Advertisement

AMB Express

, 9:84 | Cite as

Evaluation of surfactin synthesis in a genome reduced Bacillus subtilis strain

  • Mareen Geissler
  • Ines Kühle
  • Kambiz Morabbi Heravi
  • Josef Altenbuchner
  • Marius HenkelEmail author
  • Rudolf Hausmann
Open Access
Original article

Abstract

Strain engineering is often a method of choice towards increasing the yields of the biosurfactant surfactin which is naturally synthesized by many Bacillus spp., most notably Bacillus subtilis. In the current study, a genome reduced B. subtilis 168 strain lacking 10% of the genome was established and tested for its suitability to synthesize surfactin under aerobic and anaerobic conditions at 25 °C, 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C. This genome reduced strain was named IIG-Bs20-5-1 and lacks, amongst others, genes synthesizing the lipopeptide plipastatin, the antibiotic bacilysin, toxins and prophages, as well as genes involved in sporulation. Amongst all temperatures tested, 37 °C was overall superior. In comparison to the reference strain JABs24, a surfactin synthesizing variant of B. subtilis 168, strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 was both aerobically and anaerobically superior with respect to specific growth rates µ and yields YX/S. However, in terms of surfactin production, strain JABs24 reached higher absolute concentrations with up to 1147.03 mg/L and 296.37 mg/L under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, respectively. Concomitant, strain JABs24 reached higher YP/S and YP/X. Here, an outstanding YP/X of 1.541 g/g was obtained under anaerobic conditions at 37 °C. The current study indicates that the employed genome reduced strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 has several advantages over the strain JABs24 such as better conversion from glucose into biomass and higher growth rates. However, regarding surfactin synthesis and yields, the strain was overall inferior at the investigated temperatures and oxygen conditions. Further studies addressing process development and strain engineering should be performed combining the current observed advantages of the genome reduced strain to increase the surfactin yields and to construct a tailor-made genome reduced strain to realize the theoretically expected advantages of such genome reduced strains.

Keywords

Lipopeptide Biosurfactant Strain development Genome reduction Anaerobic 

Introduction

Bacillus subtilis is commonly denoted the model Gram-positive bacterium. Due to its inherent characteristics, such as the natural secretion of proteases, high titers and low toxic by-product formation, this microorganism is an established bacterial platform for a variety of industrial applications (van Dijl and Hecker 2013). Amongst others, processes with B. subtilis as industrial host for the synthesis of proteases and riboflavin are implemented (Singh et al. 2017). Another promising metabolite is the biosurfactant surfactin, which is a cyclic lipopeptide synthesized by Bacillus spp. Surfactin is attributed with a variety of characteristics. These properties, ranging from exceptional surface-activity and broad spectrum physico-chemical properties, as well as antimicrobial effects, make surfactin an interesting candidate for a variety of applications such as in the agricultural, detergent and food industry (Geissler et al. 2019). However, up to date, neither a strain nor a process was described having the potential of large-scale high-titer production of surfactin as the main target product. Past research in order to increase the yields can be divided in three groups, namely (i) optimization of medium and process parameter (Freitas de Oliveira et al. 2013; Gudiña et al. 2015), (ii) applying diverse process strategies (Coutte et al. 2013; Alonso and Martin 2016) and (iii) performing strain engineering (Coutte et al. 2015; Willenbacher et al. 2016).

The complete sequence of the B. subtilis strain 168 genome, which comprises 4100 protein-encoding genes, was revealed by Kunst et al. (1997) and Barbe et al. (2009) resequenced this genome. Kobayashi et al. (2003) expanded the first sequence by determining essential genes in B. subtilis needed to sustain bacterial life. This laid the foundation of creating minimal genome cells (MGC) for Bacillus. MGC are defined as cells with a minimal gene set able to sustain life in the unlimited presence of nutrients and in the absence of environmental stress (Koonin 2000). Ideally, a genome reduced strain is expected to have a similar growth behavior and to yield higher product titers as the cells need less energy for genome replication, and dispensable proteins do not have to be transcribed and translated (Choe et al. 2016).

A B. subtilis strain derived from strain 168 with a genome reduction of 7.7% was engineered by Westers (2003). The strain lacked genes encoding for prophages as well as AT-rich islands. Under laboratory conditions, the reduction did not affect growth and viability. With respect to the heterologous production of a model protein, a positive effect of the genome reduction was not observed, and authors assumed that a redirection of energy resources into product formation did not occur. Also Ara et al. (2007) applied genome reduction to B. subtilis 168 in order to create a strain for the effective production of alkaline cellulase. The genome of the final strain MG1M was 0.99 Mb smaller than its parental strain and the strain showed a similar growth behavior. However, cellulase and protease activity were similar to the parental strain 168 and consequently the product titer was not increased by genome reduction. Within the same group, another genome reduced strain missing 0.87 Mb was created (Morimoto et al. 2008) and this strain was reported to have an improved extracellular and protease productivity from transformed plasmids carrying the respective genes.

Strain 168 is well-suited to employ strain engineering and was hence also used in this study as initial strain. However, strain 168 is only able to synthesize surfactin after the correction of the frameshift mutation in sfp (Julkowska et al. 2005; Coutte et al. 2010). To allow for better evaluation of the performed genome reduction, strain 168 with a functional sfp+ was used as reference. The employed genome reduced strain within this study also carries a functional sfp gene and the genome is ~ 10% smaller. Amongst others, genes encoding for plipastatin, bacylisin, toxins and prophages, as well as genes involved in sporulation, were deleted markerless by Wenzel and Altenbuchner (2015). The type-strain B. subtilis DSM 10T was furthermore used as additional reference strain. Strain DSM 10T is reported to be a natural high surfactin producing strain yielding up to 1.1 g/L surfactin in shake flask cultivation (Willenbacher et al. 2015b). In addition, for this strain, literature dealing with both the aerobic and anaerobic synthesis of surfactin was reported (Willenbacher et al. 2014, 2015a) giving a reliable comparison to results obtained within this study.

The current study aimed at evaluating the effects of genome reduction on the synthesis of surfactin in B. subtilis 168 with a functional sfp gene. To get a more fundamental background, the cultivations were performed at different temperatures and under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The constructed genome reduced strain was evaluated with respect to biotechnological efficiency parameters including growth rates and yields and compared to the type-strain DSM 10T as well as the laboratory strain 168 carrying a functional sfp.

Materials and methods

Chemicals and materials

All chemicals used were purchased from Carl Roth GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) and were of analytical grade. The reference material for the lipopeptide surfactin (≥ 98%) was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Laborchemikalien GmbH (Seelze, Germany).

DNA manipulation, plasmid construction and propagation

Molecular techniques were carried out according to (Green and Sambrook 2012). The plasmids used or constructed in this study are listed in Additional file 1: Table S1 together with their construction procedure. To amplify the desired DNA fragments, polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) were performed using a polymerase (Q5® High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase #M0491S, New England BioLabs®, Frankfurt am Main, Germany). The PCRs were run on a PCR thermal cycler (LifeECO BTC42096, Hangzhou Bioer Technology Co. Ltd., China). As a template for PCR, the chromosomal DNA (cDNA) of B. subtilis 168 was used unless otherwise specified. The cDNA of each strain was extracted with a DNA extraction kit (DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit from Qiagen (Hilden, Germany) as instructed by the manufacturer. All oligonucleotides used for PCR were synthesized by Eurofins MWG Operons (Ebersberg, Germany) (Additional file 1: Table S2). DNA fragments were digested with restriction enzymes purchased from New England BioLabs® (Frankfurt am Main, Germany). To purify PCR products or DNA fragments cut from agarose gel were purified employing respective kits (NucleoSpin® Gel and PCR Clean-up, Macherey-Nagel GmbH, Düren, Germany). The purified DNA fragments were ligated by T4 DNA ligase (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Karlsruhe, Germany). The constructed plasmid DNAs were finally extracted (innuPREP Plasmid Mini Kit, Analytik Jena AG, Jena, Germany) and sequenced (GATC Biotech AG, Konstanz, Germany). To propagate the desired plasmids, Escherichia coli JM109 (Yanisch-Perron et al. 1985) was employed. The transformants of E. coli were selected on LB agar supplemented with 100 µg/mL ampicillin or spectinomycin according to the plasmid selection marker.

Construction of the B. subtilis strains

All final strains used in this study are given in Table 1 and their construction procedure are thoroughly described in Additional file 1: Table S3. The parental strains of B. subtilis, namely the wild-type surfactin producing strain DSM 10T and the laboratory model strain 168, were purchased from the DSMZ (German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany). Transformation of B. subtilis strains were performed according to “Paris method” (Harwood and Cutting 1990) and the transformants were selected on LB with 100 µg/mL spectinomycin. As a parental strain for genome manipulation, the genome reduced strain IIG-Bs20-3, a derivative of strain 168 with tryptophan prototrophy and deletion of prophages and antibiotic biosynthesis genes, was used in this study (Wenzel and Altenbuchner 2015) To induce the competence in IIG-Bs20-3, a cassette containing comK and comS under control of the mannitol-inducible promoter (mtlA) was inserted at the 3′-end of the histidine biosynthesis operon as reported by Rahmer et al. (2015) to generate strain IIG-Bs20-5. Markerless integration of the PmtlA-comKS cassette was performed based on a histidine auxotrophy system developed by Motejadded and Altenbuchner (2007). To enable the production of surfactin in the desired strains, the frameshift mutation in sfp (shown as sfp*) was removed by transformation of the cells with pJOE8949.1. Plasmid pJOE8949.1 was an integrative plasmid carrying the functional copy of sfp. The gene integration was performed based on selection with spectinomycin and anti-selection on LB medium with mannose according to the method of the mannose deletion system (Wenzel and Altenbuchner 2015).
Table 1

Overview of strains used in the current study

Strain

Genotype or description

B. subtilis

 DSM10T

Wild-type straina

 JABs24

trp+ sfp+ ΔmanPA, (Morabbi Heravi and Altenbuchner 2018) and (Reuß et al. 2017), see electronic supplementary material for detailed strain history

 IIG-Bs-20-5-1

sfp +

PmtlA-comKS trp+ Δ[SPβ] Δ[skin] Δ[PBSX] Δ[proΦ1] Δ[proΦ2] Δ[proΦ3] Δ[proΦ4] Δ[proΦ5] Δ[proΦ6] Δ[proΦ7] Δ[pks] Δ[manPA-yjdF-yjdGHI-yjzHJ] Δ[sboAX-albABCDEFG] ΔppsABCDE ΔbacABCDEF Δ[ytpAB-ytoA] Δ[sdpABCIR] Δ[bpr-spoIIGA-sigEG] Δ[ntdABC-glcP], (Wenzel and Altenbuchner 2015), see electronic supplementary material for detailed strain history

aDeutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH (German collection of microorganisms and cell cultures)

Cultivation conditions and preparation of culture samples

Mineral salt medium and flask preparation

The mineral salt medium investigated by Willenbacher et al. (2014) was used for aerobic cultivations. The final medium contained 1% glucose (m/v), 4.0 × 10−6 M Na2 EDTA × 2 H2O, 7.0 × 10−6 M CaCl2, 4.0 × 10−6 M FeSO4 × 7 H2O, 1.0 × 10−6 M MnSO4 × H2O, 0.1 M NH4Cl, 0.03 M KH2PO4, 0.04 M Na2HPO4 × 2 H2O and 8.0 × 10−4 M MgSO4 × 7 H2O. For 1 L medium, KH2PO4, Na2HPO4 × 2 H2O and NH4Cl were diluted in a total volume of 969 mL demineralized H2O and this solution was autoclaved after adjusting the pH to 7 with 10 M NaOH. The remaining components were added afterwards from individual stock solutions: 20 mL of an autoclaved 50% (m/v) glucose solution, 1 mL of a filter-sterilized trace element solution containing 4 × 10−3 M Na2 EDTA × 2 H2O, 7.0 × 10−3 M CaCl2, 4 × 10−3 M FeSO4 × 7 H2O, 1 × 10−3 M MnSO4 × H2O, and 10 mL of a MgSO4 solution with 8 × 10−2 M MgSO4 × 7 H2O. Aerobic cultivations were performed in 1 L baffled shake flasks with 100 mL medium. For anaerobic cultivations, the nitrogen source was replaced by 0.025 M NH4Cl and 0.1 M NaNO3. 96.9 mL of this solution were filled in 100 mL serum flasks. The flasks were sealed using crimp seals with a septum. Prior to autoclaving, all serum flasks were equipped with a filter in order to allow air outflow. Afterwards, 2 mL of the 50% (m/v) glucose solution, 0.1 mL of the filter-sterilized trace element stock solution and 1 mL of the MgSO4 stock solution were added using a sterile syringe and canula. To remove residual oxygen in the serum flasks, sterile N2-gas was purged through the medium for 5 min via filters.

Preparation of inoculum cultures

The first pre-culture was prepared by inoculating 20 mL LB medium (5 g/L tryptone, 10 g/L NaCl, 10 g/L yeast extract) with 100 µL of the respective glycerol stock in a 100 mL baffled shake flask. The shake flasks were incubated at 120 rpm and 30 °C for 24 h in an incubator shaker (Newbrunswick™/Innova® 44, Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany). The second pre-culture was prepared in 250 mL baffled shake flasks by diluting the respective LB-pre-culture each 1:10 and 1:20 in a final volume of 50 mL aerobic mineral salt medium. These pre-cultures were incubated for another 12 h and 24 h for the 1:10 and 1:20-dilutions, respectively.

Main culture

All aerobic and anaerobic cultivations were performed at 25, 30, 37 and 40 °C and 120 rpm in an incubator shaker (Newbrunswick™/Innova® 44, Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany). Serum flasks were incubated in a horizontal manner. For each temperature, four shake flasks and four serum flasks were prepared. Each two flasks were inoculated with a time difference of 12 h using the 1:10-dilution pre-cultures for the first set of duplicates, and the 1:20-dilution pre-cultures for the second set of duplicates. All shake flasks and serum flasks were inoculated with a resulting OD600 of 0.1.

Sampling and sample analysis

Samples were taken regularly from the individual four flasks to cover every other hour of the growth phase and samples were analyzed regarding the OD600, glucose and surfactin concentrations. The OD600 was determined using a spectrophotometer (Biochrom WPA CO8000, Biochrom Ltd., Cambridge, UK). Prior to further analysis, cells were removed by centrifuging for 10 min at 4700 rpm at 4 °C (Heraeus X3R, Thermo Fisher Scientific GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany).

Surfactin was analyzed using a HPTLC system (CAMAG, Muttenz, Switzerland) with a validated method as described previously (Geissler et al. 2017). In brief, a threefold extraction of 2 mL cell-free broth with each 2 mL chloroform/methanol 2:1 (v/v) was conducted. The pooled solvent layers obtained after each extraction were evaporated to dryness in a rotary evaporator (RVC2-25 Cdplus, Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungsanlagen GmbH, Osterode am Harz, Germany) at 10 mbar and 40 °C. For HPTLC analysis, samples were resuspended in 2 mL methanol and applied as 6 mm bands on HPTLC silica gel 60 plates from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). A surfactin standard curve was applied in the range of 30–600 ng/band. The development was conducted using chloroform/methanol/water (65:25:4, v/v/v) over a migration distance of 60 mm. After the development, the plate was scanned at 195 nm to quantify surfactin.

Glucose concentrations were determined using a HPTLC method as well. Proper diluted cell-free supernatants were applied as 6 mm bands and the plate was developed with acetonitrile/H2O (85:15, v/v) over a migration distance of 70 mm. After development, the plate was dipped in the derivatization solution diphenylamine (DPA) for 3 s and the plate was heated for 20 min at 120 °C using the TLC plate heater. DPA reagent was prepared by first dissolving 2.4 g diphenylamine and 2.4 g aniline in 200 mL methanol and then adding 20 mL 85% phosphoric acid.

For further data analysis, the OD/cell dry weight (CDW) conversion factor was determined in a pre-liminary test. Therefore, the strains were cultivated as triplicates as described above for aerobic conditions until reaching the range of maximum OD600. 40 mL culture were filled in dried and pre-weighted falcons and centrifuged for 10 min at 4700 rpm and 4 °C. The supernatant was discarded, and the cell pellet was washed with saline solution prior to a second round of centrifugation. After discarding the supernatant, the weight of the cell pellets were determined after drying the loaded falcons at 110 °C for 24 h and the conversion factor was calculated. In this sense, the OD/CDW conversion factor for all strains used was determined as 3.76 ± 0.17 with a %RSD of 4.47%.

Data analysis

Biomass concentrations (g/L), glucose concentrations (g/L) and surfactin concentrations (g/L) for aerobic and anaerobic cultivations during the time course of cultivation were plotted for the individual strains and temperatures. Several process parameter were calculated for all cultivations conducted. Here, the mean values obtained for two time points were used, labelled m1 and m2. The first time point used for calculation was at 0 h of cultivation with all corresponding data. The second time point corresponded to CDWmax. Again, all data measured at this time point were used for calculation. In addition, calculations were based on absolute values, as this compensated for the different amounts of samples taken, especially for the long lasting anaerobic cultivations. Using absolute values furthermore allowed for better comparison with literature and future planned bioreactor cultivations.

The biomass yield on substrate YX/S (g/g), product yield on substrate YP/S (g/g) and the product yield on biomass YP/X (g/g) were calculated using Eqs. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
$$Y_{{{\text{X}}/{\text{S}}}} = \frac{{\Delta m_{\text{CDW}} }}{{\Delta m_{\text{glucose}} }}$$
(1)
$$Y_{{{\text{P}}/{\text{X}}}} = \frac{{\Delta m_{\text{surfactin}} }}{{\left( {\frac{{\left( {m_{{{\text{CDW}}_{1} }} + m_{{{\text{CDW}}_{2} }} } \right)}}{2}} \right)}}$$
(2)
$$Y_{{{\text{P}}/{\text{S}}}} = \frac{{\Delta m_{\text{surfactin}} }}{{\Delta m_{\text{glucose}} }}$$
(3)
The growth rate was calculated using Eq. 4.
$$\upmu = \frac{{\ln \frac{{m_{{{\text{CDW}}_{2} }} }}{{m_{{{\text{CDW}}_{1} }} }}}}{{t_{2} - t_{1} }}$$
(4)
The specific productivity qspec.,surfactin (gsurfactin/gCDW h) was calculated using Eq. 5.
$$q_{{{\text{spec}}.,{\text{surfactin}}}} = \frac{{\Delta m_{\text{surfactin}} }}{{\left( {\frac{{\left( {m_{{{\text{CDW}}_{1} }} + m_{{{\text{CDW}}_{2} }} } \right)}}{2}} \right) \cdot \Delta t}}$$
(5)

In order to evaluate the reliability of the obtained data, an overall maximum relative standard deviation (RSDmax) was determined for CDW, surfactin concentration and glucose concentration individually. Therefore, the relative standard deviations of the flasks at tCDWmax were used and the mean value of the corresponding duplicates at t0 h. Both the mean RSD (RSDmean) as well as the corresponding standard deviation (SDRSD mean) were determined for these individual RSD. The RSDmax was then calculated as RSDmean + SDRSD mean, and was determined as 12.23%, 8.53% and 0.10% for CDW, surfactin concentration and glucose concentration, respectively.

Results

We hypothesized that the genome reduced strain B. subtilis IIG-Bs20-5-1 shows a similar growth behavior as compared to the reference strain B. subtilis JABs24 and yields higher surfactin concentrations. To get a more fundamental background on the effects of genome reduction, the cultivations were performed at four different temperatures and under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. In addition, the high surfactin producing strain B. subtilis DSM 10T was used as further reference strain to evaluate the overall performance of the two main strains deriving from the non-surfactin producer B. subtilis 168.

Aerobic cultivations are superior to anaerobic cultivations with respect to CDWmax and surfactin concentration

Figure 1 displays the CDW, glucose consumption and surfactin concentration during the time course of aerobic (A) and anaerobic (B) cultivation employing the strain B. subtilis JABs24 at 37 °C. The exemplary graphs depict the main differences for aerobic and anaerobic conditions, which are valid for all strains at all temperatures tested. The main data, including CDWmax., surfactinCDW max., glucoseCDW max., tCDW max., as well as the overall surfactinmax. with the corresponding toverall surfactin max. are further summarized in Table 2 (aerobic) and Table 3 (anaerobic). Briefly, aerobic cultivations yielded 4.6- to 10-fold higher CDW, reached two to tenfold higher surfactin concentrations and the time of complete glucose consumption and concomitant the time to reach CDWmax were much shorter by factors 2 to 6 for all cultivations employed.
Fig. 1

Exemplary time course of CDW (black cross) and surfactin (grey circle) in comparison to glucose (open triangle) during the cultivation of B. subtilis JABs24 under a aerobic and b anaerobic conditions at 37 °C

Table 2

Summary of the results obtained for aerobic cultivations at various temperatures

Aerobic shake flask cultivation

T (°C)

B. subtilis strain

CDWmax (g/L)

SurfactinCDW max (mg/L)

GlucoseCDW max (g/L)

tCDW max (h)

Overall surfactinmax (mg/L)

toverall surfactin max (h)

25

JABs24

1.63

766.15

0.81

54

1189.15

156

IIG-Bs20-5-1

1.54

654.29

0.00

72

970.80

156

DSM 10T

1.58

446.12

0.00

60

740.32

84

30

JABs24

1.27

602.98

0.00

36

836.23

42

IIG-Bs20-5-1

2.12

676.46

0.00

36

740.34

144

DSM 10T

1.84

209.06

0.00

30

415.79

156

37

JABs24

1.95

1147.03

0.00

21

1378.50

84

IIG-Bs20-5-1

2.17

993.03

0.00

18

1083.92

48

DSM 10T

2.10

353.93

0.00

18

793.61

60

40

JABs24

1.88

670.58

0.00

18

1079.58

24

IIG-Bs20-5-1

2.09

681.63

0.00

18

766.72

72

DSM 10T

2.04

203.45

0.00

15

406.16

84

Table 3

Summary of the results obtained for anaerobic cultivations at various temperatures

Anaerobic serum flask cultivation

T (°C)

B. subtilis strain

CDWmax (g/L)

SurfactinCDW max (mg/L)

GlucoseCDW max (g/L)

tCDW max (h)

Overall surfactinmax (mg/L)

toverall surfactin max (h)

25

JABs24

0.26

87.67

0.41

176

87.67

176

IIG-Bs20-5-1

0.19

79.46

4.63

144

79.46

144

DSM 10T

0.16

96.90

5.70

156

96.90

156

30

JABs24

0.26

209.53

5.03

90

209.53

90

IIG-Bs20-5-1

0.41

189.64

0.00

90

189.64

90

DSM 10T

0.33

76.14

6.17

90

146.64

144

37

JABs24

0.31

296.37

1.62

78

333.92

99

IIG-Bs20-5-1

0.39

215.31

0.00

60

273.38

111

DSM 10T

0.45

180.65

0.00

90

181.86

111

40

JABs24

0.39

75.80

2.35

42

211.24

90

IIG-Bs20-5-1

0.26

75.96

3.25

24

158.34

90

DSM 10T

0.39

110.03

1.71

90

111.56

84

Under aerobic conditions, except for strain JABs24 at 25 °C, where a glucose concentration of 0.81 g/L was measured, glucose was completely consumed under aerobic conditions when CDWmax was reached. For all strains, the highest CDW was reached at 37 °C with 1.95 g/L, 2.17 g/L and 2.10 g/L for strains JABs24, IIG-Bs20-5-1 and DSM 10T, respectively. For both IIG-Bs20-5-1 and DSM 10T, the lowest CDW was obtained at 25 °C with 1.54 g/L and 1.58 g/L, respectively. JABs24 yielded the lowest CDW at 30 °C with 1.27 g/L. Considering the mean CDWmax of the three strains at the temperatures tested, the overall %RSD of the CDWmax obtained was 15.94%, 12.77% and 10.71% for strains JABs24, IIG-Bs20-5-1 and DSM 10T, respectively. The time to reach the highest CDW was shorter the higher the temperature was. In comparison, at 25 °C the cultivation time of CDWmax varied between 54 and 72 h, whereas at 40 °C glucose consumption was obtained after 15 to 18 h of cultivation. Amongst the three strains tested, strain JABs24 yielded the highest surfactin concentration at 37 °C with 1147.03 mg/L. For strain IIG-Bs20-5-1, the highest concentration was also detected at 37 °C with 993.03 mg/L. Strain DSM 10T, however, synthesized the highest concentration of 446.12 mg/L at 25 °C, followed by 37 °C with 353.93 mg/L. During the stationary phase, surfactin concentrations further increased by a factor of 1.09 to 2.24. In general, lowest increase was monitored for strain IIG-Bs20-5-1, followed by strain JABs24 and highest increase was obtained for strain DSM 10T. The final overall highest concentration for the latter strain was monitored at 37 °C with an increase from 353.93 to 793 mg/L, which is lower than the highest concentrations obtained for strains JABs24 and IIG-Bs20-5-1.

As shown in Table 3, summarizing the data for anaerobic cultivations, glucose in general was not completely consumed under anaerobic conditions when CDWmax was reached. A trend regarding glucose consumption was not observed amongst the strains and temperatures tested. For example, for strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 with increasing temperature, 4.63 g/L, 0.00 g/L, 0.00 g/L and 3.25 g/L were measured prior to an observed decline in CDW. Similar to aerobic cultivations, the time to reach CDWmax was shorter the higher the temperature was set. Excluding strain DSM 10T, the time varied between 144 and 176 h at 25 °C, and 24 to 42 h at 40 °C. Strain DSM 10T, however, reached the CDWmax after 90 h of cultivation at 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C. With respect to CDWmax, all strains reached the lowest value at 25 °C. Amongst the other temperatures tested, no trend was observed, and data varied between 0.26 and 0.45 g/L. With respect to surfactin, anaerobic cultivations showed a similar pattern as compared to aerobic cultivations. At 37 °C, all strains synthesized the highest amounts of surfactin with 296.37 g/L, 215.31 g/L and 180.65 g/L at CDWmax. At 25 °C, the overall surfactinmax matched the concentration at CDWmax. A similar result was obtained for strains JABs24 and IIG-Bs20-5-1 at 30 °C. The highest increase of surfactin was detected for strain DSM 10T at 30 °C, as well as for strains JABs24 and IIG-Bs20-5-1 at 40 °C where the concentration reached values of 1.93- to 2.79-fold higher. Considering the overall highest surfactin concentration, strain DSM 10T was, similar to aerobic cultivations, inferior to strain JABs24 yielding the highest values.

Strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 yields higher growth rates µ and Y X/S than strain JABs24

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the growth rates µ (1/h) increased with increasing temperature for all strains tested under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. In accordance to the higher CDWmax reached and the reduced time to reach CDWmax, aerobic cultivations possessed higher growth rates. For example, at 25 °C and 40 °C, strain JABs24 reached a growth rate of 0.070 1/h and 0.236 1/h under aerobic, and of 0.012 1/h and 0.061 1/h under anaerobic conditions. Strain DSM 10T yielded higher growth rates under aerobic conditions than the other two strains except at 25 °C. The genome reduced strain furthermore performed better than strain JABs24, albeit the exception of 25 °C. At this condition, JABs24 was superior to both other strains. Under anaerobic conditions, strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 surpassed the growth rates for JABs24 and DSM 10T at all temperatures tested, with the highest growth rate obtained at 40 °C with 0.096 1/h and the lowest at 25 °C with 0.013 1/h.
Fig. 2

Overview of the calculated growth rates µ (1/h) for strains B. subtilis DSM 10T, B. subtilis JABs24 and B. subtilis IIG-Bs20-5-1 under aerobic and anaerobic conditions at 25 °C, 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C

Figure 3 depicts the results obtained for the biomass yield on substrate YX/S (g/g). Under aerobic conditions, the highest conversion from glucose into biomass was obtained at 37 °C with yields of 0.184 g/g, 0.234 g/g and 0.227 g/g for strains JABs24, IIG-Bs20-5-1 and DSM 10T, respectively. Except for strain JABs24 at 25 °C, values increased with increasing temperature and after reaching a maximum at 37 °C, yields declined at 40 °C. Though, values at 40 °C were still higher than at 30 °C. Under anaerobic conditions, YX/S-values were much lower and did not surpass 0.051 g/g, which was obtained for strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 at 40 °C. In comparison to the data determined for the aerobic cultivations, a similar trend or strain possessing generally the highest conversion at the temperatures tested cannot be emphasized.
Fig. 3

Overview of the calculated biomass yields on substrate YX/S (g/g) for strains B. subtilis DSM 10T, B. subtilis JABs24 and B. subtilis IIG-Bs20-5-1 under aerobic and anaerobic conditions at 25 °C, 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C

Strain JABs24 yields outstanding values for Y P/X with the genome reduced strain being slightly inferior

Figure 4 displays the product yield per substrate YP/S (g/g) for the different temperatures tested. 37 °C was superior under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Similar to the growth rate µ and the YX/S, aerobic calculated YP/S were much higher than anaerobic values. The highest YP/S were obtained under aerobic conditions at 37 °C for strain JABs24 with 0.108 g/g and for strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 with 0.105 g/g. These values were about twofold higher than at the other temperatures tested. Under anaerobic cultivations, the YP/S at 37 °C reached 0.027 g/g and 0.018 g/g, respectively for these two strains. The variation of the YP/S was overall lower than under aerobic conditions. The YP/S for strain DSM 10T did not surpass 0.037 g/g under aerobic, and 0.015 g/g under anaerobic conditions, both obtained at 37 °C, which correlates to the overall lower obtained surfactin concentrations.
Fig. 4

Overview of the calculated product yields on substrate YP/S (g/g) for strains B. subtilis DSM 10T, B. subtilis JABs24 and B. subtilis IIG-Bs20-5-1 under aerobic and anaerobic conditions at 25 °C, 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C

Figure 5 illustrates the specific productivity qsurfactin (g/g h). With respect to the long cultivation times under anaerobic conditions, the values calculated were rather low. Here, a trend could be observed for strain IIG-Bs20-5-1, and the overall productivity increased from 0.005 to 0.024 g/g h with increasing temperature. For strain JABs24, highest productivity was obtained at 37 °C with 0.022 g/g h. Strain DSM 10T showed the overall lowest productivity and values did not exceed 0.008 g/g h. Under aerobic conditions, 37 °C was superior for all strains tested and productivities of 0.054 g/g h, 0.049 g/g h and 0.018 g/g h were recorded for strains JABs24, IIG-Bs20-5-1 and DSM 10T, respectively. 40 °C was furthermore superior to 30 °C, similar to the observations for the YX/S.
Fig. 5

Overview of the calculated surfactin productivities qsurfactin (g/g h) for strains B. subtilis DSM 10T, B. subtilis JABs24 and B. subtilis IIG-Bs20-5-1 under aerobic and anaerobic conditions at 25 °C, 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C

Figure 6 shows the product yields per biomass YP/X (g/g). The YP/X for strain DSM 10T obtained at 25 °C surpassed the values at the other three temperatures tested and reached 0.541 g/g and 0.942 g/g under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, respectively. 30 °C yielded the lowest values, and 37 °C was furthermore superior to 40 °C. For strain DSM 10T the YP/X was 1.48- to 2.58-fold higher under anaerobic conditions at all temperatures run. For strain JABs24, yields obtained anaerobically were 1.02- to 1.32-fold higher at 30 °C to 40 °C, but 0.73-fold lower at 25 °C. The highest yield was determined anaerobically at 37 °C with 1.541 g/g. The overall lowest yield was determined aerobically at 25 °C with 0.627 g/g. Yields determined for the genome reduced strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 were overall slightly lower than for strain JABs24, but in general surpassed the YP/X of strain DSM 10T. However, other than for the two reference strains, differences in aerobic and anaerobic yields were not as significant and the YP/X was mostly inferior under anaerobic conditions. For example, the YP/X were 0.75- to 0.97-fold lower at 25 °C, 37 °C and at 40 °C. At 30 °C, the YP/X under aerobic and anaerobic conditions were 0.611 g/g and 0.712 g/g, respectively. The overall highest YP/X were obtained at 37 °C with 0.873 g/g and 0.854 g/g for aerobic and anaerobic cultivations.
Fig. 6

Overview of the calculated product yields on biomass YP/X (g/g) for strains B. subtilis DSM 10T, B. subtilis JABs24 and B. subtilis IIG-Bs20-5-1 under aerobic and anaerobic conditions at 25 °C, 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C

Discussion

The current research aimed at investigating the suitability of a genome reduced strain to produce surfactin. We hypothesized that the surfactin yields in strain B. subtilis IIG-Bs20-5-1 benefit from the employed genome reduction, and that the strain shows a similar growth pattern than the primary reference strain JABs24.

Evaluation of growth, surfactin synthesis and yields obtained under the conditions tested

The growth behavior of strains 168 sfp0 and DSM 10T was reported to be similar by Kabisch et al. (2013) and Julkowska et al. (2005). For specific growth rates, both strains yielded ~ 0.450 1/h (Kabisch et al. 2013), and strain BBG258, a 168 sfp+ derivative, yielded 0.499 1/h in a study conducted by Dhali et al. (2017). However, although the aerobic growth rates obtained within this study were much lower with < 0.234 1/h, it must be noted that strain 168 varies between laboratories due to domestication, and DSM 10T is reported to have different variants as well, such as ATCC 6051 (Kabisch et al. 2013) and NCBI 3610 (Julkowska et al. 2005). Hence, the assignment remains a challenge and comparisons are hindered (Zeigler et al. 2008). Contrariwise to literature, considering the overall growth rates obtained within this study at 30 °C, 37 °C and 40 °C, strain DSM 10T was superior to strain JABs24 under aerobic conditions. It might be that the restoration of sfp led to a reduced growth rate, as secondary metabolites such as lipopeptides are thought to be metabolically demanding as they are synthesized by large non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (Fischbach and Walsh 2006). In addition, B. subtilis undergoes a complex machinery of cell differentiation with surfactin being an important signal molecule (López and Kolter 2010). Reestablishing of surfactin synthesis is expected to change the overall cellular differentiation process, as reported by Julkowska et al. (2005) where surfactin induced swarming of cells. Interestingly, under anaerobic conditions strain DSM 10T was inferior to JABs24 and the genome of JABs24 hence might be able to better adapt to anaerobic conditions.

Next to the growth rate, data obtained for the surfactin concentrations for strains JABs24 (Ongena et al. 2007; Coutte et al. 2010) and DSM 10T (Willenbacher et al. 2015b), as well as for the anaerobic yields calculated for strain DSM 10T are well in accordance to literature (Willenbacher et al. 2015a). However, next to the genetic alterations of strains used in different studies, comparisons are also difficult when different media or process set-ups and parameter are used as in Willenbacher et al. (2014). In this study, strain DSM 10T was cultivated in a 2.5 L benchtop bioreactor under aerobic conditions with surfactin recovery employing foam fractionation. YP/X, YX/S and YP/S obtained were 0.192 g/g, 0.268 g/g and 0.052 g/g. In the current study, at 30 °C, the YP/X was in a similar range with 0.204 g/g, and both YX/S and YP/S were much lower with 0.158 g/g and 0.017 g/g, respectively.

Also with respect to the temperature, different strains, media and parameter used make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions. Nevertheless, within this study, 37 °C was overall superior for all parameter tested and amongst the strains cultivated, which is well in accordance to different literature (Sen and Swaminathan 1997; Rahman and Ano 2009; Ghribi et al. 2012; Meena et al. 2018).

Davis et al. (1999) examined different batch cultures and reported that the highest YP/X was obtained under nitrate-limited oxygen-depleted conditions with 0.075 g/g. In comparison, aerobic nitrogen-limited conditions yielded only 0.021 g/g. However, although the current results also indicated that, regardless nitrogen-limitation, anaerobic cultivations yielded higher YP/X, literature often reports that surfactin production is favored at good oxygenation (Yeh et al. 2006; Abdel-Mawgoud et al. 2008; Fahim et al. 2012; Ha et al. 2018). Although the YP/X is often not calculated, data presented by Abdel-Mawgoud et al. (2008) also indicated that the YP/X is increased at higher aeration in a medium containing only nitrate as sole nitrogen source. In the current study the YP/X was generally superior under anaerobic conditions, but it has to be further elucidated which mechanisms are causing this effect. For example, the presence of nitrate itself and the concomitant nitrate respiration might result in the overall higher YP/X. As B. subtilis is also able to grow aerobically on nitrate as sole nitrogen source, further studies are desirable to evaluate the effect of the nitrogen source nitrate, especially as B. subtilis contains two nitrate reductases, with NasBC being active both aerobically and anaerobically in the assimilatory pathway, and NarGHJ being only induced anaerobically in the presence of the alternative electron acceptor nitrate (Nakano et al. 1998; Ye et al. 2000).

To sum up, the results obtained within the current study are comparably reliable and especially the high YP/X of 1.127 g/g and 1.541 g/g obtained for strain JABs24 under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions at 37 °C must be emphasized which surpasses many reported YP/X in literature for different process set-ups (Davis et al. 1999; Chtioui et al. 2012; Willenbacher et al. 2014, 2015a; Coutte et al. 2015; Dhali et al. 2017). Coutte et al. (2010) also reached a high YP/X of 1.08 g/g in a 168 sfp+ derivative strain, but it has to be pointed out that a functional sfp from B. subtilis ATCC 21332 was integrated instead of restoration of the original sfp as performed in this study. In this sense, with the YP/X being superior for strain JABs24, the most crucial question is now, if the genome reduction led to a benefit as hypothesized.

Strains JABs24 vs. IIG-Bs20-5-1—evaluation of the effect of genome reduction

Constructing genome reduced strains is an interesting technique. The designed strains ideally show a similar or even better growth behavior than the parental strain (Choe et al. 2016). In addition, when a strain shall be used as catalyst for the synthesis of a specific product, genome reduced strains are expected to yield higher titers as the deletion of non-essential genes saves metabolic resources (Choe et al. 2016). In 2008, the suitability of genome reduced B. subtilis with the aim of producing a target product was reported by Morimoto et al. (2008). However, the product used within that study was synthesized from a plasmid carrying the respective gene. In the current study, the target product surfactin is naturally produced by B. subtilis and the synthesis is based on a complex quorum sensing system (Hamoen 2003). Dhali et al. (2017) reported an increase in surfactin yield from 527 ± 80 to 1556 ± 123 mg/g CDW by deleting the gene encoding for CodY in a 168 sfp+ derivative. In our study, we expected an increase in surfactin synthesis as, for example, (i) the gene pps, which encodes for the large non-ribosomal peptide synthetase of the lipopeptide plipastatin was deleted and the cell can hence save resources, (ii) sporulation factors were deleted which influence cell differentiation and a higher ratio of cells might become surfactin producers, (iii) prophages were deleted which is expected to, amongst others, reduce the formation of autolysins and hence cell lysis.

A strain with several identical deletions was constructed by Westers (2003) and they reported that the strain possessing a 7.7% smaller genome exhibited a comparable growth behavior and biomass yield on substrate under laboratory conditions as the reference strain. However, they also pointed out that the suitability of their constructed genome reduced strain as bacterial cell factory remains open. In our study, the genome reduced strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 yielded either similar or even higher CDWmax, but especially under anaerobic conditions, the time of cultivation to reach CDWmax was shorter than for strain JABs24. This observation is further on reflected in the determined growth rate µ, which is overall both aerobically and anaerobically higher for strain IIG-Bs20-5-1. The YX/S of strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 also surpassed the respective yields of strain JABs24 at almost all conditions tested, indicating a better conversion efficiency from glucose into biomass. Comparing the data for the growth rate µ, YX/S and the time to reach CDWmax of strain JABs24 and IIG-Bs20-5-1, it gives the idea that the employed genome reduction has a higher positive impact especially under anaerobic conditions and at 37 °C. However, the better growth and the obtained higher biomass did not lead to higher surfactin concentrations and product yields per biomass YP/X. In both parameter, strain JABs24 was superior. With some exceptions, aerobically at 30 °C and 40 °C, and anaerobically at 40 °C, strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 yielded higher surfactin concentrations at CDWmax. However, apart from the surfactin concentration at CDWmax, the overall surfactinmax was higher for JABs24 throughout all experiments. The YP/X for strain JABs24 was beyond that generally higher under anaerobic conditions, which is well in accordance to the observations from Willenbacher et al. (2015a). Interestingly, the YP/X was in a similar range for strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 under aerobic and anaerobic conditions at the respective temperatures, indicating that the genome reduction has a rather negative effect on the surfactin synthesis under anaerobic conditions. In this context, the employed genome reduction led to improved growth rates and YX/S, but did neither positively influence the surfactin synthesis nor productivity, nor the yields YP/S and YP/X.

To sum up, aerobic cultivations were superior with respect to µ, YX/S and YP/S, while anaerobic cultivations overall yielded better YP/X, especially for strain JABs24. In comparison to the reported high surfactin producing wild-type DSM 10T, both strain JABs24 as well as the genome reduced strain IIG-Bs20-5-1 reached excellent values for surfactin concentration and YP/X. In direct comparison, the genome reduced strain was superior to its main reference strain with respect to both the growth rate µ and YX/S. Anaerobic conditions furthermore favored the growth and conversion from glucose into biomass for IIG-Bs20-5-1 compared to strain JABs24, however, the surfactin synthesis was negatively affected anaerobically. Although hypothesized that the genome reduced strain leads to better surfactin yields, strain JABs24 reached outstanding surfactin concentrations aerobically and YP/X values anaerobically.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Annette Schneck (University of Stuttgart, Institute of Industrial Genetics) for technical assistance.

Authors’ contributions

MG planned and executed the experiments, collected data, created the graphs and drafted the manuscript. IK performed part of the experiments and collected and evaluated corresponding data. KMH and JA constructed the strains and contributed to interpretation of the experiments. MH significantly contributed to conception and design of the study and interpretation of the experiments. RH substantially contributed to conception and design of the conducted experiments. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Project Number 365166982.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

13568_2019_806_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Additional file 1: Table S1. Plasmids used in this study. Table S2. Oligonucleotides used in this study. Table S3. Strains used in this study.

References

  1. Abdel-Mawgoud AM, Aboulwafa MM, Hassouna NA-H (2008) Optimization of surfactin production by Bacillus subtilis isolate BS5. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 150:305–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso S, Martin PJ (2016) Impact of foaming on surfactin production by Bacillus subtilis: implications on the development of integrated in situ foam fractionation removal systems. Biochem Eng J 110:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ara K, Ozaki K, Nakamura K, Yamane K, Sekiguchi J, Ogasawara N (2007) Bacillus minimum genome factory: effective utilization of microbial genome information. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 46:169–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbe V, Cruveiller S, Kunst F, Lenoble P, Meurice G, Sekowska A, Vallenet D, Wang T, Moszer I, Medigue C, Danchin A (2009) From a consortium sequence to a unified sequence: the Bacillus subtilis 168 reference genome a decade later. Microbiology 155:1758–1775PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choe D, Cho S, Kim SC, Cho B-K (2016) Minimal genome: worthwhile or worthless efforts toward being smaller? Biotechnol J 11:199–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chtioui O, Dimitrov K, Gancel F, Dhulster P, Nikov I (2012) Rotating discs bioreactor, a new tool for lipopeptides production. Process Biochem 47:2020–2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coutte F, Leclère V, Béchet M, Guez J-S, Lecouturier D, Chollet-Imbert M, Dhulster P, Jacques P (2010) Effect of pps disruption and constitutive expression of srfA on surfactin productivity, spreading and antagonistic properties of Bacillus subtilis 168 derivatives. J Appl Microbiol 109:480–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Coutte F, Lecouturier D, Leclère V, Béchet M, Jacques P, Dhulster P (2013) New integrated bioprocess for the continuous production, extraction and purification of lipopeptides produced by Bacillus subtilis in membrane bioreactor. Process Biochem 48:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coutte F, Niehren J, Dhali D, John M, Versari C, Jacques P (2015) Modeling leucine’s metabolic pathway and knockout prediction improving the production of surfactin, a biosurfactant from Bacillus subtilis. Biotechnol J 10:1216–1234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis D, Lynch H, Varley J (1999) The production of surfactin in batch culture by Bacillus subtilis ATCC 21332 is strongly influenced by the conditions of nitrogen metabolism. Enzyme Microb Technol 25:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dhali D, Coutte F, Arias AA, Auger S, Bidnenko V, Chataigné G, Lalk M, Niehren J, de Sousa J, Versari C, Jacques P (2017) Genetic engineering of the branched fatty acid metabolic pathway of Bacillus subtilis for the overproduction of surfactin C14 isoform. Biotechnol J 12(1600574):1–10Google Scholar
  12. Fahim S, Dimitrov K, Gancel F, Vauchel P, Jacques P, Nikov I (2012) Impact of energy supply and oxygen transfer on selective lipopeptide production by Bacillus subtilis BBG21. Bioresour Technol 126:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischbach MA, Walsh CT (2006) Assembly-line enzymology for polyketide and nonribosomal peptide antibiotics: logic, machinery, and mechanisms. Chem Rev 106:3468–3496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freitas de Oliveira DW, Lima França ÍW, Nogueira Félix AK, Lima Martins JJ, Aparecida Giro ME, Melo VMM, Gonçalves LRB (2013) Kinetic study of biosurfactant production by Bacillus subtilis LAMI005 grown in clarified cashew apple juice. Colloids Surf B 101:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geissler M, Oellig C, Moss K, Schwack W, Henkel M, Hausmann R (2017) High-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) for the simultaneous quantification of the cyclic lipopeptides surfactin, iturin A and fengycin in culture samples of Bacillus species. J Chromatogr B 1044–1045:214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geissler M, Morabbi Heravi K, Henkel M, Hausmann R (2019) Lipopeptide biosurfactants from Bacillus species. In: Hayes D, Solaiman DK, Ashby RD (eds) Biobased surfactants: synthesis, properties, and applications, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghribi D, Abdelkefi-Mesrati L, Mnif I, Kammoun R, Ayadi I, Saadaoui I, Maktouf S, Chaabouni-Ellouze S (2012) Investigation of antimicrobial activity and statistical optimization of Bacillus subtilis SPB1 biosurfactant production in solid-state fermentation. J Biomed Biotechnol 2012:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green MR, Sambrook J (2012) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 4th edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring HarborGoogle Scholar
  19. Gudiña EJ, Fernandes EC, Rodrigues AI, Teixeira JA, Rodrigues LR (2015) Biosurfactant production by Bacillus subtilis using corn steep liquor as culture medium. Front Microbiol 6(59):1–7Google Scholar
  20. Ha S, Kim H, Chun H, Hwang I, Lee J-H, Kim J-C, Kim I, Park H (2018) Effect of oxygen supply on surfactin production and sporulation in submerged culture of Bacillus subtilis Y9. Appl Sci 8(1660):1–10Google Scholar
  21. Hamoen LW (2003) Controlling competence in Bacillus subtilis: shared use of regulators. Microbiology 149:9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harwood CR, Cutting SM (1990) Molecular biological methods for Bacillus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  23. Julkowska D, Obuchowski M, Holland IB, Seror SJ (2005) Comparative analysis of the development of swarming communities of Bacillus subtilis 168 and a natural wild type: critical effects of surfactin and the composition of the medium. J Bacteriol 187:65–76PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kabisch J, Thürmer A, Hübel T, Popper L, Daniel R, Schweder T (2013) Characterization and optimization of Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6051 as an expression host. J Biotechnol 163:97–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kobayashi K, Ehrlich SD, Albertini A, Amati G, Andersen KK, Arnaud M, Asai K, Ashikaga S, Aymerich S, Bessieres P, Boland F, Brignell SC, Bron S, Bunai K, Chapuis J, Christiansen LC, Danchin A, Debarbouille M, Dervyn E, Deuerling E, Devine K, Devine SK, Dreesen O, Errington J, Fillinger S, Foster SJ, Fujita Y, Galizzi A, Gardan R, Eschevins C, Fukushima T, Haga K, Harwood CR, Hecker M, Hosoya D, Hullo MF, Kakeshita H, Karamata D, Kasahara Y, Kawamura F, Koga K, Koski P, Kuwana R, Imamura D, Ishimaru M, Ishikawa S, Ishio I, Le Coq D, Masson A, Mauel C, Meima R, Mellado RP, Moir A, Moriya S, Nagakawa E, Nanamiya H, Nakai S, Nygaard P, Ogura M, Ohanan T, O’Reilly M, O’Rourke M, Pragai Z, Pooley HM, Rapoport G, Rawlins JP, Rivas LA, Rivolta C, Sadaie A, Sadaie Y, Sarvas M, Sato T, Saxild HH, Scanlan E, Schumann W, Seegers JFML, Sekiguchi J, Sekowska A, Seror SJ, Simon M, Stragier P, Studer R, Takamatsu H, Tanaka T, Takeuchi M, Thomaides HB, Vagner V, van Dijl JM, Watabe K, Wipat A, Yamamoto H, Yamamoto M, Yamamoto Y, Yamane K, Yata K, Yoshida K, Yoshikawa H, Zuber U, Ogasawara N (2003) Essential Bacillus subtilis genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:4678–4683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koonin EV (2000) HOW many genes can make a cell: the minimal-gene-set concept. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 1:99–116PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kunst F, Ogasawara N, Moszer I, Albertini AM, Alloni G, Azevedo V, Bertero MG, Bessières P, Bolotin A, Borchert S, Borriss R, Boursier L, Brans A, Braun M, Brignell SC, Bron S, Brouillet S, Bruschi CV, Caldwell B, Capuano V, Carter NM, Choi S-K, Codani J-J, Connerton IF, Cummings NJ, Daniel RA, Denizot F, Devine KM, Düsterhöft A, Ehrlich SD, Emmerson PT, Entian KD, Errington J, Fabret C, Ferrari E, Foulger D, Fritz C, Fujita M, Fujita Y, Fuma S, Galizzi A, Galleron N, Ghim S-Y, Glaser P, Goffeau A, Golightly EJ, Grandi G, Guiseppi G, Guy BJ, Haga K, Haiech J, Harwood CR, Hénaut A, Hilbert H, Holsappel S, Hosono S, Hullo M-F, Itaya M, Jones L, Joris B, Karamata D, Kasahara Y, Klaerr-Blanchard M, Klein C, Kobayashi Y, Koetter P, Koningstein G, Krogh S, Kumano M, Kurita K, Lapidus A, Lardinois S, Lauber J, Lazarevic V, Lee S-M, Levine A, Liu H, Masuda S, Mauël C, Médigue C, Medina N, Mellado RP, Mizuno M, Moestl D, Nakai S, Noback M, Noone D, O’Reilly M, Ogawa K, Ogiwara A, Oudega B, Park S-H, Parro V, Pohl TM, Portetelle D, Porwollik S, Prescott AM, Presecan E, Pujic P, Purnelle B, Rapoport G, Rey M, Reynolds S, Rieger M, Rivolta C, Rocha E, Roche B, Rose M, Sadaie Y, Sato T, Scanlan E, Schleich S, Schroeter R, Scoffone F, Sekiguchi J, Sekowska A, Seror SJ, Serror P, Shin B-S, Soldo B, Sorokin A, Tacconi E, Takagi T, Takahashi H, Takemaru K, Takeuchi M, Tamakoshi A, Tanaka T, Terpstra P, Tognoni A, Tosato V, Uchiyama S, Vandenbol M, Vannier F, Vassarotti A, Viari A, Wambutt R, Wedler E, Wedler H, Weitzenegger T, Winters P, Wipat A, Yamamoto H, Yamane K, Yasumoto K, Yata K, Yoshida K, Yoshikawa H-F, Zumstein E, Yoshikawa H, Danchin A (1997) The complete genome sequence of the Gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Nature 390:249–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. López D, Kolter R (2010) Extracellular signals that define distinct and coexisting cell fates in Bacillus subtilis. FEMS Microbiol Rev 34:134–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meena KR, Sharma A, Kumar R, Kanwar SS (2018) Two factor at a time approach by response surface methodology to aggrandize the Bacillus subtilis KLP2015 surfactin lipopeptide to use as antifungal agent. J King Saud Univ Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2018.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morabbi Heravi K, Altenbuchner J (2018) Cross talk among transporters of the phosphoenolpyruvate-dependent phosphotransferase system in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 200(19):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morimoto T, Kadoya R, Endo K, Tohata M, Sawada K, Liu S, Ozawa T, Kodama T, Kakeshita H, Kageyama Y, Manabe K, Kanaya S, Ara K, Ozaki K, Ogasawara N (2008) Enhanced recombinant protein productivity by genome reduction in Bacillus subtilis. DNA Res 15:73–81PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Motejadded H, Altenbuchner J (2007) Integration of a lipase gene into the Bacillus subtilis chromosome: recombinant strains without antibiotic resistance marker. Iran J Biotechnol 5(2):105–109Google Scholar
  33. Nakano MM, Hoffmann T, Zhu Y, Jahn D (1998) Nitrogen and oxygen regulation of Bacillus subtilis nasDEF encoding NADH-dependent nitrite reductase by TnrA and ResDE. J Bacteriol 180(20):5344–5350PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Ongena M, Jourdan E, Adam A, Paquot M, Brans A, Joris B, Arpigny J-L, Thonart P (2007) Surfactin and fengycin lipopeptides of Bacillus subtilis as elicitors of induced systemic resistance in plants. Environ Microbiol 9:1084–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rahman MS, Ano T (2009) Production characteristics of lipopeptide antibiotics in biofilm fermentation of Bacillus subtilis. J Environ Sci 21:S36–S39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahmer R, Morabbi Heravi K, Altenbuchner J (2015) Construction of a super-competent Bacillus subtilis 168 using the PmtlA-comKS inducible cassette. Front Microbiol 6(1431):1–11Google Scholar
  37. Reuß DR, Altenbuchner J, Mäder U, Rath H, Ischebeck T, Sappa PK, Thürmer A, Guérin C, Nicolas P, Steil L, Zhu B, Feussner I, Klumpp S, Daniel R, Commichau FM, Völker U, Stülke J (2017) Large-scale reduction of the Bacillus subtilis genome: consequences for the transcriptional network, resource allocation, and metabolism. Genome Res 27:289–299PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sen R, Swaminathan T (1997) Application of response-surface methodology to evaluate the optimum environmental conditions for the enhanced production of surfactin. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 47:358–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh R, Kumar M, Mittal A, Mehta PK (2017) Microbial metabolites in nutrition, healthcare and agriculture. 3 Biotech 7(15):1–14Google Scholar
  40. van Dijl JM, Hecker M (2013) Bacillus subtilis: from soil bacterium to super-secreting cell factory. Microb Cell Fact 12(3):1–6Google Scholar
  41. Wenzel M, Altenbuchner J (2015) Development of a markerless gene deletion system for Bacillus subtilis based on the mannose phosphoenolpyruvate-dependent phosphotransferase system. Microbiology 161:1942–1949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westers H (2003) Genome engineering reveals large dispensable regions in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Biol Evol 20:2076–2090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willenbacher J, Zwick M, Mohr T, Schmid F, Syldatk C, Hausmann R (2014) Evaluation of different Bacillus strains in respect of their ability to produce Surfactin in a model fermentation process with integrated foam fractionation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:9623–9632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Willenbacher J, Rau J-T, Rogalla J, Syldatk C, Hausmann R (2015a) Foam-free production of Surfactin via anaerobic fermentation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 10T. AMB Express 5(21):1–9Google Scholar
  45. Willenbacher J, Yeremchuk W, Mohr T, Syldatk C, Hausmann R (2015b) Enhancement of Surfactin yield by improving the medium composition and fermentation process. AMB Express 5(57):1–9Google Scholar
  46. Willenbacher J, Mohr T, Henkel M, Gebhard S, Mascher T, Syldatk C, Hausmann R (2016) Substitution of the native srfA promoter by constitutive Pveg in two B. subtilis strains and evaluation of the effect on surfactin production. J Biotechnol 224:14–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yanisch-Perron C, Vieira J, Messing J (1985) Improved Ml3 phage cloning vectors and host strains: nucleotide sequences of the M13mp18 and pUC19 vectors. Gene 33:103–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ye RW, Tao W, Bedzyk L, Young T, Chen M, Li L (2000) Global gene expression profiles of Bacillus subtilis grown under anaerobic conditions. J Bacteriol 182:4458–4465PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yeh M-S, Wei Y-H, Chang J-S (2006) Bioreactor design for enhanced carrier-assisted surfactin production with Bacillus subtilis. Process Biochem 41:1799–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zeigler DR, Pragai Z, Rodriguez S, Chevreux B, Muffler A, Albert T, Bai R, Wyss M, Perkins JB (2008) The origins of 168, W23, and other Bacillus subtilis legacy strains. J Bacteriol 190:6983–6995PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioprocess Engineering (150k), Institute of Food Science and Biotechnology (150)University of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Industrial GeneticsUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations