2008
DOI: 10.1007/s12010-008-8182-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving Specific Activity of Aspergillus carbonarius Polygalacturonase Using Polymeric Membranes

Abstract: Microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes were screened for improving the specific activity of polygalacturonases (PG) in the culture broth of Aspergillus carbonarius obtained after submerged fermentation. While 200 and 450 nm MF membranes eliminated some of the larger non-enzymatic proteins, 50 kDa UF membrane exhibited a marginal selectivity between the enzyme and other smaller proteins. The 450 nm MF and 50 kDa UF membranes selected were further evaluated under different process conditions for… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
6
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, in our test, enzymes and other proteins with molecular weight above 10 kDa were retained in the concentrate stream and this could explain the low fold purification attained (4.07). This result is in accordance with those of other works that reported values of 5.14 and 7.7 fold purification using membranes with 50 kDa and 10 kDa, respectively (Nakkeeran et al, 2008;Silva et al, 2007). However, the fold purification could be a relatively unimportant parameter for the evaluation of an enzyme recovery method, since the desirable purity degree of a preparation depends on the application.…”
Section: Assessment Of Ultrafiltration For the Concentration Of Pectisupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Thus, in our test, enzymes and other proteins with molecular weight above 10 kDa were retained in the concentrate stream and this could explain the low fold purification attained (4.07). This result is in accordance with those of other works that reported values of 5.14 and 7.7 fold purification using membranes with 50 kDa and 10 kDa, respectively (Nakkeeran et al, 2008;Silva et al, 2007). However, the fold purification could be a relatively unimportant parameter for the evaluation of an enzyme recovery method, since the desirable purity degree of a preparation depends on the application.…”
Section: Assessment Of Ultrafiltration For the Concentration Of Pectisupporting
confidence: 92%
“…This turbidity can be related with gummy polysaccharides and pigments that are extract from the cultivated medium as described by Singh et al [20], and could interfere in the concentration process. Nakkeeran et al [5], in the MF step eliminated 45% and 23% of proteins and carbohydrates, respectively, but the polygalacturonases activity recovery was 85%, while in this work the recovery was higher than 90%.…”
Section: Effect Of the Pretreatments In The Permeate Fluxcontrasting
confidence: 60%
“…During the UF was also possible to remove about 95% of carbohydrates. Nakkeeran et al [5], reported the polygalacturonase retention of 93% with a 50 kDa membrane. The 10 kDa membrane used in this work seems to be appropriate to avoid enzyme losses in the permeate stream.…”
Section: Effect Of the Pretreatments In The Permeate Fluxmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Porous membranes have been employed generally for the concentration of enzymes and only a few reports describe purification of microbial pectinases using membranes [1,2]. In our earlier study, an integrated membrane process employing microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes was proposed for processing submerged fermentation (SmF) polygalacturonase (PG) which enhanced the specific activity to 5590 U/mg (4.69-fold increase) with a recovery of 76% and almost completely eliminated the non-protein impurities including carbohydrates [3]. In another study, desalting and concentrating eluted solid-state fermentation (SSF) PG using a 10 kDa UF membrane resulted in a low PG recovery of 36% at 800 rpm (30 • C; 5 h) in a stirred membrane cell [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%