4.4 Article

Genome Shuffling Enhanced epsilon-Poly-L-Lysine Production by Improving Glucose Tolerance of Streptomyces graminearus

期刊

APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 166, 期 2, 页码 414-423

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12010-011-9437-2

关键词

epsilon-Poly-L-lysine; Genome shuffling; Streptomyces graminearus; Fermentation

资金

  1. Wuxi Science & Technology Support Program [CYE21N1107]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
  3. 111 Project [111-2-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The productivity of epsilon-poly-L-lysine (epsilon-PL) in currently reported wild-type strains is low. Here we improved glucose tolerance of a Streptomyces graminearus strain LS-B1 by genome shuffling while simultaneously enhancing the epsilon-PL productivity. The starting population was generated by ultraviolet irradiation and nitrosoguanidine mutagenesis and then subjected for recursive protoplast fusion. The positive colonies from library, created by fusing the inactivated protoplasts were screened on agar plates containing different concentrations of glucose. Characterization of all recombinants and wild-type strain in shake-flask fermentation indicated the compatibility of two phenotypes of glucose tolerance and epsilon-PL yield enhancement. The best performing recombinant, F3-4, was isolated after three rounds of genome shuffling, whose epsilon-PL production was about 88% higher than that of the parent strain. In batch fermentation test, the epsilon-PL concentration was obtained as 2.4 g/L by F3-4 compared with 1.6 g/L of wild type. Fed-batch fermentation by F3-4 was carried out and the epsilon-PL production accumulated to 13.5 g/L when initial glucose concentration was improved from 50 to 85 g/L. Enzyme activities of hexokinase, pyruvate kinase, and citrate synthase revealed that the glycolytic pathway and tricarboxylic acid circle way in F3-4 were more active than those in wild type, which was a possible reason for enhanced epsilon-PL production.

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

4.4
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