performed using the JMP Software package V.15 (SAS Institute Inc. 2019).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Selection of LAB Strain for Bioreactor Fermentation

The optical density values of the 14 isolates after 24 h of incubation ranged from 0.470 to 1.602. The isolates L. paracasei 6710 and L. paracasei 6714 presented the highest OD600 values (1.600 and 1.602 respectively), followed by F. tropaeoli 6707, L. paracasei 6709, W. ghanensis 6706, and L. fermentum 6704, with OD600 of 1.081, 1.099, 1.107, and 1.196, respectively. The differences in the OD600 values between the isolates with the highest growth and the other strains were statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Figure 1 and Table 1).
The six strains with the highest growth were selected for fermentation in microbioreactors to evaluate the production of LA and AA, and glucose consumption. The highest amounts of LA (in g/L) were observed in L. paracasei strains 6714 (14.50 ± 0.20), 6712 (14.67 ± 0.42), and 6713 (15.10 ± 0.30), whereas the highest AA producers (in g/L) were L. paracasei 6709 (4.62 ± 0.32), W. ghanensis 6706 (5.04 ± 0.54), and F. tropaeoli 6707 (5.27 ± 0.87) (Figure 2). These results were not surprising given that L. paracasei’s capacity to produce high amounts of LA has been reported before [31]. In the case of F. tropaeoli, a recent study by Semsik et al. [32] established that this species is a good AA producer, and, in some cases, the values of this metabolite are even higher than those of LA. The observed differences can be explained in terms of the fermentation pathway followed by the different species, i.e., homofermentative and heterofermentative; glycolysis and the primary production of LA are based on the former. On the other hand, the second pathway, also called the pentose phosphate pathway, is characterized by the production of CO2, ethanol, or acetate in addition to LA [23]; this is characteristic of W. ghanensis and F. tropaeoli. L. paracasei species have been reported as a facultative heterofermentative bacteria [33]; therefore, they can follow any of the routes, depending on the growth conditions. All the strains from the study were able to produce AA, meaning that they followed the heterofermentative route, although with a variable LA/AA ratio; L. paracasei strains favored the production of LA in all cases.
The strain L. paracasei 6714 was selected for bioreactor fermentation due to its capacity to combine higher LA production with a higher growth rate. The bioreactor fermentation had a total working volume of 4 L per bioreactor. The batch had an initial LA concentration of 7.8 g L−1 and a glucose concentration of 17.5 g L−1. The final volume of the fermentation was 4.2 L (considering NaOH addition and sampling), with a LA concentration of 15.7 g L−1 (without blank). After 14 h of fermentation, the culture in the bioreactor reached an OD600 of 6.3062 ± 0.141, with a LA yield of 84.9% and a productivity of 1.06 g L−1 h−1. At the end of the fermentation process (21 h), the bioprocess reached a LA yield of 89.6%, with a productivity of 0.76 g L−1 h−1 and a maximum OD600 of 6.1627 ± 0.143 (Figure 3). In a recent study, Han et al. [34] determined the capacity of nine L. paracasei strains to produce LA in MRS medium. The authors observed that LA production ranged from 15.3 to 17.7 g L−1, and the yield was between 76.4 and 88.3%, which is consistent with the observations of this study. The same authors observed a 193% improvement in the LA production capacity of the same strains after optimizing the culture conditions. Similarly, L. paracasei subsp. paracasei CHB2121 was able to produce 192 g/L lactic acid from medium containing 200 g/L of glucose, with 3.99 g/(L·h) productivity and 0.96 g/g yield; the composition in this case was different to that of standard MRS medium [35]. These results confirm that the strain L. paracasei 6714 fulfills the basic metabolic profile for LA production, and higher performance may be obtained after the optimization of culturing conditions.
The differences between the maximum OD600 in the microbioreactor and the bioreactor could be related to the lack of a control system at the microbioreactor level. The ratio of NaOH consumed and LA produced was approximately 1:5. The L. paracasei 6714 fermentation process was controlled for 21 h; however, considering the obtained results, a 14 h control would suffice, based on the LA yield and productivity.

3.2. Assessment of Potential for LTA Synthesis

At the end of the fermentation, biomass accounted for approximately 10% of the final working volume (based on experimental observations). Considering L. paracasei 6714 batch fermentation, this volume was about 0.387 L per bioreactor. The presence of LTA was investigated, as it is a predominant component of the cell wall in various Lactobacillus species. Previous research reported the production of LTA by L. rhamnosus [15]; nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have reported the detection of LTA in L. paracasei. Figure 4 shows the PAGE separation and detection of LTA extracted from the biomass. The migration behavior of LTA from both the positive controls from S. aureus and L. paracasei 6714 was similar. As expected, the LTA band from L. paracasei 6714 exhibited a weaker staining with Alcian blue–silver solution. This behavior was normal, as the LTA extract was not purified; a darker band may be observed in the case of a pure sample. So far, this experiment shows a preliminary result that suggests that LTA can be effectively obtained from L. paracasei biomass. However, further experiments are necessary to establish LTA production under optimized culture conditions and after the purification of this compound. Such a process should probably target high biomass production, which is proportionally related to LTA production; thus fed-batch fermentation would be recommended.

3.3. Assessment of Antagonistic Activity

Another side stream of the DSP that may be underutilized is the one obtained after the nanofiltration process. The nanofiltration step is necessary to remove remaining sugars and proteins that should not enter the mono- and bipolar electrodialysis step due to the high sensitivity of the equipment [36]. The nanofiltration permeate is normally treated as waste; however, it could be used to obtain antimicrobial compounds due to their higher molecular weight. For example, nisin molecules can be recovered using a 3–5 kDa cutoff filter on the retentate flow. In the case of electrodialysis-based DSP, the cutoff is between 150 and 300 Da [31].
The results of the antagonistic activity of the supernatants from the three isolates are shown in Table 2. The surrogate bacteria selected for the study of antagonism represent groups associated with human or animal disease (Listeria spp. and E. coli) or food spoilage (P. fluorescens); these bacteria are commonly found in the environment, and they can be associated with vegetables and food of animal origin. LAB-derived antimicrobial compounds can help to control or decrease the growth of these potentially harmful microorganisms, and they could be recovered from nanofiltration-derived material. The three tested L. paracasei isolates caused significant inhibition of all of the surrogate bacterial strains, and the effect was observed even with the most diluted sample (except on L. paracasei 6713 and P. fluorescens); this could be associated with high antimicrobial activity, even at a low concentration of the bioactive compound. The antimicrobial activity could be attributed to the production of antimicrobial peptides, such as bacteriocins, considering that other metabolites (e.g., LA and AA) were neutralized with NaOH [37]. This is not surprising as several bacteriocins from L. paracasei have been identified before. For example, Ye et al. [38] recently reported a new bacteriocin from L. paracasei that is active against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive foodborne microorganisms; similar results were observed with the strains from this study. Additionally, Belguesmia et al. [39] reported one L. paracasei strain with the capacity to simultaneously synthesize five different bacteriocins, thus confirming the potential of this bacterial group for producing antimicrobial compounds.

4. Conclusions

The identification of LAB isolates with a wide range of metabolic capacities is crucial for the development of new integrated fermentation processes where more products from the DSP steps can be recovered and utilized. The strain L. paracasei 6714 was selected for bioreactor fermentation due to its combined higher metabolic capacity; this strain exhibited important antagonistic activity against all of the studied surrogate strains, and, considering its growth rate, OD600, presence of LTA in the biomass, and LA production, it is a candidate for multi-product fermentation focused on DSP valorization to make it more profitable. New studies may incorporate optimization experiments to enhance the production of metabolites of interest from selected isolates under ideal conditions (pH, agitation rate, media composition, and temperature) and to establish the cost-effectiveness of the process. The findings of this research reveal the potential of LAB isolates from pineapple silage of agro-industrial residues for the implementation of a multi-product integrated process. This is an important preliminary step, given that Costa Rica is a tropical environment where the diversity and presence of these isolates may be important. To our knowledge, this is the first time that LAB strains from Costa Rican agro-industrial residues have been studied for biotechnology applications, thus opening new opportunities for the sustainable exploitation of these substrates.

Author Contributions

Methodology, experimental trial, visualization, data analysis, writing—original draft, review, and editing, J.M.-Z.; experimental trial, visualization, data analysis, writing—original draft, M.D.R.-V.; methodology, conceptualization, visualization, data analysis, writing—original draft, review, and editing, N.B.; writing—original draft, review, and editing J.P.L.-G.; methodology, conceptualization, visualization, data analysis, writing—original draft, review, and editing, J.A.M.-V.; methodology, conceptualization, visualization, data analysis, writing—original draft, review, and editing M.R.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Center of High Technology of Costa Rica (CeNAT-CONARE Scholarship Program 2019), the Tropical Disease Investigation Center (CIET-UCR), the National Center of Food Science and Technology of University of Costa Rica (CITA-UCR), and the University of Costa Rica (Project B9-457).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Melissa Chaves Phillips and Jorge Araya Mattey for their technical support during the LTA analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salvetti, E.; Harris, H.M.B.; Felis, G.E.; O’Toole, P.W. Comparative genomics of the genus lactobacillus reveals robust phylogroups that provide the basis for reclassification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e00993-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  2. Endo, A.; Tanizawa, Y.; Arita, M. Isolation and identification of lactic acid bacteria from environmental samples. In Lactic Acid Bacteria; Kanauchi, M., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vinderola, G. (Ed.) Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiological and Functional Aspects, 5th ed.; Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. Eş, I.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A.; Barba, F.J.; Saraiva, J.A.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Hashemi, S.M.B. Recent advancements in lactic acid production—A review. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Manandhar, A.; Shah, A. Techno-Economic analysis of bio-based lactic acid production utilizing corn grain as feedstock. Processes 2020, 8, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  6. Kumar, S.; Yadav, N.; Nain, L.; Khare, S.K. A simple downstream processing protocol for the recovery of lactic acid from the fermentation broth. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 318, 124260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mora-Villalobos, A.; Montero-Zamora, J.; Barboza, N.; Rojas-Garbanzo, C.; Usaga, J.; Redondo-Solano, M.; Schroedter, L.; Olszewska-Widdrat, A.; López-Gómez, J.P. Multi-product lactic acid bacteria fermentations: A review. Fermentation 2020, 6, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. van Pijkeren, J.P.; Barrangou, R. Genome editing of food-grade lactobacilli to develop therapeutic probiotics. Microbiol. Spectr. 2017, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  9. López-Gómez, J.P.; Unger, P.; Schneider, R.; Venus, J. From upstream to purification: Production of lactic acid from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Biomass Valorization 2020, 11, 5247–5254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  10. Kusumoto, S.; Fukase, K.; Fujimoto, Y. Synthesis of lipopolysaccharide, peptidoglycan, and lipoteichoic acid fragments. In Comprehensive Glycoscience; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 685–711. [Google Scholar]
  11. Malanovic, N.; Lohner, K. Gram-positive bacterial cell envelopes: The impact on the activity of antimicrobial peptides. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA–Biomembr. 2016, 1858, 936–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  12. Reichmann, N.T.; Gründling, A. Location, synthesis and function of glycolipids and polyglycerolphosphate lipoteichoic acid in Gram-positive bacteria of the phylum Firmicutes: Synthesis and function of glycolipid and PGP-LTA. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2011, 319, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  13. Brown, S.; Santa Maria, J.P.; Walker, S. Wall Teichoic Acids of Gram-Positive Bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 67, 313–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  14. Villéger, R.; Saad, N.; Grenier, K.; Falourd, X.; Foucat, L.; Urdaci, M.C.; Bressollier, P.; Ouk, T.S. Characterization of lipoteichoic acid structures from three probiotic Bacillus strains: Involvement of d-alanine in their biological activity. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2014, 106, 693–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Weill, F.S.; Cela, E.M.; Paz, M.L.; Ferrari, A.; Leoni, J.; Maglio, D.H.G. Lipoteichoic acid from Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG as an oral photoprotective agent against UV-induced carcinogenesis. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 109, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  16. Mazzoli, R.; Bosco, F.; Mizrahi, I.; Bayer, E.A.; Pessione, E. Towards lactic acid bacteria-based biorefineries. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 1216–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zondervan, E.; Nawaz, M.; de Haan, A.B.; Woodley, J.M.; Gani, R. Optimal design of a multi-product biorefinery system. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2011, 35, 1752–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kamm, B.; Kamm, M. Biorefineries–multi product processes. In White Biotechnology; Ulber, R., Sell, D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 175–204. [Google Scholar]
  19. Champagne, C.P. The lactic acid bacteria. Int. Dairy J. 1994, 4, 665–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Börner, R.A.; Kandasamy, V.; Axelsen, A.M.; Nielsen, A.T.; Bosma, E.F. Genome editing of lactic acid bacteria: Opportunities for food, feed, pharma and biotech. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2019, 366, fny291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. WingChing Jones, R.; Redondo Solano, M.; Usaga, J.; Uribe, L.; Barboza, N. Tipificación con secuencias multilocus en Lactobacillus casei procedentes de ensilados de cáscara de piña. Agron. Mesoam. 2021, 32, 508–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Montero-Zamora, J.; Cortés-Muñoz, M.; Esquivel, P.; Mora-Villalobos, J.A.; Velázquez, C. Growth conditions and survival kinetics during storage of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG for the design of a sustainable probiotic whey-based beverage containing Costa Rican guava fruit pulp. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 3478–3486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chan-Blanco, Y.; Bonilla-Leiva, A.R.; Velázquez, A.C. Using banana to generate lactic acid through batch process fermentation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2003, 63, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Toldrá, F.; Marshall, R.J. Food and nutritional analysis—dairy products. In Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gambelli, L. Milk and its sugar-lactose: A picture of evaluation methodologies. Beverages 2017, 3, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Morath, S.; Geyer, A.; Hartung, T. Structure–function relationship of cytokine induction by lipoteichoic acid from Staphylococcus aureus. J. Exp. Med. 2001, 193, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  27. Cela, E.M.; Weill, F.S.; Pazm, M.L.; Leoni, J.; Gonzalez Maglio, D.H. Lipoteichoic acid challenge induces higher inflammatory responses than lipopolysaccharide in UV-irradiated keratinocytes: Letter to the Editor. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2015, 31, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Meredith, T.C.; Swoboda, J.G.; Walker, S. Late-stage polyribitol phosphate wall teichoic acid biosynthesis in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 3046–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Xia, G.; Maier, L.; Sanchez-Carballo, P.; Otto, M.; Holst, O.; Peschel, A. Glycosylation of wall teichoic acid in Staphylococcus aureus by tarm. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 13405–13415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  30. Lourenço, F.; Pinto, T.D.J.A. Antibiotic microbial assay using kinetic-reading microplate system. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 47, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  31. Tarrah, A.; Pakroo, S.; Corich, V.; Giacomini, A. Whole-genome sequence and comparative genome analysis of Lactobacillus paracasei DTA93, a promising probiotic lactic acid bacterium. Arch. Microbiol. 2020, 202, 1997–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Simsek, D.; Kiymaci, M.E.; Tok, K.C.; Gumustas, M.; Altanlar, N. Investigation of the probiotic and metabolic potential of Fructobacillus tropaeola and Apilactobacillus kunkeei from apiaries. Arch. Microbiol. 2022, 204, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Vinay-Lara, E.; Hamilton, J.J.; Stahl, B.; Broadbent, J.R.; Reed, J.L.; Steele, J.L. Genome –Scale Reconstruction of Metabolic Networks of Lactobacillus casei ATCC 334 and 12A. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ha, G.; Kim, J.; Im, S.; Shin, S.-J.; Yang, H.-J.; Jeong, D.-Y. Application of response surface methodology in medium optimization to improve lactic acid production by Lactobacillus paracasei SRCM201474. J. Life Sci. 2020, 30, 522–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mladenović, D.; Pejin, J.; Kocić-Tanackov, S.; Djukić-Vuković, A.; Mojović, L. Enhanced lactic acid production by adaptive evolution of Lactobacillus paracasei on agro-industrial substrate. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 187, 753–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Moon, S.-K.; Wee, Y.-J.; Choi, G.-W. A novel lactic acid bacterium for the production of high purity l-lactic acid, Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei CHB2121. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2012, 114, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vieco-Saiz, N.; Belguesmia, Y.; Raspoet, R.; Auclair, E.; Gancel, F.; Kempf, I.; Drider, D. Benefits and inputs from lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters during food-animal production. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Pengxin, Y.; Jiawen, W.; Manman, L.; Ping, L.; Qing, G. Purification and characterization of a novel bacteriocin from Lactobacillus paracasei ZFM54. LWT 2021, 143, 111125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Belguesmia, Y.; Bendjeddou, K.; Kempf, I.; Boukherroub, R.; Drider, D. Heterologous Biosynthesis of five new class II bacteriocins from Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-5369 with antagonistic activity against pathogenic Escherichia coli strains. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Growth curves of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolates obtained from pineapple silage residue in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS) media. (a) LAB strains different to L. paracasei; (b) LAB belonging to the L. paracasei group.
Figure 1. Growth curves of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolates obtained from pineapple silage residue in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS) media. (a) LAB strains different to L. paracasei; (b) LAB belonging to the L. paracasei group.
Fermentation 08 00361 g001
Figure 2. Organic acid production by six selected LAB strains during microbioreactor fermentation with an operating volume of 6 mL, initial pH of 6.8, and 37 °C. The values are shown as the mean ± standard deviation, n = 3. The specific LA enantiomer was not determined.
Figure 2. Organic acid production by six selected LAB strains during microbioreactor fermentation with an operating volume of 6 mL, initial pH of 6.8, and 37 °C. The values are shown as the mean ± standard deviation, n = 3. The specific LA enantiomer was not determined.
Fermentation 08 00361 g002
Figure 3. Kinetics of strain Lacticaseibacillus paracasei 6714 in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS) media in a 7 L stirred-tank batch bioreactor with an operating volume of 4 L, 0.5 vvm, pH of 6.8, and 37 °C. The values are shown as the mean ± standard deviation, n = 3.
Figure 3. Kinetics of strain Lacticaseibacillus paracasei 6714 in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS) media in a 7 L stirred-tank batch bioreactor with an operating volume of 4 L, 0.5 vvm, pH of 6.8, and 37 °C. The values are shown as the mean ± standard deviation, n = 3.
Fermentation 08 00361 g003
Figure 4. Detection of lipoteichoic acid (LTA) from L. paracasei 6714-L.p. and Staphylococcus aureus (S.a.) (positive control: Sigma Aldrich—PN L2515). LTA was loaded in 20% PAGE gel and visualized using the Alcian blue–silver staining method. The bracket indicates the LTA band of L. paracasei 6714.
Figure 4. Detection of lipoteichoic acid (LTA) from L. paracasei 6714-L.p. and Staphylococcus aureus (S.a.) (positive control: Sigma Aldrich—PN L2515). LTA was loaded in 20% PAGE gel and visualized using the Alcian blue–silver staining method. The bracket indicates the LTA band of L. paracasei 6714.
Fermentation 08 00361 g004
Table 1. Maximal optical density (OD600) and specific growth rates of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strain growth kinetics in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS) media.
Table 1. Maximal optical density (OD600) and specific growth rates of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strain growth kinetics in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS) media.
StrainMaximal
OD600 *
Growth Rate
(h−1) *
F. tropaeoli 67050.54 7 ± 0.149 a0.129 ± 0.049 a
F. tropaeoli 67071.081 ± 0.239 b0.250 ± 0.100 b,c,d,e
L. paracasei 67091.099 ± 0.224 b0.250 ± 0.104 c,d,e
L. paracasei 67101.600 ± 0.215 c0.366 ± 0.046 e
L. paracasei 67110.555 ± 0.052 a0.145 ± 0.043 a,b
L. paracasei 67121.015 ± 0.165 b0.191 ± 0.029 a,b,c,d
L. paracasei 67130.703 ± 0.152 a0.242 ± 0.051 a,b,c,d,e
L. paracasei 67141.602 ± 0.248 c0.266 ± 0.115 d,e
L. paracasei 67150.504 ± 0.047 a0.141 ± 0.040 a
L. fermentum 67020.484 ± 0.066 a0.137 ± 0.052 a
L. fermentum 67041.196 ± 0.226 b0.306 ± 0.060 d,e
L. parafarraginis 67170.470 ± 0.043 a0.147 ± 0.044 a,b,c
L. parafarraginis 67190.501 ± 0.034 a0.147 ± 0.045 a,b,c
W. ghanensis 67061.107 ± 0.164 b0.283 ± 0.009 d,e
* Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation of values obtained from triplicates of the experiments. Different letters in a column mean significant differences.
Table 2. Absorbance values at 600 nm obtained for the determination of the antimicrobial activity of the L. paracasei (6712, 6713, and 6714) supernatant against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Listeria innocua 4.1, and Listeria innocua 5.1.
Table 2. Absorbance values at 600 nm obtained for the determination of the antimicrobial activity of the L. paracasei (6712, 6713, and 6714) supernatant against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Listeria innocua 4.1, and Listeria innocua 5.1.
StrainSupernatant
Ratio
Absorbance at 600 nm
E. coli 25922P. fluorescens 6.2L. innocua 4.1L. innocua 5.1
No Supernatant1.214 ± 0.077 a0.609 ± 0.026 a0.467 ± 0.040 a0.469 ± 0.028 a
L. paracasei (6712)1:10.453 ± 0.023 b0.359 ± 0.048 c0.136 ± 0.003 b0.237 ± 0.011 b
1:20.465 ± 0.035 b0.431 ± 0.119 b,c0.182 ± 0.007 c0.244 ± 0.010 b
1:40.486 ± 0.013 b0.438 ± 0.049 b,c0.196 ± 0.002 d0.257 ± 0.012 b
1:80.694 ± 0.028 b0.569 ± 0.055 a,b0.210±0.001 e0.262 ± 0.004 b
L. paracasei (6713) 1:10.426 ± 0.052 b0.378 ± 0.021 a0.183 ± 0.025 b0.207 ± 0.025 b
1:20.429 ± 0.009 b0.424 ± 0.091 a0.203 ± 0.006 b,c0.241 ± 0.024 b,c
1:40.469 ± 0.017 b0.537 ± 0.187 a0.216 ± 0.007 b,c0.239 ± 0.013 b,c
1:80.504 ± 0.017 b0.562 ± 0.176 a0.227 ± 0.012 c0.270 ± 0.006 c
L. paracasei (6714) 1:10.407 ± 0.045 b0.318 ± 0.037 b0.085 ± 0.004 b0.207 ± 0.013 b
1:20.443 ± 0.055 b0.340 ± 0.046 b0.188 ± 0.004 c0.227 ± 0.010 b,c
1:40.487 ± 0.036 b0.363 ± 0.028 b0.190 ± 0.008 c0.239 ± 0.003 c
1:80.694 ± 0.028 b0.394 ± 0.068 b0.226 ± 0.008 d0.358 ± 0.010 b
Different letters in column values mean significant differences (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Montero-Zamora, J.; Rojas-Vargas, M.D.; Barboza, N.; López-Gómez, J.P.; Mora-Villalobos, J.A.; Redondo-Solano, M. Potential of New Bacterial Strains for a Multiproduct Bioprocess Application: A Case Study Using Isolates of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Pineapple Silage of Costa Rican Agro-Industrial Residues. Fermentation 2022, 8, 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8080361

AMA Style

Montero-Zamora J, Rojas-Vargas MD, Barboza N, López-Gómez JP, Mora-Villalobos JA, Redondo-Solano M. Potential of New Bacterial Strains for a Multiproduct Bioprocess Application: A Case Study Using Isolates of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Pineapple Silage of Costa Rican Agro-Industrial Residues. Fermentation. 2022; 8(8):361. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8080361

Chicago/Turabian Style

Montero-Zamora, Jéssica, María Daniela Rojas-Vargas, Natalia Barboza, José Pablo López-Gómez, José Aníbal Mora-Villalobos, and Mauricio Redondo-Solano. 2022. "Potential of New Bacterial Strains for a Multiproduct Bioprocess Application: A Case Study Using Isolates of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Pineapple Silage of Costa Rican Agro-Industrial Residues" Fermentation 8, no. 8: 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8080361

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop