4.6 Review

Recent Trends in Biomaterials for Immobilization of Lipases for Application in Non-Conventional Media

期刊

CATALYSTS
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal10060697

关键词

biomaterials; immobilization; lipases; biocatalysis; non-conventional media

资金

  1. Spanish Government [AGL2017-84614-C2-1-R]
  2. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico-CBAB/CABBIO-Brazilian-Argentine Center for Biotechnology) [441015/2016-6]
  3. FAPESP (Sao Paulo Research Foundation) [2018/07522-6]
  4. FAPESP [2020/00081-4]
  5. CNPq [303287/2019-5]
  6. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior), a Brazilian government agency for the development of personnel in higher education
  7. CAPES [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The utilization of biomaterials as novel carrier materials for lipase immobilization has been investigated by many research groups over recent years. Biomaterials such as agarose, starch, chitin, chitosan, cellulose, and their derivatives have been extensively studied since they are non-toxic materials, can be obtained from a wide range of sources and are easy to modify, due to the high variety of functional groups on their surfaces. However, although many lipases have been immobilized on biomaterials and have shown potential for application in biocatalysis, special features are required when the biocatalyst is used in non-conventional media, for example, in organic solvents, which are required for most reactions in organic synthesis. In this article, we discuss the use of biomaterials for lipase immobilization, highlighting recent developments in the synthesis and functionalization of biomaterials using different methods. Examples of effective strategies designed to result in improved activity and stability and drawbacks of the different immobilization protocols are discussed. Furthermore, the versatility of different biocatalysts for the production of compounds of interest in organic synthesis is also described.

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