Biosurfactants for a Sustainable Future. Группа авторов

4: 341–348.

      212 212 Maget‐Dana, R. and Ptak, M. (1992). Interfacial properties of surfactin. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 153: 285–291.

      213 213 Knoblich, A., Matsumoto, M., Ishiguro, R. et al. (1995). Electron cryo‐microscopic studies on micellar shape and size of surfactin, an anionic lipopeptide. Colloids Surf. B. Biointerfaces 5: 43–48.

      214 214 Zou, A., Liu, J., Garamus, V.M. et al. (2010). Interaction between the natural lipopeptide [Glu1, Asp5] surfactin‐C15 and hemoglobin in aqueous solution. Biomacromolecules 11: 593–599.

      215 215 Osman, M., Hoiland, H., Holmsen, H., and Ishigami, Y. (1998). Tuning micelles of a bioactive heptapeptide biosurfactant via extrinsically induced conformational transition of surfactin assembly. J. Pept. Sci. 4: 449–458.

      216 216 Shen, H.‐H., Thomas, R.K., Chen, C.‐Y. et al. (2009). Aggregation of the naturally occurring lipopeptide, surfactin, at interfaces and in solution: an unusual type of surfactant? Langmuir 25: 4211–4218.

      217 217 Menger, F.M. (2002). Supramolecular chemistry and self‐assembly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99: 4819–4822.

      218 218 Bhattacharya, S., Maitra, U., Mukhopadhyay, S., and Srivastava, A. (2006). Advances in molecular hydrogels (eds. G. Weiss and P. Terech). Springer: Molecular Gels. Dordrecht.

      219 219 Galantini, L., di Gregorio, M.C., Gubitosi, M. et al. (2015). Bile salts and derivatives: rigid unconventional amphiphiles as dispersants, carriers and superstructure building blocks. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 20: 170–182.

      220 220 Savage, P.B. (2002). Cationic steroid antibiotics. Curr. Med. Chem.: Anti‐Infect. Agents 1: 293–304.

      221 221 Svobodova, H., Noponen, V., Kolehmainen, E., and Sievaenen, E. (2012). Recent advances in steroidal supramolecular gels. RSC Adv. 2: 4985–5007.

      222 222 Vázquez Tato, J. (2014). Molecular biomimicry. Santiago: Servicio de Publicaciones, USC. ISBN 978‐84‐16183‐11‐1.

2 Metagenomics Approach for Selection of Biosurfactant Producing Bacteria from Oil Contaminated Soil: An Insight Into Its Technology

       Nazim F. Islam and Hemen Sarma

       Department of Botany, N N Saikia College, Titabar, Assam, India

      CHAPTER MENU

      1  2.1 Introduction

      2  2.2 Metagenomics Application: A State-of-the-Art Technique

      3  2.3 Hydrocarbon-Degrading Bacteria and Genes

      4  2.4 Metagenomic Approaches in the Selection of Biosurfactant-Producing Microbes

      5  2.5 Metagenomics with Stable Isotope Probe (SIP) Techniques

      6  2.6 Screening Methods to Identify Features of Biosurfactants

      7  2.7 Functional Metagenomics: Challenge and Opportunities 2.7.1 Single vs Multiple Host Expression System 2.7.2 Metagenomic Clone Libraries

      8  2.8 Conclusion

      9  Acknowledgements

      10  References

2.1 Introduction

Humans have been using soap and soap‐like substances for thousands of years. The development of soap‐like materials is evident in ancient Babylon about 2800 BCE [1]. In India, reetha or soapnut (Sapindus mukorossi Gaertn.) has traditionally been used as a hair cleanser, among other things. Today, soap comprises a half of the total global production of surfactants, which is projected to be 15 mt/y. Linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LABS) (1700 kt/y), lignin sulfonate (600 kt/y), fatty alcohol ethoxylates (700 kt/y), and alkylphenol ethoxylates (500 kt/y) are particularly widely produced surfactants [2]. Surfactants are hydrophobic and hydrophilic molecules capable of altering surface/interface tension and improving the solubility of polar compounds in non‐polar solvents [3]. Similarly, biosurfactants are amphiphilic metabolites derived from microorganisms. These are interesting alternatives to conventional chemical surfactants because they are easily degradable in the environment. Hydrophilic moieties of biosurfactant molecules are mainly carbohydrates, carboxylic acids, phosphates, amino acids, cyclic peptides, or alcohols, whereas hydrophobic moieties are fatty acids, hydroxy fatty acids, and alkyl and β‐hydroxy fatty acids [4]. Natural as well as synthetic surfactants, which are widely used in industrial processes, have various properties; therefore, they are used as solvents, stabilizers, lubricants, and foaming agents. Biosurfactants are produced by different strains of bacteria, fungi, and yeast in natural environments. These multifunctional microorganism‐derived biomolecules have been extensively studied and reported in scientific literature [3, 5].

      Biosurfactants are generally classified into a low or a high molecular weight group based on their chemical nature. Low molecular weight surfactants are widely used to lower surface‐to‐surface stress, while high molecular weight surfactants are generally used as emulsifiers and stabilizers [6]. For details of the composition, classification, critical concentration of micellization (CMC) values and properties of biosurfactants, see Chapter 1.

      Microbe‐derived surfactants appear to display a performance similar to synthetic surfactants [7]. While synthetic surfactants are commercially preferred during industrial applications, their use leads to the development of undesirable environmental pollutants [5, 8]. The majority of synthetic surfactants such as linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LABS) are non‐biodegradable with adverse environmental effects. Contrary to these, biosurfactants are less persistent and biodegradable in the environment owing to their biological origins [9]. In addition, most biosurfactants are active in a wide range of temperatures, pH and other environmental conditions [10].

      Microbiologically derived surfactants have been widely used in industries such as emulsifiers, dispersants, foaming agents, and wetting agents [11], with a lower CMC value, which improve their performance over synthetic surfactants [12]. Some common sustainable applications of biosurfactants in the environment and in biomedicine (bioremediation, medical technology, food processing and pharmaceutical formulations, and cosmetics) are discussed in more detail in Chapters 5, 10, 11, and 19.

      Many microorganisms, which are potential producers of biosurfactants, inhabit oil‐contaminated soil in and around oil fields. One of the major hindrances for the discovery of novel biosurfactant‐producing strains is the isolation and cultivation of biosurfactant‐producing microbes. The metagenomics approach allows for the extraction of DNA (eDNA) from the environmental DNA pool and the screening for biosurfactant‐producing genes [13]. The