Immobilization pattern of morphologically different microorganisms on bacterial cellulose membranes

  • Anna Żywicka
  • Karolina Wenelska
  • Adam Junka
  • Grzegorz Chodaczek
  • Patrycja Szymczyk
  • Karol FijałkowskiEmail author
Original Paper


The aim of this study was to assess the immobilization pattern of microorganisms characterized by varying cell shapes and sizes (rod-shaped bacteria Lactobacillus delbruecki, spherical-shaped yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and hyphae forms of Yarrowia lipolytica) on bacterial cellulose of various material properties. The ‘adsorption-incubation’ method was used for the purposes of immobilization. The immobilization pattern included adsorption efficiency, ability of the immobilized cells to multiply within the carrier expressed as incubation efficiency and the degree of release of the immobilized cells from the carrier. The efficiency of adsorption and incubation was affected by the morphology of the immobilized cells and increased together with cellulose surface area. For smaller bacterial cells a higher level of loading was obtained on the same surface as compared to larger yeast cells. During incubation, the number of immobilized bacterial and yeast cells increased significantly in comparison to the number of cells adsorbed on the carrier during the adsorption step. Despite the morphological differences between the S. cerevisiae and Y. lipolytica cells, there were no statistically significant differences in the efficiency of adsorption and incubation. It was also revealed that the release ratio values obtained for L. delbruecki and S. cerevisiae increased along with cellulose surface area. Interestingly, Y. lipolytica cells in the pseudohyphae and hyphae forms penetrated deeply into the three-dimensional network of BC nanofibrils which prevented subsequent cell release. It was confirmed that carrier selection must be individually matched to the type of immobilized cells based especially on its porosity-related parameters.

Graphical abstract


Bacterial cellulose Efficiency of adsorption, efficiency of incubation Microorganism Release ratio 



The authors would like to thank the Dean of the Faculty of Biotechnology and Animal Husbandry (Grant No. 517-01-027-3323/17) and the National Centre for Research and Development in Poland (Grant No. LIDER/011/221/L-5/13/NCBR/2014) for providing financial support to this work.

Supplementary material

11274_2018_2584_MOESM1_ESM.docx (164 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 163 KB)


  1. Barth G, Gaillardin C (1997) Physiology and genetics of the dimorphic fungus Yarrowia lipolytica. FEMS Microbiol Rev 19:219–237. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Braga A, Belo I (2013) Immobilization of Yarrowia lipolytica for aroma production from castor oil. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169:2202–2211. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandel AK, Narasu ML, Chandrasekhar G, Manikyam A, Rao LV (2009) Use of Saccharum spontaneum (wild sugarcane) as biomaterial for cell immobilization and modulated ethanol production by thermotolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour Technol 100:2404–2410. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chavarri M, Maranon I, Villaran MC (2012) Encapsulation technology to protect probiotic bacteria. In: Rigobelo EC (ed) Probiotics, UNESP, Brazil, pp 501–540Google Scholar
  5. Drozd R, Rakoczy R, Wasak A, Junka A, Fijałkowski K (2018) The application of magnetically modified bacterial cellulose for immobilization of laccase. Int J Biol Macromol 108:462–470. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fijałkowski K, Peitler D, Rakoczy R, Żywicka A (2016a) Survival of probiotic lactic acid bacteria immobilized in different forms of bacterial cellulose in simulated gastric juices and bile salt solution. LWT Food Sci Technol 68:322–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fijałkowski K, Żywicka A, Drozd R, Kordas M, Rakoczy R (2016b) Effect of Gluconacetobacter xylinus cultivation conditions on the selected properties of bacterial cellulose. Pol J Chem Technol 18:116–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fijałkowski K, Żywicka A, Drozd R, Junka AF, Peitler D, Kordas M, Konopacki M, Szymczyk P, Rakoczy R (2017) Increased water content in bacterial cellulose synthesized under rotating magnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med 36:192–201. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Förster M, Mansfield J, Schellenberger A, Dautzenberg H (1994) Immobilization of citrate-producing Yarrowia lipolytica cells in polyelectrolyte complex capsules. Enzyme Microb Technol 16:777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Górecka E, Jastrzębska M (2011) Immobilization techniques and biopolymer carriers. Biotechnol Food Sci 75:65–86Google Scholar
  11. Hornung M, Ludwig M, Gerrard AM, Schmauder HP (2006) Optimizing the production of bacterial cellulose in surface culture: Evaluation of substrate mass transfer influences on the bioreaction (Part 1). Eng Life Sci 6:537–545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson EA, Echavarri-Erasun C (2011) Yeast biotechnology. In: Kurtzman C, Fell JW, Boekhout T (ed) The yeasts, 5. Elsevier, New York, pp 21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Junka A, Fijałkowski K, Ząbek A, Mikołajewicz K, Chodaczek G, Szymczyk P, Smutnicka D, Żywicka A, Sedghizadeh PP, Dziadas M, Młynarz P, Bartoszewicz M (2017) Correlation between type of alkali rinsing, cytotoxicity of bio-nanocellulose and presence of metabolites within cellulose membranes. Carbohydr Polym 157:371–379. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Keshk S (2014) Bacterial cellulose production and its industrial applications. J Bioprocess Biotech 4:1360–1401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim J, Cai ZJ, Lee HS, Choi GS, Lee DH, Jo C (2010) Preparation and characterization of a bacterial cellulose/chitosan composite for potential biomedical application. J Polym Res 18:739–744. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein J, Ziehr H (1990) Immobilization of microbial cells by adsorption. J Biotechnol 16:1–16. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kourkoutas Y, Bekatorou A, Banat IM, Marchant R, Koutinas AA (2004) Immobilization technologies and support materials suitable in alcohol beverages production: a review. Food Microbiol 21:377–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krystynowicz A, Czaja W, Wiktorowska-Jezierska A, Goncalves-Miskiewicz M, Turkiewicz M, Bielecki S (2002) Factors affecting the yield and properties of bacterial cellulose. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 29:189–195. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mikkelsen D, Flanagan BM, Dykes GA, Gidley MJ (2009) Influence of different carbon sources on bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus strain ATCC 53524. J Appl Microbiol 107:576–583. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nguyen DN, Ton NMN, Le VVM (2009) Optimization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae immobilization in bacterial cellulose by ‘adsorption-incubation’ method. Int Food Res J 16:59–64Google Scholar
  21. Rezaee A, Godini H, Bakhtou H (2008) Microbial cellulose as support material for the immobilization of denitrifying bacteria. Environ Eng Manag J 7:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spencer JFT, Ragout de Spencer AL, Laluce C (2002) Non-conventional yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 58:147–156. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Strehaiano P, Ramon-Portugal F, Taillandier P (2006) Yeasts as biocatalysts. In: Querol A, Fleet G (ed) Yeasts in food and beverages. Springer, New York, pp. 243–284Google Scholar
  24. Tam TTM, Huong NT (2014) Optimization of Corynebacterium glutamicum immobilization process on bacterial cellulose carrier and its application for lysine fermentation. IOSR J Eng 4:33–38Google Scholar
  25. Tang W, Jia S, Jia Y, Yang H (2010) The influence of fermentation conditions and post-treatment methods on porosity of bacterial cellulose membrane. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 26:125–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ton NMN, Le VVM (2011) Application of immobilized yeast in bacterial cellulose to the repeated batch fermentation in wine-making. Int Food Res J 18:983–987Google Scholar
  27. Vega R, Domínguez A (1986) Cell wall composition of the yeast and mycelial forms of Yarrowia lipolytica. Arch Microbiol 144:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Volkov V (2015) Quantitative description of ion transport via plasma membrane of yeast and small cells. Front Plant Sci 6:425–428. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Wu S-C, Lia J-K (2008) Application of bacterial cellulose pellets in enzyme immobilization. J Mol Catal B 54:103–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yao W, Wu X, Zhu J, Sun B, Zhang YY, Miller C (2011) Bacterial cellulose membrane—a new support carrier for yeast immobilization for ethanol fermentation. Process Biochem 46:2054–2058. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Żur J, Wojcieszyńska D, Guzik U (2016) Metabolic responses of bacterial cells to immobilization. Molecules 21:958. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Żywicka A, Peitler D, Rakoczy R, Junka AF, Fijałkowski K (2016) Wet and dry forms of bacterial cellulose synthetized by different strains of Gluconacetobacter xylinus as carriers for yeast immobilization. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 180:805–881. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Żywicka A, Fijałkowski K, Junka A, Grzesiak J, El Fray M (2018) Modification of bacterial cellulose with quaternary ammonium compounds based on fatty acids and amino acids and the effect on antimicrobial activity. Biomacromolecules 19:1528–1538. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Immunology, Microbiology and Physiological Chemistry, Faculty of Biotechnology and Animal HusbandryWest Pomeranian University of Technology, SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  2. 2.Nanomaterials Physicochemistry Department, Faculty of Chemical Technology and EngineeringWest Pomeranian University of Technology, SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  3. 3.Department of Pharmaceutical Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Pharmacy with Division of Laboratory DiagnosticsWroclaw Medical UniversityWrocławPoland
  4. 4.Laboratory of Confocal MicroscopyWrocław Research Centre EIT+WrocławPoland
  5. 5.Center for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (CAMT/FPC), Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringWroclaw University of Science and TechnologyWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations