4.0 Article

Immobilization of Geobacillus pallidus RAPc8 nitrile hydratase (NHase) reduces substrate inhibition and enhances thermostability

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR CATALYSIS B-ENZYMATIC
卷 63, 期 3-4, 页码 109-115

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.molcatb.2009.12.011

关键词

Nitrile hydratase; Geobacillus pallidus RAPc8; Immobilization; Eupergit; Thermostable enzyme; Thermophilic

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nitrile hydratase (NHase) from the thermophilic strain Geobacillus pallidus RAPc8 was investigated for its potential application in the biocatalytic production of amides from nitriles. The recombinant NHase was immobilized to a range of insoluble matrices using various cross-linking agents. The immobilized preparation using Eupergit (R) C with 1-ethyl-3-(dimethylamino-propyl)carbodiimide (EDAC) cross-linking exhibited the highest immobilization efficiency (93%). The pH range and optimal temperature for activity were unchanged by immobilization but the thermostability of the Eupergit (R) C-NHase was improved compared with the soluble enzyme; at 60 degrees C the half-life of the immobilized NHase was 330 min as compared with 54.5 min for the soluble enzyme. Kinetic parameters V-max (4.5 mu mol mL(-1) min(-1)), K-m (17.3 mM) and k(cat) (3543.3 min(-1)) were obtained for the immobilized NHase at 50 degrees C, as compared with 48.8 mu mol mL(-1) min(-1), 10.2 mM and 37777.1 min(-1) respectively for the soluble enzyme. The operational stability was improved significantly by immobilization, with 85.7% of initial activity maintained after reuse for eight cycles. Most notably, the Eupergit (R) C-immobilized NHase showed substantially lower substrate inhibition (K-i = 194.7 mM) than the soluble enzyme (K-i = 101.0 mM). In the presence of various co-organic solvents, Eupergit (R) C-EDAC NHase showed statistically higher retention of activity than the non-immobilized control. (C) 2009 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

4.0
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