Lipases are very versatile enzymes, and produced the attention of the several industrial processes. Lipase can be achieved from several sources, animal, vegetable, and microbiological. The uses of microbial lipase market is estimated to be USD 425.0 Million in 2018 and it is projected to reach USD 590.2 Million by 2023, growing at a CAGR of 6.8% from 2018. Microbial lipases (EC 3.1.1.3) catalyze the hydrolysis of long chain triglycerides. The microbial origins of lipase enzymes are logically dynamic and proficient also have an extensive range of industrial uses with the manufacturing of altered molecules. The unique lipase (triacylglycerol acyl hydrolase) enzymes catalyzed the hydrolysis, esterification and alcoholysis reactions. Immobilization has made the use of microbial lipases accomplish its best performance and hence suitable for several reactions and need to enhance aroma to the immobilization processes. Immobilized enzymes depend on the immobilization technique and the carrier type. The choice of the carrier concerns usually the biocompatibility, chemical and thermal stability, and insolubility under reaction conditions, capability of easy rejuvenation and reusability, as well as cost proficiency. Bacillus spp., Achromobacter spp., Alcaligenes spp., Arthrobacter spp., Pseudomonos spp., of bacteria and Penicillium spp., Fusarium spp., Aspergillus spp., of fungi are screened large scale for lipase production. Lipases as multipurpose biological catalyst has given a favorable vision in meeting the needs for several industries such as biodiesel, foods and drinks, leather, textile, detergents, pharmaceuticals and medicals. This review represents a discussion on microbial sources of lipases, immobilization methods increased productivity at market profitability and reduce logistical liability on the environment and user.

No abstract

No abstract

Shunt surgery is considered to be the treatment of choice in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. There is little data on the effect of side-to-side lieno-renal (SSLR) shunt on oesophageal variceal size, splenic size and splenic pulp pressure (SPP) in patents with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. We evaluated pre- and postoperatively endoscopic grading of varices, splenic size and SPP for predicting shunt patency in 86 patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension: 56 with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO) and 30 with non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis (NCPF). The EHPVO patients with patent shunts (n = 47) showed significant reduction in SPP (pre-operative 43.56 +/- 7.9 vs postoperative 29.96 +/- 0.5 vs 0.92 +/- 0.8). Patients with blocked shunt (n = 9) did not show significant reduction in SPP and varices grades. However, there was reduction in spleen size (8.6 +/- 3.0 vs 6.3 +/- 4.3). In the NCPF group, 28 had patent shunts and showed significant reduction in SPP (46.3 +/- 13.5 vs 33.8 +/- 7.6 cm of saline), splenic size (9.1 +/- 3.3 vs 6.8 +/- 4.6 cm below costal margin) and varices grades (2.8 +/- 0.7 vs 1.05 +/- 0.96). As only two patients with NCPF had blocked shunts, no statistical comparison between patients with patent and patients with blocked shunts could be done. In conclusion, following SSLR, there is a significant reduction in SPP and varices grades in patients with patent shunts. Endoscopic grading of varices can be used to predict shunt patency. However, spleen size is not a good criteria for predicting shunt patency.

No abstract