Cichoric acid production from hairy root cultures of <i>Echinacea purpurea</i> grown in a modified airlift bioreactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Hairy root cultures of Echinacea offer great potential for the production of valuable cichoric acid, but scale‐up of the culture in the bioreactor represents a big challenge. Therefore, there is great interest in developing a suitable bioreactor for hairy root culture of Echinacea and novel bioprocessing strategies for intensifying cichoric acid production. RESULTS: Homogenous distribution of inoculum roots and high cichoric acid production were observed in a bioreactor modified by installing a mesh draught tube with an average pore size 700 µm, slightly larger than the hairy root, about 500 µm. Improved root growth and cichoric acid production were improved by increasing the aeration rate from 0.002 m3 h−1 to 0.012 m3 h−1. The hairy root cultures in the modified bioreactor exposed once to 6 min of ultrasound treatment at day 20 gave the highest biomass accumulation of 12.8 ± 0.3 g L−1, which resulted in the maximum cichoric acid production of 178.2 ± 4.9 mg L−1 at day 30. CONCLUSION: The present work demonstrated the effectiveness of hairy root culture in a modified airlift bioreactor. The biomass distribution remained homogenous in the modified airlift bioreactor, and the cichoric acid production was improved owing to the even root growth at optimal air flow rate. An interesting finding of this investigation was that ultrasound stimulated root growth and cichoric acid production considerably in the modified airlift bioreactor. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".