Disease control is largely based on the use of chemical compounds toxic to plant invaders and pathogens. However, the hazardous effect of these chemicals on the environment and human health requires to devise new, safe means of disease control. Show
Plant defense Activator |
GAG | Type | Source | Process conditions | Yield ( Y)/Production (P) Purity (Pu) | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CS | CS-C | shark cartilage | proteolysis, alcoholic precipitation, membrane purification | Y = 57% (w/v) | [21] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C | ray and shark cartilage | proteolysis, cetylpyridinium HCl and NaCl precipitations, filtration and dialization | Y = 10%–11% (w/v) | [35] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C | skate fin | proteolysis, cetylpyridinium HCl precipitation, electrophoresis and cromatographic purification | - | [62] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C | skate cartilage | proteolysis, purification (UF-DF) | - | [63] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C | ray cartilage | proteolysis, alkaline-hydroalcoholic precipitation, purification (UF-DF) | Y = 15% (w/w)/Pu > 99% | [66] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C | shark fin | proteolysis, guanidine HCl extraction, electrophoresis and cromatographic purification | Y = 84% | [67] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C, CS-O | zebrafish cartilage | proteolysis, electrophoresis and cromatographic purification | - | [68] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C, CS-D, CS-O | dogfish cartilage | proteolysis, alcoholic precipitation, cromatographic purification | Y = 5% (w/w) | [69] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C, CS-O, CS-E | salmon nasal cartilage | proteolysis, alkaline hydrolysis, alcoholic precipitation, cation exchange separation | Y = 24% (w/w)/Pu = 99% | [70] |
CS | CS-A, CS-C, CS-O, CS-E | salmon nasal cartilage | proteolysis, alkaline hydrolysis, alcoholic precipitation, purification (UF) | - | [71] |
CS | CS-O | E. coli O5:K4:H4 | batch operation | P = 0.2 g/L | [76] |
CS | CS-O | E. coli O5:K4:H4 | fed-batch operation | P = 1.4 g/L | [77] |
CS | CS-O | E. coli O5:K4:H4 | membrane bioreactor, fed-batch, purification (UF-DF) | Y = 80%/P = 3 g/L Pu = 90% | [78] |
HA | - | shark HV | proteolysis, concentration (UF), selective precipitation, purification (UF-DF) | P = 0.3 g/L/Pu > 99.5% | [56] |
HA | - | swordfish HV | proteolysis, concentration (UF), selective precipitation, purification (UF-DF) | P = 0.06 g/L/Pu > 99.5% | [56] |
HA | - | S. zooepidemicus | medium: shark or ray peptones, fed-batch | P = 2.5 g/L | [101] |
HA | - | S. zooepidemicus | medium: tuna peptones and MPW, batch | P = 2.5 g/L | [102] |
5. Chitin and Chitosan
During recent years, CH and CHs have attracted a great interest due to their distinctive biological and physicochemical properties [28], which make them interesting polymers, among others, for biotechnology, medicine, cosmetics, food technology and textile applications.
Marine organisms are principal source of CH since it is a constituent of the organic matrix of the exoskeletons of arthropods such as crustaceans (crabs, lobsters and shrimps) and of the endoskeleton of mollusks [103]. Although CH can also be found in many other organisms including fungi [104], yeasts [105], algae and squid pen [106], the shell of marine crustaceans is the preferred source of CH due to their high availability as waste from the seafood processing industry [28].
However, traditional methods involved in the recovery of CH from shellfish are extremely hazardous, energy consuming and environmentally polluting, due to the need of using high amounts of mineral acid and alkali [107]. In addition, the deacetylation of CH to produce CHs requires the use of very intense alkaline treatments. Hence, alternative environmentally friendly processes are being assessed including the use of proteases or proteolytic bacteria for deproteinization and demineralization of crustacean shells [108,109]. Alternatively, fermentation using lactic acid bacteria (LAB) has been widely applied for the extraction of CH from crab [110,111] and shrimp [112,113] biowastes. In case of CHs production, fungus Mucor rouxii has been widely studied as an alternative source of chitosan.
Characteristics and Applications of CH and CHs
CH is the most abundant biopolymer in nature after cellulose [27,28]. It is a linear polysaccharide composed of β-(1→4)-linked N-acetyl-d-glucosamine monomers. Its abundance in the environment is due to its role as major component in the supporting tissues of organisms such as crustacean, fungi and insects [114].
Depending on its source, CH can occur as either α, β or γ forms [115]. The α form has antiparallel microfibril orientation with strong intra and intermolecular hydrogen bonds and is the most abundant chitin in nature and the preferred form for industrial applications. The β-chitin form has parallel chains held by weak intra chain hydrogen bonds and occurs in squid pens [116]. A third and less characterized form, γ-chitin, has been described as a mixture of antiparallel and parallel chains, although there is controversy about the existence of this conformation [117,118].
Owing to the extensive hydrogen bonding in the solid state of α-chitin, it is insoluble in water, most organic acids and diluted acid and alkaline solutions [117]. However, it can be dissolved in concentrated hydrocloric, sulfuric and phosphoric acids as well as in dichloroacetic, trichloroacetic and formic acids [119]. In addition, special solvents such as hexafluoroacetone and N,N-dimethylacetamide containing 5%–8% lithium chloride have proved suitable for solubilizing CH [120]. Unlike α-chitin, β-chitin generally shows better solubility in most acids and swells in water considerably [28]. On the other hand, CHs is insoluble in either organic solvents or water [28], but it is soluble in diluted acid solutions below pH 6.0, due to the presence of free amino groups with a pKa value of 6.3 [121].
The lack of solubility of CH makes it necessary to modify the molecule for most of its applications. Among various reactions that can disrupt intra- and inter-molecular hydrogen bonds without cleaving glucosidic linkages, N-deacetylation is the simplest modification, which transforms CH to CHs [117]. The degree of N-acetylation (DA), i.e., the ratio of 2-acetamido-2-deoxy-d-glucopyranose to 2-amino-2-deoxy-d-glucopyranose structural units has a remarkable effect on CH solubility and solution properties [115]. Chitosan is the N-deacetylated derivative of chitin with a typical DA of less than 0.35, therefore being a copolymer composed of glucosamine and N-acetylglucosamine [121].
CH, CHs and its derivatives are widely applied in different economical sectors, such as agriculture [122], water treatment [123], food and cosmetic industry [124], pharmaceutical and medicine [125]. Properties that make natural CH and CHs attractive polymers for various applications, mainly in pharmaceutics and medicine, are their antimicrobial activity, film-forming ability, high adsorption, biodegrability, biocompatibility and non-toxicity [126]. Among biomedical applications reported for CH and CHs are tissue engineering, wound healing, drug delivery and cancer diagnosis [127].
The use of CHs in the food industry is related to its functional properties, principally water- and fat-binding capacity [126] as well as emulsifying properties [128]. Also the antimicrobial activity of CHs has been exploited for the preparation of films as a packaging material for a preservation of a variety of foods [129]. Besides, CHs microparticles are being evaluated as carriers for essential oils in cosmetic formulations [130].
6. Traditional CH and CHs Production Processes
The most common sources of CH are crab and shrimp shell wastes. In the skeletal tissue of these species, CH is bound to proteins forming a chitin-protein matrix associated to mineral salts [11], principally calcium carbonate. In this regard, the main components of crustacean shells are on a dry weight basis and depending on the species and season, 30%–40% protein, 30%–50% mineral salts and 13%–42% CH [28]. Furthermore, small amounts of lipids from muscle or viscera residues [117] and carotenoids, mainly astaxanthin and is esters [131], associated with proteins of the exoskeleton can be found in crustacean shell waste.
The traditional method for the industrial recovery of CH from different crustacean shells consists of two steps (Figure 3), including a deproteinization with alkali treatment at high temperatures and a demineralization using diluted hydrochloric acid as the preferred reagent. Although it is considered that the order of these two phases is interchangeable depending on the source and proposed use of chitin [117], other authors suggest that demineralization should be performed first in order to decrease the residual mineral content [132].
Scheme of CH and CHs preparation from crustacean shell waste using chemical methods.
After demineralization and deproteinization, CH isolated from crustacean sources has a lightly pink color and so a bleaching process using potassium permanganate, oxalic acid [133] or hydrogen peroxide [132] is usually carried out to yield a colorless product. On the contrary, CH isolated from squid pens is completely white and therefore, this final stage is unnecessary.
It is generally accepted that the processing conditions significantly affect the molecular weight and acetylation degree of CH. In this sense, the stronger the acidic conditions utilized for demineralization (pH, time and temperature), the lower molecular weight products are obtained [11]. Percot et al. studied the kinetics of demineralization of shrimp shells by following the pH variations in the reaction medium [11]. According to their results, they were able to define the optimal conditions necessary to perform a complete reaction, minimizing the hydrolysis of the glycosidic bonds. For this purpose, an excess of 0.25 M HCl, a solid-to-liquid ratio above 10 mL/g and 15 min of reaction at ambient temperature provided a final product with a DA above 95%.
In contrast, deproteinization by alkaline treatment has shown to be less damaging to the chitin structure compared to the acidic treatment involved in the demineralization [119]. In fact, Percot et al. reported that deproteinization using 1 M NaOH with a temperature and a reaction time below 70 °C and 24 h had no influence on both the molecular weight and DA, respectively [11]. Nevertheless, a large variation exists for the reported conditions of deproteinization for CH preparation. Chang and Tsai [134] analyzed protein removal from shrimp shell waste using NaOH by response surface methodology, reporting optimal conditions with 2.5 N NaOH, 75 °C and a minimal solution to solid ratio of 5 mL/g. According to their results, these authors also reported that kinetics of demineralization and deproteinization were pseudo-first order and two-stage first-order reactions, respectively. Tolaimate et al., using a tailored isolation process according to the source of CH (shrimp, crab, lobster or squid), were able to obtain highly acetylated products (near 100%) preserving the crystalline structure of both α and β chitin [132]. These authors using low concentrated acid (0.55 M HCl) and base (0.3 M NaOH) solutions in a multi-stage process, highlighted the need to adapt the process conditions to the origin and specific characteristics of the CH source utilized.
On the other hand, the most commonly used methods for CHs production are the Broussignac [135] and Kurita [106] processes. The first procedure consists of a deacetylation of chitin in a nearly anhydrous reaction medium using a mixture of potassium hydroxide, ethanol and monoethylene glycol. On the other hand, the Kurita method proceeds in a stirred aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide, under a nitrogen stream at high temperatures (>80 °C).
Tolaimate et al. extensively compared both deacetylation methods and these studies indicated that the adjustment of different parameters related to the deacetylation process, the nature of the source, physical structure of the original CH and its isolation process allow to prepare CHs with controlled physico-chemical (molecular weight and DA) characteristics either from α or β-chitins [132,136]. Comparing the two processes for the production of CHs from a completely N-acetylated β-chitin prepared from squid pen (Loligo vulgaris), these authors concluded that the Kurita process enabled to obtain CHs with high molecular weights and a wide range of deacetylation degrees [136]. On the contrary, the Broussignac process could be carried out to obtain CHs with low degrees of acetylation and molecular weights, but in a faster way. Nevertheless, due to the high amounts of alkali and acid wastewaters generated in these production processes, there is a need to find alternatives to overcome the problem of wastewater neutralization. A possible way that has not been sufficiently explored to date is the reutilization of these effluents in the alkaline proteolysis step of CS isolation from cartilage (Figure 1). This strategy would allow the recycling of highly polluting wastewaters and goes towards the overall utilization of marine by-products.
7. Alternative CH and CHs Production Processes
Chemical CH purification is an energy consuming process and results in environmental problems with high waste processing costs, due to the need of neutralization of processing wastewaters [111]. Besides and as stated above, prolonged alkaline and acid treatments cause depolymerization and deacetylation of the polysaccharide. Furthermore, the low biological value of alkali-recovered proteins may limit its application in the animal feed industry, thus affecting the production costs of CH and CHs from crustacean by-products [117]. In recent years, several methods have been reported in the literature to solve chemical extraction problems (Figure 4). One of the biological alternatives proposed is the use of proteases for deproteinization of crustacean shells, avoiding alkaline treatments. Various commercial proteases have been assayed for protein removal from crustacean shells [137], being alcalase the most employed and effective enzyme [137,138,139]. In addition, the utilization of crude proteolytic extracts obtained from different microorganisms [140,141] or even from fish viscera [142] have been studied, leading to varying deproteinization yields depending on the conditions assayed. Although deproteinization levels achieved in such cases are generally lower than those obtained using alkaline treatments, this alternative has the advantage to produce nutritionally valuable protein hydrolysates in addition to chitin [138].
Scheme of chitin and chitosan preparation from crustacean shell waste using eco-friendly methods.
When using enzymatic deproteinization, previous demineralization is more convenient since it increases the permeability of the tissues and reduces the presence of potential enzyme inhibitors, favoring the subsequent action of the enzyme [138].
Another biotechnological approach for the production of CH from seafood wastes consists on their fermentation using lactic acid bacteria (LAB). The production of bio-silages from fish by-products consists on the ability of LAB strains to ferment the waste materials and to produce in situ organic acids, mainly lactic and acetic acids, in order to preserve and produce ingredients for animal feed production [18,102]. This methodology has also been applied for the recovery of other value-added by-products from ensilaged shrimp waste, such as carotenoids [143].
In the fermentation of crustacean by-products, two fractions are obtained: a solid phase containing crude chitin and a liquor fraction rich in proteins, minerals and pigments. This occurs because lactic acid produced during fermentation operates at two levels. On the one hand, it reacts with the calcium carbonate to produce calcium lactate, which precipitates and can be easily removed by washing [144]. In addition, lactic acid decreases pH values, leading to the activation of proteases. Deproteinization of the biowaste and simultaneous liquefaction of the proteins occurs mainly by proteolytic enzymes produced by the added LAB, by gut bacteria of the intestinal system of crustaceans, or by proteases present in the source byproduct [145].
Several LAB have been assayed in a wide range of raw materials of marine origin. Shrimp waste has been mainly fermented using Lactobacillus plantarum [113,146], but also with other lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus paracasei [147], Pediococcus acidolactici [148] and Lactobacillus helveticus [149]. Non-LAB, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa K-187 [150] and Bacillus subtilis [151] have been assayed as inoculum source for the recovery of CH. Commercial bacterial inoculums containing a mixture of LAB have been utilized for the production of CH from waste shell of prawn (Nephrops norvegicus). Stabisil containing Streptococcus faecium M74, L. plantarum, and P. acidilactici [152] and a powdered grass silage inoculant consisting of a mixture of selected proteolytic enzyme producing bacteria [107] proved to be effective alternatives for the demineralization and deproteinization of prawn biowastes.
Duan et al. reported the production of CH from shrimp waste by fermentation with the epiphytic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus SW01 isolated from shrimp by-products [133]. Due to its high protease activity, the solid residue from fermented shrimp waste contained less than 1% minerals and proteins. Therefore, after 168 h of cultivation at 37 °C, pure CH could be easily recovered only following a bleaching treatment.
Co-fermentation using a LAB and a bacterium with proteolytic activity has also been investigated as an alternative for CH purification from marine by-products. The LAB Lactococcus lactis and Teredinobacter turnirae, a protease producer marine bacterium, were jointly utilized for the for biological CH extraction from prawn waste [153]. Both bacteria were cultivated individually and co-fermented in a culture medium prepared with 10% (w/v) shell solids in the presence of increasing concentrations of glucose (0%–15% w/v). Although the extraction of CH following this procedure was incomplete compared to the chemical method, the highest process yield (95.5%) was obtained when T. turnirae was first inoculated in co-fermentation. Similar results were obtained by Jung et al., who co-cultivated the lactic acid bacterium L. paracasei subsp. tolerans KCTC-3074 and the protease producing bacterium Serratia marcescens FS-3 in crab shells [154]. These authors founded that the co-fermentation process was efficient, although highlighted the need to improve deproteinization.
In a later paper, Jung et al. reported for the first time successive two-step fermentation from red crab shell wastes using the same species than in the previous work [111,154]. This research concluded that the sequential order of inoculation is an important issue, since the best results in co-removal of CaCO3 and proteins, 94.3% and 68.9%, respectively, from crab shells were obtained when successive fermentation was carried out in a first step with S. marcescens followed by a second cultivation with L. paracasei, and not vice versa.
Several process variables have been reported to influence the fermentation of marine wastes and therefore the efficiency of CH recovery from these sources, such as inoculum ratio [147], temperature [155] and initial pH [146]. Also carbon source and level, and the carbon on nitrogen ratio [147,156] were found to be important parameters for CH recovery from crustacean shells. Although the majority of the reports use the one-factor-at-a-time approach to study the effect of these variables on fermentation performances, other studies have attempted to optimize fermentation conditions for chitin recovery using response surface methodology [148,149,155].
Nevertheless, from the stated above it follows that demineralization and deproteinization occur simultaneously but incompletely in these biological processes [111]. This lower performance of LAB fermentation in deproteinization and demineralization of shell waste has been attributed to the compact structure of the shells [113]. For this reason, the fermentation of crustacean shells has been reported as a complementary strategy to chemical treatments, leading to a decrease in the amount of corrosive chemicals in the CH extraction process [112]. In addition to the reduction in the use of reagents, a major advantage of the fermentation process is obtaining a high-value by-product in the form of liquor rich in protein, minerals and asthaxanthin [113].
The same manner as chemical CH purification, the production of CHs by deacetylation of crustacean chitin with strong alkali appears to have limited potential for industrial acceptance, because of the large amounts of concentrated alkaline solution waste causing environmental pollution. Moreover, the conversion of CH to CHs, using a strong base solution at high temperature, causes variability of the product properties, decreases the CHs quality and increases the processing costs [157]. An alternative source of CHs is the cell wall of fungi, mainly zygomycetes. Among them, the fungus M. rouxii has been reported to contain significant amounts of CHs, CH and acidic polysaccharides as cell wall components [158]. For this reason, bioproduction of CHs from M. rouxii has been widely studied during recent years [117,159,160,161,162]. According to Chatterjee et al. culture media and fermentation conditions can be varied to provide CHs of more consistent physico-chemical properties compared to that obtained by chemical modification of chitin [159]. Among three fungal culture media, molasses salt medium (MSM), potato dextrose broth (PDB) and yeast extract peptone glucose (YPG), chitosan from MSM was less polydispersed and more crystalline compared to those from YPG and PDB, thus indicating a higher quality of the polymer.
Since CHs is a constituent of M. rouxii cell walls, its production is coupled to fungal growth, and therefore maximal productions are obtained when mycelial growth is maximal. CHs molecular weight was found to be dependent on the growth phase of M. rouxii, showing an increase of molecular weight with time of culture [160]. These authors also found a great influence of the pH on fungal growth and therefore on CHs production. Trutnau et al. found a higher CHs content with increasing time of cultivation in semi-continuous cultures, suggesting an adaption of the fungi to shear stress [162]. According to these authors, their results and model predictions of hyphal growth, suggest that repeated batch cultures might be optimal for CHs production.
Naturally occurring CHs is produced in situ by enzymatic deacetylation of chitin [163]. CH deacetylases were characterized in various fungi, such as M. rouxii [164], Rhizopus nigricans [165] and Aspergillus nidulans [166]. These enzymes have been also explored as an alternative to alkali treatment on chitin production from crustacean shells. Nevertheless, fungal CH deacetylases studied so far are only able to perform enzymatic deacetylation on their solid substrate to a 5%–10% of the total N-acetylglucosamine residues [167], preferring N-acetylglucosamine homopolymers as substrates [164]. Therefore pretreatment of crystalline CH would be necessary prior to enzyme hydrolysis, in order to improve the accessibility of acetyl groups to the enzyme. Several physical and chemical methods such as heating, sonicating, grinding, derivatization and interaction with saccharides have been assayed in order to improve the accessibility to the acetyl groups for the deacetylation [168]. Win and Stevens were successful at deacetylating CH to CHs (10% DA), using a chitin deacetylase from the fungus Absidia coerulea [167]. In this work a pretreatment of superfine CH, a decrystallized form with a very small particle size, with 18% formic acid resulted in the nearly complete enzymatic deacetylation.
Finally it is important to note that besides allowing the reduction in the use of chemicals, fungal CHs possesses two advantages that are interesting for medical applications: a lower molecular weight and lower contents of heavy metals [162]. In Table 2, different microbial processes studied for CH and CHs from marine sources are reported.
Table 2
Summary of procedures and conditions for CH and CHs productionfrom marine sources.
Final Product | Source | Procedure | Process conditions | Yield (Y)/Efficiency (DM, DP, DD) | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CH | prawn shell | anaerobic fermentation | Sil-Al 4 × 4 TM inoculant, glucose, 30 °C, 7 days | DP = 91%/Y = 20% | [107] |
CH | red crab shell | successive two-step fermentation | S. marcescens, L. paracasei, glucose, 30 °C, 7 days | DM = 94.3%/DP = 68.9%/Y = 38.7% | [111] |
CH | shrimp waste | anaerobic fermentation | L. acidophilus SW01, glucose, 37 °C, 168 h | DM = 99.3%/DP = 96.5% | [133] |
CH | demineralised prawn shell | solid-state fermentation | Stabisil inoculant, lactose, 25 °C | DP = 40% | [152] |
CH | prawn shell | co-fermentation | L. lactis, T. turnirae, glucose, 7 days | DM = 70%/DP = 70%/Y = 95.5% | [153] |
CH | red crab shell | co-fermentation | L. paracasei, S. marcescens, glucose, 30 °C, 7 days | DM = 97.2%/DP = 52.6% | [154] |
CHs | M. rouxii | semi-continuous fermentation | nutrient broth, 28 °C, 24 h | DD = 86%–88%/Y = 4.4% | [69] |
CHs | M. rouxii | fermentation | MSM, PDB, YPG | DD(MSM) = 87.2%/DD(PDB) = 89.8%/DD(YPG) = 82.8%/Y(MSM) = 7.7%/Y(PDB) = 6%/Y(YPG) = 6.3% | [159] |
8. Conclusions
CS, HA and CH/CHs have attracted increasing attention because of their beneficial effects on several ambits of the human health, in the formulation of cosmeceuticals and anti-aging products, nutraceuticals and food ingredients as well as their application in bio and nanotechnological processes. From long time ago, extensive studies have been conducted on the clarification of the general aspects of the chemical structures, features, novel applications and more sustainable processes for their production. In this review, we have discussed a set of recent progresses in the definition of eco-friendly processes to extract and purify those biomacromolecules from marine by-products.
Footnotes
Samples Availability: Available from the authors.
References
1. Food and Agriculture Organization. Estadísticas de Pesca: Captura y Desembarques. FAO; Roma, Italy: 2004. [Google Scholar]
2. Gildberg A. Recovery of proteinases and protein hydrolysates from fish viscera. Bioresour. Technol. 1992;39:271–276. doi: 10.1016/0960-8524(92)90216-K. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Blanco M., Sotelo C.G., Chapela M.J., Pérez-Martín R.I. Towards sustainable and efficient use of fishery resources: Present and future trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007;18:29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2006.07.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Arvanitoyannis I.S., Kassaveti A. Fish industry waste: Treatments, environmental impacts, current and potential uses. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2008;43:726–745. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.01513.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Senevirathne M., Kim S.-K. Utilization of seafood processing by-products. Medicinal applications. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2012;65:495–512. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-416003-3.00032-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Jayathilakan K., Sultana K., Radhakrishna K., Bawa A.S. Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012;49:278–293. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0290-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Kristinsson H.G., Rasco B. Fish protein hydrolysates: Production, biochemical and functional properties. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2000;40:43–81. doi: 10.1080/10408690091189266. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Gómez-Guillén M.C., Turnay J., Fernández-Díaz M.D., Ulmo N., Lizarbe M.A., Montero P. Structural and physical properties of gelatine extracted from different marine species: A comparative study. Food Hydrocoll. 2002;16:25–34. doi: 10.1016/S0268-005X(01)00035-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Gildberg A. Enzymes and bioactive peptides from fish waste related to fish silage, fish feed and fish sauce preparation. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2004;13:3–11. doi: 10.1300/J030v13n02_02. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Percot A., Viton C., Domard A. Optimization of chitin extraction from shrimp shells. Biomacromolecules. 2003;4:12–18. doi: 10.1021/bm025602k. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Vázquez J.A., González M.P., Murado M.A. A new marine medium. Use of different fish peatones and comparative study of selected species of marine bacteria. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2004;35:385–392. [Google Scholar]
13. Aspmo S.I., Horn S.J., Eijsink V.G.H. Hydrolysates from Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) viscera as components of microbial growth media. Process Biochem. 2005;40:3714–3722. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.05.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Vázquez J.A., Docasal S.F., Mirón J., González M.P., Murado M.A. Proteases production by two Vibrio species on residuals marine media. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006;33:661–668. doi: 10.1007/s10295-006-0096-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Vázquez J.A., Docasal S.F., Prieto M.A., González M.P., Murado M.A. Growth and metabolic features of lactic acid bacteria in media with hydrolysed fish viscera. An approach to bio-silage of fishing by-products. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:6246–6257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Murado M.A., González M.P., Vázquez J.A. Recovery of proteolytic and collagenolytic activities from viscera by-products of rayfish (Raja clavata) Mar. Drugs. 2009;7:803–815. doi: 10.3390/md7040803. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Giménez B., Alemám A., Montero P., Gómez-Guillén M.C. Antioxidant and functional properties of gelatine hydrolysates obtained from skin of sole and squid. Food Chem. 2009;114:976–983. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.10.050. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Vázquez J.A., Nogueira M., Durán A., Prieto M.A., Rodríguez-Amado I., Rial D., González M.P., Murado M.A. Preparation of marine silage of swordfish, ray and shark visceral waste by lactic acid bacteria. J. Food Eng. 2011;103:442–448. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Herpandi N.H., Adzitey F. Fish bone and scale as a potential source of halal gelatine. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2011;6:379–389. doi: 10.3923/jfas.2011.379.389. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Khaled H.B., Bougatef A., Balti R., Triki-Ellouz Y., Souissi N., Nasri M. Isolation and characterisation of trypsin from sardinelle (Sardinella aurita) viscera. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008;88:2654–2662. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3386. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Kim S.-B., Ji C.-I., Woo J.-W., Do J.-R., Cho S.-M., Lee Y.-B., Kang S.-N., Park J.-H. Simplified purification of chondroitin sulphate from scapular cartilage of shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012;47:91–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02811.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Jayasinghe P., Hawboldt K. A review of bio-oils from waste biomass: Focus on fish processing waste. Renew. Sustain. Ener. Rev. 2012;16:798–821. [Google Scholar]
23. Silva T.H., Alves A., Ferreira B.M., Oliveira J.M., Reys L.L., Ferreira R.J.F., Sousa R.A., Silva S.S., Mano J.F., Reis R.L. Materials of marine origin: A review on polymers and ceramics of biomedical interest. Int. Mat. Rev. 2012;57:276–307. doi: 10.1179/1743280412Y.0000000002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Ronca F., Palmieri L., Panicucci P., Ronca G. Anti-inflammatory activity of chondroitin sulfate. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 1998;6(Suppl. A):14–21. doi: 10.1016/S1063-4584(98)80006-X. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Kogan G., Soltés L., Stern R., Gemeiner P. Hyaluronic acid: A natural biopolymer with a broad range of biomedical and industrial applications. Biotechnol. Lett. 2007;29:17–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Zou X.H., Jiang Y.Z., Zhang G.R., Jin H.M., Nguyen T.M., Ouyang H.W. Specific interactions between human fibroblasts and particular chondroitin sulphate molecules for wound healing. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:1588–1595. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.12.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Kumar M.N.V.R. A review of chitin and chitosan applications. React. Funct. Polym. 2000;46:1–27. doi: 10.1016/S1381-5148(00)00038-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Kurita K. Chitin and chitosan: Functional biopolymers from marine crustaceans. Mar. Biotechnol. 2006;8:203–226. doi: 10.1007/s10126-005-0097-5. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Mourya V.K., Inamdar N.N. Chitosan-modifications and applications: Opportunities galore. React. Funct. Polym. 2008;68:1013–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2008.03.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Seno N., Meyer K. Comparative biochemistry of skin the mucopolysaccharides of shark skin. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1963;78:258–264. doi: 10.1016/0006-3002(63)91636-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Vieira R.P., Mourao P.A. Occurrence of a unique fucosebranched chondroitin sulfate in the body wall of a sea cucumber. J. Biol. Chem. 1988;263:18176–18183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Kinoshita-Toyoda A., Yamada S., Haslam S.M., Khoo K.-H., Sugiura M., Morris H.R., Dell A., Sugahara K. Structural determination of five novel tetrasaccharides containing 3-O-sulfated d-glucuronic acid and two rare oligosaccharides containing a β-d-glucose branch isolated from squid cartilage chondroitin sulfate E. Biochemistry. 2004;43:11063–11074. doi: 10.1021/bi049622d. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Hardingham T. Solution Properties of Hyaluronan. In: Garg H.G., Hales C.A., editors. Chemistry and Biology of Hyaluronan. Elsevier Ltd.; Oxford, UK: 2004. pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
34. Malavaki C., Mizumoto S., Karamanos N., Sugahara K. Recent advance in the structural study of functional chondroitin sulfate and dermatan sulphate in health and disease. Connect. Tissue Res. 2008;49:133–139. doi: 10.1080/03008200802148546. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Garnjanagoonchorn W., Wongekalak L., Engkagul A. Determination of chondroitin sulfate from different sources of cartilage. Chem. Eng. Proc. 2007;46:465–471. doi: 10.1016/j.cep.2006.05.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Lauder R.M. Chondroitin sulphate: A complex molecule with potential impacts on a wide range of biological systems. Complement. Ther. Med. 2009;17:56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2008.08.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Schiraldi C., Cimini D., de Rosa M. Production of chondroitin sulphate and chondroitin. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010;87:1209–1220. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2677-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Pipitone V.R. Chondroprotection with chondroitin sulphate. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res. 1991;17:3–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Chang C.H., Liu H.C., Lin C.C., Chou C.H., Lin F.H. Gelatin–chondroitin–hyaluronan tri-copolymer scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2003;24:4853–4858. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00383-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Cai S., Liu Y., Shu X.Z., Prestwich G.D. Injectable glycosaminoglycan hydrogels for controlled release of human basic fibroblast growth factor. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6054–6067. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.03.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Keskin D.S., Tezcaner A., Korkusuz P., Korkusuz F., Hasirei V. Collagen-chondroitin sulfate-based PLLA-SAIB-coated rhBMP-2 delivery system for bone repair. Biomaterials. 2005;6:4023–4034. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Yamada S., Sugahara K. Potential therapeutic application of chondroitin sulfate/dermatan sulphate. Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 2008;5:289–301. doi: 10.2174/157016308786733564. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Alkhalil A., Achur R.N., Valiyaveettil M., Ockenhouse C.F., Gowda D.C. Structural requirements for the adherence of Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocytes to chondroitin sulphate proteoglycans of human placenta. J. Biol. Chem. 2000;277:8882–8889. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Smetsers T.F., van de Westerlo E.M., ten Dam G.B., Overes I.M., Schalkwijik J., van Muijen G.N., van Kuppvelt T.H. Human single-chain antibodies reactive with native chondroitin sulphate detect chondroitin sulphate alterations in melanoma and psoriasis. J. Invest. Dermatol. 2004;122:701–716. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Pothacharoen P., Siriaunkgul S., Ong-Chai S., Supabandhu J., Kumja P., Wanaphirak C., Sugahara K., Hardingham T., Kongtawelert P. Raised serum chondroitin sulphate epitope level in ovarian epithelial cancer. J. Biochem. 2006;140:517–524. doi: 10.1093/jb/mvj181. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Borsig L., Wang L., Cavalcante M.C., Cardilo-Reis L., Ferreira P.L., Mourao P.A., Esko J.D., Pvao M.S. Selectin blocking activity of a fucosylated chondroitin sulphate glycosaminoglycan from sea cucumber. Effect on tumor metastasis and neutrophil recruitment. J. Biol. Chem. 2007;282:14984–14991. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M610560200. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Hamano T., Mitsuhashi Y., Acki N., Yamamoto S., Tsuji S., Ito Y., Oji Y. High-performance liquid chromatography assay of chondroitin sulfate in food products. Analyst. 1989;114:891–893. doi: 10.1039/an9891400891. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Conte A., Volpi N., Palmieri L., Bahous I., Ronca G. Biochemical and pharmacokinetic aspects of oral treatment with chondroitin sulphate. Arzneim. Forsch. 1995;45:918–925. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Volpi N. Quality of different chondroitin sulphate preparations in relation to their therapeutic activity. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2009;61:1271–1277. doi: 10.1211/jpp.61.10.0002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Michel B.A., Stucki G., Frey D., de Vathaire F., Vignon E., Bruehlmann P., Uebelhart D. Chondroitins 4 and 6 sulfate in osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:779–786. doi: 10.1002/art.20867. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Field I.C., Meekan M.G., Buckworth R.C., Bradshaw C.J.A. Susceptibility of sharks, rays and chimaeras to global extinction. Adv. Mar. Biol. 2010;56:275–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. García V.B., Lucifora L.O., Myers R.A. The importance of habitat and life history to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2008;275:83–89. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1295. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Shiedlin A., Bigelow R., Christopher W., Arbabi S., Yang L., Maier R.V., Wainwright N., Childs A., Miller R.J. Evaluation of hyaluronan from different sources Streptococcus zooepidemicus, rooster comb, bovine vitreous, and human umbilical cord. Biomacromolecules. 2004;5:2122–2127. doi: 10.1021/bm0498427. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Beasley K.L., Weiss M.A., Weiss M.D. Hyaluronic acid fillers: A comprehensive review. Facial Plast. Surg. 2009;25:86–94. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1220647. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Chong B.F., Blank L.M., Mclaughlin R., Nielsen L.K. Microbial hyaluronic acid production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005;66:341–351. doi: 10.1007/s00253-004-1774-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Murado M.A., Montemayor M.I., Cabo M.L., Vázquez J.A., González M.P. Optimization of extraction and purification process of hyaluronic acid from fish eyeball. Food Bioprod. Proc. 2012;90:491–498. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2011.11.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Kim S.J., Park S.Y., Kin C.W. A novel approach to the production of hyaluronic acid by Streptococcus zooepidemicus. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006;16:1849–1855. [Google Scholar]
58. Rangaswamy V., Jain D. An efficient process for production and purification of hyaluronic acid from Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus. Biotechnol. Lett. 2008;30:493–496. doi: 10.1007/s10529-007-9562-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Rodén L., Baker J.R., Cifonelli J.A., Mathews M.B. Isolation and characterization of connective tissue polysaccharides. Methods Enzymol. 1972;28:73–140. [Google Scholar]
60. Chascall V., Calabro A., Midura R.J., Yanagishita M. Isolation and Characterization of Proteoglycans. In: Lennarz W.J., Hart G.W., editors. Methods in Enzymology. Volume 230. Academic Press; San Diego, CA, USA: 1994. pp. 390–417. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Sumi T., Ohba H., Ikegami T., Shibata M., Sakaki T., Salay I., Park S.S. Method for the Preparation of Chondroitin Sulfate Compounds. 6,342,367. U.S. Patent. 2002 Jan 29;
62. Patel B., Ehrlich J., Stivala S.S., Singh N.K. Comparative studies of mucopolysaccharides from marine animals. I. Raja eglanteria Bosc. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1980;46:127–135. doi: 10.1016/0022-0981(80)90026-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. Lignot B., Lahogue V., Bourseau P. Enzymatic extraction of chondroitin sulfate from skate cartilage and concentration-desalting by ultrafiltration. J. Biotechnol. 2003;103:281–284. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1656(03)00139-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Mollard L., Montillet A., Horriere C., Legrand J., Nguyen T.H. Method for Obtaining Avian Biological Products. 6,844,424. U.S. Patent. 2005 Jan 18;
65. Tadashi E. Sodium Chondroitin Sulfate,Chondroitin-Sulfate-Containing Material and Processes for Producing the Same. 20,060,014,256. U.S. Patent Appl. 2006 Jan 19;
66. Murado M.A., Fraguas J., Montemayor M.I., Vázquez J.A., González M.P. Preparation of highly purified chondroitin sulphate from skate (Raja clavata) cartilage by-products. Process optimization including a new procedure of alkaline hydroalcoholic hydrolysis. Biochem. Eng. J. 2010;49:126–132. [Google Scholar]
67. Michelacci Y.M., Horton D.S.P.Q. Proteoglycans from the cartilage of young hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1989;92B:651–658. [Google Scholar]
68. Souza A.R.C., Kozlowski E.O., Cerqueira V.R., Castelo-Branco M.T.L., Costa M.L., Pavão M.S.G. Chondroitin sulfate and keratan sulfate are the major glycosaminoglycans present in the adult zebrafish Danio rerio (Chordata-Cyprinidae) Glycoconj. J. 2007;24:521–530. doi: 10.1007/s10719-007-9046-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Gargiulo V., Lanzetta R., Parrilli M., de Castro C. Structural analysis of chondroitin sulfate from Scyliorhinus canicula: A useful source of this polysaccharide. Glycobiology. 2009;19:1485–1491. doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwp123. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
70. Takai M., Kono H. Salmon-Origin Chondroitin Sulphate. 20,030,162,744. U.S. Patent Appl. 2003 Aug 28;
71. Nishigori T., Takeda T., Ohori T. Method for Isolation and Purification of Chondroitin Sulfate. 2000273102-A. Jpn Patent. 2000 Oct 10;
72. Jang H., Yoon Y.K., Kim J.A., Kim H.S., An S.J., Seo J.H., Cui C., Carbis R. Optimization of Vi capsular polysaccharide production during growth of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi Ty2 in a bioreactor. J. Biotechnol. 2008;135:71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.02.017. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Cimini D., de Rosa M., Schiraldi C. Production of glucuronic acid-based polysaccharides by microbial fermentation for biomedical applications. Biotechnol. J. 2012;7:237–250. doi: 10.1002/biot.201100242. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
74. Rimler R.B. Presumptive identification of Pasteurella multocida serogroups A, D and F by capsule depolymerisation with mucopolysaccharides. Vet. Rec. 1994;134:191–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Rimler R.B., Register K.B., Magyar T., Ackermann M.R. Influence of chondroitinase on indirect hemagglutination titers and phagocytosis of Pasteurella multocida serogroups A, D and F. Vet. Microbiol. 1995;47:287–294. doi: 10.1016/0378-1135(95)00127-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
76. Cimini D., Restaino O.F., Catapano A., de Rosa M., Schiraldi C. Production of capsular polysaccharide from Escherichia coli K4 for biotechnological applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010;85:1779–1787. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2261-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
77. Restaino O.F., Cimini D., de Rosa M., Catapano A., de Rosa M., Schiraldi C. High cell density cultivation of Escherichia coli K4 in a microfiltration bioreactor: A step towards improvement of chondroitin precursor production. Microb. Cell Fact. 2011;10:1–10. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-10-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
78. Schiraldi C., Alfano A., Cimini D., de Rosa M., Panariello A., Restaino O.F., de Rosa M. Application of a 22L scale membrane bioreactor and cross-flow ultrafiltration to obtain purified chondroitin. Biotechnol. Prog. 2012;28:1012–1018. doi: 10.1002/btpr.1566. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
79. Schiraldi C., Carcarino L.I., Alfano A., Restaino O.F., Panariello A., de Rosa M. Purification of chondroitin precursor from Escherichia coli K4 fermentation broth using membrane processing. Biotechnol. J. 2011;6:410–419. doi: 10.1002/biot.201000266. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
80. Bedini E., de Castro C., de Rosa M., di Nola A., Iadonisi A., Restaino O.F., Schiraldi C., Parrilli M. A microbiological-chemical strategy to produce chondroitin sulphate A,C. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011;50:6160–6163. doi: 10.1002/anie.201101142. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
81. Nakano T., Nakano K., Sim J.S. A simple rapid method to estimate hyaluronic acid concentrations in rooster comb and wattle using cellulose acetate electrophoresis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1994;42:2766–2768. doi: 10.1021/jf00048a022. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
82. Cullis-Hill D. Preparation of Hyaluronic Acid from Synovial Fluid. 4,879,375. U.S. Patent. 1989 Nov 7;
83. Marcellin E., Chen W., Nielsen L.K. Microbial Hyaluronic Acid Biosynthesis. In: Rehm B.H.A., editor. Microbial Production of Biopolymers and Polymer Precursors: Applications and Perspectives. Caister Academic Press; Norwich, UK: 2009. pp. 163–180. [Google Scholar]
84. Imberty A., Lortat-Jacobb H., Pérez S. Structural view of glycosaminoglycan–protein interactions. Carbohydr. Res. 2007;342:430–439. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2006.12.019. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
85. Swann D.A. Studies on hyaluronic acid: I. The preparation and properties of rooster comb hyaluronic acid. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1968;156:17–30. doi: 10.1016/0304-4165(68)90099-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
86. Balazs E.A. Ultrapure Hyaluronic Acid and the Use Thereof. 4,141,973. U.S. Patent. 1979 Feb 27;
87. O’Regan M., Martini I., Crescenzi F., de Luca C., Lansing M. Molecular mechanisms and genetics of hyaluronan biosynthesis. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 1994;16:283–286. doi: 10.1016/0141-8130(94)90056-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
88. Radulescu G., Lupescu I., Petrea D.-M., Scurei H. Hyaluronic acid extraction from vitreous fluid. Biotechnol. Lett. 1997;2:147–152. [Google Scholar]
89. Gao Y.-Q., Liu J.-H., Huo X., Shan Y.-L., Xu Z.-X. The purification and identification of hyaluronic acid isolated from various tissues. Chin. Boichem. J. 1996;12:215–218. [Google Scholar]
90. Mizuno H., Iso N., Saito T., Ogawa H., Sawairi H., Saito M. Characterization of hyaluronic acid of yellowfin tuna eyeball. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi. 1991;57:517–519. doi: 10.2331/suisan.57.517. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
91. Ogrodowski C.S., Hokka C.O., Santana M.H.A. Production of hyaluronic acid by Streptococcus: The effects of the addition of lysozyme and aeration on the formation and the rheological properties of the product. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2005;5:121–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Liu L., Du G., Chen J., Wang M., Sun J. Influence of hyaluronidase addition on the production of hyaluronic acid by batch culture of Streptococcus zooepidemicus. Food Chem. 2008;110:923–926. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.02.082. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
93. Johns M.R., Goh L.T., Oeggerli A. Effect of pH, agitation and aeration on hyaluronic acid production by Streptococcus zooepidemicus. Biotechnol. Lett. 1994;16:507–512. doi: 10.1007/BF01023334. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
94. Huang W.C., Chen S.J., Chen T.L. The role of dissolved oxygen and function of agitation in hyaluronic acid fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2006;32:239–243. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2006.10.011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
95. Liu L., Du G., Chen J., Wang M., Sun J. Comparative study on the influence of dissolved oxygen control approaches on the microbial hyaluronic acid production of Streptococcus zooepidemicus. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2009;32:755–763. doi: 10.1007/s00449-009-0300-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
96. Hiruta O., Yamamura K., Takebe H., Futamura T., Ilnuma K., Tanaka H. Application of maxblend fermentor for microbial processes. J. Ferm. Bioeng. 1997;83:79–86. doi: 10.1016/S0922-338X(97)87331-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
97. Liu L., Wang M., Du G., Chen J. Enhanced hyaluronic acid production of Streptococcus zooepidemicus by an intermittent alkaline-stress strategy. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2008;46:383–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02325.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
98. Blank L.M., McLaughlin R.L., Nielsen L.K. Stable production of hyaluronic acid in Streptococcus zooepidemicus chemostats operated at high dilution rate. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2005;90:685–693. doi: 10.1002/bit.20466. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
99. Zhang J., Ding X., Yang L., Kong Z. A serum-free medium for colony growth and hyaluronic acid production by Streptococcus zooepidemicus NJUST01. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006;72:168–172. doi: 10.1007/s00253-005-0253-x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
100. Liu L., Du G., Chen J., Wang M., Sun J. Enhanced hyaluronic acid production by a two-stage culture strategy based on the modeling of batch and fed-batch cultivation of Streptococcus zooepidemicus. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:8532–8536. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.035. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
101. Vázquez J.A., Montemayor M.I., Fraguas J., Murado M.A. High production of hyaluronic and lactic acids by Streptococcus zooepidemicus in fed-batch culture using commercial and marine peptones from fishing by-products. Biochem. Eng. J. 2009;44:125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2008.11.007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
102. Vázquez J.A., Montemayor M.I., Fraguas J., Murado M.A. Hyaluronic acid production by Streptococcus zooepidemicus in marine by-products media from mussel processing wastewaters and tuna peptone viscera. Microb. Cell Fact. 2010;9:46. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-9-46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
103. Yamada T., Kawasaki T. Microbial synthesis of hyaluronan and chitin: New approaches. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2005;99:521–528. doi: 10.1263/jbb.99.521. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
104. Teng W.L., Khor E., Tan T.K., Lim L.Y., Tan S.C. Concurrent production of chitin from shrimp shells and fungi. Carbohydr. Res. 2001;332:305–316. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6215(01)00084-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
105. Roca C., Chagas B., Farinha I., Freitas F., Mafra L., Aguiar F., Oliveira R., Reis M.A.M. Production of yeast chitin-glucan complex from biodiesel industry byproduct. Process Biochem. 2012;47:1670–1675. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2012.04.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
106. Kurita K., Tomita K., Tada T., Ishii S., Nishimura S.-I., Shimoda K. Squid chitin as a potential alternative chitin source: Deacetylation behavior and characteristic properties. J. Polym. Sci. A. 1993;31:485–491. doi: 10.1002/pola.1993.080310220. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
107. Healy M., Green A., Healy A. Bioprocessing of marine crustacean shell waste. Acta Biotechnol. 2003;23:151–160. doi: 10.1002/abio.200390023. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
108. Jo G.H., Jung W.J., Kuk J.H., Oh K.T., Kim Y.J., Park R.D. Screening of protease-producing Serratia marcescens FS-3 and its application to deproteinization of crab shell waste for chitin extraction. Carbohydr. Polym. 2008;74:504–508. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.04.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
109. Manni L., Ghorbel-Bellaaj O., Jellouli K., Younes I., Nasri M. Extraction and characterization of chitin, chitosan, and protein hydrolysates prepared from shrimp waste by treatment with crude protease from Bacillus cereus SV1. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2010;162:345–357. doi: 10.1007/s12010-009-8846-y. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
110. Bautista J., Jover M., Gutiérrez J.F., Corpas R., Cremades O., Fontiveros E., Iglesias F., Vega J. Preparation of crayfish chitin by in situ lactic acid production. Process Biochem. 2001;37:229–234. doi: 10.1016/S0032-9592(01)00202-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
111. Jung W.J., Jo G.H., Kuk J.H., Kim Y.J., Oh K.T., Park R.D. Production of chitin from red crab shell waste by successive fermentation with Lactobacillus paracasei KCTC-3074 and Serratia marcescens FS-3. Carbohydr. Polym. 2007;68:746–750. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2006.08.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
112. Cira L.A., Huerta S., Hall G.M., Shirai K. Pilot scale lactic acid fermentation of shrimp wastes for chitin recovery. Process Biochem. 2002;37:1359–1366. doi: 10.1016/S0032-9592(02)00008-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
113. Rao M.S., Stevens W.F. Chitin production by Lactobacillus fermentation of shrimp biowaste in a drum reactor and its chemical conversion to chitosan. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2005;80:1080–1087. doi: 10.1002/jctb.1286. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
114. Muzzarelli R.A.A. Chitin. Pergamon Press; Oxford, UK: 1977. [Google Scholar]
115. Rinaudo M. Chitin and chitosan: Properties and applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2006;31:603–632. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2006.06.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
116. Minke R., Blackwell J. The structure of β-chitin. J. Mol. Biol. 1978;120:167–181. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(78)90063-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
117. Synowiecki J., Al-Khateeb N.A. Production, properties, and some new applications of chitin and its derivatives. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2003;43:145–171. doi: 10.1080/10408690390826473. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
118. Tharanathan R.N., Kittur F.S. Chitin—The undisputed biomolecule of great potential. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2003;43:61–87. doi: 10.1080/10408690390826455. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
119. Roberts G.A.F. Chitin Chemistry. Macmillan Press Ltd.; London, UK: 1992. pp. 85–91. [Google Scholar]
120. Rutherford F.A., Austin P.R. Marine Chitin Properties and Solvents. In: Muzzarelli R.A.A., Pariser E.R., editors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Chitin/Chitosan; Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Sea Grant Program; 1978. pp. 182–191. [Google Scholar]
121. Pillai C.K.S., Paul W., Sharma C.P. Chitin and chitosan polymers: Chemistry, solubility and fiber formation. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2009;34:641–678. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.04.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
122. Campaniello D., Bevilacqua A., Sinigaglia M., Corbo M.R. Chitosan: Antimicrobial activity and potential applications for preserving minimally processed strawberries. Food Microbiol. 2008;25:992–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2008.06.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
123. Huang D., Wang W., Kang Y., Wang A. Chitin and chitosan as multipurpose natural polymers for groundwater arsenic removal and As2O3 delivery in tumor therapy. J. Macromol. Sci. Pure Appl. Chem. 2012;49:971–979. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124. Sánchez R., Stringari G.B., Franco J.M., Valencia C., Gallegos C. Use of chitin, chitosan and acylated derivatives as thickener agents of vegetable oils for bio-lubricant applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2011;85:705–714. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.03.049. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
125. Aam B.B., Heggset E.B., Norberg A.L., Sørlie M., Vârum K.M., Eijsink V.G.H. Production of chitooligosaccharides and their potential applications in medicine. Mar. Drugs. 2010;8:1482–1517. doi: 10.3390/md8051482. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
126. Zhang J., Xia W., Liu P., Cheng Q., Tahirou T., Gu W., Li B. Chitosan modification and pharmaceutical/biomedical applications. Mar. Drugs. 2010;8:1962–1987. doi: 10.3390/md8071962. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
127. Jayakumar R., Menon D., Manzoor K., Nair S.V., Tamura H. Biomedical applications of chitin and chitosan based nanomaterials—A short review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2010;82:227–232. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.074. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
128. Rodríguez M.S., Albertengo L.A., Agulló E. Emulsification capacity of chitosan. Carbohydr. Polym. 2002;48:271–276. [Google Scholar]
129. Fajardo P., Martins J.T., Fuciños C., Pastrana L., Teixeira J.A., Vicente A.A. Evaluation of a chitosan-based edible film as carrier of natamycin to improve the storability of Saloio cheese. J. Food Eng. 2010;101:349–356. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.06.029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
130. Anchisi C., Meloni M.C., Maccioni A.M. Chitosan beads loaded with essential oils in cosmetic formulations. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2006;57:205–214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131. Shahidi F., Synowiecki J. Isolation and characterization of nutrients and value-added products from snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) and shrimp (Pandalus borealis) processing discards. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1991;39:1527–1532. doi: 10.1021/jf00008a032. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
132. Tolaimate A., Desbrières J., Rhazi M., Alagui A. Contribution to the preparation of chitins and chitosans with controlled physico-chemical properties. Polymers. 2003;44:7939–7952. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2003.10.025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
133. Duan S., Li L., Zhuang Z., Wu W., Hong S., Zhou J. Improved production of chitin from shrimp waste by fermentation with epiphytic lactic acid bacteria. Carbohydr. Polym. 2012;89:1283–1288. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.04.051. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
134. Chang K.L.B., Tsai G. Response surface optimization and kinetics of isolating chitin from pink shrimp (Solenocera melantho) shell waste. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997;45:1900–1904. doi: 10.1021/jf9606870. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
135. Broussignac P. Unhaut polymere naturel peu connu dans l’industrie, Le chitosane. Chim. Ind. Genie Chim. 1968;99:1241–1247. [Google Scholar]
136. Tolaimate A., Desbrières J., Rhazi M., Alagui A., Vincendon M., Vottero P. On the influence of deacetylation process on the physicochemical characteristics of chitosan from squid chitin. Polymer. 2000;41:2463–2469. doi: 10.1016/S0032-3861(99)00400-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
137. Valdez-Peña A.U., Espinoza-Pérez J.D., Sandoval-Fabian G.C., Balagurusamy N., Hernández-Rivera A., De-la-Garza-Rodríguez I.M., Contreras-Esquivel J.C. Screening of industrial enzymes for deproteinization of shrimp head for chitin recovery. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2010;19:553–557. doi: 10.1007/s10068-010-0077-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
138. Synowiecki J., Al-Khateeb N.A.A.Q. The recovery of protein hydrolysate during enzymatic isolation of chitin from shrimp Crangon crangon processing discards. Food Chem. 2000;68:147–152. doi: 10.1016/S0308-8146(99)00165-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
139. De Holanda H.D., Netto F.M. Recovery of components from shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) processing waste by enzymatic hydrolysis. J. Food Sci. 2006;71:C298–C303. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00040.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
140. Giyose N.Y., Mazomba N.T., Mabinya L.V. Evaluation of proteases produced by Erwinia chrysanthemi for the deproteinization of crustacean waste in a chitin production process. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010;9:707–711. [Google Scholar]
141. Haddar A., Hmidet N., Ghorbel-Bellaaj O., Fakhfakh-Zouari N., Sellami-Kamoun A., Nasri M. Alkaline proteases produced by Bacillus licheniformis RP1 grown on shrimp wastes: Application in chitin extraction, chicken feather-degradation and as a dehairing agent. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2011;16:669–678. doi: 10.1007/s12257-010-0410-7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
142. Sila A., Nasri R., Bougatef A., Nasri M. Digestive alkaline proteases from the goby (Zosterisessor ophiocephalus): Characterization and potential application as detergent additive and in the deproteinization of shrimp wastes. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2012;21:118–133. doi: 10.1080/10498850.2011.587149. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
143. Sachindra N.M., Bhaskar N., Siddegowda G.S., Sathisha A.D., Suresh P.V. Recovery of carotenoids from ensilaged shrimp waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2007;98:1642–1646. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
144. Hoffmann K., Daum G., Köster M., Kulicke W.-M., Meyer-Rammes H., Bisping B., Meinhardt F. Genetic improvement of Bacillus licheniformis strains for efficient deproteinization of shrimp shells and production of high-molecular-mass chitin and chitosan. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010;76:8211–8221. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01404-10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
145. Woods B. Microbiology of Fermented Foods. 2nd. Springer; New York, NY, USA: 1998. [Google Scholar]
146. Rao M.S., Muñoz J., Stevens W.F. Critical factors in chitin production by fermentation of shrimp biowaste. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2000;54:808–813. doi: 10.1007/s002530000449. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
147. Shirai K., Guerrero I., Huerta S., Saucedo G., Castillo A., Gonzalez R.O., Hall G.M. Effect of initial glucose concentration and inoculation level of lactic acid bacteria in shrimp waste ensilation. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2001;28:446–452. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(00)00338-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
148. Bhaskar N., Suresh P.V., Sakhare P.Z., Sachindra N.M. Shrimp biowaste fermentation with Pediococcus acidolactici CFR2182: Optimization of fermentation conditions by response surface methodology and effect of optimized conditions on deproteination/demineralization and carotenoid recovery. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2007;40:1427–1434. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2006.10.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
149. Arbia W., Adour L., Amrane A., Lounici H. Optimization of medium composition for enhanced chitin extraction from Parapenaeus longirostris by Lactobacillus helveticus using response surface methodology. Food Hydrocoll. 2013;31:392–403. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.10.025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
150. Ghorbel-Bellaaj O., Jellouli K., Younes I., Manni L., Ouled S.M., Nasri M. A solvent-stable metalloprotease produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa A2 grown on shrimp shell waste and its application in chitin extraction. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2011;164:410–425. doi: 10.1007/s12010-010-9144-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
151. Sini T.K., Santhosh S., Mathew P.T. Study on the production of chitin and chitosan from shrimp shell by using Bacillus subtilis fermentation. Carbohydr. Res. 2007;342:2423–2429. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2007.06.028. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
152. Healy M.G., Romo C.R., Bustos R. Bioconversion of marine crustacean shell waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1994;11:139–147. doi: 10.1016/0921-3449(94)90085-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
153. Aytekin O., Elibol M. Cocultivation of Lactococcus lactis and Teredinobacter turnirae for biological chitin extraction from prawn waste. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2010;33:393–399. doi: 10.1007/s00449-009-0337-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
154. Jung W.J., Jo G.H., Kuk J.H., Kim K.Y., Park R.D. Extraction of chitin from red crab shell waste by cofermentation with Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. tolerans KCTC-3074 and Serratia marcescens FS-3. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006;71:234–237. doi: 10.1007/s00253-005-0126-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
155. Pacheco N., Garnica-González M., Ramírez-Hernández J.Y., Flores-Albino B., Gimeno M., Bárzana E., Shirai K. Effect of temperature on chitin and astaxanthin recoveries from shrimp waste using lactic acid bacteria. Bioresour. Technol. 2009;100:2849–2854. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.019. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
156. Choorit W., Patthanamanee W., Manurakchinakorn S. Use of response surface method for the determination of demineralization efficiency in fermented shrimp shells. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:6168–6173. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.12.032. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
157. Synowiecki J., Al-Khateeb N.A.A.Q. Mycelia of Mucor rouxii as a source of chitin and chitosan. Food Chem. 1997;60:605–610. doi: 10.1016/S0308-8146(97)00039-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
158. Arcidiacono S., Kaplan D.L. Molecular weight distribution of chitosan isolated from Mucor rouxii under different culture and processing conditions. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1992;39:281–286. doi: 10.1002/bit.260390305. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
159. Chatterjee S., Adhya M., Guha A.K., Chatterjee B.P. Chitosan from Mucor rouxii: Production and physico-chemical characterization. Process Biochem. 2005;40:395–400. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2004.01.025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
160. Chatterjee S., Chatterjee B.P., Guha A.K. Kinetics of Mucor rouxii fermentation in relation to chitosan production. Res. J. Microbiol. 2010;5:361–365. [Google Scholar]
161. Martinou A., Bouriotis V., Stokke B.T., Vårum K.M. Mode of action of chitin deacetylase from Mucor rouxii on partially N-acetylated chitosans. Carbohydr. Res. 1998;311:71–78. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6215(98)00183-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
162. Trutnau M., Suckale N., Groeger G., Bley T., Ondruschka J. Enhanced chitosan production and modeling hyphal growth of Mucor rouxii interpreting the dependence of chitosan yields on processing and cultivation time. Eng. Life Sci. 2009;9:437–443. doi: 10.1002/elsc.200900012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
163. Kolodziejska I., Malesa-Ciecwierz M., Lerska A., Sikorski Z. Properties of chitin deacetylase from crude extracts of Mucor rouxii mycelium. J. Food Biochem. 1999;23:45–57. [Google Scholar]
164. Araki Y., Ito E. A pathway of chitosan formation in Mucor rouxii: Enzymatic deacetylation of chitin. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1974;56:669–675. doi: 10.1016/0006-291X(74)90657-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
165. Jeraj N., Kunic B., Lenasi H., Breskvar K. Purification and molecular characterization of chitin deacetylase from Rhizopus nigricans. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2006;39:1294–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2006.03.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
166. Alfonso C., Nuero O.M., Santamaria F., Reyes F. Purification of a heat-stable chitin deacetylase from Aspergillus nidulans and its role in cell wall degradation. Curr. Microbiol. 1995;30:49–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
167. Win N.N., Stevens W.F. Shrimp chitin as substrate for fungal chitin deacetylase. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001;57:334–341. doi: 10.1007/s002530100741. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
168. Zhao Y., Park R.-D., Muzzarelli R.A.A. Chitin deacetylases: Properties and applications. Mar. Drugs. 2010;8:24–46. doi: 10.3390/md8010024. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Marine Drugs are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)