Biochemical modulation of Monodopsis subterranea (Eustigmatophyceae) by auxin and cytokinin enhances eicosapentaenoic acid productivity
Demand for eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is growing rapidly due to proven therapeutic potential. Microalgae such as Monodopsis subterranea are considered important and sustainable source of eicosapentaenoic acid and require further enhancement in productivity. The present study investigated the role of auxins and cytokinin for enhanced EPA productivity in M. subterranea. The study evaluated the effect of these phytohormones on biomass, fatty acid composition, EPA productivity, and total fatty acid (TFA) productivity through dose-dependent responses at various growth phases. Treatment hierarchy in terms of stimulatory effect on EPA productivity is indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) > indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) > 6-benzyl amino purine (6BAP) > naphthalene acetic acid (NAA). Supplementation of 100 μM (IAA) leads to a maximum increase in EPA productivity (2.5-fold) at late-exponential phase. Results show that 100 μM IBA yields maximum enhancement in EPA (58%) and TFA content (88%) and resulted in increased productivity by 1.8-fold and 2.1-fold, respectively, at mid-exponential phase. IBA at 100 μM also leads to the highest biomass productivity of 2.2-fold at late stationary phase. Although the addition of the cytokinin 6-BAP at 1 μM showed a marginal increase in biomass accumulation, biomass exhibited an inverse relation with increase in 6BAP concentration. Statistical analysis using principal components analysis demonstrated stimulatory action of IAA and IBA on biomass and EPA productivity at late-exponential phase.
KeywordsMonodopsis subterranea Ochrophyta Eicosapentaenoic acid Omega-3 PUFA Phytohormone Principal components analysis (PCA)
SA is thankful for CSIR-SRF by Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Human Resource Development Group (09/045(1562)/2018-EMR-1).
Both SA and GM carried out the conceptual design of the study and approve the final version of the submitted manuscript; data acquisition, analyses, and manuscript writing were completed by SA with GM contributing for experimental design, data interpretation, and editing the manuscript critically.
The authors would like to thank the financial support from the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology (BT/PR6027/AGII/106/859/2012).
- Colombo J, Koletzko B, Lampl M (eds) (2017) Recent research in nutrition and growth, 89th Nestlé Nutrition Institute Workshop, Dubai. Karger, BaselGoogle Scholar
- Kokkiligadda S, Pandey B, Ronda SR (2017) Effect of plant growth regulators on production of alpha-linolenic acid from microalgae Chlorella pyrenoidosa. Sādhanā 42:1821–1824Google Scholar
- Maitra S, Yan J (2008) Principle component analysis and partial least squares: two dimension reduction techniques for regression. Applying Multivariate Statistical Models. Casualty Actuarial Society Discussion Paper Program 79–90Google Scholar
- Qiang HU, Zheungu H, Cohen Z, Richond A (1997) Enhancement of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and γ-linolenic acid (GLA) production by manipulating algal density of outdoor cultures of Monodus subterraneus (Eustigmatophyta) and Spirulina platensis (Cyanobacteria). Eur J Phycol 32:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Simopoulos AP, Bazán NG (eds) (2009) Omega-3 fatty acids, the brain and retina. Karger, BaselGoogle Scholar
- Stevanato P, Broccanello C, Moliterni V, Mandolino G, Barone V, Lucini L, Baglieri A (2018) Innovative approaches to evaluate sugar beet responses to changes in sulfate availability. Front Plant Sci:9–14Google Scholar
- Van der Voort MPJ, Spruijt J, Potters JI, Elissen HJH (2017) Socio-economic assessment of algae-based PUFA production, Public Output report of the PUFAChain project, Göttingen, 79 pp, http://www.pufachain.eu
- Žižková E, Kubeš M, Dobrev PI, Přibyl P, Šimura J, Zahajská L, Motyka V (2016) Control of cytokinin and auxin homeostasis in cyanobacteria and algae. Ann Bot 119:151–166Google Scholar
- Bischoff HW, Bold HC (1963) Some algae from Enchanted Rock and related algal species. Phycological studies. University of Texas 4:1-95Google Scholar