Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploration of seaweed degradation potential of the prioritized microbes as a green saccharification technology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A novel pretreatment process based on prioritized microbes was developed to improve the yield of reducing sugars from red (Gracilaria corticata), brown (Sargassum wightii), and green (Ulva fasciata) seaweeds as a cheap, eco-friendly method for seaweed saccharification. Prioritization of six microbes from a collection of 24 microbes was initially done using a unique stepwise strategy considering different polysaccharides present in varied seaweed types. Final selection of three microbes was based on the release of reducing sugars from different seaweed groups in the saccharification process. The selected microbes significantly increased the release of reducing sugars compared to the control conditions in all three seaweed species, with significant differences (P<0.05) based on the media, microbes, seaweed species, processed condition, and days of hydrolysis. Factor analysis of mixed data indicated that microbes contributed to the maximum variability of the data. Vibrio parahaemolyticus caused the maximum biomass conversion ratio for reducing sugars from S. wightii (22.31 ± 0.65%) and U. fasciata (24.6 ± 1.28%) with an increment of 8.9% and 9.35%, respectively from control conditions. The maximum biomass conversion of G. corticata was 24.8 ± 0.51% following Bacillus amyloliquefaciens treatment with an increment of 6.39% from the control. Even though different combinations of three prioritized microbes produced better saccharification than the control conditions, individual use of prioritized microbes made a better release of reducing sugars. In brief, seaweed hydrolysis using the prioritized microbes of the present study can be applied to improve the saccharification process of seaweeds in an eco-friendly and less expensive platform.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  1. Hebbale D, Ramachandra TV (2022) Third-generation bioethanol: status, scope, and challenges. In: Handbook of Biofuels. Academic Press, pp 295–312

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Adewuyi A (2022) Underutilized lignocellulosic waste as sources of feedstock for biofuel production in developing countries. Front Energy Res 10:741570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fu L, McCallum SA, Miao J, Hart C, Tudryn GJ, Zhang F, Linhardt RJ (2015) Rapid and accurate determination of the lignin content of lignocellulosic biomass by solid-state NMR. Fuel 141:39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Offei F, Mensah M, Thygesen A, Kemausuor F (2018) Seaweed bioethanol production: a process selection review on hydrolysis and fermentation. Ferment 4(4):99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Forster J, Radulovich R (2015) Seaweed and food security. In: Seaweed sustainability. Academic Press, pp 289–313

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu Z, Huang F (2014) Pretreatment methods for bioethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 174(1):43–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kooren R, Sumithra TG, Jaseera KV, Sunithakumari K, Hasan S, Sayooj P, Kaladharan P (2023) A comparative study on pre-treatment methods for enhanced saccharification from tropical seaweeds to aid in bioethanol production. Aquat Bot 184:103594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sulfahri, Mushlihah S, Langford A, Tassakka ACMA (2020) Ozonolysis as an effective pretreatment strategy for bioethanol production from marine algae. Bioenergy Res 13(4):1269–1279

  9. Perez CMT, Pajares IG, Alcantara VA, Simbahan JF (2018) Bacterial laminarinase for application in ethanol production from brown algae Sargassum sp. using halotolerant yeast. Biofuel Res J 5(1):792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Farkas C, Rezessy-Szabó JM, Gupta VK, Truong DH, Friedrich L, Felföldi J, Nguyen QD (2019) Microbial saccharification of wheat bran for bioethanol fermentation. J Clean Prod 240:118269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jeong GT, Kim SK, Park DH (2015) Application of solid-acid catalyst and marine macro-algae Gracilaria verrucosa to production of fermentable sugars. Bioresour Technol 181:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen J, Zhang B, Luo L, Zhang F, Yi Y, Shan Y, Liu B, Zhou Y, Wang X, Lü X (2021) A review on recycling techniques for bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sust Energ Rev 149:111370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jung YH, Park HM, Kim IJ, Park YC, Seo JH, Kim KH (2014) One-pot pretreatment, saccharification and ethanol fermentation of lignocellulose based on acid–base mixture pretreatment. RSC Adv 4(98):55318–55327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rabelo SC, Andrade RR, Maciel Filho R, Costa AC (2014) Alkaline hydrogen peroxide pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of sugarcane bagasse to ethanol. Fuel 136:349–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yanagisawa M, Kawai S, Murata K (2013) Strategies for the production of high concentrations of bioethanol from seaweeds: production of high concentrations of bioethanol from seaweeds. Bioeng 4(4):224–235

    Google Scholar 

  16. Li Y, Cui J, Zhang G, Liu Z, Guan H, Hwang H, Aker WG, Wang P (2016) Optimization study on the hydrogen peroxide pretreatment and production of bioethanol from seaweed Ulva prolifera biomass. Bioresour Technol 214:144–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kostas ET, White DA, Du C, Cook DJ (2016) Selection of yeast strains for bioethanol production from UK seaweeds. J Appl Phycol 28(2):1427–1441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sudhakar MP, Arunkumar K, Perumal K (2020) Pretreatment and process optimization of spent seaweed biomass (SSB) for bioethanol production using yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Renew Energy 153:456–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wijayanta AT, Goto M, Kamiya N (2015) Great potency of seaweed waste biomass from the carrageenan industry for bioethanol production by peracetic acid–ionic liquid pretreatment. Biomass Bioenergy 81:63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kostas ET, White DA, Cook DJ (2020) Bioethanol production from UK seaweeds: investigating variable pre-treatment and enzyme hydrolysis parameters. Bioenergy Res 13(1):271–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jelani F, Walker G, Akunna J (2023) Effects of thermo-chemical and enzymatic pre-treatment of tropical seaweeds and freshwater macrophytes on biogas and bioethanol production. Int J Environ Sci Technol:1–10

  22. Saravanan K, Duraisamy S, Ramasamy G, Kumarasamy A, Balakrishnan S (2018) Evaluation of the saccharification and fermentation process of two different seaweeds for an ecofriendly bioethanol production. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 14:444–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sunwoo IY, Kwon JE, Nguyen TH, Ra CH, Jeong GT, Kim SK (2017) Bioethanol production using waste seaweed obtained from Gwangalli beach, Busan, Korea by co-culture of yeasts with adaptive evolution. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 183:966–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yanagisawa M, Nakamura K, Ariga O, Nakasaki K (2011) Production of high concentrations of bioethanol from seaweeds that contain easily hydrolyzable polysaccharides. Process Biochem 46(11):2111–2116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Meinita MDN, Marhaeni B, Oktaviani DF, Jeong GT, Hong YK (2018) Comparison of bioethanol production from cultivated versus wild Gracilaria verrucosa and Gracilaria gigas. J Appl Phycol 30:143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hong IK, Jeon H, Lee SB (2014) Comparison of red, brown and green seaweeds on enzymatic saccharification process. J Ind Eng Chem 20(5):2687–2691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tan IS, Lee KT (2015) Solid acid catalysts pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of macroalgae cellulosic residue for the production of bioethanol. Carbohydr Polym 124:311–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Aleman-Ramirez JL, Pérez-Sariñana BY, Torres-Arellano S, Saldaña-Trinidad S, Longoria A, Sebastian PJ (2020) Bioethanol production from Ataulfo mango supplemented with vermicompost leachate. Catal 353:173–179

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kumar V, Singh D, Singh B (2021) A greener, mild, and efficient bioprocess for the pretreatment and saccharification of rice straw. Biomass Convers Biorefin 13:4121–4133

    Google Scholar 

  30. Maneein S, Milledge JJ, Nielsen BV, Harvey PJ (2018) A review of seaweed pre-treatment methods for enhanced biofuel production by anaerobic digestion or fermentation. Ferment 4(4):100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marquez GPB, Santiañez WJE, Trono GC Jr, Montaño MNE, Araki H, Takeuchi H, Hasegawa T (2014) Seaweed biomass of the Philippines: sustainable feedstock for biogas production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 38:1056–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Parab P, Khandeparker R, Amberkar U, Khodse V (2017) Enzymatic saccharification of seaweeds into fermentable sugars by xylanase from marine Bacillus sp. strain BT21. 3 Biotech 7(5):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yu Z, Zhu B, Wang W, Tan H, Yin H (2018) Characterization of a new oligoalginate lyase from marine bacterium Vibrio sp. Int J Biol Macromol 112:937–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hebbale D, Ramachandra TV (2021) Optimal sugar release from macroalgal feedstock with dilute acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. Biomass Convers Biorefin:1–14

  35. Jang JS, Cho Y, Jeong GT, Kim SK (2012) Optimization of saccharification and ethanol production by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) from seaweed, Saccharina japonica. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 35(1):11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sudhakar MP, Jegatheesan A, Poonam C, Perumal K, Arunkumar K (2017) Biosaccharification and ethanol production from spent seaweed biomass using marine bacteria and yeast. Renew Energy 105:133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hebbale D, Bhargavi R, Ramachandra TV (2019) Saccharification of macroalgal polysaccharides through prioritized cellulase producing bacteria. Heliyon 5(3):e01372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wattier R, Maggs CA (2001) Intraspecific variation in seaweeds: the application of new tools and approaches. Adv Bot Res 35:171–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Duque A, Álvarez C, Doménech P, Manzanares P, Moreno AD (2021) Advanced bioethanol production: from novel raw materials to integrated biorefineries. Process 9(2):206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schultz-Jensen N, Thygesen A, Leipold F, Thomsen ST, Roslander C, Lilholt H, Bjerre AB (2013) Pretreatment of the macroalgae Chaetomorpha linum for the production of bioethanol–comparison of five pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 140:36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. AOAC (2000) Association of official analytical chemists. In: Horwitz W (ed) Official Methods of Analysis, 17th edn. AOAC, Maryland, USA

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PT, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28(3):350–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Trivedi N, Reddy CRK, Radulovich R, Jha B (2015) Solid state fermentation (SSF)-derived cellulase for saccharification of the green seaweed Ulva for bioethanol production. Algal Res 9:48–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sawant SS, Salunke BK, Kim BS (2015) A rapid, sensitive, simple plate assay for detection of microbial alginate lyase activity. Enzym Microb Technol 77:8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang M, Chen L, Zhang Z, Wang X, Qin S, Yan P (2017) Screening of alginate lyase-excreting microorganisms from the surface of brown algae. AMB Express 7(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Parashar S, Kumar N (2021) Isolation and characterization of a novel agar-degrading bacterium, Microbacterium barkeri sp. SELA 4, from soil enriched with laboratory agar. J Microbiol Biotechnol Food Sci 2021:78–83

    Google Scholar 

  47. Burlacu A, Cornea CP, Israel-Roming F (2016) Screening of xylanase producing microorganisms. Res J Agric Sci 48(2):8–15

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chauhan PS, Saxena A (2016) Bacterial carrageenases: an overview of production and biotechnological applications. 3 Biotech 6(2):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Parcon RH, Isagan MDE, Atole LDC, Alcantara VA, Simbahan JF (2019) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, a Narra (Pterocarpus indicus) leaf endophyte, possesses antifungal activity against phytopathogenic fungi due to laminarinase activity and production of antimicrobial compounds. Philipp Sci Lett 12:48–54

    Google Scholar 

  50. Regmi S, Pradeep GC, Choi YH, Choi YS, Choi JE, Cho SS, Yoo JC (2016) A multi-tolerant low molecular weight mannanase from Bacillus sp. CSB39 and its compatibility as an industrial biocatalyst. Enzym Microb Technol 92:76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Alrumman SA, Mostafa YS, Al-Izran KA, Alfaifi MY, Taha TH, Elbehairi SE (2019) Production and anticancer activity of an L-asparaginase from Bacillus licheniformis isolated from the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia. Sci Rep 9(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fungaro MHP, Maccheroni W Jr (2002) Genetic improvement for enzyme production applied to the food industry. In: Melo IS, Valadares-Inglis MC, Nass LL, Valois ACC (eds) Genetic Resources and Improvement-Microorganism, pp 426–453

    Google Scholar 

  53. Weisburg WG, Barns SM, Pelletier DA, Lane DJ (1991) 16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. J Bacteriol 173(2):697–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bergey D, Whitman W, Goodfellow M, Kaampfer P, Busse H (2012) Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31(3):426–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pocan P, Bahcegul E, Oztop MH, Hamamci H (2018) Enzymatic hydrolysis of fruit peels and other lignocellulosic biomass as a source of sugar. Waste Biomass Valori 9(6):929–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sumithra TG, Reshma KJ, Anusree VN, Sayooj P, Sharma SRK, Suja G, Amala PV, Joseph S, Sanil NK (2019) Pathological investigations of Vibrio vulnificus infection in Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) cultured at a floating cage farm of India. Aquac 511:734217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sukumaran RK, Singhania RR, Mathew GM, Pandey A (2009) Cellulase production using biomass feed stock and its application in lignocellulose saccharification for bio-ethanol production. Renew Energy 34(2):421–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rioux LE, Turgeon SL (2015) Seaweed carbohydrates. In: Seaweed sustainability. Academic Press, pp 141–192

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Milledge JJ, Smith B, Dyer PW, Harvey P (2014) Macroalgae-derived biofuel: a review of methods of energy extraction from seaweed biomass. Energies 7(11):7194–7222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rohani-Ghadikolaei K, Abdulalian E, Ng WK (2012) Evaluation of the proximate, fatty acid and mineral composition of representative green, brown and red seaweeds from the Persian Gulf of Iran as potential food and feed resources. J Food Sci Technol 49(6):774–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kasimala M, Mogos GG, Negasi KT, Bereket GA, Abdu MM, Melake HS (2020) Biochemical composition of selected seaweeds from intertidal shallow waters of Southern Red Sea, Eritrea. Indian J Geo-Mar Sci 49(7):1153–1157

    Google Scholar 

  63. Milledge JJ, Nielsen BV, Sadek MS, Harvey PJ (2018) Effect of freshwater washing pretreatment on Sargassum muticum as a feedstock for biogas production. Energies 11(7):1771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Elangovan M, Anantharaman P (2019) Nutritional composition and phytochemistry profile of seaweeds collected from Rameshwaram coast. Int J Sci Technol Res 8(11):3137–3140

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rosemary T, Arulkumar A, Paramasivam S, Mondragon-Portocarrero A, Miranda JM (2019) Biochemical, micronutrient and physicochemical properties of the dried red seaweeds Gracilaria edulis and Gracilaria corticata. Mol 24(12):2225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Matanjun P, Mohamed S, Mustapha NM, Muhammad K (2009) Nutrient content of tropical edible seaweeds, Eucheuma cottonii, Caulerpa lentillifera and Sargassum polycystum. J Appl Phycol 21(1):75–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Olsson J, Toth GB, Albers E (2020) Biochemical composition of red, green and brown seaweeds on the Swedish west coast. J Appl Phycol 32(5):3305–3317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. McKinnell JP, Percival E (1962) Structural investigations on the water-soluble polysaccharide of the green seaweed Enteromorpha compressa. J Chem Soc (Resumed):3141–3148

  69. Zvyagintseva TN, Shevchenko NM, Popivnich IB, Isakov VV, Scobun AS, Sundukova EV, Elyakova LA (1999) A new procedure for the separation of water-soluble polysaccharides from brown seaweeds. Carbohydr Res 322(1-2):32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ghazal MA, Ibrahim HAH, Shaltout NA, Ali AE (2016) Biodiesel and bioethanol production from Ulva fasciata delie biomass via enzymatic pretreatment using marine-derived Aspergillus niger. Int J Pure App Bioscience 4(5):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Gomez-Ordonez E, Jimenez-Escrig A, Ruperez P (2010) Dietary fibre and physicochemical properties of several edible seaweeds from the northwestern Spanish coast. Food Res Int 43(9):2289–2294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Trigueros E, Sanz MT, Filipigh A, Beltran S, Riano P (2021) Enzymatic hydrolysis of the industrial solid residue of red seaweed after agar extraction: Extracts characterization and modelling. Food Bioprod Process 126:356–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. El-Naggar MM, Abdul-Raouf UM, Ibrahim HAH, El-Sayed WMM (2014) Saccharification of Ulva lactuca via Pseudoalteromonas piscicida for biofuel production. J Energy Natl Resour 3:77–84

    Google Scholar 

  74. Chen H, Zhou D, Luo G, Zhang S, Chen J (2015) Macroalgae for biofuels production: Progress and perspectives. Renew Sust Energ Rev 47:427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Akin-Osanaiye BC, Azeez BT, Olobayotan IW (2019) Evaluation of invertase and amylase activities of latic acid bacteria isolated from ‘pupuru’ (an indigenous African fermented cassava staple food). Asian J Biochem 5(3):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  76. Borker SS, Thakur A, Kumar S, Kumari S, Kumar R, Kumar S (2021) Comparative genomics and physiological investigation supported safety, cold adaptation, efficient hydrolytic and plant growth-promoting potential of psychrotrophic Glutamicibacter arilaitensis LJH19, isolated from night-soil compost. BMC Genom 22(1):307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Haque A, Ashik A, Aktar S, Akter MS, Halilu A, Haque A, Islam R, Mamum AA, Nahar N, Das SR, Das KC, Ahmed I, Manir S, Islam K, Shahadat MRB (2021) Rapid deconstruction of cotton, coir, areca, and banana fibers recalcitrant structure using a bacterial consortium with enhanced saccharification. Waste and Biomass Valori 12:4001–4018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Sun C, Zhou J, Duan G, Yu X (2020) Hydrolyzing Laminaria japonica with a combination of microbial alginate lyase and cellulase. Bioresour Technol 311:123548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Franken B, Jaeger KE, Pietruszka J (2017) In: Lee SY (ed) Screening for Enantioselective Enzymes, p 289

    Google Scholar 

  80. Wong TY, Preston LA, Schiller NL (2000) Alginate lyase: review of major sources and enzyme characteristics, structure-function analysis, biological roles, and applications. Annu Rev Microbiol 54:289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Fukasawa S, Nakamura K, Kamii A, Ohyama Y, Osumi M (1988) Purification and properties of a proteinase from a marine luminous bacterium, Vibrio harveyi strain FLA-11. Agric Biol Chem 52(2):435–441

    Google Scholar 

  82. Araki T, Kitamikado M (1978) Distribution of mannan-degrading bacteria in aquatic environment. Bull Japan Soc Sci Fish 44(10):1135–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Nguyen TH, Sunwoo IY, Ra CH, Jeong GT, Kim SK (2019) Acetone, butanol, and ethanol production from the green seaweed Enteromorpha intestinalis via the separate hydrolysis and fermentation. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 42(3):415–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Scoma A, Coma M, Kerckhof FM, Boon N, Rabaey K (2017) Efficient molasses fermentation under high salinity by inocula of marine and terrestrial origin. Biotechnol Biofuels 10(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Le Bouguénec C, Schouler C (2011) Sugar metabolism, an additional virulence factor in Enterobacteria. Int J Med Microbiol 301(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Feng L, Xiao C, Luo Y, Qiao Y, Chen D (2022) The fate of antibiotic resistance genes, microbial community, and potential pathogens in the maricultural sediment by live seaweeds and oxytetracycline. J Environ Manag 318:115597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Silva IP, de Souza Carneiro C, Saraiva MAF, de Oliveira TAS, de Sousa OV, Evangelista-Barreto NS (2018) Antimicrobial resistance and potential virulence of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from water and bivalve mollusks from Bahia, Brazil. Mar Pollut Bull 131:757–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Breccia JD, Siñeriz F, Baigori MD, Castro GR, Hatti-Kaul R (1998) Purification and characterization of a thermostable xylanase from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Enzym Microb Technol 22(1):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Cho SJ (2009) Isolation and characterization of mannanase producing Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CS47 from horse feces. J Life Sci 19(12):1724–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Gangadharan D, Sivaramakrishnan S, Nampoothiri KM, Sukumaran RK, Pandey A (2008) Response surface methodology for the optimization of alpha amylase production by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Bioresour Technol 99(11):4597–4602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Nuo J, Zhang WQ, Yan W, Liu SQ, Li JJ (1900) Study on Carrageen Enzymolysis. China Biotechnology 28:116–119

    Google Scholar 

  92. Wang X, Wang L, Li X, Xu Y (2016) Response surface methodology-based optimization for degradation of align in Laminaria japonica feedstuff via fermentation by Bacillus in Apostichopus japonicas farming. Electron J Biotechnol 22:1–8

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  93. Ye M, Sun L, Yang R, Wang Z, Qi K (2017) The optimization of fermentation conditions for producing cellulase of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and its application to goose feed. R Soc Open Sci 4(10):171012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Song MF, Kang YH, Zhang DX, Chen L, Bi JF, Zhang HP, Zhang L, Qian A, Shan XF (2018) Immunogenicity of extracellular products from an inactivated vaccine against Aeromonas veronii TH0426 in koi, Cyprinus carpio. Fish Shellfish Immunol 81:176–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Zhao X, Li H, Ding A, Zhou G, Sun Y, Zhang D (2016) Preparing and characterizing Fe3O4@cellulose nanocomposites for effective isolation of cellulose-decomposing microorganisms. Mater Lett 163:154–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Bonnet M, Lagier JC, Raoult D, Khelaifia S (2020) Bacterial culture through selective and non-selective conditions: the evolution of culture media in clinical microbiology. New Microbes New Infect 34:100622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Vieira GH, Vieira RH, Macrae A, Sousa OV (2005) Peptone preparation from fishing by-products. J Sci Food Agric 85(7):1235–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Morita RY (1993) Bioavailability of energy and the starvation state. In: Starvation in bacteria. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  99. Shockman GD, Daneo-Moore L, Kariyama R, Massidda O (1996) Bacterial walls, peptidoglycan hydrolases, autolysins, and autolysis. Microb Drug Resist 2(1):95–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Williams AG, Withers S, Sutherland AD (2013) The potential of bacteria isolated from ruminal contents of seaweed-eating North Ronaldsay sheep to hydrolyse seaweed components and produce methane by anaerobic digestion in vitro. Microb Biotechnol 6(1):45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Yun EJ, Yu S, Park NJ, Cho Y, Han NR, Jin YS, Kim KH (2021) Metabolic and enzymatic elucidation of cooperative degradation of red seaweed agarose by two human gut bacteria. Sci Rep 11(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Zhu XK, Yang BT, Hao ZP, Li HZ, Cong W, Kang YH (2022) Dietary supplementation with Weissella cibaria C-10 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens T-5 enhance immunity against Aeromonas veronii infection in crucian carp (Carassiu auratus). Microb Pathog 167:105559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Thongjun J, Tansila N, Panthong K, Tanskul S, Nishibuchi M, Vuddhakul V (2016) Inhibitory potential of biosurfactants from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens derived from mangrove soil against Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Ann Microbiol 66(3):1257–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Kalyani D, Lee KM, Kim TS, Li J, Dhiman SS, Kang YC, Lee JK (2013) Microbial consortia for saccharification of woody biomass and ethanol fermentation. Fuel 107:815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Sindhu R, Binod P, Pandey A (2016) Biological pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass–An overview. Bioresour Technol 199:76–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Gupta A, Verma JP (2015) Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:550–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the Director, CMFRI, Kochi, for providing institutional support to carry out this assessment. The University Grants Commission, Government of India, provided financial support for this work as a research fellowship to the first author. RK thanked the authorities concerned at CUSAT for giving her Ph.D. registration. We thank Dr. S. R. Krupesha Sharma, Dr. P. Laxmilatha, and Dr. Shoji Joseph for providing the lab facilities needed for the microbiological works. The authors also thank Dr. Jenni B, P. Sayooj, Lavanya Ratheesh, Seban John, and Akhil Babu of CMFRI, Kochi, for technical assistance. The authors thank Shameena M. K., Keziya James and Parvathy R. for their help in sample collection.

Funding

This research was supported by the University Grants Commission (UGC), Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India [30-09-2015-361548], and ICAR-CMFRI funded project, “Health Management in selected finfish and shellfish & bio-prospecting from marine resources” (MBT/HLT/23).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Ernakulam North (P.O.), Kochi, Kerala, 682018, India

    Ros Kooren, T. G. Sumithra, K. R. Sreenath, V. N. Anusree, P. V. Amala, R. Vishnu, K. V. Jaseera & P. Kaladharan

  2. Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, Kerala, India

    Ros Kooren

Authors
  1. Ros Kooren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. G. Sumithra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. R. Sreenath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. N. Anusree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. V. Amala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Vishnu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. K. V. Jaseera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Kaladharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The framework of the study was designed by Ros Kooren, T.G. Sumithra, and K.V. Jaseera. The collection and post-harvest processing of seaweed was performed by Ros Kooren. The experiments were conducted by Ros Kooren, V.N. Anusree, P.V. Amala, and R. Vishnu. The data was analyzed and interpreted by Ros Kooren and T.G. Sumithra. The data presentation was prepared by K.R. Sreenath. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Ros Kooren and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. The manuscript was critically revised by T.G. Sumithra. The work was supervised by T.G. Sumithra and P. Kaladharan. The paper was reviewed and approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. G. Sumithra.

Ethics declarations

Statement of informed consent, human/animal rights

Not applicable.

Ethical consent

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Describes efficient microbe-based saccharification strategy for different seaweeds

• V. parahaemolyticus performed best in S. wightii and U. fasciata

• B. amyloliquefaciens was the best performer in G. corticata

• Results recommends seaweed hydrolysis using the prioritized microbes in nutrient broth

• Individual microbes performed better than microbial combinations

• G. corticata showed the highest carbohydrate content and reduced sugar yield

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kooren, R., Sumithra, T., Sreenath, K. et al. Exploration of seaweed degradation potential of the prioritized microbes as a green saccharification technology. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04673-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04673-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation