Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial cultivation

Oghenerobor B. Akpor; Damilola E. Odesola; Remilekun E. Thomas; Olarewaju M. Oluba

doi:10.12688/f1000research.17134.2

Home Browse Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial cultivation

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Oghenerobor B. Akpor ¹, Damilola E. Odesola¹, Remilekun E. Thomas¹, Olarewaju M. Oluba²

PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2019

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara, 251101, Nigeria
² Department of Biochemistry, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State, 251101, Nigeria

Oghenerobor B. Akpor
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Damilola E. Odesola
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Remilekun E. Thomas
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Olarewaju M. Oluba
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Commercially available conventional growth medium for the culture of microbes are expensive, hence the need for alternative cheaper sources. Poultry waste, in the form of feather and blood, are of value in biotechnology because of their high protein content. Hence the primary aim of this study was to produce a cheaper peptone alternative from chicken feather protein hydrolysate (CFPH) and blood meal (BM).
Methods: We monitored the growth of selected bacteria and fungi in different concentrations of medium produced from varying combination of peptone, CFPH and BM in order to determine the combination that produced maximum growth. Five different media, namely 100% peptone (control), 100% BM, 40% peptone + 60% CFPH, 40% BM + 60% CFPH and 20% peptone + 20% BM + 60% CFPH were prepared and used for the study. The different media were inoculated with 1 ml of each test organism (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida carpophila, Candida tropicalis and Pichia kundriavzevii) and their growth monitored for 10 h.
Results: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis and Staphylococcus aureus grew best in the 100% peptone, Klebsiella pneumoniae grew best in 100 BM. The fungi species were observed to grow best in 100% peptone. The 60% CFPH + 40% peptone combination (CFPH obtained with precipitate of trichloroacetic acid (TCA), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and nitic acid (HNO₃) gave the best growth of E. coli. The 60% CFPH + 40% peptone combination (CFPH obtained with precipitate of TCA) also gave the best growth of C. tropicalis and Klebsiella pneumoniae.
Conclusions: Overall, the 60% CFPH + 40% peptone combination showed the most potential as an alternative to peptone, especially for E. coli.

Keywords

Culture media, chicken feather, keratin, hydrolysate, bacteria, yeasts, growth rate, protein source

Corresponding author: Oghenerobor B. Akpor

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2019 Akpor OB et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Akpor OB, Odesola DE, Thomas RE and Oluba OM. Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial cultivation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2019, 7:1918 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17134.2) First published: 10 Dec 2018, 7:1918 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17134.1) Latest published: 07 Aug 2019, 7:1918 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17134.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The current version of the manuscript is an amended version after addressing issues raised by the reviewer.
The revision contains a citation of where the cleaning method for feathers was obtained.
Also, this version ensures the naming for the medium combinations is consistent throughout the manuscript.
All typographical errors as pointed out by the reviewer are corrected.
In the abstract, TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ are corrected as trichloroacetic acid (TCA), hydrochloric acid (HCl), sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and nitric acid (HNO3).
Citation to justify the use of 1 M NaOH for hydrolysis and the choice of the acids for precipitation is also included.
“Blood” has been changed to “blood meal (BM)” as indicated by the reviewer.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Swati Sharma
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Pius Okiki

Introduction

Microbial culture medium is composed of different nutrients required by organisms for growth. The nutrient requirements of microorganisms differ from one to another as there are many types of microorganisms. Generally, the microbial growth composition includes carbon and energy sources, protein hydrolysates, otherwise known as peptones, extracts, buffers and sometimes gelling agents. Microorganisms will only be able to grow if they are provided with the appropriate nutrients for growth. Apart from carbon, microbes require a source of nitrogen. Amino acids, urea, ammonia and other compound may serve as the nitrogen source. Some organisms also possess the ability to metabolize peptides and more complex proteins (Sandle, 2016).

The protein source for microbial culture is derived from peptone, which is a good source of amino acids, peptides and proteins in growth medium. It is an excellent source of nitrogen. However, it is also a very expensive constituent of the microbial culture medium (Taskin & Kubanoglu, 2011). Different natural products, such as milk, animal tissues and plants, are being exploited for obtaining peptone in order to reduce the costs of production of the growth medium (Jayathilakan et al., 2012; Ben Rebah & Miled, 2013).

It is estimated that about 20 million tons of chicken feathers are generated weekly worldwide and are considered menaces in terms of solid waste pollution (Egelyng et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018). In a bid to dispose of the large amounts waste chicken feathers generated worldwide, methods such as landfill and burning have been used, which have taken a toll on the environment (Sharma et al., 2017).

To reduce the burden of waste generated by disposed chicken feathers, a number of processes and operations involving the application of chicken feathers have been reported. Chicken feathers have been employed in the production of animal feed, textile production and paper production amongst many others (Chinta et al., 2013; Moritz & Latshaw, 2001; Tesfaye et al., 2017).

Chicken feathers contain more than 90% protein (keratin), 1% lipids and 8% water (Lasekan et al., 2013). Keratin proteins are grouped into the alpha and beta keratins. Chicken feathers and feathers from most birds are composed majorly of the beta-keratin. Keratin contains all 20 amino acids linked together by peptide bonds, which include covalent disulphide bonds, ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic bonds (Greenwold et al., 2014). Keratins are bonded by a number of these bonds which make them naturally insoluble. These bonds require that they be broken in other to obtain the chicken feathers in usable forms for microorganisms. By hydrolysis, the bonds are broken, a soluble product is formed (hydrolysate) and the peptone can be obtained from the chicken feather keratin (Ayutthaya & Wootthikanokkhan, 2013). The conversion of such large amounts of chicken feathers into hydrolyzed forms for the manufacture of microbial culture medium can be used as a measure of solving this problem. The chicken feather keratin can then be incorporated into the production of microbial culture medium. This study was therefore targeted at utilizing the keratin in the waste chicken feathers as a cheaper alternative to peptone and also a nitrogen source for microbial growth.

Methods

Pretreatment of chicken feathers

Chicken feathers were collected from the poultry house in Landmark University Commercial Farm in Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria. The feathers were first washed with water and laundry detergent before disinfecting with 5% hypochloride solution, as described previously by Akpor et al. (2018a). Following disinfection, the feathers were sun-dried for one week and stored in baskets until when needed.

Feather hydrolysis

Hydrolysis of the feather carried out as reported by earlier investigators (Akpor et al., 2018a). For hydrolysis, approximately 400 g of dried chicken feathers were placed in 10-l plastic container, after which 2000 ml 1 M NaOH was added. The feather-NaOH mixture was stirred vigorously and left to stand for 10 h. After hydrolysis, the mixture was filtered with a clean, dry muslin cloth and the unhydrolyzed fraction estimated. The quantification of the unhydrolyzed fraction was carried out after drying in an oven to constant weight and then weighed to ascertain the degree of hydrolysis.

Precipitation of feather keratin

Feather keratin was precipitated separately from the hydrolyzed feather solution, using 1 M solutions of the following acids: hydrochloric acid (HCl), sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄), trichloroacetic acid (TCA) and nitic acid (HNO₃). This was carried out for 10 min at 25°C. The choice of the acids and concentration of NaOH was based on the findings during the method development stage of the study. During this stage several acids and different concentrations of the NaOH were tested, of which 1 M NaOH was ascertained to be the lowest concentration that gave maximum hydrolysis and while the acids gave the highest yield among the organic and inorganic acids that were used for precipitation.

The precipitated chicken feather hydrolysate was separated from the solution by filtration. The chicken feather hydrolysate of the respective acids was air-dried and quantified. The chicken feather hydrolysate of the respective acids (henceforth referred to as feather keratin or hydrolysate) were ground into fine powders using a laboratory blender.

Preparation of blood meal

Fresh cattle blood was obtained from the abattoir of Landmark University, Omu-Aran (Nigeria) Teaching and Research Farm. The blood was immediately heated at 60°C for 30 min to coagulate. The coagulated blood was then placed in aluminum foil and oven-dried at 50°C for 8 h. The dried coagulated blood was milled into powder, using a mechanical grinder. The powdered blood, referred to as blood meal (BM) was kept in air-tight container until required.

Chicken feather hydrolysate liquid growth medium

For this study, different compositions of feather keratin, peptone (Oxoid, UK) and BM were used in the medium formulations. Five different combinations were used to make the respective growth medium, as follows. Combination A: 60% keratin + 40% peptone + 0% BM; Combination B: 60% keratin + 20% peptone + 20% BM; Combination C: 60% keratin + 0% peptone + 40% BM; Combination D: 100% peptone; Combination E: 100% BM.

The respective components were weighed separately and dissolved in aliquot quantities of distilled water before combining all the components together to make a final medium concentration of 5 g/l. Each medium, as composed, was dispensed in conical flask and sterilized in an autoclave (121°C for 15 min) at 15 psi.

Test microbial species

A total of eight microbial species, consisting of five bacteria and three yeast species were used for the study. The bacteria species were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The yeasts were Candida carpophila, Candida tropicalis and Pichia kundriavzevii.

Prior to use, stock microbial cultures of the isolates were first streaked on agar plates to ascertain their purity before subculturing into nutrient broth. Equal volumes of broth cultures of the pure isolates (0.5 ml) were used for inoculation. Bacteria and fungi were incubated at 24±2°C.

Microbial growth studies

For growth studies, the flasks containing the sterile medium were inoculated with the test microbial species. Following inoculation and every 2 h, for a 10 h duration, aliquot samples were withdrawn from each flask to monitor growth by measuring absorbance using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 750 nm, using sterile nutrient broth to normalize. Each experiment was carried out in duplicate.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was carried out using the SPSS statistical software, version 13.0. Comparison of means was determined using the one-way ANOVA test at a significance level of P<0.05. For the least-significant-difference post hoc multiple comparison test was used. All experimental setups were in duplicates.

Results

Raw absorbance values for each microbe are available on figshare (Akpor et al., 2018b).

Growth rate of Candida carpophila

As shown in Figure 1, the growth pattern of Candida carpophila in all the acid hydrolysate medium showed consistent increase with time. The highest growth was observed in the medium with 100% peptone. This trend was irrespective of the acid hydrolysate used. Besides, the 100% peptone medium, the ranking of the growth of the organism from the highest to the least in the other medium compositions varied for each acid feather hydrolysate. In the TCA feather hydrolysate medium, after 10 hours, the organism recorded the highest growth in the 100% peptone medium, closely followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, and 100% BM in that order, while the least growth was observed with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Growth rate of Candida carpohila in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

For the HCl feather hydrolysate medium, the growth pattern observed followed the order: 100% peptone > 100% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, while the 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM medium showed the least growth. When H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium was used, the growth was in the order: 100% peptone > 100% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, while the 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone was least. In the HNO₃ feather hydrolysate medium, C. carpophila grew in the order 100% peptone > 100% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, and the lowest growth was recorded in the 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone (Figure 1).

Growth rate of the Candida tropicalis

As represented in Figure 2, the highest and the lowest growth of Candida tropicalis varied with medium composition for each of the acid feather hydrolysates used. However, the most frequent medium composition in which the highest growth of the organism was recorded was 100% peptone and the organism showed consistent increase in growth throughout the 10-h period with the highest growth at the 10^th hour. When the trichloroacetic acid feather hydrolysate medium was used, C. tropicalis showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in growth with both 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM and 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone and the organism’s growth was observed to be highest with both compositions. This was followed by 100% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM and the least growth was with 100% BM (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Growth rate of Candida tropicalis in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

In the HCl feather hydrolysate medium, the growth of C. tropicalis was highest with 100% peptone followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, 60 feather hydrolysate+ 40% peptone, with the lowest growth occurring in the 100% BM. For the H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium, the highest growth of C. tropicalis was observed with 100% peptone, followed by 100% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM and the least growth was observed with 60% feather hydrolysate+ 40% peptone. In the HNO₃ hydrolysate medium, C. tropicalis had its highest growth with 100% peptone, followed by 100% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, and had its least growth with 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM (Figure 2).

Growth rate of the Escherichia coli

As illustrated in Figure 3, the E. coli showed consistent increase in growth with the highest growth at the 10^th hour. The highest and lowest growths of the organism varied with medium composition for all the acid feather hydrolysates. In the TCA feather hydrolysate medium, the highest growth of E. coli at the end of the 10 h period was observed with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, 100% peptone while the least growth was observed with 100% BM and 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in growth of the organism in both medium compositions. When the HCl feather hydrolysate medium was used, highest growth of the E. coli was with 100% peptone, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate+ 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM and 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM while the least growth was with 100% BM (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Growth rate of E. coli in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

For the H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium, E. coli had its highest growth with 100% peptone followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, and then 60% feather hydrolysate+ 40% BM and 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM in which there was little or no significant difference in growth while the least growth of E. coli was recorded with 100% peptone. In the HNO₃ feather hydrolysate medium, the highest growth of E. coli recorded was with 60% feather hydrolysate+ 40% peptone, followed by 100% peptone, while the least growths were observed with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM and 100% BM, all showing no significant difference (p > 0.05) in growth (Figure 3).

Growth rate of the Klebsiella pneumoniae

The results in Figure 4 showed consistent increase in growth rate of Klebsiella pneumoniae throughout the 10 h period with highest growth at the 10^th hour. The highest and lowest growths of the organism varied with the medium composition. In the trichloroacetic acid feather hydrolysate medium, the highest growth of Klebsiella pneumoniae was with 100% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 100% peptone, and the least growth was with 60 feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM. In the HCl feather hydrolysate medium, the Klebsiella pneumoniae had its highest growth with 100% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate+ 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, and the least growth was with 100% peptone (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Growth rate of Klebsiella pneumoniae in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

In the H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium, the medium composition in which Klebsiella pneumoniae had its highest growth was 100% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone and then, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, while the least was recorded in 100% peptone medium. In the HNO₃ feather hydrolysate medium, the highest growth of Klebsiella was observed in 100% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate+ 20% peptone + 20% BM and the least growth of the organism was observed in 100% peptone (Figure 4).

Growth rate of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa

As represented in Figure 5, Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed consistent increase in growth for the 10 h period and the highest growth was recorded at the 10^th hour. The medium composition which yielded the highest growth of the organism was 100% peptone and the least growth was recorded with 100% BM. This was constant for all the acid hydrolysate medium. In the TCA feather hydrolysate medium, the medium composition after 100% peptone that yielded the highest growth of P. aeruginosa was 60% feather hydrolysate+ 40% peptone, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, while the least growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa was with 100% BM (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Growth rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

In the HCl feather hydrolysate medium, after 100% peptone, P. aeruginosa had its highest growth with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, while the organism had its least growth with 100% BM. In the H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium, 100% peptone remained the medium composition in which the highest growth of P. aeruginosa was recorded, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone and 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM while the least growth was observed in 100% BM. In the HNO₃ feather hydrolysate medium, following 100% peptone, the highest growth of P. aeruginosa was observed with 60% feather hydrolysate+ 40% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM. The least growth was observed with 100% BM (Figure 5).

Growth rate of the Pichia kudriavzevii

Figure 6 shows the growth pattern of Pichia kudriavzevii in the different medium. Pichia kudriavzevii showed consistent increase in growth with the highest growth at the 10^th hour. The highest growth of the organism was 100% peptone medium, while the least growth was observed in 100% BM. In the TCA feather hydrolysate medium, the order of growth of Pichia kudriavzevii from the highest to the least in the medium compositions was 100% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate, + 20% peptone + 20% BM >100% BM (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Growth rate of Pichia kudriavzevii in medium with TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

In the HCl feather hydrolysate medium, the order of growth was: 100% peptone > 60% keratin + 40% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM > 100% BM. In the H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium, the growth of the organism followed the order: 100% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% > 100% BM. In the HNO₃ feather hydrolysate medium, the order of growth in the medium compositions was: 100% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM > 100% BM (Figure 6).

Growth rate of the Proteus mirabilis

The growth rate of the Proteus mirabilis in the different medium is shown in Figure 7. As shown in the Figure, the highest growth was recorded at the 10^th hour for all the medium compositions against the respective acid hydrolysates.

Figure 7. Growth rate of Proteus mirabilis in medium with TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

In the TCA feather hydrolysate medium, besides 100% peptone, in which the highest growth was recorded, the second highest growth of Proteus mirabilis was with 100% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM and the least growth was with 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM. In the HCl feather hydrolysate medium, after 100% peptone, the highest growth of Proteus mirabilis was observed with 100% BM, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, and the least growth was with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone (Figure 7).

In the H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium, after 100% peptone, Proteus mirabilis growth pattern followed the order 100% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM (Figure 7).

Growth rate of the Staphylococcus aureus

In presence of the different hydrolysates, Staphylococcus aureus showed consistent increase in growth throughout the period of incubation. The 100% peptone medium produced the best growth against all the acid hydrolysate medium, while the least growth of the organism varied with medium composition.

In the TCA feather hydrolysate medium, the 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone medium was second to the 100% peptone medium in supporting the growth of Staphylococcus aureus, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM, 100% BM and 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM in that order. In the HCl feather hydrolysate medium, the second highest growth of the Staphylococcus aureus was observed with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, followed by 100% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, and 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM in that order (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Growth rate of Staphylococcus aureus in medium with TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

In the H₂SO₄ feather hydrolysate medium, the 60% feather hydrolysate+ 20% peptone + 20% BM ranked second to the 100% peptone medium in the observed growth pattern for Staphylococcus aureus, followed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, and 100% BM in that order. In the nitric acid feather hydrolysate medium, the growth pattern observed for Staphylococcus aureus followed the order 100% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% BM > 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone > 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% BM (Figure 8).

Discussion

In this study, the chicken feather keratin peptone was obtained by alkaline hydrolysis and acid neutralization and precipitation delete. In most cases KOH, NaOH and Ca(OH)₂ are used for the hydrolysis. Taskin et al., (2016) used the alkaline hydrolysis method with KOH in a study where peptone was obtained from sheep wool protein hydrolysate. From investigations, alkaline hydrolysis was reported to be able to produce a high yield of keratin and also enhance the keratin extraction effectiveness (Sinkiewicz et al., 2017). Alkaline hydrolysis has also been studied and proven to be effective in the degradation of waste containing keratin and collagen (Gousterova et al., 2005). It is opined that the use of alkaline hydrolysis inactivates of pathogens and prions such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The use of alkaline hydrolysis yields a BSE and TSE free hydrolysate medium (Matthews & Cooke, 2003). Despite the fact that heat is employed in most chemical hydrolysis processes to improve yield, the alkaline hydrolysis in this study was carried out under room temperature for approximately 10 h. Chemical hydrolysis conducted at high temperatures is said to lead to the destruction of amino acids (Sinkiewicz et al., 2017).

Although acid hydrolysis has also been used in some studies to obtain protein hydrolysates (Wisuthiphaet & Kongruang, 2015), it is argued that it could result in destruction of essential amino acids, such as methionine, cystine, cysteine and tryptophan, and conversion of glutamine and aspargine to glutamic and aspartic acid, respectively. It is indicated that during acid hydrolysis, the salts in hydrolysates can be injurious to the growth of the microorganisms (Bucci & Unlu, 2000).

This study aimed to assess a cheaper source of protein for microbial culture than conventional nutrient medium. Chicken feathers were chosen as the material for research because of its abundance, cost-efficiency and high protein content. The results obtained in this study with reference to the performance of the organisms in the formulated medium compositions were viewed in comparison with the performance of the organisms in the commercially produced peptone. The comparison of the growth rate of the organisms in the different medium with that in peptone was deliberate. Studies have revealed peptone as an excellent nitrogen and protein source for growing microorganisms and manufacture of growth medium (Markings, 2018).

The results of the present experiment showed that in most cases, the organisms growth was highest with the 100% commercially produced peptone while in other cases, various medium compositions yielded higher growth of the organisms even better than in the 100% peptone.

The medium compositions that favored the highest growth of the organism differed with each acid hydrolysate for every organism. The best growth of Candida carpophila was recorded with the commercial peptone irrespective of the acid hydrolysate medium composition used. However, in the case of Candida tropicalis, the formulated medium compositions from the chicken feather hydrolysate were able to yield higher growths of Candida tropicalis even better than the commercial peptone but only in the TCA hydrolysate, while the commercial peptone yielded the highest growth of the organisms in the other acid hydrolysates. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pichia Kudriavzevii, Proteus mirabilis and Staphylococcus aureus consistently had their highest growth with the commercial peptone irrespective of the acid hydrolysate used. In Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, variation of the highest growth with the hydrolysate medium compositions and growth yield of the organisms higher than in the commercial peptones persisted. The variations in the medium compositions that showed the best growth of the organisms were indications that the acids used in precipitating the keratin from the chicken feathers had significant impact on the efficacy of the medium compositions. The optimum concentration of chicken feather keratin concentration that yielded maximum microbial growth was 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone in Escherichia coli.

The ideal chicken feather hydrolysate that yielded microbial growth was the TCA hydrolysate. In a study by Taskin et al. (2016), using sheep wool protein hydrolysate as a peptone source for microorganisms, Staphylococcus aureus was observed to show poor growth performance in the medium. However, growth performances of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Bacillus subtilis and Penicillium chrysogenum were observed to be moderate in wool protein. Generally, the present study revealed that growth rate of the respective organisms varied from one medium composition to the other. This observation has been reported by earlier workers (Aspmo et al., 2005; Jones & Fayerman, 1987).

Conclusion

Waste chicken feathers that were previously discarded and viewed as a burden to the environment can now be viewed as an important bio-resource and can be manipulated and explored widely as a biotechnological material. This study was able to characterize waste chicken feathers as a microbiological tool for microbial culture. Because of its high protein content, protein essential for the growth of microorganisms can be synthesized from chicken feathers.

In the study, the potential of the chicken feather keratin to support the growth of both bacteria and fungi was established. Chicken feather hydrolysate was also proven to be an excellent substrate particularly for the growth of Escherichia coli. Using a suitable process of hydrolysis, peptone from chicken feather keratin can be re-modified, industrialized and produced in bulk on a commercial scale. This research work could serve as precursor to exploring many other waste materials of high protein content which could be of biotechnological value.

Data availability

The raw absorbance values from analysis of microbe growth using different growth media are available on figshare. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7376564.v1 (Akpor et al., 2018).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Akpor OB, Jemirieyigbe ED, Oluba OM: Comparative decolouration of crystal violet dye, using chicken feather fibre, chemical oxidation and bacterial cells. J Environ Sci Technol. 2018a; 11(5): 246–253. Publisher Full Text
Akpor O, Oluba O, Odesola D, et al.: Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial cultivation. figshare. Dataset. 2018b.
Aspmo SI, Horn SJ, Eijsink GHV: Hydrolysates from Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua L.) viscera as components of microbial growth media. Process Biochem. 2005; 40(12): 3714–3722. Publisher Full Text
Ayutthaya SIN, Wootthikanokkhan J: Extraction of Keratin from Chicken Feather and Electrospinning of the Keratin/PLA Blends. Adv Mat Res. 2013; 747: 711–714. Publisher Full Text
Ben Rebah F, Miled N: Fish processing wastes for microbial enzyme production: a Review. 3 Biotech. 2013; 3(4): 255–265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Bucci LR, Unlu L: Protein and amino acid supplements in exercise and sport. In Wolinsky I, Driskell JA, Energy-yielding macronutrients and energy metabolism in sports nutrition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 2000; 191–212. Reference Source
Chinta SK, Landage SM, Yadav K: Application of chicken feathers in technical textiles. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology. 2013; 2(4): 1158–1165. Reference Source
Egelyng H, Romsdal A, Hansen HO, et al.: Cascading Norwegian co-streams for bioeconomic transition. J Clean Prod. 2018; 172: 3864–3873. Publisher Full Text
Gousterova A, Braikova D, Goshev I, et al.: Degradation of keratin and collagen containing wastes by newly isolated thermoactinomycetes or by alkaline hydrolysis. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2005; 40(5): 335–340. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Greenwold MJ, Bao W, Jarvis ED, et al.: Dynamic evolution of the alpha (α) and beta (β) keratins has accompanied integument diversification and the adaptation of birds into novel lifestyles. BMC Evol Biol. 2014; 14: 249–264. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Jayathilakan K, Sultana K, Radhakrishna K, et al.: Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2012; 49(3): 278–293. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Jones ME, Fayerman JT: Industrial applications of recombinant DNA technology. J Chem Educ. 1987; 64: 337–339. Publisher Full Text
Lasekan A, Bakar AF, Hashim D: Potential of chicken by-products as sources of useful biological resources. Waste Manag. 2013; 33(3): 552–565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Markings S: The chemical composition of nutrient agar. 2018. Reference Source
Matthews D, Cooke BC: The potential for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in non-ruminant livestock and fish. Rev Sci Tech. 2003; 22(1): 283–296. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Moritz JS, Latshaw JD: Indicators of nutritional value of hydrolyzed feather meal. Poult Sci. 2001; 80(1): 79–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Sandle T: Pharmaceutical Microbiology Essentials for Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing. 2016. Reference Source
Sharma S, Gupta A, Chik SM, et al.: Dissolution and characterization of biofunctional keratin particles extracted from chicken feathers. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2017; 191: 1–5. Publisher Full Text
Sinkiewicz I, Siliwinska A, Staroszczynk H, et al.: Alternative methods of preparation of soluble keratin from chicken feathers. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2017; 8(4): 1043–1048. Publisher Full Text
Taskin M, Kubanoglu EB: Evaluation of waste chicken feathers as peptone source for bacterial growth. J Appl Microbiol. 2011; 111(4): 826–834. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Taskin M, Unver Y, Firat A, et al.: Sheep wool protein hydrolysate: a new peptone source for microorganisms. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2016; 91(6): 1675–1680. Publisher Full Text
Tesfaye T, Sithole B, Ramjugernath D, et al.: Valorisation of chicken feathers: Application in paper production. J Clean Prod. 2017; 164: 1324–1331. Publisher Full Text
Tesfaye T, Sithole B, Ramjugernath D: Valorisation of chicken feather barbs: Utilisation in yarn production and technical textile applications. Sustainable Chem Pharm. 2018; 8: 38–49. Publisher Full Text
Wisuthiphaet N, Kongruang S: Production of fish protein hydrolysates by acid and enzymatic hydrolysis. Journal of Medical and Bioengineering. 2015; 4(6): 466–470. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 10 Dec 2018

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara, 251101, Nigeria
² Department of Biochemistry, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State, 251101, Nigeria

Oghenerobor B. Akpor
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Damilola E. Odesola
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Remilekun E. Thomas
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Olarewaju M. Oluba
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 07 Aug 2019, 7:1918

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17134.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 30 Jan 2019, 7:1918

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17134.2

version 1

Published: 10 Dec 2018, 7:1918

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17134.1

© 2019 Akpor OB et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Akpor OB, Odesola DE, Thomas RE and Oluba OM. Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial cultivation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2019, 7:1918 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17134.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2019

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 01 Jul 2019

Pius Okiki, Department of Biological Sciences, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19748.r49287

Abstract
The second sentence under background should read: "Livestock waste, in form of poultry feather and cattle blood, are of value ..."
The 1st sentence under subsection methods should read: "The growth of selected bacteria and fungi were monitored in different media prepared from varied concentrations of peptone, CFPH, ..."
Nitric acid was written as nitic acid throughout the manuscript. This should be corrected.

Methods
Reference citation should be provided for preparation of blood meal from cattle blood (one is provided below¹), preparation of feather keratin hydrolysate and the microbial growth studies.
The authors need to state where the bacteria and fungi used were obtained from; e.g. from the stock culture of the Microbiology Laboratory of their University, how the organisms were previously stored and if they were sub-cultured on agar plates before introduced into broth.
The optimal growth temperature for pathogenic microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) is 37°C and not 24°C. This should be corrected.
Statistical analysis: There was no evidence that LSD post hoc multiple comparison test was carried out. The growth performance of each microorganism tested in each formulated growth medium should be compared with that of standard peptone broth, and where there is no significant difference, such medium can easily replace peptone water.

Results
The results are well written, but statistical comparison of the growth rates of the microorganisms in the formulated media with those of peptone broth will make the results better presented.
In many places in the manuscript, medium was used in plural form as against media. This should be corrected.

Discussion
Should take into consideration the results obtained from statistical comparison of the growth rates of the microbes in the formulated media with that of standard peptone broth.

Conclusion
The 2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph could be written as: "The was able to utilize waste chicken feathers as a substitute for peptone in microbial culture". The 3rd sentence may not be necessary.
The second paragraph should be re-written. "Following a thorough statistical analysis, the chicken feather hydrolysate may show excellent growth performances for other microorganisms apart from E. coli".

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Amu W, Ayade G, Okon E: Evaluation of methionine-fortified blood meal as substitute for fish meal in poultry broiler diets. Afr. J. Poult. Farming. 2018; 6 (1): 216-224

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Antimicrobial and immunological studies of Nigerian plants. Drug resistant microbes in livestock and human, and development of new antimicrobial agents. Emerging/re-emerging diseases, especially zoonotic diseases.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 07 Aug 2019

Oghenerobor Akpor, Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, 251101, Nigeria

07 Aug 2019

Author Response

Abstract
All the corrections suggested in the abstract are accepted and have been effected in the manuscript.

Methods
All corrections as indicated by the reviewer were attended to except ... Continue reading Abstract
All the corrections suggested in the abstract are accepted and have been effected in the manuscript.

Methods
All corrections as indicated by the reviewer were attended to except the one on statistical analysis. The authors disagree with the reviewer on the lack of evidence of LSD post hoc multiple comparison test. d.

Results
Corrections as indicated by the reviewer were effected except the ones on statistical analysis which the authors disagree with

Conclusion
All the indicated corrections were effected in the manuscript
Abstract
All the corrections suggested in the abstract are accepted and have been effected in the manuscript.

Methods
All corrections as indicated by the reviewer were attended to except the one on statistical analysis. The authors disagree with the reviewer on the lack of evidence of LSD post hoc multiple comparison test. d.

Results
Corrections as indicated by the reviewer were effected except the ones on statistical analysis which the authors disagree with

Conclusion
All the indicated corrections were effected in the manuscript
Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interest Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 07 Aug 2019

Oghenerobor Akpor, Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, 251101, Nigeria

07 Aug 2019

Author Response

Abstract
All the corrections suggested in the abstract are accepted and have been effected in the manuscript.

Methods
All corrections as indicated by the reviewer were attended to except ... Continue reading Abstract
All the corrections suggested in the abstract are accepted and have been effected in the manuscript.

Methods
All corrections as indicated by the reviewer were attended to except the one on statistical analysis. The authors disagree with the reviewer on the lack of evidence of LSD post hoc multiple comparison test. d.

Results
Corrections as indicated by the reviewer were effected except the ones on statistical analysis which the authors disagree with

Conclusion
All the indicated corrections were effected in the manuscript
Abstract
All the corrections suggested in the abstract are accepted and have been effected in the manuscript.

Methods
All corrections as indicated by the reviewer were attended to except the one on statistical analysis. The authors disagree with the reviewer on the lack of evidence of LSD post hoc multiple comparison test. d.

Results
Corrections as indicated by the reviewer were effected except the ones on statistical analysis which the authors disagree with

Conclusion
All the indicated corrections were effected in the manuscript
Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interest Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 27 Feb 2019

Adriano Brandelli, Laboratório de Bioquímica e Microbiologia Aplicada, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19748.r43782

The manuscript was modified addressing only the comments from Reviewer #1, but none of the points raised in my review have been modified to date. Thus, I have no additional comments to make on the article until the authors provide ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 06 Feb 2019

Swati Sharma, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Natural Resources, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pahang, Malaysia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19748.r43783

The manuscript has been ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 10 Dec 2018

Views

Reviewer Report 29 Jan 2019

Adriano Brandelli, Laboratório de Bioquímica e Microbiologia Aplicada, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.18732.r42593

Poultry industry experienced a constant growth during the last decades, generating an increased amount of waste, in the form or feathers, viscera, skin, and dead-on-arrival (Brandelli et al. 2015¹). Alternatives for the correct management of such poultry waste have been evaluated. Conversion of feathers into hydrolysates is a possible alternative to produce ingredients for feed, fertilizers, and cultivation media formulations (Daroit and Brandelli 2014²). This topic merits investigation, since the correct management of such waste material has great environmental relevance. In addition, it could represent an added value to the industry.

In the current article, feathers were hydrolyzed by chemical methods and the resulting hydrolysates were tested as a peptone source for microbial growth. The utilization of byproducts obtained from abattoir as ingredients for culture media has been previously described. In particular, waste feathers from poultry processing industry have been converted as peptone source for bacterial growth (Taskin and Kurbanoglu, 2011³) and for development of culture media for production of mosquitocidal bacteria (Poopathi and Abidha, 2007⁴). More detailed studies include the use of feather peptone for microbial production of carotenoids (Taskin et al. 2011⁵) and protein hydrolysates (Kshetri, 2017⁶). Therefore, the results presented in this work are rather confirmatory, representing a restricted contribution to the field. Additional data should be included to improve this article. In this present form, the manuscript contains preliminary data and lacks sufficient novelty to be considered for indexing.

In addition, a limited number or microorganisms was tested. The selection criteria is not clearly described and should be justified. It seems difficult to take solid conclusions since the microbial species tested are limited and only a single strain of each species was tested. Considering that nutritional requirements can be very variable depending on the microorganism, the inclusion of fastidious microorganisms, lactic acid bacteria, and filamentous fungi should be considered.

Some points on Methods section need to be revised as follows:

Feathers should be rinsed with abundant water to remove excess detergent before further treatment. Residual detergent could be toxic for some microorganisms.
The hydrolysates were air-dried. The reason for not using the oven is unclear since this method was used for blood meal. In this regard, blood meal is mentioned in the Abstract but was not considered in the Discussion. Why was cattle blood used instead of chicken blood?
The origin of microbial species tested should be clearly described. Available collection strains should be used in this type of study.
The evaluation was performed in liquid medium, supposedly to quantify microbial growth. However, only absorbance at 750 nm (not 600 nm?) was measured, and viable cell counts were not determined. The evaluation of growth on agar plates could give interesting results.

Finally, the Results section is redundant, since it essentially consists a repetitive description of growth curves. Presentation of results should be carefully reconsidered.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Brandelli A, Sala L, Kalil S: Microbial enzymes for bioconversion of poultry waste into added-value products. Food Research International. 2015; 73: 3-12 Publisher Full Text
2. Daroit DJ, Brandelli A: A current assessment on the production of bacterial keratinases.Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2014; 34 (4): 372-84 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Taskin M, Sisman T, Erdal S, Kurbanoglu E: Use of waste chicken feathers as peptone for production of carotenoids in submerged culture of Rhodotorula glutinis MT-5. European Food Research and Technology. 2011; 233 (4): 657-665 Publisher Full Text
4. Poopathi S, Abidha S: Use of feather-based culture media for the production of mosquitocidal bacteria. Biological Control. 2007; 43 (1): 49-55 Publisher Full Text
5. Taskin M, Kurbanoglu EB: Evaluation of waste chicken feathers as peptone source for bacterial growth.J Appl Microbiol. 2011; 111 (4): 826-34 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Kshetri P, Roy S, Sharma S, Singh T, et al.: Transforming Chicken Feather Waste into Feather Protein Hydrolysate Using a Newly Isolated Multifaceted Keratinolytic Bacterium Chryseobacterium sediminis RCM-SSR-7. Waste and Biomass Valorization. 2019; 10 (1): 1-11 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Microbial biotechnology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Jan 2019

Swati Sharma, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Natural Resources, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pahang, Malaysia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.18732.r42168

Abstract

Give full forms of TCA...
.....also gave the best growth of C. tropicalis and Klebsiella pneumoniae respectively. In this sentence in what respect is respectively used?
In the manuscript total eight microorganisms

Abstract

Give full forms of TCA...
.....also gave the best growth of C. tropicalis and Klebsiella pneumoniae respectively. In this sentence in what respect is respectively used?
In the manuscript total eight microorganisms were considered and conclusion is all about one microorganism. Justify?
Specify from where blood meal was taken.

Introduction

Keratin proteins are grouped into the alpha and beta keratins. Chicken feathers and feathers from most birds are composed majorly of the beta keratin. Provide with suitable reference.

Methods

Cleaning method of feathers was obtained from previous research. Need to cite the reference for the same
What was the basis to choose 1M NaOH for the study. Why didn't you try different concentrations? Is it standardized in your laboratory or taken from previous research, if so cite the reference.
On what basis were acids chosen for precipitation?
Heated at 60°CC for...... remove double C.
Naming should be same for the combination throughout the manuscript
Why didn't you try 100% feather hydrolysate?
Correct the mistake in sentence ed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% blood, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, and 100% blood in that order, while the least growth was observed with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% blood....it should be Blood meal not blood in whole manuscript and same thing apply for feather hydrolysate
Give names to all medium like a, b...

Results

Overall the result section is good.
Conclusion is well written.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: biomaterials, biopolymers, proteins, waste management

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 30 Jan 2019

Oghenerobor Akpor, Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, 251101, Nigeria

30 Jan 2019

Author Response

The authors appreciate thoroughness of the reviewer and the comments. Almost all the points raised that required modification have been attended to in the revised version. With respect to the ... Continue reading The authors appreciate thoroughness of the reviewer and the comments. Almost all the points raised that required modification have been attended to in the revised version. With respect to the use 1 M NaOH and the acids for hydrolysis and precipitation, respectively, that was ascertained during method development and the pilot phase of the study.
The authors appreciate thoroughness of the reviewer and the comments. Almost all the points raised that required modification have been attended to in the revised version. With respect to the use 1 M NaOH and the acids for hydrolysis and precipitation, respectively, that was ascertained during method development and the pilot phase of the study.
Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 30 Jan 2019

Oghenerobor Akpor, Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, 251101, Nigeria

30 Jan 2019

Author Response

The authors appreciate thoroughness of the reviewer and the comments. Almost all the points raised that required modification have been attended to in the revised version. With respect to the ... Continue reading The authors appreciate thoroughness of the reviewer and the comments. Almost all the points raised that required modification have been attended to in the revised version. With respect to the use 1 M NaOH and the acids for hydrolysis and precipitation, respectively, that was ascertained during method development and the pilot phase of the study.
The authors appreciate thoroughness of the reviewer and the comments. Almost all the points raised that required modification have been attended to in the revised version. With respect to the use 1 M NaOH and the acids for hydrolysis and precipitation, respectively, that was ascertained during method development and the pilot phase of the study.
Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 10 Dec 2018

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 07 Aug 19			read
Version 2 (revision) 30 Jan 19	read	read	read
Version 1 10 Dec 18	read	read

Swati Sharma, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pahang, Malaysia
Adriano Brandelli, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Pius Okiki, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

16 Aug 2019 | for Version 3

Pius Okiki, Department of Biological Sciences, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria

10 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

01 Jul 2019 | for Version 2

Pius Okiki, Department of Biological Sciences, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Amu W, Ayade G, Okon E: Evaluation of methionine-fortified blood meal as substitute for fish meal in poultry broiler diets. Afr. J. Poult. Farming. 2018; 6 (1): 216-224

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Antimicrobial and immunological studies of Nigerian plants. Drug resistant microbes in livestock and human, and development of new antimicrobial agents. Emerging/re-emerging diseases, especially zoonotic diseases.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

07 Aug 2019

Oghenerobor Akpor, Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, 251101, Nigeria

Abstract
All the corrections suggested in the abstract are accepted and have been effected in the manuscript.

Methods
All corrections as indicated by the reviewer were attended to except the one on statistical analysis. The authors disagree with the reviewer on the lack of evidence of LSD post hoc multiple comparison test. d.

Results
Corrections as indicated by the reviewer were effected except the ones on statistical analysis which the authors disagree with

Conclusion
All the indicated corrections were effected in the manuscript

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interest

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

27 Feb 2019 | for Version 2

Adriano Brandelli, Laboratório de Bioquímica e Microbiologia Aplicada, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

17 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Microbial biotechnology

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

06 Feb 2019 | for Version 2

Swati Sharma, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Natural Resources, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pahang, Malaysia

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The manuscript has been edited as per the suggestions.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

biomaterials, biopolymers, proteins, waste management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

32 Views

29 Jan 2019 | for Version 1

Adriano Brandelli, Laboratório de Bioquímica e Microbiologia Aplicada, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

32 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

Feathers should be rinsed with abundant water to remove excess detergent before further treatment. Residual detergent could be toxic for some microorganisms.
The hydrolysates were air-dried. The reason for not using the oven is unclear since this method was used for blood meal. In this regard, blood meal is mentioned in the Abstract but was not considered in the Discussion. Why was cattle blood used instead of chicken blood?
The origin of microbial species tested should be clearly described. Available collection strains should be used in this type of study.
The evaluation was performed in liquid medium, supposedly to quantify microbial growth. However, only absorbance at 750 nm (not 600 nm?) was measured, and viable cell counts were not determined. The evaluation of growth on agar plates could give interesting results.

Finally, the Results section is redundant, since it essentially consists a repetitive description of growth curves. Presentation of results should be carefully reconsidered.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Microbial biotechnology

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

22 Jan 2019 | for Version 1

Swati Sharma, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Natural Resources, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pahang, Malaysia

27 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Abstract

Give full forms of TCA...
.....also gave the best growth of C. tropicalis and Klebsiella pneumoniae respectively. In this sentence in what respect is respectively used?
In the manuscript total eight microorganisms were considered and conclusion is all about one microorganism. Justify?
Specify from where blood meal was taken.

Introduction

Keratin proteins are grouped into the alpha and beta keratins. Chicken feathers and feathers from most birds are composed majorly of the beta keratin. Provide with suitable reference.

Methods

Cleaning method of feathers was obtained from previous research. Need to cite the reference for the same
What was the basis to choose 1M NaOH for the study. Why didn't you try different concentrations? Is it standardized in your laboratory or taken from previous research, if so cite the reference.
On what basis were acids chosen for precipitation?
Heated at 60°CC for...... remove double C.
Naming should be same for the combination throughout the manuscript
Why didn't you try 100% feather hydrolysate?
Correct the mistake in sentence ed by 60% feather hydrolysate + 20% peptone + 20% blood, 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% peptone, and 100% blood in that order, while the least growth was observed with 60% feather hydrolysate + 40% blood....it should be Blood meal not blood in whole manuscript and same thing apply for feather hydrolysate
Give names to all medium like a, b...

Results

Overall the result section is good.
Conclusion is well written.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

biomaterials, biopolymers, proteins, waste management

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Akpor OB, Jemirieyigbe ED, Oluba OM: Comparative decolouration of crystal violet dye, using chicken feather fibre, chemical oxidation and bacterial cells. J Environ Sci Technol. 2018a; 11(5): 246–253. Publisher Full Text

[2] Akpor O, Oluba O, Odesola D, et al.: Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial cultivation. figshare. Dataset. 2018b.

[3] Aspmo SI, Horn SJ, Eijsink GHV: Hydrolysates from Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua L.) viscera as components of microbial growth media. Process Biochem. 2005; 40(12): 3714–3722. Publisher Full Text

[4] Ayutthaya SIN, Wootthikanokkhan J: Extraction of Keratin from Chicken Feather and Electrospinning of the Keratin/PLA Blends. Adv Mat Res. 2013; 747: 711–714. Publisher Full Text

[5] Ben Rebah F, Miled N: Fish processing wastes for microbial enzyme production: a Review. 3 Biotech. 2013; 3(4): 255–265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] Bucci LR, Unlu L: Protein and amino acid supplements in exercise and sport. In Wolinsky I, Driskell JA, Energy-yielding macronutrients and energy metabolism in sports nutrition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 2000; 191–212. Reference Source

[7] Chinta SK, Landage SM, Yadav K: Application of chicken feathers in technical textiles. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology. 2013; 2(4): 1158–1165. Reference Source

[8] Egelyng H, Romsdal A, Hansen HO, et al.: Cascading Norwegian co-streams for bioeconomic transition. J Clean Prod. 2018; 172: 3864–3873. Publisher Full Text

[9] Gousterova A, Braikova D, Goshev I, et al.: Degradation of keratin and collagen containing wastes by newly isolated thermoactinomycetes or by alkaline hydrolysis. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2005; 40(5): 335–340. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] Greenwold MJ, Bao W, Jarvis ED, et al.: Dynamic evolution of the alpha (α) and beta (β) keratins has accompanied integument diversification and the adaptation of birds into novel lifestyles. BMC Evol Biol. 2014; 14: 249–264. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] Jayathilakan K, Sultana K, Radhakrishna K, et al.: Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2012; 49(3): 278–293. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] Jones ME, Fayerman JT: Industrial applications of recombinant DNA technology. J Chem Educ. 1987; 64: 337–339. Publisher Full Text

[13] Lasekan A, Bakar AF, Hashim D: Potential of chicken by-products as sources of useful biological resources. Waste Manag. 2013; 33(3): 552–565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] Markings S: The chemical composition of nutrient agar. 2018. Reference Source

[15] Matthews D, Cooke BC: The potential for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in non-ruminant livestock and fish. Rev Sci Tech. 2003; 22(1): 283–296. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] Moritz JS, Latshaw JD: Indicators of nutritional value of hydrolyzed feather meal. Poult Sci. 2001; 80(1): 79–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] Sandle T: Pharmaceutical Microbiology Essentials for Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing. 2016. Reference Source

[18] Sharma S, Gupta A, Chik SM, et al.: Dissolution and characterization of biofunctional keratin particles extracted from chicken feathers. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2017; 191: 1–5. Publisher Full Text

[19] Sinkiewicz I, Siliwinska A, Staroszczynk H, et al.: Alternative methods of preparation of soluble keratin from chicken feathers. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2017; 8(4): 1043–1048. Publisher Full Text

[20] Taskin M, Kubanoglu EB: Evaluation of waste chicken feathers as peptone source for bacterial growth. J Appl Microbiol. 2011; 111(4): 826–834. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] Taskin M, Unver Y, Firat A, et al.: Sheep wool protein hydrolysate: a new peptone source for microorganisms. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2016; 91(6): 1675–1680. Publisher Full Text

[22] Tesfaye T, Sithole B, Ramjugernath D, et al.: Valorisation of chicken feathers: Application in paper production. J Clean Prod. 2017; 164: 1324–1331. Publisher Full Text

[23] Tesfaye T, Sithole B, Ramjugernath D: Valorisation of chicken feather barbs: Utilisation in yarn production and technical textile applications. Sustainable Chem Pharm. 2018; 8: 38–49. Publisher Full Text

[24] Wisuthiphaet N, Kongruang S: Production of fish protein hydrolysates by acid and enzymatic hydrolysis. Journal of Medical and Bioengineering. 2015; 4(6): 466–470. Publisher Full Text

Chicken feather hydrolysate as alternative peptone source for microbial cultivation

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Pretreatment of chicken feathers

Feather hydrolysis

Precipitation of feather keratin

Preparation of blood meal

Chicken feather hydrolysate liquid growth medium

Test microbial species

Microbial growth studies

Statistical analysis

Results

Growth rate of Candida carpophila

Figure 1. Growth rate of Candida carpohila in medium with the TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Growth rate of the Candida tropicalis

Figure 2. Growth rate of Candida tropicalis in medium with the TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Growth rate of the Escherichia coli

Figure 3. Growth rate of E. coli in medium with the TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Growth rate of the Klebsiella pneumoniae

Figure 4. Growth rate of Klebsiella pneumoniae in medium with the TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Growth rate of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Figure 5. Growth rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in medium with the TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Growth rate of the Pichia kudriavzevii

Figure 6. Growth rate of Pichia kudriavzevii in medium with TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Growth rate of the Proteus mirabilis

Figure 7. Growth rate of Proteus mirabilis in medium with TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Growth rate of the Staphylococcus aureus

Figure 8. Growth rate of Staphylococcus aureus in medium with TCA, HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 hydrolysates.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Grant information

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Figure 1. Growth rate of Candida carpohila in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

Figure 2. Growth rate of Candida tropicalis in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

Figure 3. Growth rate of E. coli in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

Figure 4. Growth rate of Klebsiella pneumoniae in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

Figure 5. Growth rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in medium with the TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

Figure 6. Growth rate of Pichia kudriavzevii in medium with TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

Figure 7. Growth rate of Proteus mirabilis in medium with TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.

Figure 8. Growth rate of Staphylococcus aureus in medium with TCA, HCl, H₂SO₄ and HNO₃ hydrolysates.