ArticleFood technology and biotechnology2022
Growth of
Article in Food technology and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species selection criteria for sustainable bacterial single cell protein.NPJ science of food · 2026Review
- Fermentation Technologies to Produce and Improve Alternative Protein Sources.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comprehensive insight into gut microbiota and their interaction with fatty acid profiles in Channa striata during the spawning season.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Metabolic engineering for single-cell protein production from renewable feedstocks and its applications.Advanced biotechnology · 2024Review
- Candida boidinii isolates from olive curation water: a promising platform for methanol-based biomanufacturing.AMB Express · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research background: This study aims to monitor the growth of the methylotrophic bacteria Experimental approach: Bacterial growth was studied in shake flasks using different carbon/nitrogen (C:N) ratios to determine their best ratio for achieving the highest volumetric productivity of cells and substrate consumption rate. This optimal parameter was further used in a fed-batch operating bioreactor system to define the kinetic profile of cell growth. Methanol consumption was measured by HPLC analysis and the extracted pigments were analyzed by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Chemical composition and rheological properties of the produced exopolysaccharides were also determined. Results and conclusions: The best experimental parameters were verified using an initial methanol concentration of 7 g/L in the culture medium. The same initial substrate concentration was used in the fed-batch operation and after 60 h of cultivation 5 g/L of biomass were obtained. The accumulation of carotenoids associated with cell growth was monitored, reaching a concentration of 1.6 mg/L at the end of the process. These pigments were then analyzed and characterized as a set of xanthophylls (oxidized carotenoids). In addition, two other product types were identified during the fed-batch operation: exopolysaccharides, which reached a concentration of 8.9 g/L at the end of the cultivation, and an intracellular granular structure that was detected by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), suggesting the accumulation of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), most likely polyhydroxybutyrate. Novelty and scientific contribution:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.