Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii

Autores
Rojas Tapias, Daniel; Ortíz Vera, Mabel; Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio; Kloepper, Joseph; Bonilla, Ruth
Año de publicación
2013
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Because the use of bacteria for biotechnological processes requires maintaining their viability and genetic stability, preserving them becomes essential. Here, we evaluated three preservation methods for A. chroococcum C26 and A. vinelandii C27; preservation methods: cryopreservation and immobilization in dry polymers for 60 days, and freeze-drying for 30. We evaluated their efficiency by counting viable cells and measuring nitrogen fixation activity. Additionally, we assessed the effect of three protective agents for freeze-drying, three for cryopreservation, and four polymers. Freeze-drying proved the best technique to maintain viability and activity, followed by immobilization and cryopreservation. Bacterial nitrogen fixing ability remained unchanged using the freeze-drying method, and bacterial survival exceeded 80%; S/BSA was the best protective agent. Immobilization maintained bacterial survival over 80%, but nitrogen fixation was decreased by 20%. Lastly, cryopreservation resulted in a dramatic loss of viability for C26 (BSR approx. 70%), whereas C27 was well preserved. Nitrogen fixation for both strains decreased regardless of the cryoprotective agent used (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the success of Azotobacter preservation methods depend on the technique, the protective agent, and the strain used. Our results also indicated that freeze- drying using S/BSA is the best technique to preserve bacteria of this genus.
Fil: Rojas Tapias, Daniel. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia
Fil: Ortíz Vera, Mabel. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia
Fil: Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Kloepper, Joseph. Auburn University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bonilla, Ruth. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia
Materia
Azotobacter
Bacterial preservation
Cryopreservation
Freeze-drying
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/23697

id CONICETDig_c03a20057fd6e508055e474eaa587cc1
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/23697
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandiiRojas Tapias, DanielOrtíz Vera, MabelRivera Botia, Diego MauricioKloepper, JosephBonilla, RuthAzotobacterBacterial preservationCryopreservationFreeze-dryinghttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.9https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2Because the use of bacteria for biotechnological processes requires maintaining their viability and genetic stability, preserving them becomes essential. Here, we evaluated three preservation methods for A. chroococcum C26 and A. vinelandii C27; preservation methods: cryopreservation and immobilization in dry polymers for 60 days, and freeze-drying for 30. We evaluated their efficiency by counting viable cells and measuring nitrogen fixation activity. Additionally, we assessed the effect of three protective agents for freeze-drying, three for cryopreservation, and four polymers. Freeze-drying proved the best technique to maintain viability and activity, followed by immobilization and cryopreservation. Bacterial nitrogen fixing ability remained unchanged using the freeze-drying method, and bacterial survival exceeded 80%; S/BSA was the best protective agent. Immobilization maintained bacterial survival over 80%, but nitrogen fixation was decreased by 20%. Lastly, cryopreservation resulted in a dramatic loss of viability for C26 (BSR approx. 70%), whereas C27 was well preserved. Nitrogen fixation for both strains decreased regardless of the cryoprotective agent used (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the success of Azotobacter preservation methods depend on the technique, the protective agent, and the strain used. Our results also indicated that freeze- drying using S/BSA is the best technique to preserve bacteria of this genus.Fil: Rojas Tapias, Daniel. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; ColombiaFil: Ortíz Vera, Mabel. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; ColombiaFil: Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Kloepper, Joseph. Auburn University; Estados UnidosFil: Bonilla, Ruth. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; ColombiaPontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Ciencias2013-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/23697Rojas Tapias, Daniel; Ortíz Vera, Mabel; Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio; Kloepper, Joseph; Bonilla, Ruth; Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Ciencias; Universitas Scientiarum; 18; 2; 6-2013; 129-1392027-1352CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.11144/Javeriana.SC18-2.etmpinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/scientarium/article/view/4404info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T10:06:04Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/23697instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 10:06:04.476CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
title Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
spellingShingle Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
Rojas Tapias, Daniel
Azotobacter
Bacterial preservation
Cryopreservation
Freeze-drying
title_short Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
title_full Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
title_fullStr Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
title_sort Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Rojas Tapias, Daniel
Ortíz Vera, Mabel
Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio
Kloepper, Joseph
Bonilla, Ruth
author Rojas Tapias, Daniel
author_facet Rojas Tapias, Daniel
Ortíz Vera, Mabel
Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio
Kloepper, Joseph
Bonilla, Ruth
author_role author
author2 Ortíz Vera, Mabel
Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio
Kloepper, Joseph
Bonilla, Ruth
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Azotobacter
Bacterial preservation
Cryopreservation
Freeze-drying
topic Azotobacter
Bacterial preservation
Cryopreservation
Freeze-drying
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.9
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Because the use of bacteria for biotechnological processes requires maintaining their viability and genetic stability, preserving them becomes essential. Here, we evaluated three preservation methods for A. chroococcum C26 and A. vinelandii C27; preservation methods: cryopreservation and immobilization in dry polymers for 60 days, and freeze-drying for 30. We evaluated their efficiency by counting viable cells and measuring nitrogen fixation activity. Additionally, we assessed the effect of three protective agents for freeze-drying, three for cryopreservation, and four polymers. Freeze-drying proved the best technique to maintain viability and activity, followed by immobilization and cryopreservation. Bacterial nitrogen fixing ability remained unchanged using the freeze-drying method, and bacterial survival exceeded 80%; S/BSA was the best protective agent. Immobilization maintained bacterial survival over 80%, but nitrogen fixation was decreased by 20%. Lastly, cryopreservation resulted in a dramatic loss of viability for C26 (BSR approx. 70%), whereas C27 was well preserved. Nitrogen fixation for both strains decreased regardless of the cryoprotective agent used (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the success of Azotobacter preservation methods depend on the technique, the protective agent, and the strain used. Our results also indicated that freeze- drying using S/BSA is the best technique to preserve bacteria of this genus.
Fil: Rojas Tapias, Daniel. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia
Fil: Ortíz Vera, Mabel. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia
Fil: Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Kloepper, Joseph. Auburn University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bonilla, Ruth. Corporación Colombia de Investigación Agropecuaria; Colombia
description Because the use of bacteria for biotechnological processes requires maintaining their viability and genetic stability, preserving them becomes essential. Here, we evaluated three preservation methods for A. chroococcum C26 and A. vinelandii C27; preservation methods: cryopreservation and immobilization in dry polymers for 60 days, and freeze-drying for 30. We evaluated their efficiency by counting viable cells and measuring nitrogen fixation activity. Additionally, we assessed the effect of three protective agents for freeze-drying, three for cryopreservation, and four polymers. Freeze-drying proved the best technique to maintain viability and activity, followed by immobilization and cryopreservation. Bacterial nitrogen fixing ability remained unchanged using the freeze-drying method, and bacterial survival exceeded 80%; S/BSA was the best protective agent. Immobilization maintained bacterial survival over 80%, but nitrogen fixation was decreased by 20%. Lastly, cryopreservation resulted in a dramatic loss of viability for C26 (BSR approx. 70%), whereas C27 was well preserved. Nitrogen fixation for both strains decreased regardless of the cryoprotective agent used (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the success of Azotobacter preservation methods depend on the technique, the protective agent, and the strain used. Our results also indicated that freeze- drying using S/BSA is the best technique to preserve bacteria of this genus.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-06
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/23697
Rojas Tapias, Daniel; Ortíz Vera, Mabel; Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio; Kloepper, Joseph; Bonilla, Ruth; Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Ciencias; Universitas Scientiarum; 18; 2; 6-2013; 129-139
2027-1352
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/23697
identifier_str_mv Rojas Tapias, Daniel; Ortíz Vera, Mabel; Rivera Botia, Diego Mauricio; Kloepper, Joseph; Bonilla, Ruth; Evaluation of three methods for preservation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter vinelandii; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Ciencias; Universitas Scientiarum; 18; 2; 6-2013; 129-139
2027-1352
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.11144/Javeriana.SC18-2.etmp
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/scientarium/article/view/4404
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Ciencias
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Ciencias
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842269941201371136
score 13.13397