| Literature DB >> 25392792 |
Tanveer Pirzadah1, Shashank Garg2, Joginder Singh2, Ashish Vyas2, Manish Kumar3, Naseem Gaur4, Madhu Bala5, Reiaz Rehman1, Ajit Varma6, Vivek Kumar6, Manoj Kumar7.
Abstract
Laboratory bench scaling was done and an average of 1.85 fold increase by Response Surface Methodology (RSM) optimization was obtained. It was found that the predicted value (4.96 IU/ml) obtained by RSM is in close accordance with observed activity 5.14 IU/ml. Endoglucanases are mainly induced by CMC while Wheat bran (natural substrate) exoglucanase is more active when induced by avicel and cellulose. Addition of substrate beyond a level caused inhibition of cellulase production. The molecular weight of protein as determined by SDS-PAGE is very similar to molecular weight of cellulase of Trichoderma viride (T. viride) cellulase and Trichoderma reesei (T. reesei) endoglucanase. T. reesei β-glucosidase has high enzymatic activity on CMC substrate when compared with T. viride β-glucosidase. Secondary structure analysed by using Circular Dichroism confirmed that composition of celluase system is very similar to other analysed species. The cellulase was found to be active in pH range of 4.8-5.5; while temperature range varied from 50°C to 70°C. Although the enzymatic activity produced by mutants were lesser than the parent, but in one case mutants of Trichoderma reesei's BGL has shown higher activity on cellulose.Entities:
Keywords: Avicel; CMC; Circular dichroism; Response surface methodology; Wheat bran; Zymogram
Year: 2014 PMID: 25392792 PMCID: PMC4218925 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-622
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Ranges of variable used for CCD
| Coded level | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | −2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| CMC (g/l) | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
| KH2PO4 (g/l) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Peptone (g/l) | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 |
| pH | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Figure 1Activities of different cellulases from respective organisms over different substrates. (A) Exaglucanase activity of the 6 organisms under study cultured in different carbon sources viz. CMC, Cellulose, Root Crush, Root Crush + CMC and Wheat Bran. (B) FPAse activity of the 6 organisms under study cultured in different carbon sources viz. CMC, Cellulose, Root Crush, Root Crush + CMC and Wheat Bran. (C) β-glucosidase activity of the 6 organisms under study cultured in different carbon sources viz. CMC, Cellulose, Root Crush, Root Crush + CMC and Wheat Bran.
Experimental runs for Plackett – Burman Design
| Run | A CMC | B WB | C RC | D Peptone | E pH | F MgSO 4 | G KH 2PO 4 | H* | J* | K* | L* | Response (Activity(IU/ml)) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted | Actual | ||||||||||||
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 0.26 | 0.18 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 0.80 | 0.88 |
| 3 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 2.40 | 2.58 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 0.40 | 0.32 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 0.90 | 0.94 |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 0.60 | 0.54 |
| 7 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 3.40 | 3.98 |
| 8 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 3.60 | 3.2 |
| 9 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1.40 | 1.11 |
| 10 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.94 | 0.87 |
| 11 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 0.40 | 0.38 |
| 12 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1.30 | 1.6 |
*Dummy variables.
Figure 2Pareto chart showing the effect of media components on cellulase activity. Developed from the data analysis in the Plackett-Burman experimental run, this chart was used to determine the significant factors affecting cellulase yield.
Statistical analysis of Plackett-Burman design showing coefficient values, -value and -value for each variable
| Variable | Coefficient | t-value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.08 | 12.7062 | 0.0049* |
| CMC | 0.24 | 12.7062 | 0.0024* |
| WB | −0.15 | 4.30265 | 0.0037 |
| RC | 0.025 | 3.18245 | 0.0249 |
| Peptone | 0.12 | 2.77645 | 0.0049* |
| pH | 0.17 | 2.57058 | 0.0033* |
| MgSO4 | −0.099 | 2.44 | 0.0057 |
| KH2PO4 | 0.18 | 2.36462 | 0.0031* |
*Significant factors.
CCD experimental design
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Response (Activity(IU/ml)) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | A:CMC(g/l) | B:KH2PO4(g/l) | C:pH | D:Peptone(g/l) | Predicted | Actual |
| 1 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 1.86 |
| 2 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.74 |
| 3 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 1.95 |
| 4 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.58 |
| 5 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 5.14 | 4.97 |
| 6 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 5.08 | 4.97 |
| 7 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.21 |
| 8 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.12 |
| 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| 10 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 3.5 | 0.2 | 0.95 |
| 11 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 1.96 |
| 12 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 4.84 | 4.97 |
| 13 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.85 |
| 14 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 4.78 | 4.97 |
| 15 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 1.47 |
| 16 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.09 |
| 17 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.89 |
| 18 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 0.21 |
| 19 | 16 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 2.38 |
| 20 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 4.8 | 4.97 |
| 21 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 2.5 | 5.12 | 4.97 |
| 22 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 3.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 23 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 2 | 1.37 |
| 24 | 12 | 3 | 5 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 1.51 |
| 25 | 12 | 1 | 5 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 0.55 |
| 26 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 2.18 |
| 27 | 14 | 2 | 6 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 1.01 |
| 28 | 14 | 2 | 6 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.43 |
| 29 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.94 |
| 30 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 1.03 |
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares - type III]
| Source | Sum of squares | Df | Mean square | F value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 72.28 | 14 | 5.16 | 8.54 | <0.0001 |
| A-CMC | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.6251 |
| B-KH2PO4 | 0.0004167 | 1 | 0.0004167 | 0.0006894 | 0.9794 |
| C-pH | 2.47 | 1 | 2.47 | 4.09 | 0.0614 |
| D-Peptone | 0.45 | 1 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.3999 |
| AB | 2.18 | 1 | 2.18 | 3.6 | 0.0772 |
| AC | 0.005625 | 1 | 0.005625 | 0.0093 | 0.9244 |
| AD | 0.39 | 1 | 0.39 | 0.65 | 0.434 |
| BC | 1.38 | 1 | 1.38 | 2.28 | 0.1515 |
| BD | 0.005625 | 1 | 0.005625 | 0.0093 | 0.9244 |
| CD | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.6818 |
| A2 | 12.86 | 1 | 12.86 | 21.28 | 0.0003 |
| B2 | 36.10 | 1 | 36.10 | 59.74 | <0.0001 |
| C2 | 23.97 | 1 | 23.97 | 39.66 | <0.0001 |
| D2 | 17.99 | 1 | 17.99 | 29.76 | <0..0001 |
| Residual | 9.07 | 15 | 0.60 | ||
| Lack of fit | 8.92 | 10 | 0.89 | 20.63 | 0.0007 |
| Pure error | 0.14 | 5 | 0.029 | ||
| Cor total |
| 29 |
Figure 3Contour plot for cellulase production showing the interactive effects of medium components. (A) Interaction plot of CMC and KH2PO4. (B) Interaction plot of CMC and pH. (C) Interaction plot of CMC and Peptone. (D) Interaction plot of pH and KH2PO4. (E) Interaction plot of Peptone and KH2PO4. (F) Interaction plot of Peptone and pH. These contour plots are actual 2D projections of response plots which are developed in the methodology used in the present study. They give the idea of interactions between variables affecting the yield.
Optimization summary of enzymes
| Activity(IU/ml) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CMCase | BGL | FPA | |
| Unoptimized | 3.142 | 0.66 | 1.38 |
| Optimized | 5.140 | 1.22 | 2.60 |
| Fold increase | 1.6 | 1.85 | 1.88 |
Figure 4SDS PAGE analysis of cellulase composition Lane1; crude , Lane 2 purified , Lane 3 purified lane 4 Standard marker (GeNei).
Figure 5Cellulase zymogram of (TR) and (TV) on CMC and negative control.
Secondary structure composition of cellulase determined from Far-UV CD spectra in pH 7.4 at 25°C
| (a) | |
|---|---|
| Secondary structure | Amount |
| Helix | 100% |
| Antiparallel | 0 |
| Parallel | 0 |
| Beta Turn | 1.3% |
| Random Coil | 0.2% |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Helix | 100% |
| Antiparallel | 0 |
| Parallel | 0 |
| Beta Turn | 1.2% |
| Random Coil | 0.2% |
(a) Cellulase from (a) Trichoderma reesei, (b) Trichoderma viride.
Figure 6CD curves of cellulase samples from (A) (B)