| Literature DB >> 29449622 |
Jiefen Cui1, Yinping Li1,2, Shixin Wang3, Yongzhou Chi1, Hueymin Hwang4, Peng Wang5.
Abstract
The sulfated polysaccharides from Enteromorpha prolifera (PE) are a potential source of anticoagulant agents. In this study, the PE was degraded by specific degradase and five hydrolysis products with different molecular weights were prepared. The product of 206 kDa is a kind of high rhamnose-containing polysaccharide with sulfate ester (34.29%). It could effectively prolong the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), which indicated inhibition of the intrinsic coagulation pathway. The artificial neural network (ANN) was built to realize the directional preparation of anticoagulant-active polysaccharides. Based on monitoring glucose concentration on-line, a visualization system of enzymatic hydrolysis was developed to simplify the operation of ANN. The model could be further applied to predict molecular weights of polysaccharides that possess diverse biological activities.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29449622 PMCID: PMC5814554 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-21556-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
The chemical characteristics of the samples.
| Samples | Sulfate | Rhamnose | Glucose | Xylose | Glucuronic | Mw (kDa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE | 23.96 | 41.42 | 32.53 | 13.78 | 11.48 | 1012 |
| PE1 | 26.34 | 45.67 | 9.65 | 16.75 | 20.12 | 602 |
| PE2 | 28.98 | 47.68 | 12.92 | 17.94 | 19.74 | 422 |
| PE3 | 34.29 | 53.09 | 21.42 | 9.96 | 15.52 | 206 |
| PE4 | 38.21 | 61.59 | 3.54 | 22.43 | 12.48 | 104 |
| PE5 | 40.42 | 67.35 | 2.93 | 12.58 | 17.15 | 52 |
Figure 1Anticoagulant activity measured by APTT assay.
Figure 2HPGPC chromatogram of PE3 (A), Standard curve of molecular weight (B), FTIR spectrum of PE3 (C).
Figure 3Optimal structure of neural network.
Transfer function combinations and their performance.
| Input | Output | MAPE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer function | Tansig | Tansig | 8.76% |
| Tansig | Logsig | 9.35% | |
| Tansig | Purelin | 2.14% | |
| Purelin | Purelin | 5.13% | |
| Purelin | Tansig | 4.48% | |
| Purelin | Logsig | 6.46% | |
| Logsig | Logsig | 8.24% | |
| Logsig | Tansig | 4.93% | |
| Logsig | Purelin | 7.36% |
Figure 4Results of ANN: training performance of ANN (A), regression of ANN (B), histogram of deviation margin of ANN (C), ANN outputs versus experimental data for training data sets (D).
Comparison of actual and predicted molecular weight on testing sets.
| No. | Enzymatic temperature (°C) | Enzymatic Time (h) | Enzyme dose (U) | Substrate concentration (mg/mL) | Glucose concentration (mg/mL) | Actual molecular weight (kDa) | Predicted molecular weight (kDa) | APE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25 | 5 | 8.10 | 4 | 0.33 | 417.31 | 422.04 | 1.13 |
| 2 | 25 | 9 | 8.10 | 4 | 0.36 | 329.91 | 324.8 | 1.55 |
| 3 | 25 | 1 | 12.15 | 6 | 0.27 | 710.67 | 706.96 | 0.52 |
| 4 | 25 | 4 | 12.15 | 6 | 0.68 | 388.68 | 376.18 | 3.22 |
| 5 | 25 | 8 | 12.15 | 6 | 0.72 | 289.12 | 296.91 | 2.70 |
| 6 | 25 | 9 | 12.15 | 6 | 0.69 | 272.03 | 264.98 | 2.59 |
| 7 | 25 | 10 | 8.10 | 8 | 1.00 | 381.42 | 388.45 | 1.84 |
| 8 | 25 | 11 | 12.15 | 10 | 1.10 | 329.91 | 325.73 | 1.27 |
| 9 | 25 | 7 | 12.15 | 4 | 0.48 | 286.61 | 281.84 | 1.66 |
| 10 | 25 | 11 | 8.10 | 12 | 1.12 | 404.20 | 415.75 | 2.86 |
| 11 | 30 | 10 | 9.72 | 4 | 0.22 | 200.88 | 200.01 | 0.43 |
| 12 | 30 | 11 | 9.72 | 4 | 0.20 | 194.57 | 187.06 | 3.86 |
| 13 | 35 | 5 | 9.72 | 4 | 0.30 | 249.35 | 245.92 | 1.38 |
| 14 | 35 | 10 | 8.10 | 4 | 0.30 | 227.90 | 233.83 | 2.60 |
| 15 | 35 | 8 | 8.10 | 4 | 0.36 | 250.08 | 249.81 | 0.11 |
| 16 | 35 | 4 | 8.10 | 4 | 0.41 | 330.87 | 340.43 | 2.89 |
| 17 | 35 | 6 | 9.72 | 12 | 0.76 | 413.10 | 425.79 | 3.07 |
| 18 | 35 | 11 | 12.15 | 6 | 0.73 | 261.96 | 257.18 | 1.82 |
| 19 | 35 | 10 | 12.15 | 4 | 0.46 | 241.17 | 247.2 | 2.50 |
| 20 | 25 | 9 | 9.72 | 4 | 0.16 | 224.62 | 225.07 | 0.20 |
| 21 | 25 | 10 | 12.15 | 8 | 0.63 | 268.50 | 268.05 | 0.17 |
| 22 | 35 | 11 | 12.15 | 6 | 0.36 | 214.74 | 209.3 | 2.53 |
| MAPE (%) | 1.86 | |||||||
Figure 5Testing performance (A) and regression of ANN (B).
Figure 6Display of user interface.
Figure 7Flowchart of the optimal neural network.