| Literature DB >> 26543036 |
Brian R Scott1, Hong Zhi Huang2, Jesper Frickman3, Rune Halvorsen4, Katja S Johansen5,6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Efficient enzymatic saccharification of plant cell wall material is key to industrial processing of agricultural and forestry waste such as straw and wood chips into fuels and chemicals.Entities:
Keywords: Catalase; Cellulase; Fenton chemistry; Kinetic modelling; Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase; Pretreated wheat straw; Reactive oxygen species
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26543036 PMCID: PMC4767857 DOI: 10.1007/s10529-015-1989-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Lett ISSN: 0141-5492 Impact factor: 2.461
Fig. 1Arrow diagrams describing the two-stage Michaelis–Menten kinetic model with competitive inhibition and cellulase inactivation. A model describing the conversion of cellulose (S) to cellobiose (G2) catalyzed by active cellulase enzyme (Ea) is shown in panel a. The cellulase in this model is subject to competitive inhibition by both glucose (G) and cellobiose (G2) and time-dependent inactivation to E*. The model process by which cellobiose is converted to glucose (G) by β-glucosidase (Bg) is shown in panel b. The β-glucosidase is subject to competitive inhibition by glucose
Values for individual kinetic parameters that were fixed in all model fits
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Ks | 42 g/l |
| KGa | 13 g/l |
| KG2 | 3 g/l |
|
| 100 h−1 |
| KM | 2 g/l |
| KGb | 1 g/l |
Fig. 2Effects of O2 limitation and catalase addition on CTec3 cellulose hydrolysis progress curves. Pretreated wheat straw was incubated with 2.8 (blue circles), 5.6 (red triangles), 8.4 (green squares) and 11.2 mg protein/g cellulose (black diamonds) of CTec3 for 144 h at 50 °C, pH 5. Reactions were carried out in ambient air (panels a and c) and O2-deprived (panels e and g) conditions. Similarly, the effects of adding catalase under each of these conditions are shown in panels c and g, respectively. To better illustrate time-dependent enzyme inactivation under each of these conditions, the conversion data are plotted as a function of enzyme dose x time in panels b, d, f and h. Model fits to these data are shown by lines colour-matched to the data
Parameter values from model fits to CTec3 progress curves shown in Fig. 2
| Air | Catalase |
|
| t1/2 (h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambient | No catalase | 16.5 ± 1.5 | 17.7 ± 2.7 | 39 ± 6 |
| Ambient | Catalase | 14.9 ± 1.2 | 9.3 ± 1.8a | 75 ± 15b |
| N2 | No catalase | 11 ± 0.9a | 1.2 ± 2.1a | 582 ± 981a |
| N2 | Catalase | 10.5 ± 0.6a | 0 ± 1.3a | n/aa |
The model was fitted to each progress curves shown in Fig. 2 by varying k s and k i. Values shown are best fit values and their associated standard deviations. Statistically significant differences relative to the ambient air and no catalase control, as determined using Student’s T test, are indicated
a P value < 0.01 relative to value of equivalent parameter measured under ambient air conditions without catalase
b P value < 0.05 relative to value of equivalent parameter measured under ambient air conditions without catalase
Fig. 3Effect of catalase on cellulose hydrolysis performance in presence and absence of AA9 and limited O2. Pretreated wheat straw was incubated with 8.4 mg total enzyme protein/g cellulose at 50 °C, pH 5 for 96 h under conditions of ambient air (panel a) or after purging with N2 (panel b). The enzyme cocktail consisted of 80 % Celluclast 1.5L, 10 % β-glucosidase, and 10 % either LPMO (Ta AA9) or 10 % BSA. In the indicated samples, Ta catalase was added at a concentration of 0.22 mg enzyme/g cellulose. Model fits to these data are shown by lines colour-matched to the data
Parameter values from model fits to cellulose hydrolysis progress curves shown in Fig. 3
| Air | AA9 | Catalase |
|
| t1/2 (h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambient | – | – | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 9.6 ± 0.8 | 65 ± 6 |
| Ambient | + | – | 6.9 ± 0.4a | 17.8 ± 2.0a | 35 ± 4a |
| Ambient | – | + | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 9.9 ± 0.7 | 63 ± 5 |
| Ambient | + | + | 7.2 ± 1.0a | 4 ± 3.8b | 154 ± 160b |
| N2 | – | – | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 7.9 ± 3.4 | 78 ± 37 |
| N2 | + | – | 4.6 ± 0.6a,c | 0 ± 3.3a | n/aa |
| N2 | – | + | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 6.9 ± 2.6 | 90 ± 37 |
| N2 | + | + | 4.6 ± 0.4a,c | 0 ± 2.4a | n/aa |
The model was fitted to each progress curves shown in Fig. 3 by varying k s and k i. Values shown are best fit values and their associated standard deviations. Statistically significant differences, as determined using Student’s T test, are indicated
a P value < 0.01 relative to value of equivalent parameter measured under ambient air conditions without catalase
b P value < 0.01 relative to value of equivalent parameter measured under ambient air conditions, with AA9 and without catalase
c P value < 0.01 relative to value of equivalent parameter measured under O2-deprived conditions without AA9 or catalase
Fig. 4Effects of exogenous H2O2 addition on cellulase performance under ambient air and limited O2 conditions. CTec3 was incubated with pretreated wheat straw in the presence of 0 (blue circles), 0.01 (red triangles), 0.1 (green squares) and 1 (black diamonds) mg H2O2/g slurry added four times (as indicated by the arrows) after the cellulosic material was liquefied. Effects of H2O2 were tested under ambient air (panel a) and after purging with N2 (panel b). For this experiment lids for the reaction tubes with a septum were used and the indicated amount of H2O2 was added to the reaction mixture using Hamilton syringes. The first addition was made after about 18 h of incubation at which time the reaction mixtures were liquefied. H2O2 was added four times at intervals of about 3.5 h during which the tubes continued incubation at 50 °C