4.6 Article

A type I pullulanase of Bacillus cereus Nws-bc5 screening from stinky tofu brine: Functional expression in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis and enzyme characterization

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 1893-1902

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2014.07.008

关键词

Stinky tofu brine; Strain screening; Pullulanase; Gene cloning; Enzymatic properties; Bacillus subtilis expression

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [WF1214047]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [C050203-31200596]
  3. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2013AA102109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using enrichment procedures, the strain showing distinct pullulan degradation ability was isolated from the stinky tofu brine and identified as Bacillus cereus (named B. cereus Nws-bc5) by 16S rRNA sequence analysis. Meanwhile, the pullulanase gene (named pul(Bc)) involved in pullulan degradation was obtained from Nws-bc5. The gene has an open reading frame of 2142-bp, and shows highest identity with the pullulanase from B. cereus Q1 (CP000227.1). The gene pulBc was expressed in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis WB800 respectively. The expression level of recombinant Pul(Bc) expressed in E. coli and B. subtilis was 5.6 and 0.8 mg/ml respectively. The purified recombinant enzyme (molecular weight 81.4 kDa) was able to attack the alpha-1,6-linkages in pullulan specifically to generate maltotriose as the major product. The pH and temperature optima of the recombinant enzyme were pH 6.0 and 40 degrees C respectively. Moreover, PulBc showed much higher stability under alkaline conditions and was stable at pH 6.0-9.0. The pullulanase activity was enhanced significantly by Ca2+. The specific activity of purified Pul(Bc) was 44.7 U/mg (pullulan) and 29.3 U/mg (soluble starch). The Km and Vmax values of purified Pul(Bc) were 0.45 mg/ml and 45.3 mu mol/min, respectively. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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