| Literature DB >> 28629346 |
Hong Zhu1, L Bruce Reynolds1, Rima Menassa2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alpha amylase hydrolyzes α-bonds of polysaccharides such as starch and produces malto-oligosaccharides. Its starch saccharification applications make it an essential enzyme in the textile, food and brewing industries. Commercially available α-amylase is mostly produced from Bacillus or Aspergillus. A hyper-thermostable and Ca 2++ independent α-amylase from Pyrococcus furiosus (PFA) expressed in E.coli forms insoluble inclusion bodies and thus is not feasible for industrial applications.Entities:
Keywords: Amylase; Hyperthermostable enzyme; Molecular farming; PFA; Recombinant protein production; Starch hydrolase; Thermostable; Tobacco; Transgenic plants
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28629346 PMCID: PMC5477289 DOI: 10.1186/s12896-017-0372-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biotechnol ISSN: 1472-6750 Impact factor: 2.563
Fig. 1PFA accumulates in Nicotiana tabacum in both transient expression and stable transformation. a Codon optimization improves accumulation of PFA in transient expression. Zymogram with tobacco leaf extracts transiently expressing pfa or an empty expression vector. Three replicates from three different plants are shown for each treatment. The bright bands indicate areas where starch is degraded by PFA. Each lane was loaded with 20 μl plant extract from 0.1 g leaf material extracted with 400 μl protein extraction buffer. PAGE-purified E.coli- produced PFA was used as standard. b Zymogram and (c) western blot hybridization analysis with anti-PFA antibodies of stable transgenic tobacco lines. PFA: 40 ng of E. coli-produced purified PFA. Lanes 1-8 represent eight independent transgenic lines from N. tabacum cv. TI95 (1-4 and 7-8) and I64 (5-6). The tobacco lines shown are representative of 16 N. tabacum cultivars used for producing 400 individual lines (25 lines/cultivar). WT: wild type, untransformed tobacco plant. Each lane was loaded with 5 μg total protein extracted with reducing extraction buffer
Fig. 2In native conditions, PFA forms aggregates. a. Zymogram (top panel) and western hybridization analysis with anti-PFA antibodies (lower panel) of plant-produced recombinant PFA from a stable transgenic plant on native PAGE. PBST: recombinant PFA extracted with PBST-based extraction buffer. Reducing: recombinant PFA extracted with reducing extraction buffer. μl: the amount of plant extract loaded onto each lane. Plant proteins were extracted from 20 mg of powdered freeze- dried whole leaf with 400 μl extraction buffer. Ten times more extract from PBST-based extraction was loaded onto the gel due to expected lower PFA extraction in this buffer. The zymogram does not show a difference in band intensities associated with loading volumes for either extraction method because the lowest loading volume contained enough PFA for digesting the starch present in the gel. b Crude extract in non-reducing buffer was filtered through a tangential flow filtration Pellicon XL cassette with 300 kDa cut-off membrane. lower functional PFA extraction in this buffer. c Crude extract in reducing buffer (80 ml) was sequentially filtered through Pellicon XL cassettes with 1000, 300, 100 and 10 kDa cut-off membranes. The membrane was washed with 20 ml buffer (wash). The permeate (Perm) and wash from one membrane were pooled and applied onto the next size cut-off membrane. The retentate (Ret) was about 8 ml in each case. Twenty μl of sample from each fraction were loaded onto each lane, and proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE
Fig. 4Purification of PFA from plant extract by electrophoresis with a preparative PAGE cell (a and b) and by heating (c). a GelCode blue-stained PAGE gel (top panel) and zymogram (bottom panel). Ten ml fractions were collected every 8 min for 8 h. Numbers denote the fraction number. Each lane was loaded with 20 μl sample. b Gelcode blue-stained PAGE loaded with crude extract and purified PFA from pooled fractions 45–55 which contained most PFA and very few other proteins. The pooled sample was concentrated and buffer-exchanged into reducing extraction buffer using a spin column with 10 kDa cut-off pore size. c Reduced extract was heated at different temperatures for 5 min and cleared by centrifugation. The supernatant was separated by SDS-PAGE. Top panel: zymogram. Lower panel: GelCode blue stained gel
Fig. 3Enzymatic activity and stability of recombinant PFA at different temperatures (a and c) and pH values (b and d). a The reaction was carried out in acetate buffer at pH 5.5. b The reaction was carried out in acetate buffer at pH 3-7, and in phosphate buffer at pH 7-12.5. c Plant-made PFA was extracted with reducing buffer, diluted 1/20 in acetate buffer pH 5.5 and incubated at different temperatures. d Plant-made PFA was extracted with reducing buffer, diluted 1/20 in buffers with different pH values and incubated at room temperature. The enzymatic assay was carried out at 95 °C
PFA yield in field grown tobacco
| PFA (g/kg fresh leaf)a | Fresh leaf yield (kg/plant)b | PFA kg/ha | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transgenic | Year | first | second | first | second | PFA/plant | if 40,000 | |||
| cultivar | line | harvest | harvest | average | harvest | harvest | total | g | plant/ha | |
| 81 V9 | 10 F10 | 2009 | 0.95 ± 0.34 | 1.80 ± 0.56 | 1.38 | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.31 ± 0.11 | 0.59 | 0.81 | 32.57 |
| 10 F18 | 2009 | 0.70 ± 0.16 | 1.68 ± 0.80 | 1.19 | 0.26 ± 0.04 | 0.28 ± 0.04 | 0.54 | 0.64 | 25.70 | |
| 2010 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.25 ± 0.10 | 0.22 ± 0.05 | 0.47 | 0.07 | 2.63 | ||
| 10 F12 | 2009 | 0.55 ± 0.05 | 1.31 ± 0.11 | 0.93 | 0.30 ± 0.05 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 20.46 | |
| I64 | 1 F9 | 2009 | 1.72 ± 0.26 | 1.05 ± 0.16 | 1.38 | 0.20 ± 0.06 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.47 | 0.65 | 25.94 |
| 1 F18 | 2009 | 1.48 ± 0.49 | 0.52 ± 0.23 | 1 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.29 ± 0.07 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 20.80 | |
| 1 F14 | 2009 | 1.31 ± 0.13 | 1.01 ± 0.23 | 1.16 | 0.18 ± 0.06 | 0.23 ± 0.03 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 19.02 | |
| 2010 | 0.89 ± 0.28 | 0.38 ± 0.23 | 0.63 | 0.25 ± 0.11 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.46 | 0.29 | 11.59 | ||
| TI 75 | 12 F8 | 2009 | 1.35 ± 0.15 | 2.29 ± 0.62 | 1.82 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.46 | 18.20 |
| 12 F34 | 2009 | 0.85 ± 0.26 | 1.01 ± 0.17 | 0.93 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 10.79 | |
| 2010 | 2.39 ± 0.51 | 4.49 ± 0.47 | 3.44 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.31 | 1.07 | 42.66 | ||
| 12 F35 | 2009 | 0.40 ± 0.13 | 0.90 ± 0.23 | 0.65 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.21 ± 0.07 | 0.35 | 0.23 | 9.10 | |
| Con. | 7 F8 | 2009 | 0.53 ± 0.13 | 1.28 ± 0.24 | 0.91 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 17.11 |
| Havana 38 | 2010 | 1.97 ± 0.59 | 1.24 ± 0.31 | 1.61 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.04 | 0.34 | 0.55 | 21.90 | |
| 7 F13 | 2009 | 0.67 ± 0.10 | 1.25 ± 0.11 | 0.96 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 12.67 | |
| 7 F15 | 2009 | 0.47 ± 0.26 | 0.40 ± 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.32 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.54 | 0.23 | 9.29 | |
| TI 95 | 3 F5 | 2009 | 0.83 ± 0.35 | 0.99 ± 0.12 | 0.91 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 12.38 |
| 2010 | 2.47 ± 0.44 | 0.41 ± 0.13 | 1.44 | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.04 | 0.29 | 0.42 | 16.70 | ||
| 3 F4 | 2009 | 1.48 ± 0.32 | 0.62 ± 0.20 | 1.05 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.06 | 0.3 | 0.32 | 12.60 | |
| 3 F30 | 2009 | 0.34 ± 0.07 | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.4 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.37 | 0.15 | 5.92 | |
| Little | 9 F28 | 2009 | 1.10 ± 0.14 | 0.52 ± 0.30 | 0.81 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.06 | 0.35 | 0.28 | 11.34 |
| Crittenden | 2010 | 2.09 ± 0.62 | 2.67 ± 0.92 | 2.38 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.38 | 0.90 | 36.18 | |
| 9 F20 | 2009 | 0.80 ± 0.07 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | 0.68 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 9.79 | |
| 2010 | 2.31 ± 0.37 | 0.75 ± 0.49 | 1.53 | 0.25 ± 0.08 | 0.18 ± 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.66 | 26.32 | ||
| 9 F26 | 2009 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.62 ± 0.43 | 0.4 | 0.18 ± 0.05 | 0.20 ± 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.15 | 6.08 | |
a: The data are expressed as the mean ± SD from four experimental plots
b: the data are expressed as the mean ± SD from 40 (2009 first harvest), 12 (2009 s harvest) and 20 (2010 first and second harvest) plants