Table 2.
Comparison of lipid conversion efficiency among different oleaginous microorganisms
| Microorganisms | Cultivation method | Conversion efficiency (g/g substrate) |
References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Candida 107 (Y) | SC | 0.052 g/g glucose | [58] |
| Yarrowia lipolytica (Y) | SC | ≤ 0.270 g/g.glucose | [8, 59] |
| Cryptococcus curvatus (Y) | SC | 0.11–0.21 g/g.sugarb | [60] |
| Trichosporon cutaneum (Y) | SC | 0.12 g/g galacturonate | [26] |
| Rhodotorula glacialis (Y) | SC | 0.16 g/g glucose | [61] |
| Debaryomyces etchellsii (Y) | SC | ≤ 0.031 g/g glucose | [62] |
| Rhodococcus erythropolis (B) | SC | 0.061 g/g glucose | [63] |
| Bacterium GK12 (B)a | SC | < 0.098 g/g gluconate | [64] |
| Rhodococcus opacus (B) | SC | 0.041 g/g lignin | [65] |
| Bacillus subtilis (B) | SC | 0.045 g/g reducing sugar | [66] |
| Escherichia coli (B) | SC | < 0.034 g/g ethanol | [67] |
| Mortierella isabellina (F) | SC | 0.17 g/g glucose | [68] |
| Cunninghamella echinulata (F) | SC | 0.21 g/g tomato waste hydrolysate | [69] |
| Mucor sp. (F) | SC | 0.058 g/g glucose | [70] |
| Mortierella ramanniana (F) | SC | 0.15 g/g glucose | [71] |
| Chlorellazofi ngiensis (HM) | SC | 0.136 g/g glucose | [72] |
| Chlorella sorokiniana (HM) | SC | 0.19 g/g glucose | [73] |
| Aspergillus oryzae A-4 (F) | SSF | 0.0366 g/g dry substrate | [74] |
| Aspergillus tubingensis TSIP9 (F) | SSF | 0.047 g/g dry substrate | [75] |
| Phanerochaete chrysosporium [F] | SSC | 0.277 g/g WCG | This work |
aA novel species affiliated with the family Erysipelotrichaceae in the phylum Firmicutes
bSugar includes arabinose, galacturonate, glucose, and beet pulp hydrolysates
Y, B, F, and HM represent yeast, bacterium, fungus, and heterotrophic microalgae, respectively
SC means submerged cultivation, whereas SSC stands for static solid cultivation
WCG refers to the mixture of wheat bran, corn straw, and glucose