4.7 Article

Enzyme Bioprospection of Marine-Derived Actinobacteria from the Chilean Coast and New Insight in the Mechanism of Keratin Degradation in Streptomyces sp. G11C

期刊

MARINE DRUGS
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/md18110537

关键词

marine actinobacteria; Streptomyces; rare actinobacteria; hydrolytic enzymes; keratinolytic proteases; secretome

资金

  1. Comision Nacional de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica [FONDECYT 1171555, CONICYT PIA ACT172128]
  2. Conicyt PhD fellowship
  3. Conicyt Gastos Operacionales [21161188]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine actinobacteria are viewed as a promising source of enzymes with potential technological applications. They contribute to the turnover of complex biopolymers, such as pectin, lignocellulose, chitin, and keratin, being able to secrete a wide variety of extracellular enzymes. Among these, keratinases are a valuable alternative for recycling keratin-rich waste, which is generated in large quantities by the poultry industry. In this work, we explored the biocatalytic potential of 75 marine-derived actinobacterial strains, focusing mainly on the search for keratinases. A major part of the strains secreted industrially important enzymes, such as proteases, lipases, cellulases, amylases, and keratinases. Among these, we identified two streptomycete strains that presented great potential for recycling keratin wastes-Streptomyces sp. CHA1 and Streptomyces sp. G11C. Substrate concentration, incubation temperature, and, to a lesser extent, inoculum size were found to be important parameters that influenced the production of keratinolytic enzymes in both strains. In addition, proteomic analysis of culture broths from Streptomyces sp. G11C on turkey feathers showed a high abundance and diversity of peptidases, belonging mainly to the serine and metallo-superfamilies. Two proteases from families S08 and M06 were highly expressed. These results contributed to elucidate the mechanism of keratin degradation mediated by streptomycetes.

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

4.7
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