Response surface methodological optimization of l-asparaginase production from the medicinal plant endophyte Acinetobacter baumannii ZAS1

Abstract

Background This study targets the enhanced production of l-asparaginase, an antitumor enzyme by Acinetobacter baumannii ZAS1. This organism is an endophyte isolated from the medicinal plant Annona muricata. Plackett–Burman design (PBD) and central composite design (CCD) were used for statistical optimization of media components. Results The organism exhibited 18.85 ± 0.2 U/mL enzyme activities in unoptimized media. Eight variables: l-asparagine, peptone, glucose, lactose, yeast extract, NaCl, MgSO4, and Na2HPO4 were screened by PBD. Among them, only four factors—l-asparagine, peptone, glucose, and Na2HPO4—were found to affect enzyme production significantly (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the best possible concentrations and interactive effects of the components that enhance this enzyme's output were chosen by using CCD on these selected variables. The results revealed that an optimized medium produces a higher concentration of enzymes than the unoptimized medium. After optimizing media components, the maximum l-asparaginase activity was 45.59 ± 0.36 U/mL, around the anticipated value of 45.04 ± 0.42 U/mL. After optimization of process parameters, it showed a 2.41-fold increase in the production of l-asparaginase by the endophyte Acinetobacter baumannii ZAS1. Conclusion The findings of this study indicated that an endophyte, Acinetobacter baumannii ZAS1 that produces l-asparaginase could be used to increase enzyme output. However, using the statistical methods Plackett-Burman design and central composite design of response surface methodology is a handy tool for optimizing media components for increased l-asparaginase synthesis.

Production, characterization, and applications of a novel thermo-acidophilic L-asparaginase of Pseudomonas aeruginosa CSPS4

“…However, a significant difference in the range of L-asparaginase production under varying conditions (runs) suggests the influence of physicochemical parameters on enzyme production. Sharma and Satyanarayana (2011) successfully used statistical optimization to enhance the production of acidic amylase from Bacillus acidicola PB analysis showed the influence of media components and physical parameters on Lasparaginase production from Acinetobacter baumannii ZAS1 (Abhini et al 2022).…”

Identification, Characterization, and Production Optimization of 6-Methoxy-1H-Indole-2-Carboxylic Acid Antifungal Metabolite Produced by Bacillus toyonensis Isolate OQ071612

“…Chen et al (2022) showed that the antifungal metabolites production was significantly improved with the addition of soluble starch in S. alfalfae [70]. Carbon sources are essential components not only in constructing cellular materials but also when utilized as energy sources [71]. Nitrogen, on the other hand, is crucial for nucleic acid and protein production, which are the raw materials that create cellular metabolites [72].…”

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) Mediated Optimization of Medium Components for Mycelial Growth and Metabolites Production of Streptomyces alfalfae XN-04

“…Carbon sources are essential components in constructing cellular materials and are also used as energy sources [35]. Nitrogen is an important element for nucleic acid and protein, which are the raw materials synthesized by microorganisms to create cellular metabolites [36].…”

“…Minerals such as K + , Ca 2+ , Na + and Mg 2+ have been known to play a crucial role in the metabolic process of all microorganisms, as it is essential for the formation of cell mass and acts as a cofactor for many biosynthetic enzymes to catalyze the necessary reactions [35]. Zhu et al (2007) made an effort to ameliorate the production of avilamycin using Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tu57-1 and by adopting BBD in which they found a maximum production of 88.33 mg/L (2.80-fold increase) in the optimized medium with the ingredients such as MgSO 4 •7H 2 O 0.37 g/L, CaCl 2 •2H 2 O 0.39 g/L, soybean flour 21.97 g/L and soluble starch 37.22 g/L [41].…”