Next Article in Journal
Host–Pathogen Interaction 3.0
Next Article in Special Issue
Design and Characterization of In-One Protease-Esterase PluriZyme
Previous Article in Journal
Antagonization of OX1 Receptor Potentiates CB2 Receptor Function in Microglia from APPSw/Ind Mice Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rational Mutagenesis in the Lid Domain of Ribokinase from E. coli Results in an Order of Magnitude Increase in Activity towards D-arabinose
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tuning Immobilized Enzyme Features by Combining Solid-Phase Physicochemical Modification and Mineralization

by
José R. Guimarães
1,2,
Diego Carballares
1,
Javier Rocha-Martin
3,
Paulo W. Tardioli
2,* and
Roberto Fernandez-Lafuente
1,4,*
1
Departamento de Biocatálisis, ICP-CSIC, Campus UAM-CSIC, 28049 Madrid, Spain
2
Graduate Program in Chemical Engineering (PPGEQ), Laboratory of Enzyme Technologies (LabEnz), Department of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (DEQ/UFSCar), Rod. Washington Luís, km 235, São Carlos 13565-905, Brazil
3
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biology, Complutense University of Madrid, C/José Antonio Novais 12, 28040 Madrid, Spain
4
Center of Excellence in Bionanoscience Research, Member of the External Scientific Advisory Board, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(21), 12808; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232112808
Submission received: 16 September 2022 / Revised: 20 October 2022 / Accepted: 20 October 2022 / Published: 24 October 2022

Abstract

:
Lipase B from Candida antarctica (CALB) and lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus (TLL) were immobilized on octyl agarose. Then, the biocatalysts were chemically modified using glutaraldehyde, trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid or ethylenediamine and carbodiimide, or physically coated with ionic polymers, such as polyethylenimine (PEI) and dextran sulfate. These produced alterations of the enzyme activities have, in most cases, negative effects with some substrates and positive with other ones (e.g., amination of immobilized TLL increases the activity versus p-nitro phenyl butyrate (p-NPB), reduces the activity with R-methyl mandate by half and maintains the activity with S-isomer). The modification with PEI increased the biocatalyst activity 8-fold versus R-methyl mandelate. Enzyme stability was also modified, usually showing an improvement (e.g., the modification of immobilized TLL with PEI or glutaraldehyde enabled to maintain more than 70% of the initial activity, while the unmodified enzyme maintained less than 50%). The immobilized enzymes were also mineralized by using phosphate metals (Zn2+, Co2+, Cu2+, Ni2+ or Mg2+), and this affected also the enzyme activity, specificity (e.g., immobilized TLL increased its activity after zinc mineralization versus triacetin, while decreased its activity versus all the other assayed substrates) and stability (e.g., the same modification increase the residual stability from almost 0 to more than 60%). Depending on the enzyme, a metal could be positively, neutrally or negatively affected for a specific feature. Finally, we analyzed if the chemical modification could, somehow, tune the effects of the mineralization. Effectively, the same mineralization could have very different effects on the same immobilized enzyme if it was previously submitted to different physicochemical modifications. The same mineralization could present different effects on the enzyme activity, specificity or stability, depending on the previous modification performed on the enzyme, showing that these previous enzyme modifications alter the effects of the mineralization on enzyme features. For example, TLL modified with glutaraldehyde and treated with zinc salts increased its activity using R-methyl mandelate, while almost maintaining its activity versus the other unaltered substrates, whereas the aminated TLL maintained its activity with both methyl mandelate isomers, while it decreased with p-NPB and triacetin. TLL was found to be easier to tune than CALB by the strategies used in this paper. In this way, the combination of chemical or physical modifications of enzymes before their mineralization increases the range of modification of features that the immobilized enzyme can experienced, enabling to enlarge the biocatalyst library.

1. Introduction

Enzymes are attracting increasing attention as industrial catalysts due to their high activity under mild conditions, high substrate specificity and product selectivity [1,2,3], with the huge evolution of the strategies to solve their limitations imposed by their biological origin. Metagenomics enable to utilize the whole biodiversity (making enzymes from non-cultivable or even disappeared organisms available) [4,5,6], genetic tools enable to tailor the desired feature (using enzyme modeling and site-directed mutagenesis [7,8] or directed evolution [9,10,11]), and physicochemical enzyme modifications are more efficient and controlled each passing day. This enables a battery of solutions to overcome any enzyme deficiency [12,13]. Moreover, some of these solutions may be used in a conjoined way, for example, making the building of enzymes bearing several active centers feasible [14], such as plurizymes [15,16,17].
In this context, enzyme immobilization may be remarked upon. It was initially developed as a solution to the problems raised by enzyme solubility; the preparation of heterogeneous biocatalysts made enzyme recovery and reuse simpler (if the enzyme was still active) [18,19,20]. Nowadays, many researchers have shown that immobilization may solve many enzyme limitations. One of the most pursued objectives is enzyme stabilization, which may be accomplished by diverse reasons [21,22]. The fact that the enzyme is distorted when immobilized and is in a confined space (using porous supports) also produces an alteration of enzyme selectivity, specificity, activity, response to inhibitors, etc. [23,24,25], that can greatly increase the reactions where the enzyme can be utilized with satisfactory results. Moreover, the enzyme may be purified during the immobilization process [26,27].
An especially interesting possibility is the simultaneous use of immobilization as a way to simplify other enzyme improvement strategies. That way, the solid-phase chemical modification of enzymes is much simpler than the modification of the free enzyme. It also prevents undesired enzyme aggregations, and if the enzyme is stabilized by the immobilization, it may be also more resistant to changes in the physical features of the enzyme surface caused by the chemical modification [28,29,30,31]. Recently, it was proposed also that the mineralization of enzymes in the solid phase may have some advantages [32,33]. The building of enzyme hybrid nanoflowers (where a salt crystal grows around the enzyme molecules that act as nucleation points) as an immobilization system has proved to allow the improvement of enzyme stability and activity in certain cases [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43], but the small size and fragility of the resulting structures makes their recovery complex. Some researchers have proposed the use of magnetic materials or the trapping of these nanoflowers in larger and mechanically more stable structures as a solution for these limitations [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. The mineralization of previously immobilized lipases was recently proposed as a possibility to obtain some benefits from mineralization but with a mechanically stable biocatalyst [32,33]. It has been shown that the use of fully loaded biocatalyst permits to maximize the effects, and that the phosphate metal crystals also grow in the support pores even in absence of enzymes with similar intensity [32]. Moreover, it has been shown that the enzyme orientation and/or enzyme conformation can greatly alter the final effects of this mineralization on enzyme features [52]. In this new communication, we evaluate if the enzyme chemical modification of immobilized enzymes can somehow alter the results observed by the enzyme mineralization [52]. It has been shown in many papers how the chemical or physical modification of immobilized enzymes may have different effects depending on the enzyme immobilization protocol [31,53,54,55,56]. The enzyme mineralization is really a physical modification of the enzyme, and it can be expected that the effects may depend on the enzyme exact conformation and orientation concerning the support. In fact, it has been shown that some ions may be very negative or positive for immobilized lipase stability, but only when the enzymes are immobilized following certain specific protocols [57,58].
This may depend on the exact chemical composition of the protein external surface that will be the subject of the modification. Different chemical compositions may lead to different degrees of enzyme coating by the metal crystals. In fact, recently, researchers have shown how protein folding and molecular modification define the rate, extent, and mechanism of crystallization when mixed with 2-methylimidazole and zinc acetate [59]. We can assume that these effects may be also produced when mineralizing immobilized enzymes, and that they can produce different effects on the enzyme properties.
Lipases are used as model enzymes in this study, as they are among the most used enzymes at both academic and industrial levels [60,61,62,63]. They have a peculiar mechanism of action, called interfacial activation, as they have two possible conformations (closed and open), that in homogeneous media are in equilibrium [64,65,66,67]. A polypeptide called lid is able to isolate the active center in most lipases. In the presence of any hydrophobic surface (a drop of substrate, a hydrophobic protein, but also other open form of the lipase or a hydrophobic support), the lipase becomes strongly adsorbed, with the lid shift leaving the active center exposed [64,65,66,67]. This has caused lipase immobilization on hydrophobic supports to become a very popular immobilization strategy, enabling the one-step immobilization, purification, stabilization and hyperactivation of the lipases [27]. This is the immobilization strategy utilized in this paper, using octyl-agarose beads as support [68]. Then, the immobilized enzymes are submitted to diverse physicochemical modifications to analyze if this can tune the effects of the mineralization. Moreover, we can observe if some of the modified groups are necessary to obtain the mineralization effects, or not. The first modification is that using glutaraldehyde [69,70]. The utilized modification conditions with glutaraldehyde ensures the full modification of all primary amino groups in the enzyme surface with just one molecule of glutaraldehyde [71], making the enzyme surface slightly more hydrophobic (glutaraldehyde is mildly hydrophobic) but leaving the ionization capability to the amino group. This can stabilize the enzyme due to the promotion of inter-(making enzyme release more difficult) [72] and intramolecular (increasing enzyme rigidity) crosslinkings [73]. The amination of the enzyme with ethylenediamine (EDA) and carbodiimide permits to transform all external carboxylic groups in amino groups, altering the ionic interactions (now, all will be repulsion interactions) [31,74,75]. Finally, the modification of the enzyme with picrylsulfonic acid or trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid (TNBS) is highly selective for the primary amino groups [76], and makes the ionization capability of the amino group disappear, as it becomes an amide, promoting enzyme surface hydrophobization. Finally, the enzyme surface is coated using polyethyleneimine (PEI) [77], or dextran sulfate [78,79]; both polymers will almost fully coat the enzyme surface and permit the intermolecular crosslinking, making enzyme release from the support difficult [80]. The polymers offer an open structure, permitting the entry of small compounds to the enzyme surface, but generating some partition effects due to their ionic character. In this study, we selected the lipases from Thermomyces lanuginosus [81] and Candida antarctica (form B) [82,83,84], which are among the most popular ones; the solid phase mineralization [32,33] and the chemical modification presented interesting results in previous publications using both enzymes [55,56,72,85,86,87,88,89]. That way, the objectives of this paper can be summarized in an effort to analyze whether the coupled solid phase chemical or physical modification of enzymes and their further mineralization may have additive effects on the enzyme features, the results from the first strategy influencing the results achieved by the second one.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Preparation of the Immobilized and Chemically Modified TLL-Biocatalysts

TLL was immobilized on octyl agarose, as shown in Figure S1; around 50% of the enzyme activity was incorporated to the support after 2 h (time found in previous papers to be enough to fully coat the support surface with lipases under these conditions) [90,91,92,93,94,95]. Then, the biocatalyst was submitted to the different modifications described in introduction. Table 1 summarizes the effect of the modification on the activity versus different substrates. The highest activity was found using the p-NPB assay, and the lowest one using the R-methyl mandelate, being that the activity was more than 2.5-fold higher using the S-isomer. The modification with glutaraldehyde marginally decreased the activity using the p-NPB assay, decreased its activity by 20% in the triacetin assay, decreased by 1/3 using the R-methyl mandelate, and decreased by 1/4 using the S-methyl mandelate assays (increasing the activities ratio). The amination produced almost a 20% increase in the activity versus p-NPB, and a 44% increase versus triacetin, while the activity versus R-methyl mandelate decreased to 50%, and that versus the S-isomer was maintained (doubling the activities ratio). The modification with TNBS increased the activity using p-NPB by 25%. The activity was not affected when using triacetin, and it decreased using the R-methyl mandelate, while it almost did not affect the activity using the S-isomer (again increase the activities ratio). That way, all these chemical modifications affected enzyme specificity and enantiospecificity, in many cases based on an increase in the activity using some of the activity assays. To explain the reasons for these effects is complex, as it has been shown that the effect of the chemical or physical modification not only depends on the enzyme, but also on the immobilization protocol [31,53,54,55,56].
The physical coating of the immobilized TLL with PEI produced a small decrease in the activity using the p-NPB assay, but the activity almost increased by 50% using triacetin. The most interesting result is the great increase in the immobilized enzyme activity versus both methyl mandelates: 8.2-fold using the R-isomer, and 2.4-fold using the S-isomer, with a preference for the R-isomer from the enzyme. The modification using DS decreased the activity using p-NPB (to 70%) and triacetin (to 46%), while it significantly increased the activity versus the methyl mandelates by 6.25 using the R-isomer and by just 2-fold using the S-isomer. Again, the modified enzyme prefers the R-isomer. That way, these modifications also strongly tuned the enzyme specificity, as previously described [55,56,72,85,86,87,88,89].
Next, the stabilities of the different biocatalysts were evaluated (Figure 1). The modifications with glutaraldehyde and PEI produced significant stabilizations, while the modification with TNBS and DS almost did not affect enzyme stability, and the enzyme amination promoted a decrease in enzyme stability. It should be considered that the proximity of the enzyme molecules (we are using fully loaded biocatalysts) can affect enzyme stability, and that the chemical modifications will not only affect the intramolecular enzyme interactions or the possibility of intermolecular crosslinking, but also the enzyme–molecule/enzyme–molecule interactions may be altered [90,91,96]. In any case, it seems that the inter- and intramolecular crosslinkings induced by glutaraldehyde can have positive effects on the immobilized enzyme stability (rigidifying the enzyme structure and hindering enzyme desorption from the support) [70,72,97] or the intermolecular crosslinking achieved by using PEI for the enzyme stability [78,80]. DS should produce similar crosslinking, but apparently the anionic environment generated by this molecule is not positive for enzyme stability.

2.2. Modification of Octyl-TLL with Different Phosphate Salts

Next, the effects of the modification of octyl-TLL biocatalyst with Zn2+, Co2+, Cu2+, Ni2+ and Mg2+ on its activity and stability were studied. Table 2 summarizes the activity results. In the p-NPB assay, only the modification with Mg2+ produced a slight increase in enzyme activity (by more than 15%), being the less active biocatalysts that modified using Cu2+ (with an activity just over 80%). In the case of the triacetin assay, the activity only decreased using Ni2+ (to around 88%), while the other modifications slightly increased the activity in this assay by around 10%. Using R-methyl mandelate, Ni2+ and Mg2+ produced an increase in the enzyme activity (by 25%), and the Cu2+ treatment produced a drastic decrease in activity (by 1/3), while Zn2+ had a marginal effect. Using the S-isomer, all biocatalysts decreased their activity, being that the enzyme treated with Mg2+ is the least active one (75% activity compared to the untreated biocatalyst). That way, the R/S activities ratio changed after the different mineralizations. This shows how this mineralization is also able to tune the immobilized enzyme specificity; it is not possible to state a mineralization as being universally positive or negative for octyl-TLL activity, as that depends on the substrate. These effects should be the results of conformational changes induced by the mineralization; these changes yield a more active enzyme form for some substrates, while for other substrates, the effects are negative.
The stabilities of the different biocatalysts were then analyzed (Figure 2): the mineralization with Zn2+ produced the highest stabilization; Ni2+ produced also a relevant stabilization; the Co2+ treatment produced a lower stabilization; and the Cu2+ treatment promoted a slight destabilization. Mg2+ mineralization had no effect on enzyme stability.
Next, we have compared these mineralization effects using the enzymes previously modified.

2.3. Effect of Mineralization on the Immobilized Enzyme Previously Modified

Starting with the enzyme modified with glutaraldehyde, Figure S2 shows that the color acquired by the glutaraldehyde modified biocatalysts was fairly similar to that observed using the unmodified biocatalyst for all metals. The mineralization produced a slight increase in p-NPB activity using Zn2+ and Mg2+, and Ni2+ has almost no effect, while Co2+ and Cu2+ produced a decrease by over 15% (Table 3, Line 2–7). Using triacetin, the activity was almost unaltered using Zn2+, Mg2+ and Ni2+, while it decreased using Co2+ and Cu2+ (by almost 30%). All mineralization produced a decrease in the activity versus R-methyl mandelate, which was not very relevant except when using Co2+ (the activity becomes 25%); using the S-isomer, the picture is quite different, as the Zn2+ treatment increased the activity by 25%, Mg2+ maintained the activity, and Ni2+, Cu2+ and Co2+ produced the highest decrease in activity (from 2.4 to 2.2, 2.1 and 2.0, respectively) (Table 3, Line 2–7). That way, enzyme activities and specificity were altered, although in a different form to the mineralization of the unmodified biocatalyst. The changes in activity should be related to alterations in the enzymes conformation, which are positive for some substrates and negative for others.
Regarding the effect on the enzyme stability, the stabilizing effect of glutaraldehyde made it necessary to increase the temperature to 75 °C to visualize the inactivation of the different biocatalysts in a reasonable timeframe (Figure 3a). Zn2+ treatment maintained its great stabilization effect, Co2+ and Ni2+ produced a slight stabilization, Mg2+ mineralization almost had no effect, while copper produced a slight destabilization. In this regard, the situation was not very different from the effects detected using the unmodified biocatalyst. Considering the previous stabilization achieved using glutaraldehyde, the additive effect of the zinc treatment produced a highly stabilized biocatalyst (Figure 3a). The glutaraldehyde + Zn2 +-treated biocatalyst maintained levels of residual activity similar to the those of the only-mineralized biocatalysts after 4 h but at 7 °C higher temperature (Figure 1 and Figure 2). It seems that the positive effect from glutaraldehyde on enzyme stability was additive to those of zinc mineralization.
The mineralization of the aminated biocatalyst gave similar colors to those of the unmodified biocatalysts (Figure S2). It produced also significant changes to enzyme specificity (Table 3, Line 8–13). The activity using p-NPB assay was not too altered, producing a slight decrease on the enzyme activity in most cases (by a maximum of 15% using Cu2+), except for a very slight increase using Ni2+ (by less than 5%). Using triacetin as a substrate, again, all mineralized biocatalysts decreased their activity (with the most deleterious modifications being those performed using with cobalt, which decreased the activity from 88 U/g to 5.3 U/g). Using the R-methyl mandelate, the enzyme activity remained almost unaltered when mineralized with Ni2+ and Zn2+, while drastically decreasing using Co2+ (from 0.6 to 0.1 U/g) and increasing when the modification was performed using Cu2+ (by 50%) or Mg2+ (by 35%). Using the S-isomer, all mineralized biocatalysts decreased their activity slightly, except when using Co2+, which produced a decrease in the enzyme activity from 3.2 to 2.2. These activity changes were translated to significant changes on enzyme specificity and enantiospecificity (Table 3, Line 8–13). Regarding the effects on enzyme stability (inactivation was at 68 °C, as amination was negative for enzyme stability), Figure 3b shows that Zn2+ and Co2+ mineralization produced a small stabilization of the biocatalyst, while treatment with Mg2+ and Ni2+ left the stability unaltered and Cu2+ produced a small destabilization. The effects were much smaller than those found using the unmodified immobilized enzyme (Figure 2).
The mineralization of the enzyme modified with TNBS gives a different color from the initially exhibited by the biocatalysts (Figure S2), as these preparations presented a yellow-orange color. The treatment produced a slight decrease in p-NPB activity (minimum value was observed for the Cu2+ modification, decreasing the activity by 17%) (Table 3, Line 14–19). The activity versus triacetin was increased in all cases, with the maximum value being that observed using Cu2+ mineralization (by almost 1.9) and the minimum one that obtained using Zn2+ (by around 1.5). The activities versus both isomers of methyl mandelate were fairly maintained (Table 3, Line 14–19). Regarding the stability (Figure 3c), it was increased using Zn2+ and Co2+, while the other mineralizations produced marginal effects.
The biocatalysts coated with PEI presented more intense colors than the unmodified biocatalyst, suggesting that PEI can capture some metal salts (Figure S2). These modified biocatalysts slightly increased the activity versus p-NPB when using Co2+, Cu2+ or Zn2+ (this last gave the highest value, increasing the activity by more than 15%), while Ni2+ and Mg2+ treatment slightly decreased the activity (by around 10%) (Table 4, Line 2–7). Using triacetin, again, all biocatalysts increased their activity, and again Cu2+ mineralization gave the highest value (increasing the activity by less than 55%). Using methyl mandelate isomers, the results were quite different, using the R-isomer, while Zn2+ and Co2+ almost did not affect enzyme activity, Mg2+, Cu2+ and mainly Ni2+ treatments decreased the activity (to less than 50% in the last case), while using the S-isomer, all biocatalysts increased their activity, with the highest increases in the immobilized enzyme activity being those observed using Ni2+ and Mg2+ mineralization (almost by 50%). Again, the changes in enzyme activity and specificity were quite relevant (Table 4, Line 2–7). Figure 3d shows the inactivation courses of these biocatalysts. In this instance, the highest stabilization was found using Co2+ treatment, with the Mg2+ and Zn2+ treatment being slightly positive, while Cu2+ and Ni2+ had no clear effects (Figure 3d). These results were quite different from those obtained using the unmodified immobilized enzyme (Figure 2).
Last, the enzyme coated with DS was also mineralized, with a color intensity similar to that of the unmodified biocatalyst (Figure S2). The effects on p-NPB activity (Table 4, Line 8–13) were negligible. We can remark on the decrease observed using Cu2+ (by less than 10%). Using triacetin, a general increase in the activity was detected, with maximum values using Mg2+ and Cu2+ (increased reaching 1.5 folds). The activities using the methyl mandelate were almost unaffected (a 15% increase for the R-isomer using Zn2+ and less than a 10% increase for the S-isomer using Cu2+) (Table 4, Line 8–13). Figure 3e shows the inactivation courses; most mineralization produced similar stabilization (not very high), with the lowest stabilization being that found when using Mg2+, except when employing Cu2+, which slightly reduced the enzyme stability.
That way, the results show that using octyl-TLL, the combination of chemical modification and mineralization may greatly alter the enzyme features (activity, specificity and stability). All biocatalysts maintained over 90% of their initial activity after incubation at pH 7 and 37 °C for one month (results not shown); that way, even the least stable ones could be utilized for many applications, thanks to the initial high stability of the enzyme immobilized on octyl-agarose. The color remained attached to the support.

2.4. Preparation of the Immobilized and Chemically Modified CALB-Biocatalysts

Figure S3 shows that only 50% of the enzyme was immobilized on the support, confirming that the loading capacity of the support was exceeded and that way, the full support surface will be coated with enzyme molecules.
Next, octyl-CALB was submitted to different chemical and physical modifications. First, the effect of these modifications on the enzyme activities was analyzed (Table 5). The modification with glutaraldehyde produced a slight increase in the p-NPB activity (by 15%), while the activity versus triacetin decreased almost by 30%, the activity versus R-methyl mandelate decreased by 15% and that versus the S-isomer by 30%. The amination of the enzyme produced a similar increase for the p-NPB assay, while with that versus triacetin, the decrease in activity was over 40%, the activity versus R-methyl mandelate increased by 35%, and that versus the S-isomer decreased by almost 30%. The TNBS modification produced again a 15% increase in the p-NPB activity; versus triacetin, the activity decreased by almost 35%; and versus the methyl mandelate esters, it remained almost unaltered. The coating with PEI produced a more significant increase in the p-NPB activity of the biocatalyst (by more than 30%), a small increase on the activity employing triacetin (by less than 10%), a 33% increase using R-methyl mandelate and a 15% decrease using the S-isomer (Table 5). That way, although not with the same intensity as using TLL (Table 1), significant changes in enzyme activity, specificity and enantiospecificity could be observed after the chemical modification of octyl-CALB.
Next, the effect of these modifications on the enzyme stability was analyzed (Figure 4). Glutaraldehyde and DS modifications permitted to increase enzyme stability, TNBS permitted an initial slowing of the inactivation but later it was faster than that of the unmodified enzyme, while PEI and mainly EDA modifications were to be negative for the enzyme stability. These results are very different from those found using TLL (Figure 1).

2.5. Mineralization of Octyl-CALB

The effect of the enzyme mineralization with different metal phosphates on octyl-CALB activity versus different substrates may be found in Table 6. Zn2+ treatment maintained the activity versus p-NPB, increasing the activity versus triacetin (by around 45%) and both isomers of methyl mandelate (by around 30%). That meant that although enantiospecificity was almost unaltered, the enzyme activity and substrate specificity were quite altered. Regarding the effects on enzyme stability, Figure 5 shows that Mg2+ and more clearly Ni2+ metallization produced some enzyme stabilization, while Zn2+ and Cu2+ had a small negative effect, which was clearer using Co2+. These results are quite different from those found with TLL (Figure 2).
That way, even with the lower intensity compared to the case of TLL, the chemical modification and the mineralization of octyl-CALB produced diverse effects on enzyme specificity, activity and stability. Next, we analyzed if the chemical modification can somehow alter the effects of the mineralization on enzyme features, such as occurred using octyl-TLL.

2.6. Effect of Mineralization on the Immobilized Enzyme Previously Modified

The mineralization of all preparations gave similar colored biocatalysts (Figure S4); remarkably, the octyl-CALB-PEI presented a more intense color, suggesting a higher metal retention caused to the PEI. The exception is the case of TNBS, as the initial yellow-orange color alters the observed colors after mineralization.
Starting with the enzyme modified with glutaraldehyde, the effect on the p-NPB activity was not very significant (Table 7, Line 2–7); using Co2+, the activity was maintained; and using Ni2+, a small decrease could be detected (under 5%), the enzyme activity decrease being slightly higher than when using the other metals in the enzyme mineralization (9–12%). The activity versus triacetin slightly decreased for all treatments, the decrease of activity using Ni2+ being the most significant one (around 17%). Using the R-methyl mandelate, the decrease in activity was more significant in some instances; the activity became around 55% for the Zn2+ treated biocatalyst, and increased more than 10% using the Ni2+ metalized biocatalyst. The other biocatalysts almost did not alter its activity in this assay. Using the S-isomer, the Zn2+ treated biocatalyst remained the least active biocatalyst, with less than 11% decrease in the enzyme activity. Cu2+ treatment increased the activity in a similar way, and the other biocatalysts were in between. This way, the glutaraldehyde modification decreased the effects of the mineralization on the immobilized CALB activity.
Analyzing the effects of the mineralization on the octyl-CALB-GA on enzyme stability (Figure 6a), it is easy to visualize that the mineralization effects were also decreased. Zn2+, Co2+ and Mg2+ presented a negligible positive effect on enzyme stability, while Cu2+ and Ni2+ produced a slight destabilization, clearer than the stabilization effects of the other metals. The results disagreed with those observed using the unmodified biocatalysts, both in intensity and in quality (e.g., Co2+ effects).
Going to the aminated biocatalyst, the effects on the p-NPB activity of the mineralization was reduced (Table 7, Line 8–13), becoming slightly positive for Ni2+ and Cu2+ treatments and slightly negative for the other metals (never exceeding 10% variations). Using triacetin, the mineralization produced a general increase in activity. The highest one was that obtained using Co2+ and Mg2+ (by more than 55%), and the lowest one was that observed after treatment using Cu2+ (by around 25%). When using the R-methyl mandelate, the activities slightly decreased, with minimum values using Zn2+ and Mg2+ (decreasing the activity to 90–89%). Using the S-isomer, only the Ni2+ treatment increased the activity very slightly (by less than 5%), while the other metals produced a relevant decrease in enzyme activity (to a minimum of 75%) (Table 7, Line 8–13). These effects were quite different to those found using glutaraldehyde modified preparations or the unmodified biocatalyst. Figure 6b shows that all mineralizations improved the enzyme stability (not in a very significant way). Co2+, Zn2+ and Cu2+ treatments showed the best stabilization effects.
The mineralization of the TNBS-modified CALB biocatalyst produced a slight decrease in p-NPB activity (by 13% in the highest case, using Mg2+) (Table 7, Line 14–19) but relevantly increased the activity versus triacetin in all cases, being the treatment with the highest increase in immobilized enzyme activity the one obtained using Cu2+ (1.9-fold), and the lowest being that obtained using Zn2+ and Co2+ (more than 1.5-fold). Using both isomers of methyl mandelate, the changes never exceeded 10%. The effects on enzyme stability may be visualized on the inactivation courses represented in Figure 6c; only Ni2+ treated biocatalyst slightly decreased its stability, and all the others biocatalysts had no significant differences.
Using the PEI-coated biocatalyst, the enzyme activity versus p-NPB increased using Zn2+ (by more than 15%) (Table 8, Line 2–7). As this was additive to the increase in immobilized enzyme activity obtained by the PEI coating, this converted this biocatalyst to being the most active versus this substrate. Additionally, Co2+ and Cu2+ mineralization increased the enzyme activity (by 7–8%). However, the modifications with Ni2+ and Mg2+ had no effects. Using triacetin, all mineralizations improved the enzyme activity, by around 50%, except using Zn2+ (this gave an activity of 125%). The activity versus R-methyl mandelate decreased using Mg2+ (to 73%), Cu2+ (to 66%) and Ni2+ (to 48%), while the other two metals had no relevant effects. In the activity detected using the S-isomer, all biocatalysts increased their activities, those treated with Cu2+ and Mg2+ being the most active (increasing the activity by 45%) (Table 8, Line 2–7). This promoted large changes in enzyme specificity, activity and enantiospecificity, different to those detected mineralizing the unmodified biocatalyst (Table 5). Regarding the effects on enzyme stability, Figure 6d shows that the mineralization with Ni2+ presented a slightly negative effect, while all the others slightly improved enzyme stability (increasing the half-life by 2–4-fold).
Using DS-coated biocatalyst, the enzyme p-NPB activity did not change in a relevant way, except for the Cu2+ treated biocatalyst, which lost almost 9% of its activity (Table 8, Line 8–13). The activity using triacetin increased in all cases, with the highest increase in immobilized enzyme activity around 50% using Cu2+ and Mg2+. The activity versus R-methyl mandelate was maintained or even increased (by 18% using Zn2+), in a similar trend to the unmodified biocatalyst and differently from the other modified biocatalyst. Using the S-isomer, its activity was maintained or slightly increased (by a maximum of only 6%). This was different from the unmodified biocatalyst, where the activity increased in a more significant way and for more metalizations (see Table 6). Enzyme stability was significantly decreased using Ni2+ treatment, while the treatments with the other metals had scarce effects (Figure 6e).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Materials

A TLL liquid formulation with 20.77 mg protein/mL was utilized in this paper, while lipase B from Candida antarctica (CALB) was a liquid formulation with 7.7 mg protein (kindly donated by Novozymes Spain (Madrid, Spain). Bradford’s reagent (utilized to calculate the protein concentration [98]), p-nitrophenyl-butyrate (p-NPB), triacetin, R- and S-methyl mandelate, acetonitrile for HPLC (gradient grade, ≥99.9%), glutaraldehyde (GA) solution (25% in H2O), ethylenediamine (EDA), picrylsulfonic acid (TNBS), polyethylenimine (PEI, MW 25,000), dextran sulfate (DS, MW 20,000), N-3-(dimethylaminopropyl)-N-ethylcarbodiimide hydrochloride (ECD), NiCl2, MgCl2, CoCl2, CuCl2 and ZnCl2 were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Octyl Sepharose® CL-4B was acquired from GE Healthcare (Uppsala, Sweden). All other reagents were of analytical grade.

3.2. Methods

All experiments were performed at least in triplicate, and the values are presented as mean values and standard deviation.

3.2.1. Immobilization of Lipases on Octyl-Agarose Beads

The lipases were immobilized by interfacial activation on octyl agarose beads using enzyme loads over the capacity of the support to ensure the full support of the surface coating (TLL: 20 mg/g and CALB: 25 mg/g) [99,100]. An amount of 1 g of support was added to 10 mL of the enzyme solution prepared in 5 mM sodium phosphate at pH 7.0. The immobilization was conducted at room temperature under gentle stirring for 2 h. The enzyme activity in the supernatant, suspension and a reference were quantified using p-NPB assay throughout the immobilization course. Afterward, the suspensions were vacuum filtered, washed 10-fold with 20 volumes of distilled water, and stored at 4–6 °C.

3.2.2. Immobilization of Lipases on Octyl-Agarose Beads

The immobilized enzymes were treated with 1% (v/v) GA, aminated using 2 M of EDA following the carbodiimide route, or modified with 1 mM TNBS, 10% (w/v), 10% (w/v) PEI or 10% (w/v) DS.
The treatment with GA was performed according to Wang et al. [101], adding 0.4 mL of GA solution (25% in H2O) in 10 mL of immobilized enzyme solution (0.1 g/mL) prepared in 5 mM phosphate buffer at pH 8.0. The modification was carried out at room temperature under gentle agitation for 1 h. At the end, the suspensions were vacuum filtered, washed 10-fold with 20 volumes of distilled water, and stored at 4–6 °C.
For surface amination of the immobilized enzyme, 1 g of immobilized enzyme was added to 10 mL of 2 M EDA at pH 4.75. Then, solid ECD was added to reach a concentration of 10 mM. The amination was carried out at room temperature for 2 h. Under these conditions, 100% modification of all the exposed carboxylic groups was achieved [74]. At the end, the suspensions were vacuum filtered, washed 10-fold with 20 volumes of dissolved water, and stored at 4–6 °C.
The enzyme surface modification with TNBS followed the methodology of Snyder and Sobocinski [76]. A total of 58.8 μL of TNBS (1 mM final concentration) was added to 10 mL of solution containing the immobilized enzyme (0.1 g/mL) prepared in 5 mM sodium phosphate at pH 8.0. The modification was carried out at room temperature under gentle agitation for 3 h. At the end, the suspensions were vacuum filtered, washed 10-fold with 20 volumes of distilled water, and stored at 4–6 °C.
The modification with PEI or DS followed the methodology of Arana-Peña et al. [99] and Virgen-Ortíz et al. [102], respectively. An amount of 1 g of immobilized enzymes was treated with 10 mL of a solution 10% (w/v) of PEI or DS at pH 7.0. The modification was carried out at room temperature under gentle agitation for 18 h. Afterward, the biocatalysts were vacuum filtered, washed 10-fold with 20 volumes of distilled water, and stored at 4–6 °C.

3.2.3. Modification of Immobilized Enzyme with Metallic Salt/Phosphate

The immobilized enzymes were modified with metallic salt/phosphate following the methodology described by Guimarães et al. [32]. A total of 400 μL of the metallic salt solution was added to 5 mL of the immobilized enzymes solution (0.1 g/mL) prepared in 10 mM sodium phosphate/125 mM NaCl at pH 7.4. The enzyme treatment was conducted at room temperature under gentle stirring for 5 h. Afterward, the biocatalysts were vacuum filtered, washed 10-fold with 20 volumes of distilled water, and stored at 4–6 °C.

3.2.4. Thermal Inactivation of Different Lipase Biocatalysts

In a standard experiment, 1 g of immobilized biocatalyst was suspended in 10 mL of 10 mM Tris-HCl at pH 7.0 and incubated at 68 °C or 75 °C. Periodically, samples of 50 μL of the inactivation suspensions were collected to determine their residual activities. Residual activities were defined as the current activity divided by the initial one in percentage. The experiments were performed employing p-NPB as a substrate.

3.2.5. Determination of the Biocatalysts Activities versus Different Substrates

One unit of activity (U) was defined as the amount of enzyme that hydrolyzes one µmol of substrate per minute under the described conditions. Considering the strong tendency of lipases, and specifically TLL, to form lipase–lipase dimers by involving the open forms of two lipase molecules, the use of free enzymes could drive complex results, so we preferred to focus on the comparison of the different immobilized enzymes [103,104,105,106,107,108,109]. Octyl agarose provided the monomeric and open form of the lipases, preventing this kind of problem [27,68].

Hydrolysis of p-NPB

A total of 50 μL of 50 mM p-NPB prepared in acetonitrile was added to 2.5 mL of 25 mM sodium phosphate at pH 7.0, and the reaction was started by adding 50 μL of soluble or immobilized enzyme sample to this mixture. The reaction was conducted using a thermostatization system at 25 °C under magnetic stirring for 1.5 min. The p-nitrophenol released into the medium was monitored by spectrophotometry at 348 nm (isosbestic point) to determine the hydrolytic activity (ε = 5150 M−1 cm−1) [110].

Hydrolysis of Triacetin

A total of 50 mg of immobilized enzyme was added to 3 mL of 50 mM of triacetin prepared in 50 mM of sodium phosphate at pH 7.0. The reaction was carried out at room temperature under gentle stirring. The quantification of hydrolysis degree was determined by the release of 1,2 and 1,3 diacetin (under these conditions, the 1,2 diacetin produced undergoes acyl migration giving 1,3 diacetin) in the reaction medium [111]. A Waters 486 chromatograph (Waters, Millford, MA, USA) presenting a Kromasil C18 column (15 cm × 0.46 cm) and a UV/VIS detector (set to 230 nm) was employed in the analyses to determine the degree of conversion (two points over 5% and under 25%, to ensure linearity and minimize experimental error caused by the initial acid content of the samples) and enzymatic activity. The mobile phase was composed of 85% (v/v) water and 15% (v/v) acetonitrile with a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The retention times were 4 min for 1,2 and 1,3 diacetins (under these conditions, they eluted at the same retention time) and 18 min for triacetin [99].

Hydrolysis of R- or S-Methyl Mandelate

A total of 50 mg of immobilized lipase was added to 3 mL of 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate in 50 mM sodium phosphate solution at pH 7.0. The reaction was carried out at room temperature under gentle stirring. The quantification of hydrolysis was determined by the release of mandelic acid in the reaction medium. A Waters 486 chromatograph (Waters, Millford, USA) presenting a Kromasil C18 column (15 cm × 0.46 cm) and a UV/VIS detector (set to 230 nm) was employed in the analyses to determine the degree of conversion (two points over 5% and under 25%, to ensure linearity and minimize experimental error caused by the initial acid content of the samples) and enzymatic activity [112]. The mobile phase was 10 mM ammonium acetate and acetonitrile (65–35% (v/v)) at pH 2.8 with a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The retention times were 2.5 min for mandelic acid and 4.2 min for the R- or S-methyl mandelate [113]. The activities ratio was defined as the activity versus the R-isomer/activity versus the S-isomer.

4. Conclusions

This paper shows, using two enzymes, how the previous physicochemical modification of immobilized lipases strongly affects the effects of mineralization on their catalytic properties. TLL was found to be more tunable than CALB, perhaps because of the smaller lid that CALB exhibits [114]; in any case, this enzyme usually is less tunable than other lipases (e.g., by the immobilization conditions) [115].
The effect of the same metallization may be positive for the biocatalyst activity versus one substrate and negative for the activity versus another substrate, and this effect depends on the enzyme and on their previous physicochemical modification. Similarly, the stability of the enzymes is altered by both physicochemical modification and mineralization, and these effects are not directly translated from one enzyme or biocatalyst to another. The mineralization of chemically or physically modified immobilized enzymes is a potent tool to improve enzyme features, but the effects cannot be predicted at this stage and must be empirically analyzed.
Investigating the actual causes of these effects on enzyme features would be a very interesting target. However, considering that the metal phosphate also forms crystals inside the supports without enzymes [32], the analysis may be hard. It could be highly interesting to investigate the different structural changes that the enzyme can adopt due to the different chemical and physical modifications, as this can help to design biocatalysts bearing the different activities and stabilities [112]. Unfortunately, although the potential of spectroscopic physico-chemical and biophysical techniques to advance in the structural analysis of immobilized enzymes and understand the structure–function relationship of the enzymes is advancing very rapidly [116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125], nowadays, they have many limits [116,117]. Therefore, these techniques are still far from providing a clear and unique vision that can explain the functional features of an immobilized enzyme, even though this is of great interest to improve the understanding of the phenomena that determine the final properties of the immobilized enzyme and may open new opportunities in the development of a more controllable and efficient immobilization process.

Supplementary Materials

The supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms232112808/s1.

Author Contributions

J.R.G.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Visualization, Formal analysis, Writing—review and editing. D.C.: Investigation, Visualization, Formal analysis, Writing—review and editing. J.R.-M.: Resources, Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing, Supervision. P.W.T.: Resources, Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing, Supervision. R.F.-L.: Resources, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, review and editing, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brasil (CAPES, Finance Code 001; CAPES-PRINT, number 88887.571985/2020-00), MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (PID2021-122398OB-I00). DC thanks to Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación-Spanish Government by a FPI.

Institutional Review Board Statement

No applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

No applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The help and suggestions from Ángel Berenguer (Departamento de Química Inorgánica, Universidad de Alicante) are gratefully recognized.

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest for this study.

References

  1. Sheldon, R.A.; Woodley, J.M. Role of biocatalysis in sustainable chemistry. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 801–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Choi, J.-M.; Han, S.-S.; Kim, H.-S. Industrial applications of enzyme biocatalysis: Current status and future aspects. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 1443–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wu, S.; Snajdrova, R.; Moore, J.C.; Baldenius, K.; Bornscheuer, U.T. Biocatalysis: Enzymatic synthesis for industrial applications. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 88–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ferrer, M.; Martínez-Martínez, M.; Bargiela, R.; Streit, W.R.; Golyshina, O.V.; Golyshin, P.N. Estimating the success of enzyme bioprospecting through metagenomics: Current status and future trends. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016, 9, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fernández-Arrojo, L.; Guazzaroni, M.-E.; López-Cortés, N.; Beloqui, A.; Ferrer, M. Metagenomic era for biocatalyst identification. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2010, 21, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Guazzaroni, M.; Silva-Rocha, R.; Ward, R.J. Synthetic biology approaches to improve biocatalyst identification in metagenomic library screening. Microb. Biotechnol. 2015, 8, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Araújo, R.; Silva, C.; O’Neill, A.; Micaelo, N.; Guebitz, G.; Soares, C.M.; Casal, M.; Cavaco-Paulo, A. Tailoring cutinase activity towards polyethylene terephthalate and polyamide 6,6 fibers. J. Biotechnol. 2007, 128, 849–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Woodyer, R.; van der Donk, W.A.; Zhao, H. Relaxing the nicotinamide cofactor specificity of phosphite dehydrogenase by rational design. Biochemistry 2003, 42, 11604–11614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Arnold, F.H. Directed evolution: Bringing new chemistry to life. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 4143–4148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kan, S.B.J.; Lewis, R.D.; Chen, K.; Arnold, F.H. Directed evolution of cytochrome c for carbon–silicon bond formation: Bringing silicon to life. Science 2016, 354, 1048–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Renata, H.; Wang, Z.J.; Arnold, F.H. Expanding the enzyme universe: Accessing non-natural reactions by mechanism-guided directed evolution. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 3351–3367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Díaz-Rodríguez, A.; Davis, B.G. Chemical modification in the creation of novel biocatalysts. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2011, 15, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pagar, A.D.; Patil, M.D.; Flood, D.T.; Yoo, T.H.; Dawson, P.E.; Yun, H. Recent advances in biocatalysis with chemical modification and expanded amino acid alphabet. Chem. Rev. 2021, 121, 6173–6245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Carballares, D.; Morellon-Sterling, R.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Design of artificial enzymes bearing several active centers: New trends, opportunities and problems. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 5304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alonso, S.; Santiago, G.; Cea-Rama, I.; Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Coscolín, C.; Modregger, J.; Ressmann, A.K.; Martínez-Martínez, M.; Marrero, H.; Bargiela, R.; et al. Genetically engineered proteins with two active sites for enhanced biocatalysis and synergistic chemo- and biocatalysis. Nat. Catal. 2020, 3, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Santiago, G.; Martínez-Martínez, M.; Alonso, S.; Bargiela, R.; Coscolín, C.; Golyshin, P.N.; Guallar, V.; Ferrer, M. Rational engineering of multiple active sites in an ester hydrolase. Biochemistry 2018, 57, 2245–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Roda, S.; Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Benedens, M.; Bollinger, A.; Thies, S.; Schumacher, J.; Coscolín, C.; Kazemi, M.; Santiago, G.; Gertzen, C.G.W.; et al. A plurizyme with transaminase and hydrolase activity catalyzes cascade reactions. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2022, 134, e202207344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sheldon, R.A.; van Pelt, S. Enzyme immobilisation in biocatalysis: Why, what and how. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 6223–6235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. DiCosimo, R.; McAuliffe, J.; Poulose, A.J.; Bohlmann, G. Industrial use of immobilized enzymes. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 6437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liese, A.; Hilterhaus, L. Evaluation of immobilized enzymes for industrial applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 6236–6249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rodrigues, R.C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Carballares, D.; Morellon-Sterling, R.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Stabilization of enzymes via immobilization: Multipoint covalent attachment and other stabilization strategies. Biotechnol. Adv. 2021, 52, 107821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Iyer, P.V.; Ananthanarayan, L. Enzyme stability and stabilization-Aqueous and non-aqueous environment. Process Biochem. 2008, 43, 1019–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mateo, C.; Palomo, J.M.; Fernandez-Lorente, G.; Guisan, J.M.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Improvement of enzyme activity, stability and selectivity via immobilization techniques. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2007, 40, 1451–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rodrigues, R.C.; Ortiz, C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Torres, R.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Modifying enzyme activity and selectivity by immobilization. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 6290–6307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Garcia-Galan, C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R.; Rodrigues, R.C. Potential of different enzyme immobilization strategies to improve enzyme performance. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2011, 353, 2885–2904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Barbosa, O.; Ortiz, C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Torres, R.; Rodrigues, R.C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Strategies for the one-step immobilization-purification of enzymes as industrial biocatalysts. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 435–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Rodrigues, R.C.; Virgen-Ortíz, J.J.; dos Santos, J.C.S.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Alcantara, A.R.; Barbosa, O.; Ortiz, C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Immobilization of lipases on hydrophobic supports: Immobilization mechanism, advantages, problems, and solutions. Biotechnol. Adv. 2019, 37, 746–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Stabilization of multimeric enzymes: Strategies to prevent subunit dissociation. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2009, 45, 405–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rodrigues, R.C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Coupling chemical modification and immobilization to improve the catalytic performance of enzymes. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2011, 353, 2216–2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rueda, N.; dos Santos, J.C.S.; Ortiz, C.; Torres, R.; Barbosa, O.; Rodrigues, R.C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Chemical modification in the design of immobilized enzyme biocatalysts: Drawbacks and opportunities. Chem. Rec. 2016, 16, 1436–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rodrigues, R.C.; Barbosa, O.; Ortiz, C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Torres, R.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Amination of enzymes to improve biocatalyst performance: Coupling genetic modification and physicochemical tools. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 38350–38374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Guimarães, J.R.; Carballares, D.; Rocha-Martin, J.; Tardioli, P.W.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Stabilization of immobilized lipases by treatment with metallic phosphate salts. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 213, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Guimarães, J.R.; Carballares, D.; Tardioli, P.W.; Rocha-Martin, J.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Tuning immobilized commercial lipase preparations features by simple treatment with metallic phosphate salts. Molecules 2022, 27, 4486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ge, J.; Lei, J.; Zare, R.N. Protein–inorganic hybrid nanoflowers. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7, 428–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. da Costa, F.P.; Cipolatti, E.P.; Furigo Junior, A.; Oliveira Henriques, R. Nanoflowers: A new approach of enzyme immobilization. Chem. Rec. 2022, 22, e202100293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wu, X.; Hou, M.; Ge, J. Metal-organic frameworks and inorganic nanoflowers: A type of emerging inorganic crystal nanocarrier for enzyme immobilization. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2015, 5, 5077–5085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Altinkaynak, C.; Tavlasoglu, S.; Özdemir, N.; Ocsoy, I. A new generation approach in enzyme immobilization: Organic-inorganic hybrid nanoflowers with enhanced catalytic activity and stability. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2016, 93, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cui, J.; Jia, S. Organic–inorganic hybrid nanoflowers: A novel host platform for immobilizing biomolecules. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2017, 352, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shende, P.; Kasture, P.; Gaud, R.S. Nanoflowers: The future trend of nanotechnology for multi-applications. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018, 46, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Cui, J.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, R.; Zhong, C.; Jia, S. Surfactant-activated lipase hybrid nanoflowers with enhanced enzymatic performance. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ke, C.; Fan, Y.; Chen, Y.; Xu, L.; Yan, Y. A new lipase–inorganic hybrid nanoflower with enhanced enzyme activity. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 19413–19416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lei, Z.; Gao, C.; Chen, L.; He, Y.; Ma, W.; Lin, Z. Recent advances in biomolecule immobilization based on self-assembly: Organic–inorganic hybrid nanoflowers and metal–organic frameworks as novel substrates. J. Mater. Chem. B 2018, 6, 1581–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Jiang, W.; Wang, X.; Yang, J.; Han, H.; Li, Q.; Tang, J. Lipase-inorganic hybrid nanoflower constructed through biomimetic mineralization: A new support for biodiesel synthesis. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 514, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Luo, X.; Mohammed Al-Antaki, A.H.; Igder, A.; Stubbs, K.A.; Su, P.; Zhang, W.; Weiss, G.A.; Raston, C.L. Vortex fluidic-mediated fabrication of fast gelated silica hydrogels with embedded laccase nanoflowers for real-time biosensing under flow. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 51999–52007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Luo, M.; Li, M.; Jiang, S.; Shao, H.; Razal, J.; Wang, D.; Fang, J. Supported growth of inorganic-organic nanoflowers on 3D hierarchically porous nanofibrous membrane for enhanced enzymatic water treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 381, 120947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sun, T.; Fu, M.; Xing, J.; Ge, Z. Magnetic nanoparticles encapsulated laccase nanoflowers: Evaluation of enzymatic activity and reusability for degradation of malachite green. Water Sci. Technol. 2020, 81, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fotiadou, R.; Patila, M.; Hammami, M.A.; Enotiadis, A.; Moschovas, D.; Tsirka, K.; Spyrou, K.; Giannelis, E.P.; Avgeropoulos, A.; Paipetis, A.; et al. Development of effective lipase-hybrid nanoflowers enriched with carbon and magnetic nanomaterials for biocatalytic transformations. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Zhang, H.; Fei, X.; Tian, J.; Li, Y.; Zhi, H.; Wang, K.; Xu, L.; Wang, Y. Synthesis and continuous catalytic application of alkaline protease nanoflowers–PVA composite hydrogel. Catal. Commun. 2018, 116, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sun, B.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Qiu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Cui, J.; Jia, S. Paper-based biosensor based on phenylalnine ammonia lyase hybrid nanoflowers for urinary phenylalanine measurement. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 166, 601–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, I.; Cheon, H.J.; Adhikari, M.D.; Tran, T.D.; Yeon, K.-M.; Kim, M.I.; Kim, J. Glucose oxidase-copper hybrid nanoflowers embedded with magnetic nanoparticles as an effective antibacterial agent. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 155, 1520–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Armoring bio-catalysis via structural and functional coordination between nanostructured materials and lipases for tailored applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 166, 818–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Guimarães, J.R.; Carballares, D.; Rocha-martin, J.R.; Tardioli, P.W.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. The immobilization protocol greatly alters the effects of metal phosphate modification on the activity/stability of immobilized lipases. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Garcia-Galan, C.; dos Santos, J.C.S.; Barbosa, O.; Torres, R.; Pereira, E.B.; Corberan, V.C.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Tuning of Lecitase features via solid-phase chemical modification: Effect of the immobilization protocol. Process Biochem. 2014, 49, 604–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ruiz, M.; Galvis, M.; Barbosa, O.; Ortiz, C.; Torres, R.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Solid-phase modification with succinic polyethyleneglycol of aminated lipase B from Candida antarctica: Effect of the immobilization protocol on enzyme catalytic properties. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym. 2013, 87, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Barbosa, O.; Ruiz, M.; Ortiz, C.; Fernández, M.; Torres, R.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Modulation of the properties of immobilized CALB by chemical modification with 2,3,4-trinitrobenzenesulfonate or ethylendiamine. Advantages of using adsorbed lipases on hydrophobic supports. Process Biochem. 2012, 47, 867–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Galvis, M.; Barbosa, O.; Torres, R.; Ortiz, C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Effect of solid-phase chemical modification on the features of the lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus. Process Biochem. 2012, 47, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Rueda, N.; Bartolome-Cabrero, R.; Rodriguez, M.D.; Albuquerque, T.L.; Dos Santos, J.C.S.; Barbosa, O.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Improved immobilization and stabilization of lipase from Rhizomucor miehei on octyl-glyoxyl agarose beads by using CaCl2. Process Biochem. 2016, 51, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Bartolome-Cabrero, R.; Rodriguez, M.D.; Dos Santos, C.S.; Rueda, N.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Stabilizing effects of cations on lipases depend on the immobilization protocol. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 83868–83875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carpenter, B.P.; Talosig, A.R.; Mulvey, J.T.; Merham, J.G.; Esquivel, J.; Rose, B.; Ogata, A.F.; Fishman, D.A.; Patterson, J.P. Role of molecular modification and protein folding in the nucleation and growth of protein–metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 8336–8344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sarmah, N.; Revathi, D.; Sheelu, G.; Yamuna Rani, K.; Sridhar, S.; Mehtab, V.; Sumana, C. Recent advances on sources and industrial applications of lipases. Biotechnol. Prog. 2018, 34, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhong, L.; Feng, Y.; Wang, G.; Wang, Z.; Bilal, M.; Lv, H.; Jia, S.; Cui, J. Production and use of immobilized lipases in/on nanomaterials: A review from the waste to biodiesel production. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 152, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Facin, B.R.; Melchiors, M.S.; Valério, A.; Oliveira, J.V.; de Oliveira, D. Driving immobilized lipases as biocatalysts: 10 years state of the art and future prospects. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 5358–5378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dwivedee, B.P.; Soni, S.; Sharma, M.; Bhaumik, J.; Laha, J.K.; Banerjee, U.C. Promiscuity of lipase-catalyzed reactions for organic synthesis: A recent update. Chem. Sel. 2018, 3, 2441–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, G.; Khan, I.M.; He, W.; Li, Y.; Jin, P.; Campanella, O.H.; Zhang, H.; Huo, Y.; Chen, Y.; Yang, H.; et al. Rebuilding the lid region from conformational and dynamic features to engineering applications of lipase in foods: Current status and future prospects. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022, 21, 2688–2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, S.; Xu, Y.; Yu, X.-W. A phenylalanine dynamic switch controls the interfacial activation of Rhizopus chinensis lipase. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 173, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Verger, R. ‘Interfacial activation’ of lipases: Facts and artifacts. Trends Biotechnol. 1997, 15, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Brzozowski, A.M.; Derewenda, U.; Derewenda, Z.S.; Dodson, G.G.; Lawson, D.M.; Turkenburg, J.P.; Bjorkling, F.; Huge-Jensen, B.; Patkar, S.A.; Thim, L. A model for interfacial activation in lipases from the structure of a fungal lipase-inhibitor complex. Nature 1991, 351, 491–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Manoel, E.A.; dos Santos, J.C.S.; Freire, D.M.G.; Rueda, N.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Immobilization of lipases on hydrophobic supports involves the open form of the enzyme. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2015, 71, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Migneault, I.; Dartiguenave, C.; Bertrand, M.J.; Waldron, K.C. Glutaraldehyde: Behavior in aqueous solution, reaction with proteins, and application to enzyme crosslinking. Biotechniques 2004, 37, 790–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Barbosa, O.; Ortiz, C.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Torres, R.; Rodrigues, R.C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Glutaraldehyde in bio-catalysts design: A useful crosslinker and a versatile tool in enzyme immobilization. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 1583–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Monsan, P. Optimization of glutaraldehyde activation of a support for enzyme immobilization. J. Mol. Catal. 1978, 3, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barbosa, O.; Torres, R.; Ortiz, C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. The slow-down of the CALB immobilization rate permits to control the inter and intra molecular modification produced by glutaraldehyde. Process Biochem. 2012, 47, 766–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fernandez-Lafuente, R.; Rosell, C.M.; Rodriguez, V.; Guisan, J.M. Strategies for enzyme stabilization by intramolecular crosslinking with bifunctional reagents. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 1995, 17, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hoare, D.G.; Koshland, D.E. A method for the quantitative modification and estimation of carboxylic acid groups in proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1967, 242, 2447–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Carraway, K.L.; Spoerl, P.; Koshland, D.E. Carboxyl group modification in chymotrypsin and chymotrypsinogen. J. Mol. Biol. 1969, 42, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Snyder, S.L.; Sobocinski, P.Z. An improved 2,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid method for the determination of amines. Anal. Biochem. 1975, 64, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Virgen-Ortíz, J.J.; dos Santos, J.C.S.; Berenguer-Murcia, Á.; Barbosa, O.; Rodrigues, R.C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Polyethylenimine: A very useful ionic polymer in the design of immobilized enzyme biocatalysts. J. Mater. Chem. B 2017, 5, 7461–7490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Virgen-OrtÍz, J.J.; Pedrero, S.G.; Lopez-Carrobles, N.; Gorines, B.C.; Otero, C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Optimization of the coating of octyl-CALB with ionic polymers to improve stability and decrease enzyme leakage. Biocatal. Biotransf. 2018, 36, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Carballares, D.; Rocha-Martin, J.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Preparation of a six-enzyme multilayer combi-biocatalyst: Reuse of the most stable enzymes after inactivation of the least stable one. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 3920–3934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Pedrero, S.G.; Lopez-Carrobles, N.; Virgen-Ortíz, J.J.; Gorines, B.C.; Otero, C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Physical crosslinking of lipase from Rhizomucor miehei immobilized on octyl agarose via coating with ionic polymers: Avoiding enzyme release from the support. Process Biochem. 2017, 54, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus: Uses and prospects as an industrial biocatalyst. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym. 2010, 62, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Anderson, E.M.; Larsson, K.M.; Kirk, O. One biocatalyst-many applications: The use of Candida antarctica B-lipase in organic synthesis. Biocatal. Biotransf. 1998, 16, 181–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gotor-Fernández, V.; Busto, E.; Gotor, V. Candida antarctica lipase B: An ideal biocatalyst for the preparation of nitrogenated organic compounds. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2006, 348, 797–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tsai, S.-W. Enantiopreference of Candida antarctica lipase B toward carboxylic acids: Substrate models and enantioselectivity thereof. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym. 2016, 127, 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Palomo, J.M.; Fernández-Lorente, G.; Guisán, J.M.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Modulation of immobilized lipase enantioselectivity via chemical amination. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2007, 349, 1119–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cabrera, Z.; Fernandez-Lorente, G.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R.; Palomo, J.M.; Guisan, J.M. Enhancement of Novozym-435 catalytic properties by physical or chemical modification. Process Biochem. 2009, 44, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gonçalves, M.C.P.; Amaral, J.C.; Lopes, L.A.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R.; Tardioli, P.W. Stabilization and operational selectivity alteration of Lipozyme 435 by its coating with polyethyleneimine: Comparison of the biocatalyst performance in the synthesis of xylose fatty esters. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 192, 665–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rodrigues, R.C.; Godoy, C.A.; Volpato, G.; Ayub, M.A.Z.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R.; Guisan, J.M. Immobilization–stabilization of the lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus: Critical role of chemical amination. Process Biochem. 2009, 44, 963–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zaak, H.; Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Otero, C.; Sassi, M.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Improved stability of immobilized lipases via modification with polyethylenimine and glutaraldehyde. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2017, 106, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Pedrero, S.G.; Lopez-Carrobles, N.; Gorines, B.C.; Virgen-Ortíz, J.J.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Effect of protein load on stability of immobilized enzymes. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2017, 98, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zaak, H.; Siar, E.-H.; Kornecki, J.F.; Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Pedrero, S.G.; Virgen-Ortíz, J.J.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Effect of immobilization rate and enzyme crowding on enzyme stability under different conditions. The case of lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus immobilized on octyl agarose beads. Process Biochem. 2017, 56, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Arana-Peña, S.; Rios, N.S.; Mendez-Sanchez, C.; Lokha, Y.; Carballares, D.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Coimmobilization of different lipases: Simple layer by layer enzyme spatial ordering. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 145, 856–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Rios, N.S.; Arana-Peña, S.; Mendez-Sanchez, C.; Lokha, Y.; Cortes-Corberan, V.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Increasing the enzyme loading capacity of porous supports by a layer-by-layer immobilization strategy using PEI as glue. Catalysts 2019, 9, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Arana-Peña, S.; Rios, N.S.; Mendez-Sanchez, C.; Lokha, Y.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Use of polyethylenimine to produce immobilized lipase multilayers biocatalysts with very high volumetric activity using octyl-agarose beads: Avoiding enzyme release during multilayer production. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2020, 137, 109535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Arana-Peña, S.; Carballares, D.; Cortés Corberan, V.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Multi-combilipases: Co-immobilizing lipases with very different stabilities combining immobilization via interfacial activation and ion exchange. The reuse of the most stable co-immobilized enzymes after inactivation of the least stable ones. Catalysts 2020, 10, 1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Arana-Peña, S.; Rios, N.S.; Carballares, D.; Mendez-Sanchez, C.; Lokha, Y.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Effects of enzyme loading and immobilization conditions on the catalytic features of lipase from Pseudomonas fluorescens immobilized on octyl-agarose beads. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Fernández-Lorente, G.; Palomo, J.M.; Mateo, C.; Munilla, R.; Ortiz, C.; Cabrera, Z.; Guisán, J.M.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Glutaraldehyde cross-linking of lipases adsorbed on aminated supports in the presence of detergents leads to improved performance. Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 2610–2615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bradford, M.M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Arana-Peña, S.; Lokha, Y.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Immobilization on octyl-agarose beads and some catalytic features of commercial preparations of lipase a from Candida antarctica (Novocor ADL): Comparison with immobilized lipase B from Candida antarctica. Biotechnol. Prog. 2019, 35, e2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Lokha, Y.; Arana-Peña, S.; Rios, N.S.; Mendez-Sanchez, C.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Lopez-Gallego, F.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Modulating the properties of the lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus immobilized on octyl agarose beads by altering the immobilization conditions. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2020, 133, 109461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, M.; Shi, H.; Wu, D.; Han, H.; Zhang, J.; Xing, Z.; Wang, S.; Li, Q. Glutaraldehyde cross-linking of immobilized thermophilic esterase on hydrophobic macroporous resin for application in poly(ε-caprolactone) synthesis. Molecules 2014, 19, 9838–9849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Virgen-Ortíz, J.; Pedrero, S.; Fernandez-Lopez, L.; Lopez-Carrobles, N.; Gorines, B.; Otero, C.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Desorption of lipases immobilized on octyl-agarose beads and coated with ionic polymers after thermal inactivation. Stronger adsorption of polymers/unfolded protein composites. Molecules 2017, 22, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Palomo, J.M.; Fuentes, M.; Fernández-Lorente, G.; Mateo, C.; Guisan, J.M.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. General trend of lipase to self-assemble giving bimolecular aggregates greatly modifies the enzyme functionality. Biomacromolecules 2003, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Palomo, J.M.; Ortiz, C.; Fernández-Lorente, G.; Fuentes, M.; Guisán, J.M.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Lipase-lipase interactions as a new tool to immobilize and modulate the lipase properties. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2005, 36, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. de Lima, L.N.; Aragon, C.C.; Mateo, C.; Palomo, J.M.; Giordano, R.L.C.; Tardioli, P.W.; Guisan, J.M.; Fernandez-Lorente, G. Immobilization and stabilization of a bimolecular aggregate of the lipase from Pseudomonas fluorescens by multipoint covalent attachment. Process Biochem. 2013, 48, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Volpato, G.; Filice, M.; Ayub, M.A.Z.; Guisan, J.M.; Palomo, J.M. Single-step purification of different lipases from Staphylococcus warneri. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fernández-Lorente, G.; Palomo, J.M.; Fuentes, M.; Mateo, C.; Guisán, J.M.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Self-assembly of Pseudomonas fluorescens lipase into bimolecular aggregates dramatically affects functional properties. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2003, 82, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Palomo, J.M.; Ortiz, C.; Fuentes, M.; Fernandez-Lorente, G.; Guisan, J.M.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Use of immobilized lipases for lipase purification via specific lipase-lipase interactions. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1038, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Wilson, L.; Palomo, J.M.; Fernández-Lorente, G.; Illanes, A.; Guisán, J.M.; Fernández-Lafuente, R. Effect of lipase–lipase interactions in the activity, stability and specificity of a lipase from Alcaligenes sp. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2006, 39, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lombardo, D.; Guy, O. Effect of alcohols on the hydrolysis catalyzed by human pancreatic carboxylic-ester hydrolase. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Enzymol. 1981, 657, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hernandez, K.; Garcia-Verdugo, E.; Porcar, R.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Hydrolysis of triacetin catalyzed by immobilized lipases: Effect of the immobilization protocol and experimental conditions on diacetin yield. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2011, 48, 510–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Souza, P.M.P.; Carballares, D.; Lopez-Carrobles, N.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Lopez-Gallego, F.; Rodrigues, S.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Enzyme-support interactions and inactivation conditions determine Thermomyces lanuginosus lipase inactivation pathways: Functional and florescence studies. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 191, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. dos Santos, J.C.S.; Rueda, N.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Tuning the catalytic properties of lipases immobilized on divinylsulfone activated agarose by altering its nanoenvironment. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2015, 77, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Uppenberg, J.; Hansen, M.T.; Patkar, S.; Jones, T.A. The sequence, crystal structure determination and refinement of two crystal forms of lipase B from Candida antarctica. Structure 1994, 2, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Arana-Peña, S.; Rios, N.S.; Carballares, D.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Immobilization of lipases via interfacial activation on hydrophobic supports: Production of biocatalysts libraries by altering the immobilization conditions. Catal. Today 2021, 362, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bolivar, J.M.; Nidetzky, B. On the relationship between structure and catalytic effectiveness in solid surface-immobilized enzymes: Advances in methodology and the quest for a single-molecule perspective. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Proteins Proteom. 2020, 1868, 140333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Bolivar, J.M.; Eisl, I.; Nidetzky, B. Advanced characterization of immobilized enzymes as heterogeneous biocatalysts. Catal. Today 2016, 259, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Guo, W.; Zou, X.; Jiang, H.; Koebke, K.J.; Hoarau, M.; Crisci, R.; Lu, T.; Wei, T.; Marsh, E.N.G.; Chen, Z. Molecular structure of the surface-immobilized super uranyl binding protein. J. Phys. Chem. B 2021, 125, 7706–7716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zou, X.; Wei, S.; Badieyan, S.; Schroeder, M.; Jasensky, J.; Brooks, C.L.; Marsh, E.N.G.; Chen, Z. Investigating the effect of two-point surface attachment on enzyme stability and activity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 16560–16569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jasensky, J.; Ferguson, K.; Baria, M.; Zou, X.; McGinnis, R.; Kaneshiro, A.; Badieyan, S.; Wei, S.; Marsh, E.N.G.; Chen, Z. Simultaneous observation of the orientation and activity of surface-immobilized enzymes. Langmuir 2018, 34, 9133–9140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Li, Y.; Ogorzalek, T.L.; Wei, S.; Zhang, X.; Yang, P.; Jasensky, J.; Brooks, C.L.; Marsh, E.N.G.; Chen, Z. Effect of immobilization site on the orientation and activity of surface-tethered enzymes. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2018, 20, 1021–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Badieyan, S.; Wang, Q.; Zou, X.; Li, Y.; Herron, M.; Abbott, N.L.; Chen, Z.; Marsh, E.N.G. Engineered surface-immobilized enzyme that retains high levels of catalytic activity in air. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 2872–2875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Ogorzalek, T.L.; Wei, S.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Brooks, C.L.; Chen, Z.; Marsh, E.N.G. Molecular-level insights into orientation-dependent changes in the thermal stability of enzymes covalently immobilized on surfaces. Langmuir 2015, 31, 6145–6153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Mohamad, N.R.; Marzuki, N.H.C.; Buang, N.A.; Huyop, F.; Wahab, R.A. An overview of technologies for immobilization of enzymes and surface analysis techniques for immobilized enzymes. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2015, 29, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Carlsson, N.; Gustafsson, H.; Thörn, C.; Olsson, L.; Holmberg, K.; Åkerman, B. Enzymes immobilized in mesoporous silica: A physical–chemical perspective. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014, 205, 339–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Inactivation courses of different physically and chemically modified octyl-TLL biocatalysts. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 68 °C, in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Figure 1. Inactivation courses of different physically and chemically modified octyl-TLL biocatalysts. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 68 °C, in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Ijms 23 12808 g001
Figure 2. Inactivation courses of different octyl-TLL biocatalysts in 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0 and 75 °C. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Figure 2. Inactivation courses of different octyl-TLL biocatalysts in 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0 and 75 °C. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Ijms 23 12808 g002
Figure 3. Inactivation courses of different octyl-TLL biocatalysts modified with (a) 1% glutaraldehyde, (b) amination using 2 M ethylenediamine, (c) 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid, (d) 10% polyethyleneimine, and (e) 10% dextran sulfate. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 68 °C (b) and 75 °C (a,ce), in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Figure 3. Inactivation courses of different octyl-TLL biocatalysts modified with (a) 1% glutaraldehyde, (b) amination using 2 M ethylenediamine, (c) 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid, (d) 10% polyethyleneimine, and (e) 10% dextran sulfate. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 68 °C (b) and 75 °C (a,ce), in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Ijms 23 12808 g003
Figure 4. Inactivation courses of different physically and chemically modified octyl-CALB biocatalysts. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 75 °C in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Figure 4. Inactivation courses of different physically and chemically modified octyl-CALB biocatalysts. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 75 °C in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Ijms 23 12808 g004
Figure 5. Inactivation courses of different octyl-CALB biocatalysts in 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0 and 75 °C. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Figure 5. Inactivation courses of different octyl-CALB biocatalysts in 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0 and 75 °C. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Ijms 23 12808 g005
Figure 6. Inactivation courses of different octyl-CALB biocatalysts modified with (a) 1% glutaraldehyde, (b) amination using 2 M ethylenediamine, (c) 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid, (d) 10% polyethylenimine, and (e) 10% dextran sulfate. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 68 °C (b) and 75 °C (a,ce), in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Figure 6. Inactivation courses of different octyl-CALB biocatalysts modified with (a) 1% glutaraldehyde, (b) amination using 2 M ethylenediamine, (c) 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid, (d) 10% polyethylenimine, and (e) 10% dextran sulfate. The biocatalysts were inactivated at 68 °C (b) and 75 °C (a,ce), in presence of 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer at pH 7.0. Other specifications are described in Methods. Unmodified octyl-TLL (empty squares and dashed and red line); octyl-TLL modified with 1% glutaraldehyde (solid rhombus and solid blue line); amination using 2 M ethylenediamine (solid triangles and solid orange line); 1 mM picrylsulfonic acid (solid circles and solid grey line); 10% polyethylenimine (solid squares and solid black line); 10% dextran sulfate (empty rhombus and solid green line).
Ijms 23 12808 g006
Table 1. Specific activity of different biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 1. Specific activity of different biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
BiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl
Mandelate
S-Methyl
Mandelate
Octyl-TLL1416 ± 51601 ± 61.2 ± 0.13.2 ± 0.2
Octyl-TLL-GA1350 ± 9148 ± 20.8 ± 0.12.4 ± 0.1
Octyl-TLL-Amin1675 ± 4988 ± 40.6 ± 0.13.2 ± 0.2
Octyl-TLL-TNBS1764 ± 8260 ± 30.9 ± 0.13.1 ± 0.2
Octyl-TLL-PEI1363 ± 6190 ± 49.8 ± 0.57.7 ± 0.4
Octyl-TLL-DS985 ± 5228 ± 17.5 ± 0.46.5 ± 0.2
Table 2. Specific activity of different TLL biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 2. Specific activity of different TLL biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
BiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl MandelateS-Methyl Mandelate
Octyl-TLL1416 ± 5161 ± 61.2 ± 0.13.2 ± 0.2
Octyl-TLL-ZnP *1040 ± 6488 ± 60.9 ± 0.13.0 ± 0.1
Octyl-TLL-CoP1207 ± 7265 ± 51.1 ± 0.12.9 ± 0.2
Octyl-TLL-CuP1144 ± 9067 ± 60.8 ± 0.12.7 ± 0.1
Octyl-TLL-NiP1371 ± 8753 ± 31.5 ± 0.13.0 ± 0.2
Octyl-TLL-MgP1665 ± 4166 ± 31.5 ± 0.12.4 ± 0.1
* ZnP, CuP, CoP, NiP, MgP correspond to the metallic salt/sodium phosphate.
Table 3. Specific activity of different immobilized and chemically modified TLL biocatalysts after mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 3. Specific activity of different immobilized and chemically modified TLL biocatalysts after mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
LineBiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
1p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl MandelateS-Methyl Mandelate
2Octyl-TLL-GA1350 ± 9148 ± 20.8 ± 0.12.4 ± 0.1
3Octyl-TLL-GA-ZnP1408 ± 8450 ± 20.7 ± 0.13.0 ± 0.1
4Octyl-TLL-GA-CoP1133 ± 6135 ± 20.2 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.1
5Octyl-TLL-GA-CuP1142 ± 4238 ± 20.6 ± 0.12.1 ± 0.1
6Octyl-TLL-GA-NiP1308 ± 5448 ± 20.6 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.1
7Octyl-TLL-GA-MgP1404 ± 12046 ± 20.7 ± 0.12.4 ± 0.1
8Octyl-TLL-Amin1675 ± 4988 ± 40.6 ± 0.13.2 ± 0.2
9Octyl-TLL-Amin-ZnP1422 ± 20878 ± 40.6 ± 0.13.1 ± 0.2
10Octyl-TLL-Amin-CoP1647 ± 8753 ± 30.1 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.1
11Octyl-TLL-Amin-CuP1618 ± 3679 ± 40.9 ± 0.43.0 ± 0.2
12Octyl-TLL-Amin-NiP1863 ± 10763 ± 30.6 ± 0.12.8 ± 0.1
13Octyl-TLL-Amin-MgP1979 ± 9079 ± 40.8 ± 0.12.9 ± 0.1
14Octyl-TLL-TNBS1763 ± 8260 ± 30.9 ± 0.13.1 ± 0.2
15Octyl-TLL-TNBS-ZnP1836 ± 9747 ± 2.0.9 ± 0.12.7 ± 0.1
16Octyl-TLL-TNBS-CoP1591 ± 10946 ± 20.4 ± 0.12.4 ± 0.1
17Octyl-TLL-TNBS-CuP1501 ± 7645 ± 21.0 ± 0. 143.0 ± 0.2
18Octyl-TLL-TNBS-NiP1592 ± 12844 ± 21.4 ± 0.13.1 ± 0.2
19Octyl-TLL-TNBS-MgP1544 ± 6046 ± 21.1 ± 0.13.0 ± 0.2
ZnP, CuP, CoP, NiP, MgP, ZnP, CuP, CoP, NiP, MgP correspond to the metallic salt/sodium phosphate.
Table 4. Specific activity of different immobilized and physically modified biocatalysts after solid-phase mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 4. Specific activity of different immobilized and physically modified biocatalysts after solid-phase mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
LineBiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
1p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl MandelateS-Methyl Mandelate
2Octyl-TLL-PEI1363 ± 6190 ± 49.8 ± 0.57.7 ± 0.4
3Octyl-TLL-PEI-ZnP1479 ± 20106 ± 58.2 ± 0.48.2 ± 0.5
4Octyl-TLL-PEI-CoP1442 ± 31108 ± 67.7 ± 0.48.1 ± 0.3
5Octyl-TLL-PEI-CuP1351 ± 80120 ± 68.7 ± 0.48.0 ± 0.2
6Octyl-TLL-PEI-NiP1309 ± 7294 ± 48.5 ± 0.57.9 ± 0.3
7Octyl-TLL-PEI-MgP1323 ± 5080 ± 58.2 ± 0.47.7 ± 0.3
8Octyl-TLL-DS985 ± 5228 ± 17.5 ± 0.46.5 ± 0.2
9Octyl-TLL-DS-ZnP1041 ± 3137 ± 29.9 ± 0.47.3 ± 0.4
10Octyl-TLL-DS-CoP1084 ± 4627 ± 18.1 ± 0.36.1 ± 0.2
11Octyl-TLL-DS-CuP898 ± 5430 ± 28.9 ± 0.47.2 ± 0.4
12Octyl-TLL-DS-NiP1041 ± 4028 ± 18.5 ± 0.57.2 ± 0.3
13Octyl-TLL-DS-MgP951 ± 2331 ± 18.9 ± 0.47.4 ± 0.4
ZnP, CuP, CoP, NiP, MgP correspond to the metallic salt/sodium phosphate.
Table 5. Specific activity of different CALB biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 5. Specific activity of different CALB biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
BiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl MandelateS-Methyl Mandelate
Octyl-CALB1151 ± 62132 ± 619.5 ± 0.939.0 ± 1.9
Octyl-CALB-GA1325 ± 2394 ± 516.8 ± 0.928.0 ± 1.4
Octyl-CALB-Amin1312 ± 3677 ± 326.5 ± 1.336.3 ± 1.9
Octyl-CALB-TNBS1336 ± 3689 ± 718.3 ± 0.841.1 ± 2.0
Octyl-CALB-PEI1518 ± 91143 ± 926.1 ± 1.533.3 ± 1.7
Octyl-CALB-DS1294 ± 85121 ± 420.0 ± 0.843.2 ± 2.2
Table 6. Specific activity of different CALB biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 6. Specific activity of different CALB biocatalysts with 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
BiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl MandelateS-Methyl Mandelate
Octyl-CALB1151 ± 62132 ± 619.5 ± 0.939.0 ± 1.9
Octyl-CALB-ZnP1172 ± 43194 ± 725.6 ± 1.349.5 ± 2.9
Octyl-CALB-CoP967 ± 52220 ± 1327.7 ± 1.450.2 ± 2.2
Octyl-CALB-CuP998 ± 73270 ± 1426.8 ± 1.350.1 ± 2.9
Octyl-CALB-NiP1218 ± 78222 ± 1320.4 ± 1.043.5 ± 2.1
Octyl-CALB-MgP1141 ± 4982 ± 517.5 ± 0.929.5 ± 1.6
ZnP, CuP, CoP, NiP, MgP correspond to the metallic salt/sodium phosphate.
Table 7. Specific activity of different immobilized and chemically modified CALB biocatalysts after solid-phase mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 7. Specific activity of different immobilized and chemically modified CALB biocatalysts after solid-phase mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
LineBiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
1p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl MandelateS-Methyl Mandelate
2Octyl-CALB-GA1324 ± 2394 ± 516.8 ± 0.928.0 ± 1.4
3Octyl-CALB-GA-ZnP1195 ± 2392 ± 59.7 ± 0.525.0 ± 1.9
4Octyl-CALB-GA-CoP1324 ± 3985 ± 415.5 ± 0.826.6 ± 1.3
5Octyl-CALB-GA-CuP1195 ± 2982 ± 414.1 ± 0.731.4 ± 1.4
6Octyl-CALB-GA-NiP1263 ± 4478 ± 218. 9 ± 0.827.8 ± 1.2
7Octyl-CALB-GA-MgP1264 ± 56121 ± 623.8 ± 1.029.2 ± 1.6
8Octyl-CALB-Amin1312 ± 3677 ± 326.5 ± 1.336.3 ± 1.9
9Octyl-CALB-Amin-ZnP1266 ± 21112 ± 723.6 ± 1.427.9 ± 1.3
10Octyl-CALB-Amin-CoP1225 ± 69122 ± 625.3 ± 1.127.0 ± 1.0
11Octyl-CALB-Amin-CuP1341 ± 6397 ± 624.3 ± 0.927.6 ± 1.2
12Octyl-CALB-Amin-NiP1369 ± 102116 ± 624.7 ± 1.437.0 ± 1.9
13Octyl-CALB-Amin-MgP1264 ± 56121 ± 623.8 ± 1.029.2 ± 1.6
14Octyl-CALB-TNBS1336 ± 3689 ± 718.3 ± 0.841.1 ± 2.0
15Octyl-CALB-TNBS-ZnP1266 ± 70139 ± 716.7 ± 0.839.1 ± 2.0
16Octyl-CALB-TNBS-CoP1263 ± 81140 ± 817.4 ± 0.737.5 ± 1.9
17Octyl-CALB-TNBS-CuP1128 ± 58169 ± 819.3 ± 0.943.3 ± 2.1
18Octyl-CALB-TNBS-NiP1214 ± 119153 ± 720.0 ± 0.838.2 ± 1.9
19Octyl-CALB-TNBS-MgP1170 ± 34.9145 ± 918.6 ± 1.239.8 ± 2.0
ZnP, CuP, CoP, NiP, MgP correspond to the metallic salt/sodium phosphate.
Table 8. Specific activity of different immobilized and physically modified CALB biocatalysts after solid-phase mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
Table 8. Specific activity of different immobilized and physically modified CALB biocatalysts after solid-phase mineralization. The hydrolytic activity was measured using 1 mM p-NPB (pH 7 and 25 °C), 50 mM triacetin (pH 7 and 25 °C), and 50 mM R- or S-methyl mandelate (pH 7 and 25 °C). Experiments were conducted as described in Methods.
LineBiocatalystsActivity (U/g)
1p-NPBTriacetinR-Methyl
Mandelate
S-Methyl
Mandelate
2Octyl-CALB-PEI1518 ± 91143 ± 926.1 ± 1.533.3 ± 1.7
3Octyl-CALB-PEI-ZnP1769 ± 30181 ± 726.9 ± 1.438.2 ± 2.0
4Octyl-CALB-PEI-CoP1638 ± 33201 ± 1126.3 ± 1.440.8 ± 2.1
5Octyl-CALB-PEI-CuP1656 ± 48219 ± 1417.2 ± 0.945.9 ± 2.9
6Octyl-CALB-PEI-NiP1489 ± 93200 ± 1112.5 ± 0.747.8 ± 2.3
7Octyl-CALB-PEI-MgP1468 ± 89207 ± 1319.1 ± 1.048.5 ± 2.6
8Octyl-CALB-DS1294 ± 85121 ± 420.0 ± 0.843.2 ± 2.2
9Octyl-CALB-DS-ZnP1251 ± 51132 ± 823.6 ± 1.143.2 ± 1.9
10Octyl-CALB-DS-CoP1248 ± 57144 ± 821.4 ± 1.044.8 ± 2.6
11Octyl-CALB-DS-CuP1188 ± 101182 ± 1020.9 ± 0.846.6 ± 2.5
12Octyl-CALB-DS-NiP1232 ± 31159 ± 919.3 ± 0.641.0 ± 1.9
13Octyl-CALB-DS-MgP1308 ± 27179 ± 1021.5 ± 0.944.3 ± 1.4
ZnP, CuP, CoP, NiP, MgP correspond to the metallic salt/sodium phosphate.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guimarães, J.R.; Carballares, D.; Rocha-Martin, J.; Tardioli, P.W.; Fernandez-Lafuente, R. Tuning Immobilized Enzyme Features by Combining Solid-Phase Physicochemical Modification and Mineralization. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 12808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232112808

AMA Style

Guimarães JR, Carballares D, Rocha-Martin J, Tardioli PW, Fernandez-Lafuente R. Tuning Immobilized Enzyme Features by Combining Solid-Phase Physicochemical Modification and Mineralization. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(21):12808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232112808

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guimarães, José R., Diego Carballares, Javier Rocha-Martin, Paulo W. Tardioli, and Roberto Fernandez-Lafuente. 2022. "Tuning Immobilized Enzyme Features by Combining Solid-Phase Physicochemical Modification and Mineralization" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 21: 12808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232112808

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop