| Literature DB >> 26640801 |
Eyad M A Alshammari1, Saif Khan1, Arshad Jawed2, Mohd Adnan1, Mahvish Khan1, Gowher Nabi3, Mohtashim Lohani4, Shafiul Haque5.
Abstract
Ovotransferrin is the second most abundant protein (~12-13% of the total egg protein) in egg white after ovalbumin. Ovotransferrin is a potent natural antimicrobial agent as it possesses antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral properties and is also the major metal binding protein found in egg, which makes it an industrially important protein. Ovotransferrin was extracted from egg white using its metal (iron) binding properties. In the present study, eggs from two different sources were used (fresh local eggs from domestic household source and poultry eggs from shops) to compare the results and Response Surface Methodology was used for the experiment design and data analysis. The following extraction conditions were optimized so as to maximize the yield of ovotransferrin from egg white: ethanol % (v/v) and pH and volume (mL) of 25 mM FeCl3/50 mL of egg white. A maximum yield of ~85 ± 2.5% was obtained near the optimum extraction conditions. The yield was calculated based on the theoretical value (934 mg) of ovotransferrin in 100 mL of 1.5x diluted egg white solution. Our results suggest that efficient downstream processing may reduce the cost of overall production process of this promising enzyme, making it a natural and cost-effective alternative to the existing chemically synthesized antimicrobial agents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26640801 PMCID: PMC4657406 DOI: 10.1155/2015/934512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Graphical representation of the entire extraction optimization process of ovotransferrin.
Design parameters for the statistical design.
| Variables | Range selected for the study |
|---|---|
| Ethanol | 31.5%–48.5% (v/v) |
| pH | 6.3–9.7 |
| Volume (mL) of 25 mM FeCl3/50 mL of egg white | 0.08–0.92 |
Design of experiments and ovotransferrin yield for each run.
| S. number | Ethanol % (v/v) | pH | Volume (mL) of 25 mM FeCl3/50 mL of egg white | Ovotransferrin yield (mg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 35.00 | 7.00 | 0.25 | 4.10 |
| 2 | 45.00 | 7.00 | 0.25 | 5.70 |
| 3 | 35.00 | 9.00 | 0.25 | 4.30 |
| 4 | 45.00 | 9.00 | 0.25 | 6.00 |
| 5 | 35.00 | 7.00 | 0.75 | 3.70 |
| 6 | 45.00 | 7.00 | 0.75 | 7.30 |
| 7 | 35.00 | 9.00 | 0.75 | 4.30 |
| 8 | 45.00 | 9.00 | 0.75 | 7.30 |
| 9 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.08 | 3.70 |
| 10 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.92 | 7.10 |
| 11 | 40.00 | 6.32 | 0.50 | 5.30 |
| 12 | 40.00 | 9.76 | 0.50 | 6.30 |
| 13 | 31.50 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 5.80 |
| 14 | 48.50 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.00 |
| 15 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.00 |
| 16 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.10 |
| 17 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.30 |
| 18 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 6.90 |
| 19 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 6.60 |
| 20 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.30 |
| 21 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 6.70 |
| 22 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.30 |
| 23 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.10 |
| 24 | 40.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 | 7.40 |
Figure 2Size exclusion chromatography: stacked chromatogram of undiluted and diluted (5x) samples of extracted ovotransferrin.
Figure 3SDS-PAGE analysis of extracted ovotransferrin as per the CCD runs.
ANOVA for ovotransferrin extraction. R 2 = 0.94553; Adj. R 2 = 0.89623.
| SS | df | MS |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Var 1 (L) | 10.65997 | 1 | 10.65997 | 0.000188 |
| Var 1 (Q) | 1.79042 | 1 | 1.79042 | 0.048878 |
| (2) Var 2 (L) | 0.64872 | 1 | 0.64872 | 0.026131 |
| Var 2 (Q) | 4.74469 | 1 | 4.74469 | 0.004786 |
| (3) Var 3 (L) | 5.06342 | 1 | 5.06342 | 0.003841 |
| Var 3 (Q) | 8.04183 | 1 | 8.04183 | 0.000655 |
| 1L by 2L | 0.02645 | 1 | 0.02645 | 0.080257 |
| 1L by 3L | 1.44500 | 1 | 1.44500 | 0.045920 |
| 2L by 3L | 0.00045 | 1 | 0.00045 | 0.974452 |
| Error | 2.92722 | 14 | 0.32337 | |
| Total SS | 38.37230 | 23 |
Figure 4(a) Predicted versus actual ovotransferrin yield. (b) Fitted response surface showing the combined effect of ethanol (%; x 1) and pH (x 2) on ovotransferrin yield. (c) Fitted response surface showing the combined effect of volume of FeCl3 (x 3) and pH (x 2) on ovotransferrin yield. (d) Fitted response surface showing the combined effect of volume of FeCl3 (x 3) and ethanol (%; x 1) on ovotransferrin yield.
Regression analysis, Fischer value, and p value determinations. Regr. coefficients; Var 1: Var 3; R 2 = 0.94553; Adj. R 2 = 0.89623, 3 factors, 1 block, 24 runs; MS residual = 0.323726.
| Regression coefficient |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean/Interc. | −56.7598 | −2.68155 | 0.017891 |
| (1) Var 1 (L) | 1.1429 | 2.99944 | 0.048532 |
| Var 1 (Q) | −0.011 | −3.05644 | 0.005878 |
| (2) Var 2 (L) | 9.0029 | 2.86487 | 0.012478 |
| Var 2 (Q) | −0.5214 | −3.34767 | 0.004786 |
| (3) Var 3 (L) | −0.1206 | −2.91122 | 0.051208 |
| Var 3 (Q) | −11.2827 | −4.35829 | 0.000655 |
| 1L by 2L | −0.0115 | −0.24995 | 0.806257 |
| 1L by 3L | 0.3400 | 2.94745 | 0.050940 |
| 2L by 3L | 0.0300 | 0.03260 | 0.974452 |
Figure 5Individual effect of extraction conditions on ovotransferrin yield: ovotransferrin yield plotted as a response obtained by varying individual extraction conditions keeping the other two at central values of the CCD: (a) ethanol % (v/v) in first and second extraction, (b) pH, and (c) volume (mL) of 25 mM FeCl3/50 mL of egg white.