4.6 Article

Rational protein engineering of alpha-L-arabinofuranosidase from Aspergillus niger for improved catalytic hydrolysis efficiency on kenaf hemicellulose

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 349-359

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2020.12.012

关键词

Hemicellulose; Oligosaccharides; Glycoside hydrolase; Insoluble substrate; Steric hindrance; Biomass

资金

  1. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) through the High Impact Research Grant (HIR) scheme [PY/2018/02729, Q. J130000.2409.04G21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through rational protein engineering, the catalytic efficiency of Aspergillus niger alpha-L-arabinofuranosidase towards pre-treated kenaf hemicellulose hydrolysis was improved, with the variant E449D/W453Y showing the highest hydrolysis of hemicellulose by producing up to 62% reducing sugar. Substituting amino acids at the substrate binding site reduces steric hindrance, allowing easier penetration of insoluble substrate to complement the enzyme's active site.
Lignocellulosic biomass utilisation as an alternative to fossil resources was hampered due to its recalcitrant to enzymatic hydrolysis. Herein, rational protein engineering strategy has been carried out on Aspergillus niger alpha-L-arabinofuranosidase (AnabfA) substrate binding pathway to improve its catalytic efficiency towards pre-treated kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus) hemicellulose hydrolysis. A total of five variants (N246D, L371 V, E449D, W453Y and E449D/W453Y) were constructed based on AnabfA sequence and structure information. Substitutions from bulky to smaller amino acids and hydrophobic to less hydrophobic residues were shown to improve the enzyme catalytic reaction towards insoluble substrate. Variant E449D/W453Y induces the highest hydrolysis of hemicellulose by producing up to 62 % reducing sugar. It is evident that substituting amino acids at the substrate binding site reduces steric hindrance, thus allowing insoluble substrate to easily penetrate and complement the enzyme's active site.

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