4.7 Article

Suberin of Potato (Solanum tuberosum Var. Nikola): Comparison of the Effect of Cutinase CcCut1 with Chemical Depolymerization

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 57, 期 19, 页码 9016-9027

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf9008907

关键词

Cutinase; FT-IR; GC-MS; potato; Solanum tuberosum; solid state CPMAS C-13 NMR; suberin

资金

  1. Tekes and companies
  2. ABS graduate school
  3. COST Action 928

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical and enzymatic depolymerizations of suberin isolated from potato peel (Solanum tuberosum var. Nikola) were performed under various conditions. Enzymatic hydrolysis with cutinase CcCut1 and chemical methanolysis with NaOMe of suberin yielded monomeric fragments, which were identified as TMS derivatives with GC-MS and GC-FID. The solid, hydrolysis-resistant residues were analyzed with solid state C-13 CPMAS NMR, FT-IR, and microscopic methods. Methanolysis released more CHCl13-soluble, material than the cutinase treatment when determined gravimetrically. Interestingly, cutinase-catalyzed hydrolysis produced higher proportions of aliphatic monomers than hydrolysis with the NaOMe procedure when analyzed by GC in the form of TMS derivatives. Monomers released by the two methods were mainly alpha,omega-dioic acids and omega-hydroxy acids, but the ratios of the detected monomers were different, at 40.0 and 32.7% for methanolysis and 64.6 and 8.2% for cutinase, respectively. Thus, cutinase CcCut1 showed higher activity toward ester bonds of alpha,omega-dioic acids than toward the bonds of omega-hydroxy acids. The most abundant monomeric compounds were octadec-9-ene-1,18-dioic acid and 18-hydroxyoctadec-9-enoic acid, which accounted for ca. 37 and 28% of all monomers, respectively. The results of the analyses of the chemical and enzymatic hydrolysis products were supported by the spectroscopic analyses with FT-IR and CPMAS C-13 NMR together with the analysis of the microstructures of the hydrolysis residues by light and confocal microscopy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据