| Type of microorganism |
Bacterium |
| Microorganism name |
Methylophilus methylotrophus
|
| Temperature range |
|
| pH range |
pH 6.5-7 (Vasey & Powell, 1984)
|
| Carbon and nitrogen source |
|
| Growth rate (µ) |
Maximum specific growth rate of 0.52/hour (Vasey & Powell, 1984)
|
| Companies (product) |
|
| Wild-type or GMO |
Wild-type |
| Feedstock case studies (suitable substrates) |
Methanol (Vasey & Powell, 1984)
|
| % SCP (w/w percentage of protein in dried biomass) |
81.3% (Øverland et al., 2010)
|
| cell biomass dry weight (CDW) = biomass yield? (g/L or g/g?) (weight of biomass/total weight or volume) |
|
| Protein content in final product |
72% (w/w) for Pruteen
|
| Protein titer (g/L or g/g?) grams of protein / total weight or volume |
35-42% (w/w) for the industrial Pruteen process (own calculation based on Vasey & Powell, (1984), with assumption that %SCP in this process is 81.3%, this is the average value of the Pruteen proces according to Øverland et al., (2010)) |
| Productivity (g/Lh) |
6 for Pruteen on industrial scale on methanol as substrate (Vasey & Powell, 1984)
|
| Protein yield on C-source (% w/w) |
Biomass yield on C source is 50% for the industrial Pruteen process (Vasey & Powell, 1984). I then calculated the protein yield to be 40.65% (w/w) (with assumption that %SCP in this process is 81.3%, this is the average value of the Pruteen proces according to Øverland et al., (2010)) |
| Scale |
Was done on industrial scale (1500 m3 for Pruteen) (Westlake, 1986)
|
| Downstream purification processing complexity |
Flocculation step by combination of heat shock and pH change (also to reduce nucleic acid content). This is seperated by floatation. Then a second seperation step is done by centrifugation (Westlake, 1986)
|
| Nucleic acid content |
15.9% (Øverland et al., 2010)
|
| Techno-functional and/or nutritional properties (e.g. meat-like texture, amino acid profile, digestibility) |
High protein content (all amino acids present). All amino acids present in similar amounts as standard fish feed. (Øverland et al., 2010)
|
| Target application (Food, feed, other) |
Pruteen was used in feed. |
| Advantages |
Rich in proteins, all amino acids present. |
| Challenges (Key limitations, risk factors) |
Price of substrate (methanol) is high, leading to shutdown of previous products (Pruteen). No regulatory status for use in food anywhere in the world, for feed only in Europe. |
| Regulatory status in Europe |
Allowed for use in feed Europe. Not allowed in food
|
| Regulatory status in other parts of the world |
No evidence found that it is allowed as biomass fermentation product in Canada, US or Singapore |
| Extra/remark |
|
| Publications/references |
-
Øverland, M., Tauson, A., Shearer, K., & Skrede, A. (2010). Evaluation of methane-utilising bacteria products as feed ingredients for monogastric animals. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 64(3), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450391003691534
-
Celanese Corporation. (1976, March). Process for culturing methylophilus methylotrophus. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/4652527.html
-
Vasey, R., & Powell, K. (1984). Single-Cell Protein. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 2(1), 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/02648725.1984.10647802
-
Westlake, R. (1986). Large‐scale Continuous Production of Single Cell Protein. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 58(12), 934–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.330581203
|