Light spectra influence biomass and phenolics while sustaining high fucoxanthin in the tropical indigenous diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii


Abstract

Microalgae are promising sustainable sources of bioactive compounds for food and pharmaceutical applications. The tropical indigenous diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii TRG10-P105 (TW P105), distinguished by its high fucoxanthin (Fx) and phenolic content, was investigated under various light spectra to evaluate biomass and metabolite productivity for industrial cultivation. Cultures were grown under white, red, blue, combined red–blue, and white supplemented with UV-A light, and assessed for growth, pigment composition, Fx, and total phenolic content (TPC). Broad-spectrum white light supported the highest growth (30.17 ± 2.06% d⁻¹), biomass productivity, chlorophylls, carotenoids, and TPC (8.63 ± 0.07 mg GAE g⁻¹ DW). Meanwhile, Fx levels remained consistently high across spectra (17.27–18.49 mg g⁻¹ DW), indicating that TW P105 maintains near-maximal Fx accumulation under low-light conditions, with only minor modulation by light quality. UV-A exposure, though initially inhibitory, activated protective responses that reshaped pigment and phenolic metabolism. These findings show that spectral quality can be applied to fine-tune phenolic and antioxidant production, while white light maximizes biomass and carotenoid yields. The exceptional stability and consistently high Fx content of TW P105, even under various light condition and exceeding most previously reported values by 1.9–13.2 fold, highlight its potential as a robust candidate for sustainable fucoxanthin production. This study provides a technical foundation for spectral control in large-scale algal production and supports the industrial potential of TW P105 as a scalable, cost-effective source of fucoxanthin-rich biomass for nutraceutical, functional food, and pharmaceutical applications.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].