4.6 Article

Extracellular Expression of Feruloyl Esterase and Xylanase in Escherichia coli for Ferulic Acid Production from Agricultural Residues

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11081869

关键词

ferulic acid (FA); feruloyl esterase; signal peptides; de-starch wheat bran; release rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study selected enzymes from the metagenomes of a cow rumen and a camel rumen for recombinant expression in Escherichia coli, aiming to release ferulic acid from agricultural residues. The strain expressing both enzymes showed the best performance in degrading biomass and releasing ferulic acid, achieving the highest obtained value. This result has potential implications for the re-utilization of agricultural residues and enhancing their value.
There is still a large amount of ferulic acid (FA), an outstanding antioxidant, present in agricultural residues. Enzymatic hydrolysis has been regarded as the most effective way to release FA. This present study therefore selected feruloyl esterase (FAE) and xylanase (XYN) from the metagenomes of a cow rumen and a camel rumen, respectively, for their recombinant expression in Escherichia coli BL21 and further application in releasing FA. After screening the candidate signal peptides, the optimal one for each enzyme, which were selected as SP1 and SP4, respectively, was integrated into the vectors pET22b(+) and pETDuet-1. Among the generated E. coli strains SP1-F, SP4-X, and SP1-F-SP4-X that could express extracellular enzymes either separately or simultaneously, the latter one performed the best in relation to degrading the biomass and releasing FA. Under the optimized culture and induction conditions, the strain SP1-F-SP4-X released 90% of FA from 10% of de-starched wheat bran and produced 314.1 mg/L FA, which was deemed to be the highest obtained value to the best of our knowledge. This result could pave a way for the re-utilization of agricultural residues and enhancing their add-value.

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