Materials and Methods: The study started with the identification of selected LAB by 16S rRNA, followed by optimization of GABA production by culture conditions using different initial pH, temperature, glutamate concentration, incubation time, carbon, and nitrogen sources. 16S rRNA polymerase chain reaction and analysis by phylogenetic were used to identify Lactobacillus plantarum (coded as N5) responsible for the production of GABA.
Results: GABA production by high-performance liquid chromatography was highest at pH of 5.5, temperature of 36°C, glutamate concentration of 500 mM, and incubation time of 84 h. Peptone and glucose served as the nitrogen and carbon sources, respectively, whereas GABA was produced at optimum fermentation condition of 211.169 mM.
Conclusion: Production of GABA by L. plantarum N5 was influenced by initial pH of 5.5, glutamic acid concentration, nitrogen source, glucose as carbon source, and incubation temperature and time.
RESULTS: Natamycin production was investigated under the effect of different initial glucose concentrations. Maximal antibiotic production (1.58 ± 0.032 g/L) was achieved at 20 g/L glucose. Under glucose limitation, natamycin production was retarded and the produced antibiotic was degraded. Higher glucose concentrations resulted in carbon catabolite repression. Secondly, intermittent feeding of glucose improved natamycin production due to overcoming glucose catabolite regulation, and moreover it was superior to glucose-beef mixture feeding, which overcomes catabolite regulation, but increased cell growth on the expense of natamycin production. Finally, the process was optimized in 7.5 L stirred tank bioreactor under batch and fed-batch conditions. Continuous glucose feeding for 30 h increased volumetric natamycin production by about 1.6- and 1.72-folds in than the batch cultivation in bioreactor and shake-flasks, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Glucose is a crucial substrate that significantly affects the production of natamycin, and its slow feeding is recommended to alleviate the effects of carbon catabolite regulation as well as to prevent product degradation under carbon source limitation. Cultivation in bioreactor under glucose feeding increased maximal volumetric enzyme production by about 72% from the initial starting conditions.
METHODS: Review of the literature was conducted using keywords (and MeSH) like Bioreactor, Regenerative Dentistry, Fourth Factor, Stem Cells, etc., from the journals published in English. All the searched abstracts, published in indexed journals were read and reviewed to further refine the list of included articles. Based on the relevance of abstracts pertaining to the manuscript, full-text articles were assessed.
RESULTS: Bioreactors provide a prerequisite platform to create, test, and validate the biomaterials and techniques proposed for dental tissue regeneration. Flow perfusion, rotational, spinner-flask, strain and customize-combined bioreactors have been applied for the regeneration of bone, periodontal ligament, gingiva, cementum, oral mucosa, temporomandibular joint and vascular tissues. Customized bioreactors can support cellular/biofilm growth as well as apply cyclic loading. Center of disease control & dip-flow biofilm-reactors and micro-bioreactor have been used to evaluate the biological properties of dental biomaterials, their performance assessment and interaction with biofilms. Few case reports have also applied the concept of in vivo bioreactor for the repair of musculoskeletal defects and used customdesigned bioreactor (Aastrom) to repair the defects of cleft-palate.
CONCLUSIONS: Bioreactors provide a sterile simulated environment to support cellular differentiation for oro-dental regenerative applications. Also, bioreactors like, customized bioreactors for cyclic loading, biofilm reactors (CDC & drip-flow), and micro-bioreactor, can assess biological responses of dental biomaterials by simultaneously supporting cellular or biofilm growth and application of cyclic stresses.