4.8 Article

Highly efficient and selective biocatalytic production of glucosamine from chitin

期刊

GREEN CHEMISTRY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 527-535

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6gc02910h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [31471703, A0201300537]
  2. BBSRC [BB/L013762/1]
  3. Royal Society
  4. 100 Foreign Talents Plan [JSB2014012]
  5. BBSRC [BB/M029034/1, BB/M028836/1, BB/L013762/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/M028836/1, BB/M029034/1, BB/L013762/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N-Acetyl glucosamine (GlcNAc) is one of the most abundant biomolecules on Earth and is cheaply available from chitin, a major component of crustaceans. The key step in the conversion of GlcNAc to high-value products is the de-N-acetylation to glucosamine, in itself a valuable dietary supplement that is produced at over 29 000 tons scale per annum by chemical hydrolysis, a process that requires harsh reaction conditions and leads to side products requiring separation. Here, we report for the first time the isolation and characterisation of an enzyme, a deacetylase from Cyclobacterium marinum that is able to catalyse the highly selective quantitative hydrolysis of GlcNAc to glucosamine under mild reaction conditions. This enzyme is small (38 kDa), is easily obtainable by heterologous expression in E. coli, has high turnover rates (k(cat) = 61 s(-1)), tolerates high substrate concentrations (over 100 g L-1) and can be repeatedly re-used as an immobilised catalyst. When coupled with chitinase, the high selectivity of the enzyme for GlcNAc over other biomolecules allowed one-pot extraction of glucosamine from crude solid mushroom fractions containing chitin, thus allowing for alternative production of glucosamine from non-animal sources, of benefit to consumers with crustacean allergies and vegan diets. We suggest that the deacetylase fills an important gap in the sustainable exploitation of GlcNAc and chitin.

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

4.8
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