| Literature DB >> 25050403 |
Mehrnoush Amid1, Mohd Yazid Abdul Manap1, Norkhanani Zohdi1.
Abstract
The main goal of this study was to investigate the effect of extraction conditions on the enzymatic properties of thermoacidic amylase enzyme derived from dragon peel. The studied extraction variables were the buffer-to-sample (B/S) ratio (1:2 to 1:6, w/w), temperature (-18°C to 25°), mixing time (60 to 180 seconds), and the pH of the buffer (2.0 to 8.0). The results indicate that the enzyme extraction conditions exhibited the least significant (P < 0.05) effect on temperature stability. Conversely, the extraction conditions had the most significant (P < 0.05) effect on the specific activity and pH stability. The results also reveal that the main effect of the B/S ratio, followed by its interaction with the pH of the buffer, was significant (P < 0.05) among most of the response variables studied. The optimum extraction condition caused the amylase to achieve high enzyme activity (648.4 U), specific activity (14.2 U/mg), temperature stability (88.4%), pH stability (85.2%), surfactant agent stability (87.2%), and storage stability (90.3%).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25050403 PMCID: PMC4094733 DOI: 10.1155/2014/640949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Regression coefficients, R 2, and P value of lack of fit for the final reduced models.
| Regression coefficient | Amylase activity ( | Specific activity ( | Temperature stability ( | pH stability ( | Surfactant stability ( | Storage stability ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 64.83 | 14.18 | 89.91 | 83.52 | 87.76 | 82.56 |
|
| 48.16 | 1.27 | 2.36 | 5.43 | 3.43 | 0.99 |
|
| 64.65 | 2.54 | — | 8.14 | 9.16 | — |
|
| 95.10 | 2.76 | 13.79 | 9.72 | 9.03 | 7.66 |
|
| 12.34 | 5.11 | 10.83 | 14.40 | −14.53 | 10.28 |
|
| 139.56 | 2.77 | — | 6.78 | 8.33 | 11.42 |
|
| 134.49 | 1.86 | 12.64 | 11.31 | 13.59 | 8.27 |
|
| 138.92 | 2.20 | 10.64 | 11.08 | 13.47 | 8.91 |
|
| 101.78 | 2.42 | 15.14 | 8.53 | 8.72 | 11.93 |
|
| 68.21 | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | 1.94 | — | 9.31 | 13.80 | 8.76 |
|
| 45.09 | — | 8.59 | — | — | — |
|
| 68.02 | 0.85 | — | 8.18 | 9.37 | 13.47 |
|
| 0.983 | 0.968 | 0.913 | 0.894 | 0.900 | 0.935 |
|
| 0.000∗ | 0.002∗ | 0.003∗ | 0.005∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.001∗ |
| Lack of fit ( | 205.77 | 395.10 | 202.99 | 130.89 | 160.02 | 120.01 |
1Temperature; 2time of mixing; 3pH of buffer; 4buffre: sample (B/S) ratio.
∗Significant (P < 0.05); b , b and b : the estimated regression coefficient for the main linear quadratic and interaction effects, respectively.
F-ratio and P value for each independent variable effect in the polynomial response surface models.
| Variables | Main effects | Quadratic effects | Interaction effects | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Amylase activity ( |
| 0.033∗ | 0.002∗ | 0.000∗ | 0.000∗ | 0.045∗ | 0.000∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.000∗ | 0.023∗ | — | — | — | 0.015∗ | 0.011∗ |
|
| 7.84 | 19.20 | 39.69 | 86.06 | 5.76 | 14.44 | 17.64 | 50.41 | 10.17 | — | — | — | 12.69 | 13.96 | |
| Specific activity ( |
| 0.040∗ | 0.002∗ | 0.013∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.033∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.006∗ | 0.004∗ | — | — | — | 0.001∗ | 0.010∗ | — |
|
| 6.81 | 27.14 | 12.39 | 42.40 | 8.00 | 33.40 | 12.58 | 19.09 | — | — | — | 39.94 | 13.54 | — | |
| Temperature stability ( |
| — | 0.000∗ | 0.014∗ | 0.000∗ | — | 0.001∗ | 0.008∗ | 0.000∗ | — | — | — | — | 0.017∗ | — |
|
| — | 28.70 | 8.09 | 28.17 | — | 19.89 | 9.78 | 20.16 | — | — | — | — | 7.44 | — | |
| pH stability ( |
| 0.043∗ | 0.005∗ | 0.000∗ | 0.015∗ | 0.021∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.006∗ | — | — | — | 0.025∗ | — | 0.044∗ |
|
| 3.34 | 11.42 | 24.90 | 7.95 | 7.09 | 12.60 | 18.92 | 5.29 | — | — | — | 5.05 | — | 1.78 | |
| Surfactant stability ( |
| 0.040∗ | 0.013∗ | 0.015∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.011∗ | 0.008∗ | 0.001∗ | 0.000∗ | — | — | — | 0.004∗ | — | 0.035∗ |
|
| 1.12 | 8.58 | 8.35 | 21.52 | 9.12 | 4.84 | 11.02 | 24.30 | — | — | — | 12.18 | — | 10.98 | |
| Storage stability ( |
| — | 0.003∗ | 0.036∗ | 0.001∗ | — | 0.030∗ | 0.034∗ | 0.014∗ | — | — | — | 0.021∗ | — | 0.000∗ |
|
| — | 17.05 | 5.76 | 21.06 | — | 6.65 | 6.22 | 15.52 | — | — | — | 7.84 | — | 37.94 | |
X 1, X 2, X 3, and X 4: the main effect of temperature, time of mixing, pH of buffer and buffer to sample ratio, respectively. X 1 2, X 2 2, X 3 2, and X 4 2: the quadratic effect of effect of temperature, time of mixing, pH of buffer and buffer to sample ratio, respectively. X 1 X 2: the interaction effect of temperature and time of mixing; X 1 X 3: the interaction effect of temperature and pH of buffer, X 1 X 4: the interaction effect of temperature and buffer to sample ratio; X 2 X 3: interaction effect of time of mixing and pH of buffer; X 3 X 4: interaction effect of pH of buffer and Buffer to sample ratio.
∗Significant (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Three-dimensional curves for showing the significant interaction effect of independent extraction variables (e.g., temperature, time of mixing, pH of buffer, and buffer to sample ratio) on activity (a-b) and specific activity (c-d) of amylase were plotted.
Figure 2Three-dimensional surface plots for showing the significant interaction effect of independent extraction variables on temperature stability (a) and pH stability (b-c) of amylase were plotted.
Figure 3Three-dimensional surface plots for showing the significant interaction effect of independent extraction variables on surfactant agent stability (a-b) and storage stability (c) of amylase were plotted.
Figure 4Graphical optimization using overlaid counter plots for showing the optimum area of amylase extraction variables was plotted.