| Literature DB >> 34834154 |
Victor Hugo Souto Bezerra1, Samuel Leite Cardoso1, Yris Fonseca-Bazzo1, Dâmaris Silveira1, Pérola Oliveira Magalhães1, Paula Monteiro Souza1.
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the available literature of production, purification, and characterization of proteases by endophytic fungi. There are few complete studies that entirely exhibit the production, characterization, and purification of proteases from endophytic fungi. This study followed the PRISMA, and the search was conducted on five databases: PubMed, PMC, Science Direct, Scopus Articles, and Web of Science up until 18 May 2021, with no time or language restrictions. The methodology of the selected studies was evaluated using GRADE. Protease production, optimization, purification, and characterization were the main evaluated outcomes. Of the 5540 initially gathered studies, 15 met the inclusion criteria after a two-step selection process. Only two studies optimized the protease production using statistical design and two reported enzyme purification and characterization. The genus Penicillium and Aspergillus were the most cited among the eleven different genera of endophytic fungi evaluated in the selected articles. Six studies proved the ability of some endophytic fungi to produce fibrinolytic proteases, demonstrating that endophytic fungi can be exploited for the further production of agents used in thrombolytic therapy. However, further characterization and physicochemical studies are required to evaluate the real potential of endophytic fungi as sources of industrial enzymes.Entities:
Keywords: endophytic fungi; protease; systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34834154 PMCID: PMC8623497 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26227062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Biotechnology application of secondary metabolites and extracellular enzymes produced from endophytic fungi.
Summary of the descriptive characteristics of the included studies (N = 15).
| Author | Country | Host Plant | Microorganisms | Fungal | Growth Conditions | Enzyme | Main Conclusions | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ph | T (°C) | Agitation (rpm) | Time (days) | |||||||
| Mefteh et al. [ | Tunisia |
| ITS-rDNA | 6.26 | 24.5 | 150 | ND | 1086.95 U/mL | Plackett–Burman design and RSM approaches were employed for optimization of culture and environment conditions and were shown to significantly enhance protease production. | |
| Bhagobaty and Joshi [ | India |
|
| β-tubulin | ND | 25 | 120 | 5 | 34.9 U/h/mL | All the endophytic fungal isolates from medicinal plant showed production of protease. |
| Elgammal et al. [ | Egypt |
|
| 18S rRNA | 8 | 35 | 150 | ND | 292 U/mL | The protease production increased by about 7.5-fold after applying the final optimized fermentation. The partial purification results showed that the highly recovered fraction was at 60% ethanol concentration. |
| El-Khonezy et. al. [ | Egypt |
|
| 18S rRNA | 8 | 35 | 150 | 6 | 800.1 U/mL | The enzyme was characterized as thiol-dependent serine alkaline protease. Low-cost production medium using different waste sources was applied to produce the enzyme. |
| Galeano et al. [ | Brazil |
|
| ITS-rDNA | ND | 30 | 110 | 7 | 12.01 U/mL | The ability of the fungus to produce proteases might reflect the fact that these fungi have potential as biocontrol agents. |
| Li et al. [ | China |
| Morphology | ND | 28 | 160 | 14 | 3775 U/mg | Verticase is a direct degrader of fibrin clot, most probably playing a negligible role in the conversion of plasminogen to plasmin. However, for protein-based medicines, special care must be taken for an early awareness of the toxicity. | |
| Lindstrom and Belanger [ | United States |
|
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 27 U/mL | The regulated nature of proteinase At1 suggest that its function is important in the symbiotic interaction of fungus and plants. |
| Matias et al. [ | Brazil |
| Morphology a | 5 | 28 | 150 | 7 | 3.63 U/mL | The endophytic fungus with the higher protease activity demonstrated total efficacy in the removal of the consolidated biofilm of | |
| Meshram and Saxena [ | India |
|
| ITS-rDNA | ND | 26 | 130 | 7 | 6514 U/mL | The endophytic fungus possesses potential in vitro fibrinolytic potential. |
| Meshram et al. [ | India |
|
| 28s rDNA | ND | 26 | 130 | 7 | 34.11 U/mL | Submerged fermentation was used to produce the fibrinolytic enzyme. This protease is a novel metalloprotease possessing dual activity including direct degradation of fibrin(ogen) or by activating the tissue plasminogen. |
| Meshram et al. [ | India |
|
| ITS-rDNA | ND | 28 | ND | 15 | 103.56 U/mL | The fibrinolytic enzyme xylarinase was produced by solid substrate fermentation using rice chaff medium. The purified metalloprotease showed in vitro thrombolytic activity and no cytotoxic effect. |
| Noor et al. [ | Malaysia |
| 18S rRNA a | ND | ND | ND | ND | 5284 U/mL | Two fibrinolytic enzymes were purified and characterized based only on molecular weight and effect of pH and temperature. | |
|
| 18S rRNA a | ND | ND | ND | ND | 2200 U/mL | ||||
| Rajput et al. [ | India |
|
| Morphology | 7 | 27 | ND | 2 | 162 U/mL | The fungus can be industrially exploited for the synthesis of protease and strain improvement studies can be carried out to enhance enzyme production. |
| Wu et al. [ | China |
| ITS | ND | 28 | 220 | 6 | 137,000 U | The fibrinolytic enzyme, named Fu-P, was purified and identified as a chymotrypsin-like serine metalloprotease. | |
| Zaferanloo et al. [ | Australia |
|
| Morphology | 6.5 | 30 | ND | 7 | 69.86 BAEE units/mg | The protease can be applied to cheese making and in milk-clotting where the fermentation conditions are suitable to the activation of protease |
a Data presented in earlier studies referenced in the article. ND: No data.
Summary of purification steps, characterization, and kinetic properties of protease from endophytic fungi.
| Author/Year | Purification Method | Microorganisms | Specific | Purification fold | Molecular Weight (kDa) | Ph | Temperature Optimum (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elgammal et al. [ | Partial purification |
| 384.2 UI/mg | 0.11 | ND | 8 | 50 |
| El-Khonezy et. al. [ | Ammonium sulfate precipitation |
| 111,379.5 U/mg protein | 15.3 | 59 | 8 | 50 |
| Li et al. [ | Ammonium sulfate precipitation | 3775 UI/mg | 8.1 | 31 | 9–10 | 50–60 | |
| Lindstrom and Belanger [ | Ultrafiltration 30 Kda, |
| 710 UI/units/ng | ND | 34 | 10–11 | 37 |
| Meshram and Saxena [ | Partial purification |
| 3.56 U/mg | 2.01 | 80 | ND | ND |
| Meshram et al. [ | Ammonium sulfate precipitation |
| 36.67 U/mg | 9.19 | ~33 | 8 | 35 |
| Meshram et al. [ | Ammonium sulphate precipitationSephacryl S-300 column |
| 9.22 U/mg | 8.37 | ~33 | 8 | 35 |
| Noor et al. [ | Ammonium sulfate precipitation | 246.92 UI/mg | 11.2 | ~34 | 7 | 30 | |
| Noor et al. [ | Ammonium sulfate precipitation |
| 198.2 UI/mg | 9.7 | ~34 | 8 | 40 |
| Wu et al. [ | Ammonium sulfate precipitation | 76,111 UI/mg | 158.5 | 28 | 8.5 | 45 |
ND: No data.
Risk of bias in individual studies. Fulfilled GRADE criteria.
| Author | Study Limitation | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication Bias | Overall Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mefteh et al. [ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
| Bhagobaty and Joshi [ | X | X | √ | √ | X | + |
| Elgammal et al. [ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | +++ |
| El-Khonezy et. al. [ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
| Galeano et al. [ | √ | √ | X | √ | √ | +++ |
| Li et al. [ | X | X | √ | X | √ | +++ |
| Lindstrom and Belanger [ | X | X | √ | X | √ | + |
| Matias et al. [ | √ | X | X | √ | √ | ++ |
| Meshram and Saxena [ | √ | X | √ | Unclear | √ | +++ |
| Meshram et al. [ | √ | X | √ | Unclear | √ | +++ |
| Meshram et al. [ | √ | X | √ | Unclear | √ | +++ |
| Noor et al. [ | √ | X | √ | X | X | ++ |
| Noor et al. [ | √ | X | √ | X | X | ++ |
| Rajput et al. [ | √ | √ | √ | Unclear | √ | +++ |
| Wu et al. [ | X | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
Grade Factors: √, No Serious Limitations; X, Serious Limitations; Unclear, Unable to rate item based on available information.; For overall quality of evidence: +very low; ++ low; +++ moderate; ++++ high.
Excluded articles and reasons for exclusion (n = 55).
| References | Reason for Exclusion |
|---|---|
| Abou El-Kassem et al. [ | 4 |
| Alberto et al. [ | 2 |
| Amobonye et al. [ | 3 |
| Ayob and Simarani [ | 2 |
| Baazeem et al. [ | 2 |
| Bajwa et al. [ | 1 |
| Bastos et al. [ | 4 |
| Bensaci et al. [ | 2 |
| Bezerra et al. [ | 2 |
| Bezerra et al. [ | 2 |
| Borgi et al. [ | 1 |
| Bryant et al. [ | 4 |
| Cairney and Burke [ | 1 |
| da Silva et al. [ | 2 |
| da Silva et al. [ | 1 |
| De Azevedo Silva et al. [ | 2 |
| Devi et al. [ | 2 |
| El-Gendy [ | 1 |
| Fouda et al. [ | 2 |
| George et al. [ | 2 |
| Gupta et al. [ | 2 |
| Hassan [ | 2 |
| Indarmawan et al. [ | 1 |
| Jagannath et al. [ | 2 |
| Jalili et al. [ | 2 |
| Kapoor et al. [ | 2 |
| Katoch et al. [ | 2 |
| Katoch et al. [ | 2 |
| Kudryavtseva et al. [ | 5 |
| Kumar et al. [ | 4 |
| Kuzhalvaymani et al. [ | 1 |
| Leake and Read [ | 1 |
| Lindstrom et al. [ | 2 |
| Liu et al. [ | 1 |
| Lopez-Llorca et al. [ | 4 |
| Lumyong et al. [ | 2 |
| Maccheroni et al. [ | 2 |
| Martins et al. [ | 2 |
| Meshram et al. [ | 2 |
| Mishra et al. [ | 2 |
| Monteiro et al. [ | 2 |
| Orlandelli et al. [ | 2 |
| Prathyusha et al. [ | 2 |
| Rajagopal et al. [ | 2 |
| Rajesh and Ravishankar Rai [ | 2 |
| Reddy et al. [ | 2 |
| Santos et al. [ | 2 |
| Seshagiri and Tallapragada [ | 2 |
| Sharma et al. [ | 2 |
| Silva et al. [ | 2 |
| Sopalun and Iamtham [ | 2 |
| Sopalun et al. [ | 2 |
| Swetha et al. [ | 2 |
| Wu et al. [ | 2 |
| Zaferanloo et al. [ | 2 |
Search strategies with appropriated key words and MeSH terms.
| Database | Search |
|---|---|
| PMC | ((“peptide hydrolases”[MeSH Terms] OR (“peptide”[All Fields] AND “hydrolases”[All Fields]) OR “peptide hydrolases”[All Fields] OR “protease”[All Fields]) OR (“peptide hydrolases”[MeSH Terms] OR (“peptide”[All Fields] AND “hydrolases”[All Fields]) OR “peptide hydrolases”[All Fields] OR (“proteolytic”[All Fields] AND “enzyme”[All Fields]) OR “proteolytic enzyme”[All Fields]) OR (“peptide hydrolases”[MeSH Terms] OR (“peptide”[All Fields] AND “hydrolases”[All Fields]) OR “peptide hydrolases”[All Fields] OR “peptidase”[All Fields]) OR (“peptide hydrolases”[MeSH Terms] OR (“peptide”[All Fields] AND “hydrolases”[All Fields]) OR “peptide hydrolases”[All Fields] OR “proteinase”[All Fields])) AND ((endophytic[All Fields] AND (“fungi”[MeSH Terms] OR “fungi”[All Fields] OR “fungus”[All Fields])) OR (endophytic[All Fields] AND (“microbiology”[Subheading] OR “microbiology”[All Fields] OR “fungi”[All Fields] OR “fungi”[MeSH Terms])) OR mycoendophyte[ |
| PubMed | (protease OR proteolytic enzyme OR peptidase OR proteinase) AND (endophytic fungus OR endophytic fungi OR mycoendophyte) |
| Scopus | ( ( ( ( ( protease ) OR proteinase ) OR peptidase ) OR proteolytic AND enzyme ) ) AND ( ( ( endophytic AND fungi ) OR endophytic AND fungus ) OR mycoendophytics ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, “ar” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, “sh” ) ) |
| Science Direct | (protease OR proteolytic enzyme OR peptidase OR proteinase) AND (endophytic fungus OR endophytic fungi OR mycoendophyte)—Limited to: Research articles, Discussion, News, Short communications and Other |
| Web of Science | #1 TS = (protease OR proteolytic enzyme OR peptidase OR proteinase) AND #2 TS = (endophytic fungus OR endophytic fungi OR mycoendophyte) COMBINE #1 and #2 |
| Google Scholar | (protease OR proteolytic enzyme OR peptidase OR proteinase) AND (endophytic fungus OR endophytic fungi OR mycoendophyte) |