, X1 is the percentage of blue LED ( of total), X2 will be the KNO3 concentration (mM) and X3 could be the NaCl concentration (M) within the medium. The model in coded values is given by Additional file 1: Equation S1. The quadratic model was employed to predict optimal conditions for lutein production. For the tree-based model, all 315 = 45 information points have been employed. This model was then made use of to study the effects of each and every with the 3 variables on lutein production (Figure 3). The model predicts that the highest levels of lutein are achieved close to the center point of the experiment (Figure 3, bottom-right most plot). Comparison of your 3 variables when it comes to their relative influence on lutein production levels showed that NaCl has the greatest influence, followed by KNO3 and also the percentage of blue LED has the least influence (information not shown). The strongest variable interactions had been in between KNO3 and NaCl levels when the interaction strength among the percentage of blue LED light withCoded values were in brackets. b X1: Blue LED percentage ( of total LEDs); X2: KNO3 concentration (mM); X3: NaCl concentration (M).Formula of 1217725-33-1 Fu et al. Microbial Cell Factories 2014, 13:3 http://microbialcellfactories/content/13/1/Page four ofTable 2 Resultsaof style experimentsLutein productivity (mg/L/day) 0.67 ?0.04 0.58 ?0.01 1.35 ?0.11 1.53 ?0.07 0.08 ?0.02 0.18 ?0.02 1.54 ?0.01 1.16 ?0.01 0.02 ?0.01 0 0.44 ?0.004 1.22 ?0.15 two.71 ?0.18 three.45 ?0.37 two.43 ?0.bExperiment number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ten 11 12 13 14a bLutein content ( of dry biomass ) 0.27 ?0.02 0.35 ?0.02 0.52 ?0.02 0.60 ?0.01 0.05 ?0.009 0.15 ?0.03 0.63 ?0.03 0.47 ?0.04 0.02 ?0.003 0.02 ?0.003 0.24 ?0.02 0.45 ?0.04 0.56 ?0.03 0.70 ?0.07 0.51 ?0.Chlorophyll a ( of dry biomass) three.40 ?0.26 four.47 ?0.22 9.84 ?0.31 ten.62 ?0.21 0.67 ?0.08 2.99 ?0.54 12.01 ?0.49 8.73 ?0.22 0.25 ?0.04 0.29 ?0.02 3.37 ?0.38 ten.14 ?0.21 ten.92 ?0.26 12.36 ?0.44 9.99 ?0.Chlorophyll b ( of dry biomass) 0.3-Fluoro-L-tyrosine Price 22 ?0.PMID:22664133 02 0.31 ?0.01 0.63 ?0.01 0.75 ?0.01 0.05 ?0.004 0.25 ?0.04 0.86 ?0.04 0.66 ?0.04 0.02 ?0.004 0.03 ?0.005 0.25 ?0.03 0.84 ?0.01 0.84 ?0.05 0.95 ?0.02 0.74 ?0.Values had been averaged from three independent experiments (mean ?SD). Lutein productivity was calculated by multiplying lutein content by biomass productivity (see More file 1: Table S1).the two other variables was considerably lower (Further file 1: Table S2).Adaptation of D. salina to osmotic stressIt is essential to test the capability of D. salina to regain optimal development in face of altering environmental conditions due to the fact lutein production was found to be growthcoupled (More file 1: Figure S2). It was found that osmotic strain, specially hypo-osmotic stress, led to incredibly low lutein productivity also as low chlorophylla content material in D. salina (Tables 2 and More file 1: Table S1, and Figure two). Comparisons among the values predicted by the quadratic model (Equation 1) and the experimental data (Added file 1: Table S3) revealed that the model has comparatively low prediction accuracy for the hypo-osmotic pressure situations. This was also the case for the tree-based model (information not shown). We conjecture that D. salina is sensitive to hypo-osmotic pressure and that it could fail to adapt to such osmotic modifications. Preceding research have identified that D. salina is capable of thriving in1.Chlorophyll a content material ( of DCW)121.25 1.00 eight six four two 0 0.0 0.1 0.two 0.three 0.4 0.five 0.6 0.7 0.eight 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.Lutein content material ( of DCW)Figure 2 Correlations involving the lutein content.
