Very informative and clearly presented talk. Thanks. Possibly the difference in amount of biomass production is the redox differences of the methane/methanol and ammonium (reduced)/nitrate (oxidised) pairings. Also I was curious whether there are differences in the raw material costs of methane vs methanol and ammonium vs nitrate salts that might in the end determine which growth medium is financially viable?
Hi Stephen, sorry for late response. Yes, methane and methanol as carbon sources might have similar pathways of metabolic consumption, so it would be expected that they have similar effect (it is only one step difference). However, that one step catalyzed by p MMO is very importnat regulator. Usually, methane oxidation is driven by ubiquinone-derived electrons, when methane is not present, those electrons enter still to ETC, which changes the ETC flux (affects energy generation). In addition, with methanol and ammonia (as nitrogen source), p MMO will recognize ammonia as a substrate (since it is similar structure to AMO from ammonia oxidizers) but it will generate hydroxulamine (toxic) which can slow down growth. Not to mention that in order to be assimilated nitrate has to be reduced to ammonia first (energy consuming). About the cost - both methane and methanol are byproducts (waste), methanol might be better since it is easily available (liquid vs gas), with metahne we have issues with gas transfer to media. This starin is specifically good because it prefers ammonia over nitrate (nitratee is costly), which means we can use it with waste water as growing media. I hope this answers questions. Please elt me know if you have more questions. Thanks
Fantastic presentation
Very informative and clearly presented talk. Thanks. Possibly the difference in amount of biomass production is the redox differences of the methane/methanol and ammonium (reduced)/nitrate (oxidised) pairings. Also I was curious whether there are differences in the raw material costs of methane vs methanol and ammonium vs nitrate salts that might in the end determine which growth medium is financially viable?
Hi Stephen, sorry for late response. Yes, methane and methanol as carbon sources might have similar pathways of metabolic consumption, so it would be expected that they have similar effect (it is only one step difference). However, that one step catalyzed by p MMO is very importnat regulator. Usually, methane oxidation is driven by ubiquinone-derived electrons, when methane is not present, those electrons enter still to ETC, which changes the ETC flux (affects energy generation). In addition, with methanol and ammonia (as nitrogen source), p MMO will recognize ammonia as a substrate (since it is similar structure to AMO from ammonia oxidizers) but it will generate hydroxulamine (toxic) which can slow down growth. Not to mention that in order to be assimilated nitrate has to be reduced to ammonia first (energy consuming). About the cost - both methane and methanol are byproducts (waste), methanol might be better since it is easily available (liquid vs gas), with metahne we have issues with gas transfer to media. This starin is specifically good because it prefers ammonia over nitrate (nitratee is costly), which means we can use it with waste water as growing media. I hope this answers questions. Please elt me know if you have more questions. Thanks
@@1234572886 thanks for such an informative reply.