| Literature DB >> 22942683 |
Yu Zhang1, Jing-Liang Xu1, Zhen-Hong Yuan1, Wei Qi1, Yun-Yun Liu1, Min-Chao He1.
Abstract
Two artificial intelligence techniques, namely artificial neural network (ANN) and genetic algorithm (GA) were combined to be used as a tool for optimizing the covalent immobilization of cellulase on a smart polymer, Eudragit L-100. 1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethyllaminopropyl) carbodiimide (EDC) concentration, N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) concentration and coupling time were taken as independent variables, and immobilization efficiency was taken as the response. The data of the central composite design were used to train ANN by back-propagation algorithm, and the result showed that the trained ANN fitted the data accurately (correlation coefficient R(2) = 0.99). Then a maximum immobilization efficiency of 88.76% was searched by genetic algorithm at a EDC concentration of 0.44%, NHS concentration of 0.37% and a coupling time of 2.22 h, where the experimental value was 87.97 ± 6.45%. The application of ANN based optimization by GA is quite successful.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence based optimization; carbodiimide coupling; cellulase; immobilized enzyme; smart biocatalyst
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22942683 PMCID: PMC3430214 DOI: 10.3390/ijms13077952
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1The chemical structure and reversible soluble mechanism of Eudragit L-100.
Experimental design matrix of three factors and the experimental immobilization efficiency versus artificial neural network (ANN) simulated/predicted values. Data are means ± SD of triplicates.
| Trials | X1 | X2 | X3 | Immobilization efficiency (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Experimental | ANN | ||||
| 1 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 76.29 ± 5.25 | 77.69 |
| 2 | +1.00 | −1.00 | −1.00 | 46.53 ± 3.14 | 46.85 |
| 3 | −1.00 | +1.00 | −1.00 | 45.64 ± 3.52 | 45.53 |
| 4 | +1.00 | +1.00 | −1.00 | 67.12 ± 4.94 | 68.28 |
| 5 | −1.00 | −1.00 | +1.00 | 59.45 ± 4.15 | 59.58 |
| 6 | +1.00 | −1.00 | +1.00 | 48.80 ± 3.88 | 49.40 |
| 7 | −1.00 | +1.00 | +1.00 | 61.89 ± 4.68 | 64.31 |
| 8 | +1.00 | +1.00 | +1.00 | 73.77 ± 5.01 | 74.10 |
| 9 | −1.68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 54.74 ± 4.21 | 52.89 |
| 10 | +1.68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 64.84 ± 4.52 | 63.87 |
| 11 | 0.00 | −1.68 | 0.00 | 45.73 ± 3.57 | 47.18 |
| 12 | 0.00 | +1.68 | 0.00 | 63.49 ± 4.36 | 62.75 |
| 13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −1.68 | 55.12 ± 3.89 | 54.17 |
| 14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | +1.68 | 48.25 ± 3.31 | 48.00 |
| 15 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 77.01 ± 5.15 | 76.86 |
| 16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 77.33 ± 5.07 | 76.86 |
| 17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 77.22 ± 5.20 | 76.86 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 18 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 77.06 ± 5.19 | 76.86 |
| 19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 77.30 ± 5.09 | 76.86 |
| 20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 77.28 ± 5.08 | 76.86 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 21 | −1.68 | 0.00 | +1.00 | 76.22 ± 4.77 | 78.17 |
| 22 | −1.00 | +1.00 | 0.00 | 71.31 ± 3.98 | 69.38 |
| 23 | 0.00 | +1.68 | +1.68 | 57.59 ± 2.56 | 56.87 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for neural network model ANN.
| DF | SS | MS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1 | 2909.454 | 2909.454 | 2865.166 | 2.68E–21 | 0.9938 |
| Residual | 18 | 18.27823 | 1.015457 | |||
| Total | 19 | 2927.732 |
Figure 2Evolution of the best and average fitness (immobilization efficiency) over the 50 generations in the genetic algorithm.
Experimental levels and range of each factor.
| Factors | Symbols | Ranges and levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| −1.68 | −1.00 | 0 | 1.00 | 1.68 | ||
| EDC concentration | X1 | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.74 |
| NHS concentration | X2 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.28 | 0.40 | 0.48 |
| Coupling time | X3 | 0.48 | 1.50 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 5.52 |
Figure 3Schematic representation of ANN modeling the relationship between immobilization efficiency and three factors (EDC concentration, NHS concentration and coupling time). The factors wij and wj1 are the connecting weights from Xi* to Zj and Zj to Y*, respectively.