4.7 Article

The presence of resistant starch-degrading amylases in Bifidobacterium adolescentis of the human gut

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MACROMOLECULES
Volume 161, Issue -, Pages 389-397

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.235

Keywords

Amylolytic enzyme; Bifidobacterium; Comparative genotnic; High amylose corn starch; Resistant starch-degrading enzyme

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government (MSIT, Ministry of Science and ICT) [2017R1A2B4004218]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [5199990214069, 2017R1A2B4004218] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Resistant starch (RS) is a complex prebiotic carbohydrate beneficial to the human gut. In the present study, four genes encoding for putative amylolytic enzymes, likely to be responsible for RS-degradation, were identified in the genome of Bifidobacterium adolescentis P2P3 by comparative genomic analysis. Our results showed that only three enzymes (RSD1, RSD2, and RSD3) exhibited non-gelatinized high amylose corn starch (HACS)-degrading activity in addition to typical alpha-amylase activity. These three RS-degrading enzymes (RSD) were composed of multiple domains, including signal peptide, catalytic domain, carbohydrate binding domains, and putative cell wall-anchoring domains. Typical catalytic domains were conserved by exhibiting seven typical conserved regions (I-VII) found mostly in alpha-amylases. Analysis of enzymatic activity revealed that RSD2 displayed stronger activity toward HACS-granules than RSD1 and RSD3. Comparative genomics in combination with enzymatic experiments confirmed that RSDs might be the key enzymes used by RS-degrading bifidobacteria to degrade RS in a particular ecological niche, such as the human gut. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available