Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 2273–2287 | Cite as

Effects of exopolysaccharides from Escherichia coli ATCC 35860 on the mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose nanocomposites

  • Ke Liu
  • Jeffrey M. Catchmark
Original Paper
  • 145 Downloads

Abstract

The effects of growing bacterial cellulose (BC) in the presence of exopolysaccharides (EPS) extracted from Escherichia coli ATCC 35860 on the mechanical properties of BC have been studied. After harvesting and purifying the EPS, its composition was analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. When adding the purified EPS into the culture media, another kind of EPS, composed of fructose, was produced by Gluconacetobacter xylinus ATCC 23769 and a minor portion of the added EPS was incorporated into cellulose fibrillar network. The characteristics of BC nanocomposites synthesized in the presence of purified EPS was systematically studied through tensile testing, x-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and field emission scanning electron microscopy. The results revealed that the EPS affected the cellulose-cellulose interactions during the physical aggregation of crystalline microfibrils, but did not impact the co-crystallization process during BC synthesis. The addition of 4 or 8 mg/L purified EPS into the culture media, was found to significantly improve the mechanical properties of BC nanocomposites while maintaining BC crystallinity and crystal size.

Keywords

Exopolysaccharides Biofilm Bacterial cellulose Ribbon assembly Crystallinity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Nichole Wonderling, Gino Tambourine, Bangzhi Liu, and Julie Anderson in Millennium Science Complex, Penn State, for their training and guiding on XRD, FTIR, and SEM. The authors also thank Dr. Philip Smith in the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State, for his help on GC-MS measurements.

References

  1. Ahmed KB, Kalla D, Uppuluri KB, Anbazhagan V (2014) Green synthesis of silver and gold nanoparticles employing levan, a biopolymer from Acetobacter xylinum NCIM 2526, as a reducing agent and capping agent. Carbohydr Polym 112:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altaner CM, Jarvis MC (2008) Modelling polymer interactions of the ‘molecular Velcro’ type in wood under mechanical stress. J Theor Biol 253:434–445Google Scholar
  3. Bae S, Sugano Y, Shoda M (2004) Improvement of bacterial cellulose production by addition of agar in a jar fermentor. J Biosci Bioeng 97:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barud HS, Regiani T, Marques RF, Lustri WR, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJ (2011) Antimicrobial bacterial cellulose-silver nanoparticles composite membranes. J Nanomater.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/721631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benziman M, Haigler CH, Brown RM, White AR, Cooper KM (1980) Cellulose biogenesis: polymerization and crystallization are coupled processes in Acetobacter xylinum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 77:6678–6682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng KC, Catchmark JM, Demirci A (2009) Effect of different additives on bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum and analysis of material property. Cellulose 16:1033–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi K, Catchmark JM (2017) Crystalline nanocellulose/lauric arginate complexes. Carbohydr Polym 175:320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dayal MS, Catchmark JM (2016) Mechanical and structural property analysis of bacterial cellulose composites. Carbohydr Polym 144:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erbas Kiziltas E, Kiziltas A, Blumentritt M, Gardner DJ (2015) Biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose in the presence of different nanoparticles to create novel hybrid materials. Carbohydr Polym 129:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fang L, Catchmark JM (2014) Characterization of water-soluble exopolysaccharides from Gluconacetobacter xylinus and their impacts on bacterial cellulose crystallization and ribbon assembly. Cellulose 21:3965–3978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang L, Catchmark JM (2015) Characterization of cellulose and other exopolysaccharides produced from Gluconacetobacter strains. Carbohydr Polym 115:663–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feng Y, Zhang X, Shen Y, Yoshino K, Feng W (2012) A mechanically strong, flexible and conductive film based on bacterial cellulose/graphene nanocomposite. Carbohydr Polym 87:644–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrero MÁ, Aparicio LR (2010) Biosynthesis and production of polysialic acids in bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86:1621–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flemming H-C, Neu TR, Wozniak DJ (2007) The EPS matrix: the “house of biofilm cells”. J Bacteriol 189:7945–7947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. González-Garcinuño Á, Tabernero A, Domínguez Á, Galán MA, Martin del Valle EM (2017) Levan and levansucrases: polymer, enzyme, micro-organisms and biomedical applications. Biocatal Biotransform.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10242422.2017.1314467
  16. Gu J, Catchmark JM (2013) The impact of cellulose structure on binding interactions with hemicellulose and pectin. Cellulose 20:1613–1627Google Scholar
  17. Gu J, Catchmark JM, Kaiser EQ, Archibald DD (2013) Quantification of cellulose nanowhiskers sulfate esterification levels. Carbohydr Polym 92:1809–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haigler CH, White AR, Brown RM, Cooper KM (1982) Alteration of in vivo cellulose ribbon assembly by carboxymethylcellulose and other cellulose derivatives. J Cell Biol 94:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hestrin S, Schramm M (1954) Synthesis of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. 2. Preparation of freeze-dried cells capable of polymerizing glucose to cellulose. Biochem J 58:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu W, Chen S, Yang J, Li Z, Wang H (2014) Functionalized bacterial cellulose derivatives and nanocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 101:1043–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang Y, Zhu C, Yang J, Nie Y, Chen C, Sun D (2014) Recent advances in bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 21:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ishida T, Mitarai M, Sugano Y, Shoda M (2003) Role of water-soluble polysaccharides in bacterial cellulose production. Biotechnol Bioeng 83:474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iwata T, Indrarti L, Azuma J-I (1998) Affinity of hemicellulose for cellulose produced by Acetobacter xylinum. Cellulose 5:215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenkinson H, Lamont R (1997) Streptococcal adhesion and colonization. Crit Rev Oral Biol Medicine 8:175–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jozala AF et al (2016) Bacterial nanocellulose production and application: a 10-year overview. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:2063–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jung HI et al (2010) Influence of glycerol on production and structural-physical properties of cellulose from Acetobacter sp. V6 cultured in shake flasks. Bioresour Technol 101:3602–3608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li Y, Jiang H, Zheng W, Gong N, Chen L, Jiang X, Yang G (2015) Bacterial cellulose–hyaluronan nanocomposite biomaterials as wound dressings for severe skin injury repair. J Mater Chem B 3:3498–3507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Limoli DH, Jones CJ, Wozniak DJ (2015) Bacterial Extracellular polysaccharides in biofilm formation and function. Microbiol Spectr.  https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0011-2014
  29. Lin S, Calvar IL, Catchmark JM, Liu J, Demirci A, Cheng KC (2013) Biosynthesis, production and applications of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 20:2191–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin S-P, Liu C-T, Hsu K-D, Hung Y-T, Shih T-Y, Cheng K-C (2016) Production of bacterial cellulose with various additives in a PCS rotating disk bioreactor and its material property analysis. Cellulose 23:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Navasa N, Rodriguez-Aparicio L, Martinez-Blanco H, Arcos M, Ferrero MA (2009) Temperature has reciprocal effects on colanic acid and polysialic acid biosynthesis in E. coli K92. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 82:721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nieduszynski I, Preston R (1970) Crystallite size in natural cellulose. Nature 225:273–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Obadia B, Lacour S, Doublet P, Baubichon-Cortay H, Cozzone AJ, Grangeasse C (2007) Influence of tyrosine-kinase Wzc activity on colanic acid production in Escherichia coli K12 cells. J Mol Biol 367:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oh SY et al (2005) Crystalline structure analysis of cellulose treated with sodium hydroxide and carbon dioxide by means of X-ray diffraction and FTIR spectroscopy. Carbohydr Res 340:2376–2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsson AM, Salmen L (2004) The association of water to cellulose and hemicellulose in paper examined by FTIR spectroscopy. Carbohydr Res 339:813–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patel KB et al (2012) Functional characterization of UDP-glucose:undecaprenyl-phosphate glucose-1-phosphate transferases of Escherichia coli and Caulobacter crescentus. J Bacteriol 194:2646–2657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pompeo F, Resasco DE (2002) Water solubilization of single-walled carbon nanotubes by functionalization with glucosamine. Nano Lett 2:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reiniati I, Hrymak AN, Margaritis A (2017) Recent developments in the production and applications of bacterial cellulose fibers and nanocrystals. Crit Rev Biotechnol 37:510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roessner U, Wagner C, Kopka J, Trethewey RN, Willmitzer L (2000) Simultaneous analysis of metabolites in potato tuber by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Plant J 23:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ross P, Mayer R, Benziman M (1991) Cellulose biosynthesis and function in bacteria. Microbiol Rev 55:35–58Google Scholar
  41. Ryu JH, Beuchat LR (2005) Biofilm formation by Escherichia coli O157:H7 on stainless steel: effect of exopolysaccharide and Curli production on its resistance to chlorine. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Serra DO, Richter AM, Hengge R (2013) Cellulose as an architectural element in spatially structured Escherichia coli biofilms. J Bacteriol 195:5540–5554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D, Crocker D (2008) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  45. Son H-J, Kim H-G, Kim K-K, Kim H-S, Kim Y-G, Lee S-J (2003) Increased production of bacterial cellulose by Acetobacter sp. V6 in synthetic media under shaking culture conditions. Bioresour Technol 86:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stein SE (1999) An integrated method for spectrum extraction and compound identification from gas chromatography/mass spectrometry data. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 10:770–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stumpf TR, Yang X, Zhang J, Cao X (2018) In situ and ex situ modifications of bacterial cellulose for applications in tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C 82:372–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tajima K, Uenishi N, Fujiwara M, Erata T, Munekata M, Takai M (1997) The production of a new water-soluble polysaccharide by Acetobacter xylinum NCI 1005 and its structural analysis by NMR spectroscopy. Carbohydr Res 305:117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thygesen A, Oddershede J, Lilholt H, Thomsen AB, Ståhl K (2005) On the determination of crystallinity and cellulose content in plant fibres. Cellulose 12:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tokoh C, Takabe K, Fujita M, Saiki H (1998) Cellulose synthesized by Acetobacter xylinum in the presence of acetyl glucomannan. Cellulose 5:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Laere A, Van den Ende W (2002) Inulin metabolism in dicots: chicory as a model system. Plant Cell Environ 25:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitfield C (2006) Biosynthesis and assembly of capsular polysaccharides in Escherichia coli. Annu Rev Biochem 75:39–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu JM, Liu RH (2012) Thin stillage supplementation greatly enhances bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Carbohydr Polym 90:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zaar K (1977)  The biogenesis of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. Cytobiologie 16:1–15Google Scholar
  55. Zhou L, Sun D, Hu L, Li Y, Yang J (2007) Effect of addition of sodium alginate on bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 34:483–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Biological EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations