4.1 Article

Characterization of a keratinolytic protease produced by the feather-degrading Amazonian bacterium Bacillus sp. P45

期刊

BIOCATALYSIS AND BIOTRANSFORMATION
卷 28, 期 5-6, 页码 370-379

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/10242422.2010.532549

关键词

Bacillus; keratinase; protease; characterization; serine protease; substrate specificity

资金

  1. CAPES, Brazil
  2. CNPq, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An extracellular keratinolytic protease produced by Bacillus sp. P45 was purified and characterized. The keratinase had a molecular weight of approximately 26 kDa and was active over wide pH and temperature ranges, with optimal activity at 55 degrees C and pH 8.0. However, this enzyme displayed low thermostability, being completely inactivated after 10 min at 50 degrees C. Keratinase activity increased with Ca2+, Mg2+, Triton X-100, ethanol and DMSO, was stable in the presence of the reducing agent 2-mercaptoethanol, and was inactivated by SDS. PMSF (phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) completely inactivated and EDTA strongly inhibited the enzyme, indicating that the keratinase is a serine protease depending on metal ions for optimal activity and/or stability. Accordingly, analysis of tryptic peptides revealed sequence homologies which characterize the keratinase as a subtilisin-like serine protease. The purified enzyme was able to hydrolyze azokeratin and keratin azure. Casein was hydrolyzed at higher rates than keratinous substrates, and 2-mercaptoethanol tended to enhance keratin hydrolysis. With synthetic substrates, the keratinase showed a preference for aromatic and hydrophobic residues at the P1 position of tetrapeptides; the enzyme was not active, or the activity was drastically diminished, towards shorter peptides. Keratinase from Bacillus sp. P45 might potentially be employed in the production of protein hydrolysates at moderate temperatures, being suitable for the bioconversion of protein-rich wastes through an environmentally friendly process requiring low energy inputs.

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

4.1
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