4.5 Article

Isolation and molecular identification of cellulose/hemicellulose degrading bacteria from agricultural compost and determination of their hydrolytic potential

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 617-621

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2022.06.045

关键词

Lignocellulytic bacteria; Cellulase; Xylanase 16S rRNA gene sequencing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nine cellulolytic bacteria were isolated from agricultural residues compost, and five of them showed the ability to degrade cellulose and xylan. These bacteria were also capable of depolymerizing rice straw and sugarcane bagasse. Among them, CX2 and CX9 exhibited the highest production of CMC-ase and xylanase on both substrates.
Nine cellulolytic bacteria were isolated from agricultural residues compost on selective culture medium amended with cellulose (filter paper) as the sole carbon source. Five of the nine isolates (CX2, CX4, CX5, CX7 and CX9) were able to degrade both cellulose (CMC) and xylan in congo red agar plates. The five isolates were able to depolymerize the agricultural wastes, rice straw and sugarcane bagasse. CMC-ase and xylanase production by the five isolates were determined on rice straw and sugarcane bagasse. CX2 and CX9 exhibited the highest CMC-ase and xylanase production on both rice straw and sugarcane bagasse. Among the isolated strains, CX9 produced the highest CMC-ase activity (71 pKat ml(-1)) on rice straw, whereas CX9 produced the highest xylanase activity (7.83 nKat ml(-1)) on sugarcane bagasse. In general, higher CMC-ase and xylanase production was obtained on rice straw compared with sugarcane bagasse. According to the sequences of the 16 s rRNA genes, the five isolates were identified as: Paracoccus kondratievae strain GB (CX2 and CX4), Para -coccus communis (CX5), Bacillus australimaris (CX7) and Bacillus pumilus (CX9). The sequences of the 16S rRNA genes of five isolates were submitted to the gene bank. (C) 2022 SAAB. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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