生物技术进展 ›› 2024, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (2): 287-294.DOI: 10.19586/j.2095-2341.2023.0125
汪海涛1,2(
), 宋佳1,2, 余萍1,2(
), 陈雪娇1,2
收稿日期:2023-10-17
接受日期:2024-02-04
出版日期:2024-03-25
发布日期:2024-04-17
通讯作者:
余萍
作者简介:汪海涛 E-mail: 724312941@qq.com;
Haitao WANG1,2(
), Jia SONG1,2, Ping YU1,2(
), Xuejiao CHEN1,2
Received:2023-10-17
Accepted:2024-02-04
Online:2024-03-25
Published:2024-04-17
Contact:
Ping YU
摘要:
为优化植物乳植杆菌(Lactiplantibacillus plantarum)HCS03-001的冻干粉制备工艺,探究其抗幽门螺杆菌的功能效果,通过单因素试验、主因素分析和响应面试验优化植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001冻干粉的制备工艺,采用体外抑菌试验验证该益生菌的抗幽门螺杆菌功效。结果发现,优化后制备冻干粉的最佳工艺条件为:发酵温度37 ℃,发酵时间16 h,接种量5.2%,冻干时间44 h,在此条件下活菌数达到5.85×1011 CFU·g-1。体外抑菌试验结果表明植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001的发酵上清液和菌悬液均能有效抑制幽门螺杆菌的生长,抑制率达到69.55%~78.78%。研究结果表明植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001具备抗幽门螺杆菌的功能。
中图分类号:
汪海涛, 宋佳, 余萍, 陈雪娇. 植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001冻干粉制备工艺优化及抗幽门螺杆菌的功效[J]. 生物技术进展, 2024, 14(2): 287-294.
Haitao WANG, Jia SONG, Ping YU, Xuejiao CHEN. Optimization of Preparation Technology of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HCS03-001 Freeze-dried Powder and its Anti-Helicobacter pylori Function[J]. Current Biotechnology, 2024, 14(2): 287-294.
| 因素 | 水平 | |
|---|---|---|
| -1 | 1 | |
| 发酵温度/℃ | 35 | 36 |
| 发酵时间/h | 8 | 12 |
| 初始pH | 6.0 | 6.3 |
| 接种量/% | 1 | 3 |
| 冻干保护剂添加比例 | 1∶1 | 1:2 |
| 冻干时间/h | 40 | 42 |
表1 PB试验因素及水平设计
Table 1 Factors and level design of Plackett-Burman test
| 因素 | 水平 | |
|---|---|---|
| -1 | 1 | |
| 发酵温度/℃ | 35 | 36 |
| 发酵时间/h | 8 | 12 |
| 初始pH | 6.0 | 6.3 |
| 接种量/% | 1 | 3 |
| 冻干保护剂添加比例 | 1∶1 | 1:2 |
| 冻干时间/h | 40 | 42 |
| 因素 | 水平 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 发酵温度/℃ | 36 | 37 | 38 |
| 发酵时间/h | 12 | 16 | 24 |
| 接种量/% | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| 冻干时间/h | 42 | 44 | 46 |
表2 Box-Behnken设计因素水平编码表
Table 2 Horizontal coding table of Box-Behnken design factors
| 因素 | 水平 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 发酵温度/℃ | 36 | 37 | 38 |
| 发酵时间/h | 12 | 16 | 24 |
| 接种量/% | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| 冻干时间/h | 42 | 44 | 46 |
图1 不同因素对冻干粉活菌数的影响注:不同字母表示处理间差异在P<0.05水平上具有统计学意义,圆圈中为最优处理。
Fig. 1 The influence of different factors on the number of live bacteria in freeze-dried powder
| 实验编号 | 发酵温度/℃ | 发酵时间/h | 初始pH | 接种量/% | 冻干保护剂 | 冻干时间/h | 活菌数/(×1011 CFU·g-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 5.46 |
| 2 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 5.31 |
| 3 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 5.18 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 5.11 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 5.06 |
| 6 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.87 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 5.25 |
| 8 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 5.29 |
| 9 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 5.33 |
| 10 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 5.02 |
| 11 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 5.33 |
| 12 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 5.26 |
表3 Plackett-Burman试验设计与结果
Table 3 Design and results of Plackett-Burman experiment
| 实验编号 | 发酵温度/℃ | 发酵时间/h | 初始pH | 接种量/% | 冻干保护剂 | 冻干时间/h | 活菌数/(×1011 CFU·g-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 5.46 |
| 2 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 5.31 |
| 3 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 5.18 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 5.11 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 5.06 |
| 6 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.87 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 5.25 |
| 8 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 5.29 |
| 9 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 5.33 |
| 10 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 5.02 |
| 11 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 5.33 |
| 12 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 5.26 |
| 序号 | A:发酵温度/℃ | B:发酵时间/h | C:接种量/% | D:冻干时间/h | 活菌数/(×1011CFU·g-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5.68 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.79 |
| 3 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 5.48 |
| 4 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 5.44 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.81 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 4.74 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 4.94 |
| 8 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.09 |
| 9 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 4.52 |
| 10 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 5.17 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.98 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.83 |
| 13 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 4.75 |
| 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 4.49 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 4.78 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 5.64 |
| 17 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5.45 |
| 18 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5.08 |
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.33 |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 5.34 |
| 21 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.34 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.84 |
| 23 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 4.72 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.84 |
| 25 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4.97 |
| 26 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.65 |
| 27 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 4.16 |
| 28 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 4.80 |
| 29 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 5.04 |
表4 响应面试验结果
Table 4 Response surface test results
| 序号 | A:发酵温度/℃ | B:发酵时间/h | C:接种量/% | D:冻干时间/h | 活菌数/(×1011CFU·g-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5.68 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.79 |
| 3 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 5.48 |
| 4 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 5.44 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.81 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 4.74 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 4.94 |
| 8 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.09 |
| 9 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 4.52 |
| 10 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 5.17 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.98 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.83 |
| 13 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 4.75 |
| 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 4.49 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 4.78 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 5.64 |
| 17 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5.45 |
| 18 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5.08 |
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.33 |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 5.34 |
| 21 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.34 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.84 |
| 23 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 4.72 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.84 |
| 25 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4.97 |
| 26 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.65 |
| 27 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 4.16 |
| 28 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 4.80 |
| 29 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 5.04 |
| 项目 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | P值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 模型 | 6.73 | 14 | 0.48 | 1 344.61 | <0.000 1 |
| A-发酵温度 | 0.31 | 1 | 0.31 | 859.3 | <0.000 1 |
| B-发酵时间 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 412.33 | <0.000 1 |
| C-接种量 | 8.01×10-3 | 1 | 8.01×10-4 | 22.4 | 0.000 3 |
| D-冻干时间 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 313.66 | <0.000 1 |
| AB | 4.23×10-3 | 1 | 4.23×10-4 | 11.82 | 0.004 |
| AC | 1.23×10-3 | 1 | 1.23×10-4 | 3.43 | 0.085 4 |
| AD | 1.00×10-4 | 1 | 1.00×10-4 | 0.28 | 0.605 2 |
| BC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| BD | 1.00×10-4 | 1 | 1.00×10-4 | 0.28 | 0.605 2 |
| CD | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| A2 | 1.79 | 1 | 1.79 | 5 020.01 | <0.000 1 |
| B2 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.25 | 688.16 | <0.000 1 |
| C2 | 0.032 | 1 | 0.032 | 88.27 | <0.000 1 |
| D2 | 5.12 | 1 | 5.12 | 14 323.47 | <0.000 1 |
| 残差 | 5.01×10-3 | 14 | 3.58×10-4 | — | — |
| 失拟项 | 3.13×10-3 | 10 | 3.13×10-4 | 0.66 | 0.726 9 |
| 纯误差 | 1.88×10-3 | 4 | 4.70×10-4 | — | — |
| 总离差 | 6.73 | 28 | — | — | — |
表5 回归模型方差分析
Table 5 Analysis of variance of regression model
| 项目 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | P值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 模型 | 6.73 | 14 | 0.48 | 1 344.61 | <0.000 1 |
| A-发酵温度 | 0.31 | 1 | 0.31 | 859.3 | <0.000 1 |
| B-发酵时间 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 412.33 | <0.000 1 |
| C-接种量 | 8.01×10-3 | 1 | 8.01×10-4 | 22.4 | 0.000 3 |
| D-冻干时间 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 313.66 | <0.000 1 |
| AB | 4.23×10-3 | 1 | 4.23×10-4 | 11.82 | 0.004 |
| AC | 1.23×10-3 | 1 | 1.23×10-4 | 3.43 | 0.085 4 |
| AD | 1.00×10-4 | 1 | 1.00×10-4 | 0.28 | 0.605 2 |
| BC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| BD | 1.00×10-4 | 1 | 1.00×10-4 | 0.28 | 0.605 2 |
| CD | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| A2 | 1.79 | 1 | 1.79 | 5 020.01 | <0.000 1 |
| B2 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.25 | 688.16 | <0.000 1 |
| C2 | 0.032 | 1 | 0.032 | 88.27 | <0.000 1 |
| D2 | 5.12 | 1 | 5.12 | 14 323.47 | <0.000 1 |
| 残差 | 5.01×10-3 | 14 | 3.58×10-4 | — | — |
| 失拟项 | 3.13×10-3 | 10 | 3.13×10-4 | 0.66 | 0.726 9 |
| 纯误差 | 1.88×10-3 | 4 | 4.70×10-4 | — | — |
| 总离差 | 6.73 | 28 | — | — | — |
| 组别 | OD600 | 抑菌圈直径/mm | 幽门螺杆菌抑制率/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 空白对照 | — | 0 | 0 |
| 阳性对照 | — | 20.92±1.02** | 100.00** |
| 菌悬液 | 1.911 | 16.48±2.14** | 78.78** |
| 发酵上清液 | 0.253 | 14.55±0.84** | 69.55** |
表6 植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001发酵上清液和菌悬液的抑菌率
Table 6 Bacteriostatic rate of fermentation supernatant and bacterial suspension of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HCS03-001
| 组别 | OD600 | 抑菌圈直径/mm | 幽门螺杆菌抑制率/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 空白对照 | — | 0 | 0 |
| 阳性对照 | — | 20.92±1.02** | 100.00** |
| 菌悬液 | 1.911 | 16.48±2.14** | 78.78** |
| 发酵上清液 | 0.253 | 14.55±0.84** | 69.55** |
图4 植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001发酵上清液和菌悬液的抑菌效果注:图中左上为甲硝唑阳性对照,右上为MRS空白培养基,左下为植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001发酵上清液,右下为植物乳植杆菌HCS03-001发酵菌悬液。
Fig. 4 Bacteriostatic effect of fermentation supernatant and bacterial suspension of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HCS03-001
| 1 | SAVOLDI A, CARRARA E, GRAHAM D Y, et al.. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori: a systematic review and meta-analysis in World Health Organization regions[J]. Gastroenterology, 2018, 155(5): 1372-1382. |
| 2 | LOSURDO G, CUBISINO R, BARONE M, et al.. Probiotic monotherapy and Helicobacter pylori eradication: a systematic review with pooled-data analysis[J]. World J. Gastroenterol., 2018, 24(1): 139-149. |
| 3 | 刘昆梅,刘宏鹏,郭乐.幽门螺杆菌ATCC 43504感染BALB/c小鼠动物胃炎模型的建立及分析[J].生物技术进展,2015,5(6):446-450. |
| LIU K M, LIU H P, GUO L. Establishment and analysis of gastritic model of Helicobacter pylori ATCC 43504 infection in BALB/c mice[J]. Curr. Biotechnol., 2015, 5(6): 446-450. | |
| 4 | 陈霞,夏晨梅,戴再友,等.十二指肠溃疡中幽门螺杆菌定植与菌群结构的关系[J].生物技术进展,2019,9(5):536-542. |
| CHEN X, XIA C M, DAI Z Y, et al.. The relationship between Helicobacter pylori colonization and duodenal flora structure in duodenal ulcer[J]. Curr. Biotechnol., 2019, 9(5): 536-542. | |
| 5 | MESTRE A, SATHIYA N R, RIVAS D, et al. Role of probiotics in the management of Helicobacter pylori [J/OL]. Cureus, 2022, 14(6): e26463 [2023-09-21]. . |
| 6 | 朱红梅,刘颖初,薛元,等.2012-2022年中国幽门螺杆菌流行病学Meta分析[J].预防医学情报杂志,2023,39(9):1124-1137. |
| ZHU H M, LIU Y C, XUE Y, et al.. Meta-analysis of epidemiology of Helicobacter pylori infection in China from 2012 to 2022[J]. J. Prev. Med. Inf., 2023, 39(9): 1124-1137. | |
| 7 | PENUMETCHA S S, AHLUWALIA S, IRFAN R, et al.. The efficacy of probiotics in the management of Helicobacter pylori: a systematic review[J/OL]. Cureus, 2021, 13(12): e20483[2023-09-22]. . |
| 8 | CHEY W D, LEONTIADIS G I, HOWDEN C W, et al.. ACG clinical guideline: treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection[J]. Am. J. Gastroenterol., 2017, 112(2): 212-239 |
| 9 | JI J, YANG H. Using probiotics as supplementation for Helicobacter pylori antibiotic therapy[J/OL]. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2020, 21(3): 1136[2023-09-21]. . |
| 10 | QURESHI N, LI P, GU Q. Probiotic therapy in Helicobacter pylori infection: a potential strategy against a serious pathogen?[J]. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2019, 103(4): 1573-1588. |
| 11 | BATDORJ B, TRINETTA V, DALGALARRONDO M, et al.. Isolation, taxonomic identification and hydrogen peroxide production by Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. lactis T31, isolated from Mongolian yoghurt: inhibitory activity on food-borne pathogens fool-borne pathogens[J]. J. Appl. Microbiol., 2007, 103(3): 584-593. |
| 12 | BAI X, ZHU M, HE Y, et al.. The impacts of probiotics in eradication therapy of Helicobacter pylori [J/OL]. Arch. Microbiol., 2022, 204(12): 692[2023-09-22]. . |
| 13 | 汪海涛,汤纯,闵祥博,等.植物乳杆菌HCS03-001对龋病防治作用研究[J].中国乳品工业,2023,51(8):20-24. |
| WANG H T, TANG C, MIN X B, et al.. Prevention and treatment effect on dental caries of Lactobacillus plantarum HCS03-001[J]. China Dairy Ind., 2023, 51(8): 20-24. | |
| 14 | 宋佳,余萍,矫艳平,等.具有缓解口臭效果的植物乳杆菌HCS03-001对食品防腐剂的耐受性研究[J].中国食品添加剂,2022,33(11):113-117. |
| SONG J, YU P, JIAO Y P, et al.. Tolerance to food preservatives of Lactobacillus plantarum HCS03-001 with halitosis relieving effect[J]. China Food Addit., 2022, 33(11): 113-117. | |
| 15 | 陈雪,矫艳平,余萍,等.植物乳杆菌HCS03-001对小鼠功能性便秘及肠道菌群的影响[J].中国酿造,2022,41(1):55-58. |
| CHEN X, JIAO Y P, YU P, et al.. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum HCS03-001 on functional constipation and intestinal flora in mice[J]. China Brew., 2022, 41(1): 55-58. | |
| 16 | 矫艳平,余萍,赵迪,等.植物乳杆菌HCS03-001安全性评价及其益生特性分析[J].食品工业科技,2022,43(5):165-171. |
| JIAO Y P, YU P, ZHAO D, et al.. Safety evaluation and probiotic characteristics analysis of Lactobacillus plantarum HCS03-001[J]. Sci. Technol. Food Ind., 2022, 43(5): 165-171. | |
| 17 | 周宇朦.维生素K2菌株的选育及高效发酵技术的研究[D].沈阳:沈阳农业大学,2020. |
| 18 | 张立华,王一樊,张旭阳,等.响应面分析法优化酶法提取红景天苷的工艺研究[J].生物技术进展,2023, 3(3):441-448. |
| ZHANG L H, WANG Y F, ZHANG X Y, et al.. Optimization of enzymatic extraction process of salidroside by response surface analysis[J]. Curr. Biotechnol. 2023, 13(3): 441-448. | |
| 19 | 管爱星,黄玉存,黄干荣,等.益生菌的不同组合体外抗幽门螺杆菌作用的实验研究[J].右江民族医学院学报,2023,45(2):208-212+217. |
| GUAN A X, HUANG Y C, HUANG G R, et al.. Experimental study on anti-helicobacter pylori effect of different combinations of probiotics in vitro[J]. J. Youjiang Med. Univ. Natl., 2023, 45(2): 208-212+217. | |
| 20 | 张美怡,翟齐啸,赵建新,等.鼠李糖乳杆菌JS-SZ-2-1抗幽门螺杆菌感染的临床效果评价[J].食品与发酵工业,2020,46(23):29-34. |
| ZHANG M Y, ZHAI Q X, ZHAO J X, et al.. Clinical efficacy evaluation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus JS-SZ-2-1 against Helicobacter pylori infection[J]. Food Ferment. Ind., 2020, 46(23): 29-34. |
| [1] | 张梦华, 曲远航, 王培培, 董丽红, 张家齐, 付一帆, 杨威, 郭庆港, 李社增, 魏学军. 生防贝莱斯芽孢杆菌SD23LJ1314发酵培养基的筛选及优化[J]. 生物技术进展, 2026, 16(1): 131-139. |
| [2] | 高晓晶, 张祝兰, 林仙菊, 邱观荣, 温耀明, 范建辉, 黄洪祥. 基于响应面法优化环孢菌素A发酵工艺的研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2025, 15(3): 518-525. |
| [3] | 邱思元, 徐晶雪, 张奕婷, 孙盛阳, 盛冬雪, 高佳欣, 曲丽娜. 生物压裂液驱提页岩油内源复合菌群的筛选与条件优化[J]. 生物技术进展, 2025, 15(2): 305-313. |
| [4] | 范宏博, 胡良勇, 胡松青. 幽门螺杆菌ureC和23S rDNA数字PCR检测体系的建立[J]. 生物技术进展, 2024, 14(5): 868-874. |
| [5] | 宋佳, 李雪龙, 林欣梅, 余萍, 杨思程, 彭永振, 矫艳平, 陈雪娇. 罗伊氏粘液乳杆菌HCS02-001培养方法优化及改善睡眠功能研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2024, 14(1): 133-140. |
| [6] | 张立华, 王一樊, 张旭阳, 刘千盈, 高思琦, 焦健. 响应面分析法优化酶法提取红景天苷的工艺研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2023, 13(3): 441-448. |
| [7] | 刘蕾, 周欣悦, 朱桢, 曹烨, 王文彬. 副溶血弧菌外膜铁蛋白受体pvuA基因的原核表达及产物的诱导条件优化[J]. 生物技术进展, 2022, 12(3): 396-404. |
| [8] | 张红兵,刘荟,史秀英,李会宣,范道春. 产油微藻的选育及其培养条件优化[J]. 生物技术进展, 2020, 10(3): 311-319. |
| [9] | 王英燕,陈文娜,贾存江,房树标,秦斌,朱正乔. 发酵法生产制备番茄红素的工艺研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2020, 10(3): 320-327. |
| [10] | 邱冠宇,李维杰,刘宝林. 响应面法降低肝细胞冷冻保护液中的二甲基亚砜浓度[J]. 生物技术进展, 2020, 10(2): 185-189. |
| [11] | 石江传,石佳,于明晓,赵伟学,徐昊,徐磊. 响应面法优化火麻仁油微胶囊喷雾干燥工艺的研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2020, 10(2): 198-204. |
| [12] | 陈霞,夏晨梅,戴再友,李倩倩,金玲肖,林佩丽,张忠臣,钟海兵,颜海帆,王国平,戴丽,钟玉芬,吴忠标4. 十二指肠溃疡中幽门螺杆菌定植与菌群结构的关系[J]. 生物技术进展, 2019, 9(5): 536-542. |
| [13] | 胡琴汉,汪伟,罗应彪,杜芳,仰榴青,赵婷. 响应面分析法优化超声波辅助酶法提取南五味子多糖工艺的研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2018, 8(4): 351-357. |
| [14] | 郑大恒,王未,李倩,陈瑶,张伟杰,赵婷4,仰榴青4. 响应面法优化玫瑰茄粗多糖提取工艺及其抗氧化活性的研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2018, 8(2): 161-168. |
| [15] | 郑威,周迎红,刘金龙4. 拟青霉A20140822发酵生产虫草素工艺的响应面优化研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2017, 7(6): 625-631. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||