Advertisement

Statistical Modeling for the Optimization of Bioluminescence Production by Newly Isolated Photobacterium sp. NAA-MIE

  • Nur Adila Adnan
  • Mohd Izuan Effendi HalmiEmail author
  • Siti Salwa Abd Gani
  • Uswatun Hasanah Zaidan
  • Radziah Othman
  • Mohd Yunus Abd Shukor
Research Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

The utilization of bioluminescent bacteria has served as a powerful bioassay in environmental monitoring as a result of simplicity of use, quick response and high sensitivity on the basis of the luminescence being produced. In the present study, the optimization process for the luminescence production of a newly isolated Photobacterium sp. NAA-MIE using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) is investigated. RSM and ANN are the most favored techniques and efficient methods for the optimization of medium components, especially for nonlinear systems. This analysis presents the comparative evaluation between RSM and ANN aimed at their particular empirical modeling and predictive ability. RSM predicted the optimized condition with four major variables at glycerol concentration of 0.16%, NaCl of 2.49%, pH at 7.4 and tryptone of 2.97% with 260,748.94 RLU of the maximum luminescence production. The accuracy of the RSM model equations was measured with R2 of 0.9001 and adjusted R2 of 0.8001. ANN predicted optimum condition at a glycerol concentration of 0.10%, NaCl of 2.46%, pH at 7.5 and tryptone of 1.97% with 237,481.32 RLU. The study demonstrated that ANN accomplishes more than RSM with a higher R2 value of 0.968 and low mean percentage error and root mean square error, which were 0.003 and 3.66, respectively. Both models are presented as suitable predictive models on the basis of mathematical modeling to optimize and improve biological systems for future upscaling processes with ANN as more predictive and having more fitting potentiality compared to RSM.

Keywords

Bioluminescence Isolation Luminescent bacteria Response surface methodology Artificial neural network 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was assisted by the research grant from Putra Grant (GP-IPM/2017/9532800) and Yayasan Pak Rashid Grant UPM (6300893-10201).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hastings JW (1995) Bioluminescence. In: Sperelakis N (ed) Cell physiology source book. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 665–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meighen EA (1991) Molecular biology of bacterial bioluminescence. Microbiol Rev 55:123–142PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hastings JW (2004) Bioluminescence. The website for the molecular imaging program at Stanford. https://mips.stanford.edu/public/abstracts/hastings/pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2005
  4. 4.
    Vetrova E, Esimbekova E, Remmel N, Kotova S, Beloskov N, Kratasyuk V, Gitelson I (2007) A bioluminescent signal system: detection of chemical toxicants in water. Luminescence 22(3):206–214PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson BT, Blaise C, Férard F (2005) Microtox acute toxicity test. In: Small-scale freshwater toxicity investigations. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 69–105Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Girotti S, Bolelli L, Roda A, Gentilomi G, Musiani M (2002) Improved detection of toxic chemicals using bioluminescent bacteria. Anal Chim Acta 471:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee BS, Lee JG, Shin DH, Kim EK (2001) Statistical optimization of bioluminescence of Photobacterium phosphoreum KCTC2852. J Biosci Bioeng 92:72–76PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waters P, Lloyd D (1985) Salt, pH, and temperature dependencies of growth and bioluminescence of three species of luminous bacteria analysed on gradient plates. J Gen Microbiol 131:2865–2869Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nunes-Halldorson VS, Duran NL (2003) Bioluminescent bacteria: lux genes as environmental biosensors. Braz J Microbiol 34:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassan SHA, Oh SE (2010) Improved detection of toxic chemicals by Photobacterium phosphoreum using modified Boss medium. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 101(1):16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Witek-Krowiak A, Chojnacka K, Podstawczyk D, Dawiec A, Pokomeda K (2014) Application of response surface methodology and artificial neural network methods in modelling and optimization of biosorption process. Bioresour Technol 160:150–160PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muhamad MH, Abdullah SRS, Mohamad AB, Rahman RA, Kadhum AAH (2013) Application of response surface methodology (RSM) for optimisation of COD, NH 3-N and 2, 4-DCP removal from recycled paper wastewater in apilot-scale granular activated carbon sequencing batch biofilm reactor (GAC-SBBR). J Environ Manag 121:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seraman S, Rajendran A, Thangavelu V (2010) Statistical optimization of anticholesterolemic drug lovastatin production by the red mold Monascus purpureus. Food Bioprod Process 88:266–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ebrahimpour A, Rahman RN, Ch’ng DHE, Basri M, Salleh AB (2008) A modeling study by response surface methodology and artificial neural network on culture parameters optimization for thermostable lipase production from a newly isolated thermophilic Geobacillus sp. Strain ARM. BMC Biotechnol 8(1):96PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaur R, Gupta A, Khare SK (2008) Lipase from solvent tolerant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain: production optimization by response surface methodology and application. Bioresour Technol 99:4796–4802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bas D, Boyacı İH (2007) Modeling and optimization II: comparison of estimation capabilities of response surface methodology with artificial neural networks in a biochemical reaction. J Food Eng 78:846–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beg QK, Saxena RK, Gupta R (2002) Kinetic constants determination for an alkaline protease from Bacillus mojavensis using response surface methodology. Biotechnol Bioeng 78:289–295PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Senanayake SPJN, Shahidi F (2002) Lipase-catalyzed incorporation of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) into borage oil: optimization using response surface methodology. Food Chem 7:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dutta JR, Dutta PK, Banerjee R (2004) Optimization of culture parameters for extracellular protease production from a newly isolated Pseudomonas sp. Using response surface and artificial neural network models. Process Biochem 39(12):2193–2198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basri M, Rahman RN, Ebrahimpour A, Salleh AB, Gunawan ER, Rahman MB (2007) Comparison of estimation capabilities of response surface methodology (RSM) with artificial neural network (ANN) in lipase-catalyzed synthesis of palm-based wax ester. BMC Biotechnol 7(1):53PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bingol D, Hercan M, Elevli S, Kılıç E (2012) Comparison of the results of response surface methodology and artificial neural network for the biosorption of lead using black cumin. Bioresour Technol 112:111–115PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanusi SNA, Halmi MIE, Abdullah SRS, Hassan HA, Hamzah FM, Idris M (2016) Comparative process optimization of pilot-scale total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) degradation by Paspalum scrobiculatum L. Hack using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural networks (ANNs). Ecol Eng 97:524–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Halmi MIE, Jirangon H, Johari WLW, Abdul Rachman AR, Shukor MY, Syed MA (2014) Comparison of Microtox and Xenoassay light as a near real time river monitoring assay for heavy metals. Sci World J.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/834202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thakre NA, Shanwar AS (2015) Promising biological indicator of heavy metal pollution: bioluminescent bacterial strains isolated and characterized from marine niches of Goa India. Indian J Microbiol 55(3):327–332PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller RV, Day MJ (2004) Microbial evolution: gene establishment, survival, and exchange. ASM Press, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hasan HA, Abdullah SRS, Kamarudin SK, Kofli NT (2011) Response surface methodology for optimization of simultaneous COD, NH4C–N and Mn2C removal from drinking water by biological aerated filter. Desalination 275(1):50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bezerra MA, Santelli RE, Oliveira EP, Villar LS, Escaleira LA (2008) Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 76:965–977PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kannan S, Slochanal SMR, Subburaj P, Padhy NP (2004) Application of particle swarm optimization technique and its variants to generation expansion planning problem. Electr Power Syst Res 70:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zheng Y, Wang A (2010) Removal of heavy metals using polyvinyl alcohol semi-IPN poly (acrylic acid)/tourmaline composite optimized with response surface methodology. Chem Eng J 162(1):186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu Y, Zhou S, Qin F, Ye X, Zheng K (2010) Modeling physical and oxidative removal properties of Fenton process for treatment of landfill leachate using response surface methodology (RSM). J Hazard Mater 180:456–465PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee W, Yusof S, Hamid NSA, Baharin BS (2006) Optimizing conditions for enzymatic clarification of banana juice using response surface methodology (RSM). J Food Eng 73:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maran JP, Manikandan S, Thirugnanasambandham K, Nivetha CV, Dinesh R (2013) Box-Behnken design based statistical modeling for ultrasound-assisted extraction of corn silk polysaccharide. Carbohydr Polym 92:604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Karthikeyan R, Balasubramanian V (2010) Predictions of the optimized friction stir spot welding process parameters for joining AA2024 aluminum alloy using RSM. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jadhav S, Surwase S, Phugare S, Jadhav J (2013) Response surface methodology mediated optimization of Remazol orange decolorization in plain distilled water by Pseudomonas aeruginosa BCH. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ferreira S, Duarte AP, Ribeiro MH, Queiroz JA, Domingues FC (2009) Response surface optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis of Cistus ladanifer and Cytisus striatus for bioethanol production. Biochem Eng J 45:192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hu Z-H, Yu H-Q, Zheng J-C (2006) Application of response surface methodology for optimization of acidogenesis of cattail by rumen cultures. Bioresour Technol 97:2103–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaur B, Kumar B, Garg N, Kaur N (2015) Statistical optimization of conditions for decolorization of synthetic dyes by cordyceps militaris MTCC 3936 using RSM. BioMed Res Int.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/536745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bashir MJ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Adlan MN (2010) Application of response surface methodology (RSM) for optimization of ammoniacal nitrogen removal from semi-aerobic landfill leachate using ion exchange resin. Desalination 254:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Linko S, Zhu YH, Linko P (1999) Applying neural networks as software sensors for enzyme engineering. Trends Biotechnol 17:155–162PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kalali A, Ebadi T, Rabbani A, Moghaddam SS (2011) Response surface methodology approach to the optimization of oil hydrocarbon polluted soil remediation using enhanced soil washing. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gomez F, Sartaj M (2014) Optimization of field scale biopiles for bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil at low temperature conditions by response surface methodology (RSM). Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 89:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Farmer J, Hickman-Brenner F (1992) The genera Vibrio and Photobacterium. In: Balows A, Truper HG, Dworkin M, Harder W, Schleifer K-H (eds) The prokaryotes, 2nd edn, vol III. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 2952–3011Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Soto W, Gutierrez J, Remmenga MD, Nishiguchi MK (2009) Salinity and temperature effects on physiological responses of Vibrio fischeri from diverse ecological niches. Microb Ecol 57:140–150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-008-9412-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kumar A (2010) Isolation of bioluminescent bacteria from Bay of Bengal and their molecular characterization. PhD thesis. Department of Biotech, AMET University, Chennai, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Onorati F, Mecozzi M (2004) Effects of two diluents in the Microtox toxicity bioassay with marine sediments. Chemosphere 54(5):679–687PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hong Y, Chen Z, Zhang B, Zhai Q (2010) Isolation of Photobacterium sp. LuB-1 and its application in rapid assays for chemical toxicants in water. Lett Appl Microbiol 51(3):308–312PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Prosser CL (1973) Comparative physiology, 3rd edn. Saunders College, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nur Adila Adnan
    • 1
  • Mohd Izuan Effendi Halmi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Siti Salwa Abd Gani
    • 2
  • Uswatun Hasanah Zaidan
    • 3
  • Radziah Othman
    • 1
  • Mohd Yunus Abd Shukor
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Land Management, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Technology, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular SciencesUniversity Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations