| Literature DB >> 23853757 |
Farnaz Yusuf1, Asha Chaubey, Arvind Raina, Urmila Jamwal, Rajinder Parshad.
Abstract
The individual and interactive effects of three independent variables i.e. carbon source (glucose), nitrogen source (sodium nitrate) and inducer (ϵ-caprolactam) on nitrilase production from Fusarium proliferatum were investigated using design of experiments (DOE) methodology. Response surface methodology (RSM) was followed to generate the process model and to obtain the optimal conditions for maximum nitrilase production. Based on central composite design (CCD) a quadratic model was found to fit the experimental data (p<0.0001) and maximum activity of 59.0U/g biomass was predicted at glucose concentration (53.22 g/l), sodium nitrate (2.31 g/l) and ϵ-caprolactam (3.58 g/l). Validation experiments were carried out under the optimized conditions for verification of the model. The nitrilase activity of 58.3U/g biomass obtained experimentally correlated to the predicted activity which proves the authenticity of the model. Overall 2.24 fold increase in nitrilase activity was achieved as compared to the activity before optimization (26U/g biomass).Entities:
Keywords: Central composite design; Design of experiments; Fusarium proliferatum; Nitrilase; Response surface methodology
Year: 2013 PMID: 23853757 PMCID: PMC3706717 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Some fungal strains reported for nitrilase production
| Filamentous fungi | Nitrilase activity (U/l culture) | Substrate | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1500 | Benzonitrilile | Vejvoda et al. | |
| >3000 | Benzonitrile | Vejvoda et al. | |
| 119.7 | Benzonitrile | Kaplan et al. | |
| 17.6 | Benzonitrile | Kaplan et al. | |
| 160 | Benzonitrile | ;Martínková et al. | |
| na | 3-cyanopyridine | Wu et al. | |
| Benzonitrile | Kaplan et al. | ||
| 9.3 | Benzonitrile | ;Martínková et al. | |
| na | 3-cyanopyridine | Jin et al. | |
| 2000 | Benzonitrile | Communicated | |
| >4000 | Benzonitrile |
Independent variables selected for experimental design
| Factors | Symbols | Code levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | +1 | ||
| Glucose (g/l) | A | 40 | 50 | 60 |
| Sodium nitrate (g/l) | B | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| ϵ-Caprolactam (g/l) | C | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 |
Central composite design matrix for the experimental and predicted results in the production of nitrilase
| Run | Glucose (g/l) | Sodium nitrate (g/l) | ϵ-caprolactam (g/l) | Predicted activity(U/g) | Actual activity(U/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 50.00 | 1.66 | 3.50 | 48.65 | 48 ±2.06 |
| 2 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 1.82 | 32.03 | 30 ±2.24 |
| 3 | 66.82 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 54.20 | 50 ±1.35 |
| 4 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 58.14 | 59 ±1.24 |
| 5 | 33.18 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 51.57 | 49 ±2.35 |
| 6 | 40.00 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 42.88 | 44 ±1.32 |
| 7 | 40.00 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 44.77 | 45 ±1.23 |
| 8 | 50.00 | 3.34 | 3.50 | 46.12 | 46 ±1.42 |
| 9 | 60.00 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 44.33 | 45 ±1.34 |
| 10 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 58.14 | 56 ±2.33 |
| 11 | 40.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 | 38.27 | 41 ±2.31 |
| 12 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 5.18 | 34.74 | 30 ±3.24 |
| 13 | 60.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 | 44.33 | 48 ±2.52 |
| 14 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 58.14 | 55 ±3.26 |
| 15 | 40.00 | 2.00 | 4.50 | 45.88 | 50 ±3.94 |
| 16 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 58.14 | 62 ±2.63 |
| 17 | 60.00 | 2.00 | 4.50 | 49.44 | 54 ±2.45 |
| 18 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 58.14 | 60 ±1.38 |
| 19 | 60.00 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 39.94 | 42 ±1.33 |
| 20 | 50.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 58.14 | 58 ±1.23 |
Model fitting values
| Model terms | Values |
|---|---|
| CV (%)a | 7.35 |
| R2 b | 0.91 |
| Adjusted R2 c | 0.83 |
| Adequate precision d | 10.58 |
| Standard deviation | 3.57 |
a CV (%): coefficient of variance, is the standard deviation which is expressed as a percentage of the mean.
b R2: is the measure of variation around the mean explained by the model.
c Adjusted R2: is the measure of variation around the mean explained by the model, adjusted for the number of terms in the model. The adjusted R2 decreases as the number of terms in the model increases provided those additional terms do not add value to the model.
d Adequate precision: compares the range of predicted value at the design points to the average prediction error.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for response surface quadratic model
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F-value | P-value prob > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1355.14 | 9 | 150.57 | 11.79 | 0.0003 |
| Lack of fit | 94.33 | 5 | 18.87 | 2.83 | 0.1391 |
| B- Sodium nitrate | 30.36 | 1 | 30.36 | 2.38 | 0.1540 |
| C- Caprolactam | 8.86 | 1 | 8.86 | 0.69 | 0.4242 |
| B2 | 126.67 | 1 | 126.67 | 9.92 | 0.0103 |
| C2 | 1160.86 | 1 | 1160.86 | 90.93 | <0.0001 |
| Pure error | 33.33 | 5 | 6.67 | ||
| Cor total | 1482.80 | 19 |
Figure 1Perturbation Plot, A (glucose), B (sodium nitrate) and C (ϵ-caprolactam).
Figure 2Three dimensional contour plots showing the effect of different variables on the nitrilase production by.
Figure 3The growth curve ofand nitrilase activity (U/g biomass) after RSM optimization.