| Literature DB >> 28702370 |
Laura Marcela Palma Medina1, Diana Catalina Ardila1, María Mercedes Zambrano2,3, Silvia Restrepo4, Andrés Fernando González Barrios1.
Abstract
Diversification of raw material for biofuel production is of interest to both academia and industry. One attractive substrate is a renewable lignocellulosic material such as oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) empty fruit bunch (OPEFB), which is a byproduct of the palm oil industry. This study aimed to characterize cellulases active against this substrate. Cellulases with activity against OPEFB were identified from a metagenomic library obtained from DNA extracted from a high-Andean forest ecosystem. Our findings show that the highest cellulolytic activities were obtained at pH and temperature ranges of 4-10 and 30 °C-60 °C, respectively. Due to the heterogeneous character of the system, degradation profiles were fitted to a fractal-like kinetic model, evidencing transport mass transfer limitations. The sequence analysis of the metagenomic library inserts revealed three glycosyl hydrolase families. Finally, molecular docking simulations of the cellulases were carried out corroborating possible exoglucanase and β-glucosidase activity.Entities:
Keywords: Cellulases; Fractal-like kinetic model; Metagenomics; Molecular docking; Oil palm empty fruit bunch
Year: 2017 PMID: 28702370 PMCID: PMC5487248 DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2017.06.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Rep (Amst) ISSN: 2215-017X
Fig. 1Effect of different metal ions on reducing sugars production by cellulases of clones 4, 8, 12, and 13 against OPEFB after two hours of reaction. Error bars shown are standard deviation, n = 2.
Fig. 2Time profile for the hydrolytic activity of each metagenomic clone using different concentrations of OPEFB (5%, 6.25%, and 7.5%). (A) Clone 4 with the addition of KCl, (B) Clone 8 without any metal ion addition, (C) Clone 12 without any metal ion addition, (D) Clone 13 with the addition of ZnSO4. All the curves were adjusted to a fractal kinetics model (continuous lines). Error bars shown are standard deviation, n = 5.
Identification of Pfam domains in each contig that had Blast results related with cellulases.
| Clone | Contig ID | Enzyme expected | Domains | Length | Alignment | E-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start | End | ||||||
| 4 | 4I | Endoglucanase | Glycosyl hydrolases family 8 | 271 | 2 | 257 | 2.8E-100 |
| 4II | β-glucosidase | Glycosyl hydrolase family 1 | 475 | 4 | 472 | 1.7E-127 | |
| 8 | 8I | Endoglucanase | Glycosyl hydrolases family 8 | 370 | 3 | 348 | 8.5E-144 |
| 8II | Exo-1,3-1,4-glucanase | Glycosyl hydrolase family 3 N-terminal domain | 631 | 25 | 227 | 1.4E-63 | |
| 269 | 331 | 4.6E-09 | |||||
| Glycosyl hydrolase family 3 C-terminal domain | 374 | 627 | 3.2E-61 | ||||
| 12 | 12I | Exo-1,3-1,4-glucanase | Glycosyl hydrolase family 3 N-terminal domain | 411 | 51 | 338 | 7.4E-91 |
| 13 | 13I | Endoglucanase | M42 glutamyl aminopeptidase | 373 | 46 | 346 | 3.0E-77 |
| 13II | β-glucosidase | Glycosyl hydrolase family 1 | 476 | 4 | 472 | 1.0E-122 | |
Qmean scores and Ramachandran Plot statistics from 3D modeled structure quality check of each individual contig. The results were obtained on the Swiss Model platform.
| Contig ID | Qmean6 Score | Residues in allowed regions | Residues in disallowed regions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4I | 0.659 | 99.6% | 0.4% |
| 4II | 0.711 | 99.5% | 0.5% |
| 8I | 0.747 | 99.3% | 0.7% |
| 8II | 0.561 | 97.4% | 2.6% |
| 12I | 0.63 | 99.7% | 0.3% |
| 13I | 0.61 | 98.3% | 1.7% |
| 13II | 0.63 | 99.8% | 0.2% |
Results of molecular docking simulations of the cellulases derived of each contig. A chain of five glucose residues (referred to as Polysaccharide) and a cellobiose molecule were used as ligands. Binding energy and important amino interacting with the ligand are reported. Beside conventional hydrogen bonds other interactions were considered for the analysis as carbon-hydrogen bonds, Pi-Sigma and Pi-Donor Bonds.
| Contig ID | Ligand | Binding Energy | Ligand interactions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional H-Bonds | Other interactions | |||
| 4I | Polysaccharide | −5.72 | Ala3-Trp34 | Gly25-Tyr48 |
| 4II | Cellobiose | −7.04 | Gln19-His130-Asn175-Glu176-Tyr313-Glu373-Phe429-Thr430 | Trp421 |
| Polysaccharide | −4.28 | Arg44-Asp344-Trp345 | Cys43-Pro186-Gln433 | |
| 8I | Polysaccharide | −6.04 | Lys57-Tyr244-Asp245-Tyr333-Tyr334 | Trp98-Asp331 |
| 8II | Cellobiose | −6 | Ile36-Ala88-Asp90-Trp134-Asp299 | Tyr89 |
| Polysaccharide | −6.12 | Arg148-Lys199-Arg239-Leu244-Leu272 | Tyr201 | |
| 12I | Cellobiose | −5.46 | Gly15-Leu19-Phe345-Asn346 | Glu22-Tyr340-Asp341 |
| Polysaccharide | −3.96 | Val71-Arg104-Ile109 | Thr70 | |
| 13I | Polysaccharide | −3.18 | Cys240-Thr242-Pro270-Tyr327-Thr328 | |
| 13II | Cellobiose | −6.54 | Leu32-Phe55-Pro101-Thr145-Glu146- | Gly31-Gln102 |
| Polysaccharide | −3.78 | Glu260-Asn323-Asn331-Val332-Val333 | Gly259-Gly263 | |
| gi|327200721–Ref 4I and 8I | Polysaccharide | −5.94 | Ser46-Trp96-Asp110-Tyr182-Tyr331-Tyr332 | Asp44-Ala330 |
| gi|339717359 − Ref 4II and 13II | Cellobiose | −6.55 | Gln22-His134-Asn179-Glu180-Tyr317-Glu377-Phe433 | |
| Polysaccharide | −6.32 | Glu180-Asn183-Asn320-Phe335-Ser338-Gly350-Trp351 | ||
| gi|364506202 − Ref 8II | Cellobiose | −6.98 | Arg172-His215-Glu493 | Gly65-Asp293-Trp294-Trp436 |
| Polysaccharide | −5.03 | Gly66-Asn67-Lys74-Asn116-Trp294-Asn295-Glu323-Val434 | Ser435 | |
| gi|16761109 | Cellobiose | −6.07 | Arg163-Glu176-Thr178-Ser611-His612 | Asp177-Asn234 |
| Polysaccharide | −3.78 | Val84-Gly428-Ala433 | Ser429-Gly434-Glu518 | |
| gi|336122540 − Ref13I | Polysaccharide | −4.13 | Met69-Lys83-Gly85-Lys212 | Glu208-Arg263 |