Selecting β-glucosidases to support cellulases in cellulose saccharification

Hele Teugjas; Priit Väljamäe

doi:10.1186/1754-6834-6-105

Research
Open Access

Selecting β-glucosidases to support cellulases in cellulose saccharification

Hele Teugjas¹ and
Priit Väljamäe¹Email author

Biotechnology for Biofuels20136:105

https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-105

Received: 20 May 2013
Accepted: 11 July 2013
Published: 24 July 2013

Abstract

Background

Enzyme end-product inhibition is a major challenge in the hydrolysis of lignocellulose at a high dry matter consistency. β-glucosidases (BGs) hydrolyze cellobiose into two molecules of glucose, thereby relieving the product inhibition of cellobiohydrolases (CBHs). However, BG inhibition by glucose will eventually lead to the accumulation of cellobiose and the inhibition of CBHs. Therefore, the kinetic properties of candidate BGs must meet the requirements determined by both the kinetic properties of CBHs and the set-up of the hydrolysis process.

Results

The kinetics of cellobiose hydrolysis and glucose inhibition of thermostable BGs from Acremonium thermophilum (AtBG3) and Thermoascus aurantiacus (TaBG3) was studied and compared to Aspergillus sp. BG purified from Novozyme®188 (N188BG). The most efficient cellobiose hydrolysis was achieved with TaBG3, followed by AtBG3 and N188BG, whereas the enzyme most sensitive to glucose inhibition was AtBG3, followed by TaBG3 and N188BG. The use of higher temperatures had an advantage in both increasing the catalytic efficiency and relieving the product inhibition of the enzymes. Our data, together with data from a literature survey, revealed a trade-off between the strength of glucose inhibition and the affinity for cellobiose; therefore, glucose-tolerant BGs tend to have low specificity constants for cellobiose hydrolysis. However, although a high specificity constant is always an advantage, in separate hydrolysis and fermentation, the priority may be given to a higher tolerance to glucose inhibition.

Conclusions

The specificity constant for cellobiose hydrolysis and the inhibition constant for glucose are the most important kinetic parameters in selecting BGs to support cellulases in cellulose hydrolysis.

Keywords

Cellulase
Cellulose
β-glucosidase
Cellobiose
Glucose
Inhibition
Acremonium thermophilum
Thermoascus aurantiacus

Background

Cellulose is the most abundant biopolymer on Earth and has a great potential as a renewable energy source. The enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose, followed by fermentation to ethanol is a promising green alternative for the production of transportation fuels. In nature, cellulose is degraded mostly by fungi and bacteria, which secret a number of hydrolytic and oxidative enzymes [1, 2], though fungal enzymes have received most of the attention to date regarding biotechnological applications. The major components of fungal cellulase systems are cellobiohydrolases (CBHs), exo-acting enzymes that processively release consecutive cellobiose units from cellulose chain ends. Endoglucanases (EGs) attack cellulose chains at random positions and work in synergism with CBHs. The hydrolysis of cellulose is completed by β-glucosidases (BGs), which hydrolyze cellobiose and soluble cellodextrins to glucose [3]. BGs can be found in glycoside hydrolase (GH) families 1, 3, 9, 30 and 116 [4, 5], and most of the microbial BGs employed in cellulose hydrolysis belong to GH family 3 [6]. Because cellobiose is a strong inhibitor of CBHs, the BG activity in cellulase mixtures must be optimized to overcome the product inhibition of CBHs. The inhibition of BGs by glucose must also be considered because the accumulation of glucose will lead to the accumulation of cellobiose and CBH inhibition. Many BGs are also inhibited by their substrate, and this apparent substrate inhibition is caused by the transglycosylation reaction, which competes with hydrolysis [7, 8]. The catalytic mechanism of retaining BGs involves a covalent glucosyl-enzyme intermediate [9], which may be attacked by water (hydrolysis) or by a hydroxyl group of the substrate (transglycosylation). In addition to the substrate, attack by other nucleophiles, such as alcohols, can also lead to transglycosylation [9]. Transglycosylation is under kinetic control, meaning that all cellobiose and transglycosylation products will eventually be hydrolyzed to glucose.

To be economically feasible, the hydrolysis of cellulose must be conducted at a high dry matter concentration, which inevitably results in a high concentration of hydrolysis products, cellobiose and glucose, and makes the product inhibition of enzymes a major challenge in process and enzyme engineering. Several process set-ups have been developed that minimize product inhibition, and bioreactors enabling the continuous removal of hydrolysis products have been constructed [10, 11]. The most often applied set-up is simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF), whereby glucose is constitutively removed by fermentation to ethanol. To bypass the use of BGs, yeast strains capable of fermenting cellobiose and cellodextrins have also been generated [12]. A major drawback of SSF is with regard to the different optimal conditions for the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose and yeast fermentation. The optimal temperature for yeast is 35°C, whereas cellulases exhibit the highest activity at temperatures of 50°C or higher. Although both processes can be conducted at each optimal temperature in separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), the enzymes must operate under conditions of severe product inhibition [13]. An alternative process in between conventional SHF and SSF employs the high-temperature partial pre-hydrolysis of cellulose, followed by SSF [14]. Thus, the properties of candidate enzymes, such as temperature optima and tolerance toward inhibitors, must be selected depending on the process set-up.

In this study, we characterize the thermophilic GH family 3 BGs from Acremonium thermophilum (AtBG3) and Thermoascus aurantiacus (TaBG3) [15, 16] in terms of cellobiose hydrolysis and glucose inhibition; a well-characterized BG from Aspergillus sp, purified from Novozyme®188 (N188BG), was used for comparison. A literature survey was also performed to identify correlations between the kinetic parameters of cellobiose hydrolysis and glucose inhibition.

Results and discussion

Kinetics of cellobiose hydrolysis

The hydrolysis of cellobiose by BGs, AtBG3, TaBG3 and N188BG was monitored by measuring the initial rates of glucose formation (v_Glc). The values of the observed rate constants for cellobiose turnover (k^obs_CB) were derived from v_Glc and the total concentration of enzyme ([E]₀) according to

k_{CB}^{obs} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{v_{Glc}}{{[E]}_{0}}

(1)

The hydrolysis kinetics of a chromogenic model substrate, para-nitrophenyl-β-glucoside (pNPG), was also studied. In this case, the initial rates of the liberation of para-nitrophenol (pNP) (v_pNP) were monitored, and the observed rate constants for pNPG turnover (k^obs_pNPG) were calculated as v_pNP/[E]₀. All BGs were found to subjected to substrate inhibition using both pNPG and cellobiose as substrates (Figure 1). The substrate inhibition of BGs is a well-known phenomenon that is caused by the competition between water (hydrolysis) and substrate (transglycosylation) for the glucosyl-enzyme intermediate (Scheme 1) [7, 8]. The dependency of k^obs_CB (and also k^obs_pNPG) on the substrate concentration is given by a set of four parameters, catalytic constants k_cat(h) and k_cat(t) and Michaelis constants K_M(h) and K_M(t) for hydrolysis and transglycosylation, respectively [17, 18].

k_{CB}^{obs} = \frac{k_{cat (h)} K_{M (t)} [CB] + \frac{1}{2} k_{cat (t)} {[CB]}^{2}}{K_{M (t)} K_{M (h)} + K_{M (t)} [CB] + {[CB]}^{2}}

(2)

Figure 1
**Hydrolysis of pNPG and cellobiose by β-glucosidases.** Observed rate constants (k^obs) for the β-glucosidase-catalyzed turnover of pNPG **(panel A)** and cellobiose **(panel B)** at 25°C. β-glucosidases included TaBG3 (◊), AtBG3 (∆) or *N188*BG (♦). The solid lines are from the non-linear regression according to Equation 2.

All four parameters in Equation 2 are combinations of the rate constants in Scheme 1[7, 8]. The hydrolysis of cellobiose results in the formation of two molecules of glucose, whereas transglycosylation results in the formation of one molecule of glucose and one trisaccharide (Scheme 1). For this reason, the catalytic constant for transglycosylation in Equation 2 is multiplied by a factor of ½; this correction is not necessary for the pNPG substrate, as both the hydrolysis and transglycosylation reactions result in the formation of one molecule of pNP. The values of all four parameters were found by the non-linear regression analysis of the data for cellobiose turnover, according to Equation 2. We were primarily interested in the hydrolytic reaction. Therefore, the data points in the region of high cellobiose concentrations were, in some cases, insufficient for precise measurements of the parameter values for transglycosylation. However, one can estimate that the values of k_cat(h) were approximately an order of magnitude higher than the values of k_cat(t), whereas the opposite was true for the K_M values (Additional file 1: Table S1). To test the possible interdependency between the parameters for the hydrolytic and transglycosylation reactions, we performed a non-linear regression analysis with the datasets in which the highest cellobiose concentration was limited to 5 K_M(h) (Additional file 1: Table S1). The resulting k_cat(h) and K_M(h) values were close to those obtained from the analysis of the full datasets, indicating that the values for k_cat(h) and K_M(h) can be calculated without precise estimates of the values of k_cat(t) and K_M(t) (Additional file 1: Table S1). Another possibility for determining the values of k_cat(h) and K_M(h) is to restrict the analysis to data points in the regions of substrate concentration at which substrate inhibition is not yet revealed and to employ the simple Michaelis-Menten equation. However, this approach resulted in somewhat lower k_cat(h) and K_M(h) values, whereas the values of k_cat(h)/K_M(h) were overestimated (Additional file 1: Table S1). Figure 2 shows the turnover of cellobiose at different temperatures, and the k_cat(h) and K_M(h) values obtained are listed in Table 1. Although at the same order of magnitude, the highest k_cat(h) values were found for TaBG3, followed by N188BG and AtBG3. However, it must be noted that, because of the competing transglycosylation reaction, cellobiose hydrolysis at the k_cat(h) value is never realized (k_cat(h) is the limiting value of k^obs_CB in the absence of transglycosylation, see Equation 2 in the case of k_cat(t) = 0 and K_M(t) → ∞). The highest measured k^obs_CB values averaged 60% ± 4%, 81% ± 13% and 72% ± 3% percent of the k_cat(h) value for TaBG3, AtBG3 and N188BG, respectively (Table 1). The highest k_cat(h)/K_M(h) values were found for TaBG3, followed by AtBG3 and N188BG (Table 2). The values of all the kinetic parameters increased with increasing temperature. The activation energies for k_cat(h) and k_cat(h)/K_M(h) and standard enthalpy changes for K_M(h) and K_i were derived from the corresponding Arrhenius plots (Additional file 1: Figure S1) and are listed in Table 3. Among the parameters examined, the highest activation energies were found for k_cat(h); activation energies for cellobiose hydrolysis in the range of 50 kJ mol^-1 have previously been reported for BGs, consistent with our observations [19].

Figure 2
**Hydrolysis of cellobiose at different temperatures.** Observed rate constants for the turnover of cellobiose (k^obs_CB) at 25°C (□), 35°C (■), 45°C (◊), 55°C (♦) and 65°C (∆). β-glucosidases included **(A)** TaBG3, **(B)** AtBG3 and **(C)** *N188*BG. The solid lines are from the non-linear regression according to Equation 2.

Table 1

Kinetic parameters for cellobiose hydrolysis by β-glucosidases

	k_cat(h)(s^-1)^a			K_M(h) (mM)^a
t (°C)	N188BG	TaBG3	AtBG3	N188BG	TaBG3	AtBG3
25	121 ± 4 (70%)	227 ± 10 (57%)	105 ± 11 (95%)	0.73 ± 0.04	0.42 ± 0.03	0.29 ± 0.07
35	271 ± 5 (72%)	401 ± 19 (57%)	180 ± 11 (92%)	0.97 ± 0.04	0.51 ± 0.04	0.32 ± 0.04
45	493 ± 12 (70%)	632 ± 20 (61%)	326 ± 14 (81%)	1.34 ± 0.06	0.60 ± 0.03	0.41 ± 0.04
55	691 ± 27 (76%)	1058 ± 81 (60%)	666 ± 23 (66%)	1.36 ± 0.12	0.67 ± 0.10	0.87 ± 0.05
65		1497 ± 53 (67%)	968 ± 31 (71%)		0.82 ± 0.06	0.93 ± 0.06

The values in parentheses show the highest measured value of the rate constant for cellobiose hydrolysis as a percentage of k_cat(h).

^aThe values of k_cat(h) and K_M(h) were determined by a non-linear regression analysis of the data of cellobiose turnover, according to Equation 2.

Table 2

Specificity constants of β-glucosidases for cellobiose

	k_cat(h)/K_M(h) for cellobiose (x 10⁵ M^-1 s^-1)^a
t (°C)	N188BG	TaBG3	AtBG3
25	1.66 ± 0.10	5.43 ± 0.45	3.61 ± 0.84
35	2.78 ± 0.11	7.81 ± 0.67	5.62 ± 0.77
45	3.69 ± 0.17	10.6 ± 0.60	7.99 ± 0.77
55	5.07 ± 0.44	15.5 ± 2.16	7.65 ± 0.47
65		18.4 ± 1.25	10.4 ± 0.63

^aThe k_cat(h)/K_M(h) values were calculated from the values of k_cat(h) and K_M(h) listed in Table 1.

Table 3

Activation energies and binding enthalpies for the kinetic parameters of β-glucosidases

	Activation energy, E_a(kJ mol^-1)^a		Binding enthalpy, ΔH⁰(kJ mol^-1)^a
	k _cat(h)	k_cat(h)/K_M(h)	K _M(h)	K _i(Glc)
N188BG	47.6 ± 1.3	29.5 ± 1.7	18.1 ± 1.0	19.6
TaBG3	39.8 ± 1.9	26.2 ± 2.3	13.6 ± 1.2	22.8
AtBG3	48.2 ± 2.7	20.5 ± 2.4	27.7 ± 3.3	24.6

^aFor the parameter p, the activation energy (for k_cat(h) and k_cat(h)/K_M(h)) and standard binding enthalpy (for K_M(h) and K_i(Glc)) was obtained from the slope of the line in the coordinates of ln(p) versus 1/T. For the data, see Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Inhibition of β-glucosidases by glucose

Glucose inhibition was evaluated using pNPG or 4-methylumbelliferyl-β-glucoside (MUG) as the substrate. The dependency of the strength of glucose inhibition on the substrate used for inhibition studies reported in the literature, i.e., chromogenic model substrates or cellobiose, is controversial. In some studies, glucose inhibition appears stronger with a cellobiose than pNPG substrate [20], whereas the opposite is also reported [20–24]. Furthermore, there is no obvious mechanistic interpretation for why the inhibition strength should be different with cellobiose and pNPG or MUG. In all cases, nucleophilic attack results in the formation of the same glucosyl-enzyme intermediate [9], and the only difference lies in the nature of the leaving group in the +1 binding site, which is glucose in the case of cellobiose and para-nitrophenole (pNP) or 4-methylumbelliferone (MU) in the case of pNPG or MUG, respectively. Therefore, we chose to study glucose inhibition on model substrates, the hydrolysis of which can be easily detected in a background of added glucose.

Although not without exceptions [25], glucose is a competitive inhibitor for BGs. In one trial (25°C, pNPG) we tested the type of inhibition by assessing the influence of glucose on the kinetic parameters of TaBG3. Consistent with competitive inhibition, increasing glucose concentration resulted in increased K_M(h) and K_M(t), with no or little effect on k_cat(h) and k_cat(t); approximate K_i values of 0.7 mM and 12 mM were found for glucose inhibition of the hydrolytic and transglycosylation reactions, respectively. For further investigation, we used a simplified approach and measured IC₅₀ values by varying the concentration of glucose in the experiments at a single substrate concentration. Provided that the inhibition is competitive and the substrate concentration is well below its K_M value, the IC₅₀ value is close to the true K_i value [26]. At low substrate concentrations, the contribution of transglycosylation is negligible and is not expected to interfere with glucose inhibition of the hydrolytic reaction. First, the K_M(h) values for pNPG were measured using a non-linear regression analysis of the data of pNPG hydrolysis, according to Equation 2 (the rate constant of pNPG hydrolysis, k^obs_pNPG, was plotted as a function of [pNPG] instead of k^obs_CBversus [CB]) (Figure 1A). At 25°C, K_M(h) values of 0.61 ± 0.06 mM, 0.22 ± 0.03 mM and 0.095 ± 0.003 mM were found for N188BG, TaBG3 and AtBG3, respectively. In the inhibition studies with N188BG, 50 μM pNPG was used as the substrate; however, low K_M(h) values did not permit the use of the pNPG substrate for TaBG3 and AtBG3 because of the sensitivity limitations of the initial rate measurements under the conditions of [pNPG] < < K_M(h). As the detection of MU fluorescence enables much greater sensitivity, MUG concentrations of 5 μM and 2.5 μM were used for TaBG3 and AtBG3, respectively. The initial rates measured in the presence of glucose (v_i) were divided by those measured in the absence of glucose (v₀), and data in the coordinates v_i/v₀versus [Glc] (Figure 3) were fitted to Equation 3.

\frac{v_{i}}{v_{0}} = \frac{[S] + C_{1}}{[S] + C_{1} (1 + \frac{[Glc]}{C_{2}})}

(3)

Figure 3
**Glucose inhibition of β-glucosidases.** The initial rates of the hydrolysis of 5 μM MUG by TaBG3 **(A)**, 2.5 μM MUG by AtBG3 **(B)** or 50 μM pNPG by *N188*BG **(C)** measured in the presence of glucose (v_i) were divided by those measured in the absence of glucose (v₀). The temperatures used were 25°C (□), 35°C (■), 45°C (◊), 55°C (♦) and 65°C (∆). The solid lines are from the non-linear regression according to Equation 3.

In the fitting of the data, the substrate concentration ([S]) was fixed to the value used in the experiments. The value of [S] and the values of the empirical constants C₁ and C₂ found by the fitting were further used to calculate the IC₅₀ value using Equation 4.

I C_{50} = C_{2} (1 + \frac{[S]}{C_{1}})

(4)

Because of the experimental conditions, [S] < < K_M, these IC₅₀ values are further referred to as K_i for glucose, K_i(Glc). The K_i(Glc) values for BGs at different temperatures are listed in Table 4; the enzyme most sensitive to glucose inhibition was AtBG3, followed by TaBG3 and N188BG. With all BGs, the strength of glucose inhibition decreased with increasing temperature; thus, the use of higher temperatures has an advantage of both increasing the catalytic efficiency and relieving the product inhibition. By plotting K_i(Glc)versus K_M(h) for cellobiose, K_M(CB) (Figure 4A) revealed a trade-off between the two parameters: a higher affinity for cellobiose is accompanied by a stronger glucose inhibition. Because of the similar temperature dependency of K_M(CB) and K_i(Glc), the data points for a specific BG at different temperatures followed the same line in the coordinates K_i(Glc)versus K_M(CB) (Figure 4A). We also conducted a literature survey in search of a correlation between the kinetic parameters of cellobiose hydrolysis and glucose inhibition. Table 5 lists BGs in order of increasing K_i(Glc). Although much scattering is observed, BGs can be tentatively divided into three groups based on their relative affinity for cellobiose (K_M(CB)) and glucose (K_i(Glc)). (1) BGs with a higher affinity for glucose than for cellobiose, K_M(CB) > > K_i(Glc) (Figure 4B, BGs near the red line). Because of the low specificity constants for cellobiose and strong glucose inhibition, these BGs are not suitable for supporting CBHs in cellulose degradation. (2) BGs with an approximately equal affinity for cellobiose and glucose, K_M(CB) ≈ K_i(Glc). Most of the listed BGs belong to this group, which can be further divided into two sub-groups, BGs with K_M(CB) slightly higher than K_i(Glc) (Figure 4B, BGs near the pink line) and BGs with K_M(CB) slightly lower than K_i(Glc) (Figure 4B, BGs near the green line). Although the variation is more than two orders of magnitude (partly because of the different temperatures used), BGs belonging to this group have highest specificity constants for cellobiose (k_cat/K_M(CB) values usually higher than 10⁵ M^-1 s^-1). These BGs include N188BG and the other fungal BGs most often used to support cellulases in cellulose hydrolysis. (3) BGs with a higher affinity for cellobiose than for glucose, K_M(CB) < < K_i(Glc) (Figure 4B and C, BGs near the blue and black line). This group consists of BGs that are also referred to as glucose-tolerant BGs. Their K_i(Glc) values are in the molar or sub-molar range, and the K_i(Glc)/K_M(CB) ratio is often more than 10 [27–33]. These BGs, however, tend to have low k_cat and k_cat/K_M(CB) values for cellobiose (k_cat/K_M(CB) in the order of or below 10⁴ M^-1 s^-1).

Table 4

Glucose inhibition of β-glucosidases

	K_ifor glucose, K_i(Glc) (mM)
t (°C)	N188BG^a	TaBG3^b	AtBG3^b
25	1.55	0.51	0.22
35	1.82	0.85	0.29
45	2.50	1.04	0.43
55	3.12	1.17	0.50
65		1.69	0.73

^astudied using pNPG.

^bstudied using MUG.

Figure 4
**A higher affinity for cellobiose is accompanied by a stronger glucose inhibition of β-glucosidases (BGs). (A)** The values of the Michaelis constants for cellobiose hydrolysis (K_M(h)) and the inhibition constants for glucose (K_i(Glc)) are from Table 1 and Table 4, respectively. TaBG3 (◊), AtBG3 (∆) and *N188*BG (♦). (B and C) A literature survey revealed that BGs can be tentatively divided into three groups based on their relative affinities for cellobiose (K_M(CB)) and glucose (K_i(Glc)): (i) K_M(CB) > > K_i(Glc), BGs near the red line; (ii) K_M(CB) ≈ K_i(Glc), BGs near the pink and the green line and (iii) K_M(CB) < <K_i(Glc), BGs near the blue and the black line. For the numerical values of K_M(CB) and K_i(Glc), see Table 5. If K_i(Glc) values measured using both pNPG and cellobiose as the substrate were available, the priority was given to the K_i(Glc) value measured using cellobiose. Data from the present study (♦).

Table 5

Kinetic parameters of selected β-glucosidases

Organism			k_cat(s^-1)		K_M(mM)		k_cat/K_M(10⁵ M^-1 s^-1)		K_iglucose (mM)		K_i/K_M^a	Ref
	t°C	pH	CB	pNPG	CB	pNPG	CB	pNPG	on CB	on pNPG
Penicillium verruculosum			118^b	650^b	0.36	1.6	3.29	4.06		0.19	0.53	[34]
Phanerochaete chrysosporium	22	4	50	132	2.3	0.10	0.22	13.8		0.27	0.12	[35]
Myceliophthora thermophila	40	5	46	147	2.64	0.39	0.17	3.76		0.28	0.11	[36]
Thermoascus aurantiacus	60	4.5	284	242	0.64	0.11	4.46	21.2		0.29	0.45	[37]
Trichoderma reesei	50	4.5	22		0.54		0.41		0.29		0.54	[38]
Fomitopsis palustris	50	5	102	721	4.8	0.12	0.21	61.6		0.35	0.07	[39]
Acremonium thermophilum	55	5	666		0.87		7.65			0.50	0.57	T^c
Magnaporthe grisea	50	5			1.1				0.5		0.45	[8]
Trichoderma reesei	40	5	42	118	0.75	0.09	0.56	13.1		0.51	0.68	[40]
Chaetomium globosum	50	5	168		0.95		1.77		0.68		0.72	[21]
Trichoderma reesei	40	5	29	70.8	1.25	0.1	0.23	6.94		0.7	0.56	[41]
Penicillium verruculosum	40	5	89	160	1.2	0.44	0.74	3.64		0.93	0.78	[40]
Aspergillus fumigatus	50	5	768		1.77		4.34	0.00	1.1		0.62	[21]
Penicillium brasilianum	22	4.8	53.7^b	146^b	1.58	0.09	0.34	16.2	1.1	2.3	0.70	[20]
Thermoascus aurantiacus	55	5	1058		0.67		15.5			1.17	1.75	T^c
Aspergillus niger (N188)	22	4.8			0.35	0.45			1.6	1.1	4.57	[20]
Emericella nidulans	50	5	87		2.32		0.38		1.83		0.79	[21]
Aspergillus niger (N188)	50	5	558		1.15		4.85		1.94		1.69	[21]
Fusarium oxysporum	50	5	323	7.7	1.07	0.09	3.02	0.83		2.05	1.92	[42]
Penicillium brasilianum	50	5	520		2.05		2.54		2.3		1.12	[21]
Aspergillus japonicus	40	5	350	259	0.95	0.6	3.68	4.32		2.73	2.87	[40]
Aspergillus niger	25	4.5	104^b	61^b	2.7	1	0.38	0.61		3	1.11	[43]
Aspergillus niger (N188)	55	5	691		1.36		5.07			3.12	2.29	T^c
Trichoderma reesei	50	4.8	41	87.9	1.36	0.38	0.30	2.31		3.25	2.39	[23]
Aspergillus oryzae	50	5	363		1.78		2.04		3.26		1.83	[21]
Aspergillus niger (N188)	50	4.8	32	23.4	0.88	0.57	0.36	0.41	3.4	2.7	3.86	[23]
Aspergillus oryzae	50	5	1000	370	1.96	0.29	5.10	12.7	5	2.9	2.55	[22]
Aspergillus niger	40	4	2780	917	15.4	2.2	1.81	4.17		5.7	0.37	[44]
Aspergillus tubingensis	30	4.6	331^b	140^b	1	0.76	3.31	1.83		5.8	5.80	[45]
Penicillium italicum	60	4.5	2641	1746	0.41	0.11	64.4	158		8.9	21.7	[25]
Aspergillus japonicus	30	5	46^b	54.5^b	1.16	0.2	0.40	2.72		9.2	7.93	[46]
Neurospora crassa	50	5	423	640	2.95	2.54	1.43	2.52	10.1	6.43	3.42	[21]
Aspergillus sp	60	4.5				1.0				17	17	[47]
Periconia sp	40	5	972^b	1180^b	0.5	0.19	19.4	62.7		20	40.0	[48]
Baltic sea metagenome	30	6.5	11.2	22.5	2.76	0.37	0.04	0.61		30	10.8	[49]
Aspergillus niger (N188)	45	5			16.8	1.77			59.5	1.59	3.54	[24]
Streptomyces sp	50	6.5	35.6	28.4	4.1	0.15	0.09	1.89		65	15.8	[50, 51]
Torulopsis wickerhamii				362^b	300	2.8		1.29		190	0.63	[52]
Thermoascus aurantiacus	40	5	0.72^b	5.08^b		0.2		0.25		300		[27]
Pyrococcus furiosus	95	5	454	677^b	20	0.15	0.23	45.1		300	15.0	[53]
Debaromyces vanrijiae	40	5	141^b	1113^b	57.9	0.77	0.02	14.5		439	7.58	[54]
Aspergillus niger	40	4	4.3^b	223		21.7		0.10		543		[28]
Thermoanaer. thermosacch.	70	6.4	104^b	55^b	7.9	0.63	0.13	0.88		600	75.9	[29]
Uncultured bacterium	40	6.5	13.2^b	43^b	20.4	0.39	0.01	1.11		1000	49.0	[55]
Aspergillus oryzae	50	5	253^b	764^b	7	0.55	0.36	13.9		1360	194	[30]
Candida peltata	50	5	54^b	158^b	66	2.3	0.01	0.69		1400	21.2	[31]

BGs are listed in the order of increasing K_i(Glc). If K_i(Glc) values measured using both pNPG and cellobiose (CB) as the substrate were available, the priority was given to the K_i(Glc) value measured using cellobiose.

^aK_M is for cellobiose hydrolysis. If K_i(Glc) values measured using both pNPG and cellobiose (CB) as the substrate were available, the priority was given to the K_i(Glc) value measured using cellobiose.

^bCalculated from the reported specific activity and molecular weight of the enzyme.

^cThis study.

BGs have been divided into three groups based on their substrate specificity [9]: (i) aryl BGs, (ii) true cellobiases and (iii) broad-substrate specificity BGs. Although there is no stringent, unequivocal criteria for this classification, the BGs listed in Table 5 appear to belong to the last group. A comparison of the kinetic parameters for cellobiose and pNPG hydrolysis revealed that pNPG is the preferred substrate for the most of the listed BGs (Figure 5). The higher specificity constants for pNPG were mainly caused by the lower K_M values for pNPG, whereas the k_cat values for pNPG and cellobiose were of the same order. The preference for pNPG over cellobiose was most prominent in the case of the glucose-tolerant BGs and also for BGs with K_M(CB) > > K_i(Glc).

Figure 5
**Comparison of the kinetic parameters of β-glucosidases measured for cellobiose and pNPG.** The value of the parameter measured for cellobiose was divided by the value of the corresponding parameter measured for pNPG. k_cat denotes k_cat(CB)/k_cat(pNPG), K_M denotes K_M(CB)/K_M(pNPG), and k_cat/K_M denotes (k_cat(CB)/K_M(CB))/(k_cat(pNPG)/K_M(pNPG)). The parameter values listed in Table 5 were used for the calculation of the ratios.

In addition to protein properties, such as stability with regard to pH and temperature, the kinetic properties of enzymes must also be considered in selecting BGs to support cellulases. The main “work horses” in cellulose hydrolysis, GH7 CBHs, are inhibited by cellobiose, with IC₅₀ values in the few millimolar range [26, 56–58], and most BGs have a K_M value for cellobiose in the same range (Table 5). Thus, to be efficient in relieving the cellobiose inhibition of CBHs, a BG must maintain the steady-state cellobiose concentration well below its IC₅₀ value for CBHs, meaning that most BGs must operate under the conditions of [CB] < < K_M(CB). Under the conditions of [CB] < < K_M(h), and bearing in mind that K_M(h) < < K_M(t) and k_cat(t) < < k_cat(h), Equation 2 reduces to

k_{CB}^{obs} \approx \frac{k_{cat (h)}}{K_{M (h)}} [CB]

(5)

Thus, under the conditions of low cellobiose concentrations, the rate of cellobiose hydrolysis is governed by the specificity constant for the hydrolytic reaction, and the terms accounting for transglycosylation cancel out. Therefore, the k_cat(h)/K_M(h) value may be an important characteristic for selecting BGs to support cellulases in cellulose hydrolysis. Although the glucose inhibition of CBHs is relatively weak [26, 58], the glucose inhibition of a BG will eventually lead to the accumulation of cellobiose and CBH inhibition. Therefore, the value of K_i(Glc) is another important characteristic to consider when selecting BGs. We predicted the k^obs_CB values at different cellobiose and glucose concentrations for three BGs with different k_cat, K_M(CB) and K_i(Glc) values (Figure 6). Because of the unavailability of the values of the kinetic parameters, the transglycosylation reaction was ignored, and a simple Michaelis-Menten equation with competitive glucose inhibition was used in the calculations. Using a numerical analysis of the time courses of cellobiose hydrolysis, Bohlin et al. found that product inhibition exerts a more pronounced negative effect on BG activity than transglycosylation [8]. Nonetheless, by ignoring transglycosylation, the k^obs_CB values calculated herein are somewhat overestimated. TaBG3 and N188BG (characterized in this study) and a glucose-tolerant BG from Aspergillus oryzae (AoBG3) were assessed [30]. The values of the kinetic parameters for TaBG3 and N188BG at 50°C were calculated based on data for the temperature dependency of the parameters. TaBG3 had the highest specificity constant (k_cat/K_M(CB) = 1.25 x 10⁶ M^-1 s^-1) but was the enzyme most sensitive to glucose inhibition (K_i(Glc) = 1.14 mM). In contrast, AoBG3 was highly tolerant to glucose inhibition (K_i(Glc) = 1.36 M) but had a moderate specificity constant (k_cat/K_M(CB) = 3.6 x 10⁴ M^-1 s^-1). Amid these two enzymes was N188BG, with k_cat/K_M(CB) and K_i(Glc) values of 4.4 x 10⁵ M^-1 s^-1 and 2.76 mM, respectively. The k^obs_CB of TaBG3 was higher than that of N188BG under all the conditions tested, but the difference was more prominent at low cellobiose and glucose concentrations. Although AoBG3 had much lower k^obs_CB values at low glucose concentrations, it outperformed TaBG3 and N188BG at glucose concentrations above 50 mM. Thus, AoBG3 appears to be a better candidate BG for the hydrolysis of cellulose in separate hydrolysis and fermentation processes under high dry matter conditions. The amount of BG required to maintain the cellobiose concentration at a certain steady-state level depends on the velocity of cellobiose production from cellulose. The maximum catalytic potential of CBHs is given by their k_cat value of cellulose hydrolysis and is within the range of 1–10 s^-1[57, 59, 60]. If k_cat for cellulose hydrolysis equal to 2 s^-1 and k^obs_CB is 100 s^-1, then a molar ratio of CBH/BG of 50 is required to maintain a steady-state cellobiose concentration, which means that the relative amount of BG in a cellulase system must be approximately 4% (w/w, considering that BGs usually have approximately 2-fold higher molar masses than CBHs). However, if k^obs_CB is only 10 s^-1, as in the case of TaBG3 and N188BG at high glucose concentrations or in the case of AoBG3 at low cellobiose concentrations (Figure 6), the relative amount of BG must be 10 times higher. Although the hydrolysis of lignocellulose is much slower than that predicted by the k_cat value of CBHs, we used the catalytic potential of CBHs to predict the relative amount of BG to ensure that the rate limitation of cellulose hydrolysis via BG activity is excluded. The selection criteria of candidate BGs also depend on the lignocellulose hydrolysis set-up. A high k_cat/K_M(CB) value always becomes an advantage and is the primary kinetic parameter for selecting BGs. However, in separate hydrolysis and fermentation at a high dry matter concentration, the advantage of having a high K_i(Glc) value may overbalance the somewhat lower k_cat/K_M(CB) value. Because of the trade-off between K_i(Glc) and K_M(CB), it is, unfortunately, not possible to maximize both k_cat/K_M(CB) and K_i(Glc) in parallel.

Figure 6
**Calculated values of the rate constants of cellobiose hydrolysis for β-glucosidases with different kinetic properties.** The values of the observed rate constants of cellobiose hydrolysis (k^obs_CB) at different cellobiose and glucose concentrations were calculated using the simple Michaelis-Menten equation with competitive glucose inhibition and ignoring substrate inhibition. The β-glucosidases used were TaBG3 (◊) and *N188*BG (□), characterized in the present study, and a previously characterized glucose-tolerant β-glucosidase from *Aspergillus oryzae* (AoBG3) (×) [30]. k_cat(h) values of 806 s^-1, 587 s^-1 and 253 s^-1, K_M(CB) values of 0.65 mM, 1.33 mM and 7.0 mM and K_i(Glc) values of 1.14 mM, 2.75 mM and 1360 mM were used for TaBG3, *N188*BG and AoBG3, respectively. The concentration of cellobiose was set to 0.1 mM **(A)**, 1.0 mM **(B)** or 10 mM **(C)**.

Conclusions

The analysis of the kinetic parameters of BGs in the light of the cellobiose inhibition of CBHs suggested that the specificity constant for cellobiose hydrolysis and the inhibition constant for glucose are the most important parameters in selecting BGs to support cellulose hydrolysis. The use of higher temperatures had the advantage of both increasing the catalytic efficiency and relieving the glucose inhibition of BGs. Our data, together with data from a literature survey, revealed a trade-off between the strength of glucose inhibition and the affinity for cellobiose: an increased tolerance to glucose inhibition was accompanied by a decrease in catalytic efficiency (lower specificity constant values). Therefore, the optimal properties of the candidate BG depend on the cellulose hydrolysis set-up. Although a high specificity constant is always an advantage, the priority may be given to a higher tolerance to glucose inhibition when performing separate hydrolysis and fermentation.

Methods

Materials

Glucose, MUG, pNPG, Novozyme®188 and BSA were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Cellobiose (≥ 99%) was obtained from Fluka. All the chemicals were used as received from the supplier.

Enzymes

N188BG was purified from Novozyme®188, as previously described [61]. Culture filtrates containing AtBG3 or TaBG3 were kindly provided by Terhi Puranen from Roal Oy (Rajamäki, Finland). BGs were heterologously expressed in a Trichoderma reesei (Tr) strain that lacks the genes of four major cellulases [15]. AtBG3 and TaBG3 were purified using gel-filtration chromatography. The buffer of the crude BG preparation was first changed to 50 mM sodium acetate (pH 5) containing 0.15 M NaCl using a Toyopearl HW-40 column. Fractions with high pNPG-ase activity were combined, concentrated with Amicon centrifugal filter devices (5,000 MWCO) and applied to a Sephacryl S-200 column equilibrated with 50 mM sodium acetate (pH 5) containing 0.15 M NaCl. TaBG3 was purified identically but using a Sephacryl S-300 column. The purity of AtBG3 and TaBG3 was approximately 95%, as determined by SDS-PAGE. The concentration of AtBG3 and TaBG3 was determined by the bicinchoninic acid method using BSA as a standard and molecular weights of 101 kDa and 81 kDa, respectively [15]. The concentration of N188BG was measured by the absorbance at 280 nm using a theoretical ϵ₂₈₀ value of 180,000 M^-1 cm^-1. Several BGs from T. aurantiacus have been previously characterized [27, 37, 62–64]. According to the molecular weight, TaBG3 characterized herein is closest to that characterized by Tong et al. [62].

Hydrolysis of cellobiose by BGs

The experiments were performed in 50 mM sodium acetate buffer (pH 5.0) containing 0.1 g l^-1 BSA in a total volume of 0.5 ml. The concentration of cellobiose was varied between 0.1 – 50 mM, and glucose formation was followed in the linear region of time curves. The reaction was stopped by the addition of 0.25 ml 1.0 M Tris–HCl (pH 8.5), and the concentration of glucose was measured using the hexokinase/glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase method. The concentrations of hexokinase, G6PDH, NADP⁺, ATP and MgCl₂ in the assay were 1.5 U/ml, 0.75 U/ml, 0.64 mM, 1.26 mM and 13.3 mM, respectively. After completion of the reaction (approximately 15 min), the absorbance at 340 nm was recorded. The zero data points were identical, but 0.25 ml 1.0 M Tris–HCl (pH 8.5) was added prior to BG. Calibration curves were generated using glucose as a standard.

Activity and glucose inhibition of BGs using pNPG and MUG

For the activity measurements, the initial rates of pNPG (0.01 – 20 mM) hydrolysis were measured in 50 mM sodium acetate buffer (pH 5.0) containing 0.1 g l^-1 BSA in a total volume of 0.9 ml. The reactions were stopped by the addition of 0.1 ml 1.0 M NH₃, and the pNP released was quantified by measuring the absorbance at 414 nm. The glucose inhibition of BGs was measured using 0.05 mM pNPG (N188BG), 5 μM MUG (TaBG3) or 2.5 μM MUG (AtBG3) as the substrate. The experiments were performed as above, but the reactions were supplied with glucose (0.1 – 36 mM). The pNP released was quantified by measuring the absorbance at 414 nm, and the MU released was quantified by fluorescence using excitation and emission wavelengths of 360 nm and 450 nm, respectively. All the rates correspond to the initial rates.

Abbreviations

At:: Acremonium thermophilum

BG:: β-glucosidase

BSA:: Bovine serum albumin

CB:: Cellobiose

CBH:: Cellobiohydrolase

EG:: Endoglucanase

GH:: Glycoside hydrolase

Glc:: Glucose

MU:: 4-methylumbelliferone

MUG:: 4-methylumbelliferyl-β-glucoside

N188BG:: BG purified from Novozyme®188

pNP:: Para-nitrophenol

pNPG:: Para-nitrophenyl-β-glucoside

SHF:: Separate hydrolysis and fermentation

SSF:: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation

Ta:: Thermoascus aurantiacus

Tr:: Trichoderma reesei.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the EU Commission (FP7/2007-2013, grant agreement no. 213139). Dr Terhi Puranen from Roal Oy (Rajamäki, Finland) and Dr Matti Siika-Aho from VTT (Espoo, Finland) are acknowledged for the crude preparations of TaBG3 and AtBG3. Among our colleagues from the University of Tartu, we thank Jürgen Jalak for assistance in protein purification and in preparing the figures, Laura Tompson for the preliminary analysis of β-glucosidases and Dr Silja Kuusk for critical reading of the manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

13068_2013_328_MOESM1_ESM.doc Additional file 1: Supplemental material to “Selecting beta-glucosidases to support cellulases in cellulose saccharification”.(DOC 496 KB)

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

13068_2013_328_MOESM2_ESM.pdf Authors’ original file for figure 1

13068_2013_328_MOESM3_ESM.pdf Authors’ original file for figure 2

13068_2013_328_MOESM4_ESM.pdf Authors’ original file for figure 3

13068_2013_328_MOESM5_ESM.pdf Authors’ original file for figure 4

13068_2013_328_MOESM6_ESM.pdf Authors’ original file for figure 5

13068_2013_328_MOESM7_ESM.pdf Authors’ original file for figure 6

13068_2013_328_MOESM8_ESM.tiff Authors’ original file for figure 7

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)

Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu, Riia 23b – 202, 51010 Tartu, Estonia

References

Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS: Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002, 66: 506-577. 10.1128/MMBR.66.3.506-577.2002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Horn SJ, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Westereng B, Eijsink VGH: Novel enzymes for the degradation of cellulose. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012, 5: 45-10.1186/1754-6834-5-45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Singhania RR, Patel AK, Sukumaran RK, Larroche C, Pandey A: Role and significance of beta-glucosidases in the hydrolysis of cellulose for bioethanol production. Bioresour Technol. 2013, 127: 500-507.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
CAZy database. http://www.cazy.org,
Cantarel BL, Coutinho PM, Rancurel C, Bernard T, Lombard V, Henrissat B: The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy): an expert resource for glycogenomics. Nucleic Acid Res. 2009, 37: D233-D238. 10.1093/nar/gkn663.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Del Pozo MV, Fernandez-Arrojo L, Gil-Martinez J, Montesinos A, Chernikova TN, Nechitaylo TY, Waliszek A, Tortajada M, Rojas A, Huws SA, Golyshina OV, Newbold CJ, Polaina J, Ferrer M, Golyshin PN: Microbial β-glucosidases from cow rumen metagenome enhance the saccharification of lignocellulose in combination with commercial cellulase cocktail. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012, 5: 73-10.1186/1754-6834-5-73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kawai R, Igarashi K, Kitaoka M, Ishii T, Samejima M: Kinetics of substrate transglycosylation by glycoside hydrolase family 3 glucan (1 → 3)-β-glucosidase from the white-rot fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Carbohydr Res. 2004, 339: 2851-2857. 10.1016/j.carres.2004.09.019.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bohlin C, Praestgaard E, Baumann MJ, Borch K, Praestgaard J, Monrad RN, Westh P: A comparative study of hydrolysis and transglycosylation activities of fungal β-glucosidases. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013, 97: 159-169. 10.1007/s00253-012-3875-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bhatia Y, Mishra S, Bisaria VS: Microbial β-glucosidases: cloning, properties, and applications. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2002, 22 (4): 375-407. 10.1080/07388550290789568.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Andric P, Meyer AS, Jensen PA, Dam-johansen K: Reactor design for minimizing product inhibition during enzymatic lignocelluloses hydrolysis: I. Significance and mechanism of cellobiose and glucose inhibition on cellulolytic enzymes. Biotechnol Adv. 2010, 28: 308-324. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.01.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Andric P, Meyer AS, Jensen PA, Dam-johansen K: Reactor design for minimizing product inhibition during enzymatic lignocelluloses hydrolysis: II. Quantification of inhibition and suitability of membrane reactors. Biotechnol Adv. 2010, 28: 407-425.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Galazka JM, Tian C, Beeson WT, Martinez B, Glass NL, Cate JHD: Cellodextrin transport in yeast for improved biofuel production. Science. 2010, 330: 84-86. 10.1126/science.1192838.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kristensen JB, Felby C, Jorgensen H: Yield-determining factors in high-solids enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2009, 2: 11-10.1186/1754-6834-2-11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Öhgren K, Vehmaanperä J, Siika-aho M, Galbe M, Viikari L, Zacchi G: High temperature enzymatic prehydrolysis prior to simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam pretreated corn stover for ethanol production. Enzyme Microb Technol. 2007, 40: 607-613. 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2006.05.014.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Vehamaanperä J, Alapuranen M, Puranen T, Siika-aho M, Kallio J, Hooman S, Voutilainen S, Halonen T, Viikari L: Treatment of cellulosic material and enzymes useful therein. Patent application FI 20051318, WO2007071818. Priority 22.12.2055Google Scholar
McClendon SD, Batth T, Petzold CJ, Adams PD, Simmons BA, Singer SW: Thermoascus aurantiacus is a promising source of enzymes for biomass deconstruction under thermophilic conditions. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012, 5: 54-10.1186/1754-6834-5-54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Seidle HF, Huber RE: Transglucosidic reactions of the Aspergillus niger family 3 β-glucosidase: qualitative and quantitative analyses and evidence that the transglucosidic rate is independent of pH. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2005, 436: 254-264. 10.1016/j.abb.2005.02.017.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Seidle HF, McKenzie K, Marten I, Shoseyov O, Huber RE: Trp-262 is a key residue for the hydrolytic and transglucosidic reactivity of the Aspergillus niger family 3 β-glucosidase: substitution results in enzymes with mainly transglucosidic activity. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2005, 444: 66-75. 10.1016/j.abb.2005.09.013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Calsavara LPV, De Moraes FF, Zanin GM: Modeling cellobiose hydrolysis with integrated kinetic models. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 1999, 77–79: 789-806.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Krogh KBRM, Harris PV, Olsen CL, Johansen KS, Hojer-Pedersen J, Borjesson J, Olsson L: Characterization and kinetic analysis of thermostable GH3 β-glucosidase from Penicillium brasilianum. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009, 86 (1): 143-154.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bohlin C, Olsen SN, Morant MD, Patkar S, Borch K, Westh P: A comparative study of activity and apparent inhibition of fungal β-glucosidases. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2010, 107: 943-952. 10.1002/bit.22885.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Langston J, Sheehy N, Xu F: Substrate specificity of Aspergillus oryzae family 3 β-glucosidase. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006, 1764: 972-978. 10.1016/j.bbapap.2006.03.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chauve M, Mathis H, Huc D, Casanave D, Monot F, Ferreira NL: Comparative kinetic analysis of two fungal β-glucosidases. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2010, 3: 3-10.1186/1754-6834-3-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ng IS, Tsai SW, Ju YM, Yu SM, Ho THD: Dynamic synergistic effect on Trichoderma reesei cellulases by novel β-glucosidases from Taiwanese fungi. Bioresour Technol. 2011, 102: 6073-6081. 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Park A-R, Hong JH, Kim J-J, Yoon J-J: Biochemical characterization of an extracellular β-glucosidase from the fungus, Penicillium italicum, isolated from rotten citrus peel. Mycobiology. 2012, 40 (3): 173-180. 10.5941/MYCO.2012.40.3.173.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Teugjas H, Väljamäe P: Product inhibition of cellulases studied with ¹⁴C-labeled cellulose substrates. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013Google Scholar
Hong J, Tamaki H, Kumagai H: Unusual hydrophobic linker region of β-glucosidase (BGLII) from Thermoascus aurantiacus is required for hyper-activation by organic solvents. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006, 73: 80-88. 10.1007/s00253-006-0428-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yan TR, Lin CL: Purification and characterization of a glucose-tolerant β-glucosidase from Aspergillus niger CCRC 31494. Biosci Biotech Biochem. 1997, 61: 965-970. 10.1271/bbb.61.965.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Pei J, Pang Q, Zhao L, Fan S, Shi H: Thermoanaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum β-glucosidase: a glucose-tolerant enzyme with high specific activity for cellobiose. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012, 5: 31-10.1186/1754-6834-5-31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Riou C, Salmon JM, Vallier MJ, Günata Z, Barre P: Purification, characterization, and substrate specificity of a novel highly glucose-tolerant β-glucosidase from Aspergillus oryzae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998, 64: 3607-3614.Google Scholar
Saha BC, Bothast RJ: Production, purification, and characterization of a highly glucose-tolerant novel β-glucosidase from Candida peltata. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996, 62: 3165-3170.Google Scholar
Sonia KG, Chadha BS, Badhan AK, Saini HS, Bhat MK: Identification of glucose tolerant acid active β-glucosidases from thermophilic and thermotolerant fungi. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008, 24: 599-604. 10.1007/s11274-007-9512-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Waeonukul R, Kosugi A, Prawitwong P, Deng L, Tachaapaikoon C, Pason P, Ratanakhanokchai K, Saito M, Mori Y: Novel cellulase recycling method using a combination of Clostridium thermocellum cellulosomes and Thermoanaerobacter brockii β-glucosidase. Bioresour Technol. 2013, 130: 424-430.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zorov IN, Gusakov AV, Baraznenok VA, Bekkarevich AO, Okunev ON, Sinitsyn AP, Kondrateva EG: Isolation and properties of cellobiase from Penicillium verruculosum. Appl Biochem Microbiol. 2001, 37: 587-592. 10.1023/A:1012351017032.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lymar ES, Li B, Renganathan V: Purification and characterization of a cellulose-binding β-glucosidase from cellulose-degrading cultures of Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995, 61: 2976-2980.Google Scholar
Karnaouri A, Topakas E, Paschos T, Taouki I, Christakopoulos P: Cloning, expression and characterization of an ethanol tolerant GH3 β-glucosidase from Myceliophthora thermophila. Peerj. 2013, 1: e46-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Parry NJ, Beever DE, Owen E, Vandenberghe I, Van Beeum J, Bhat MK: Biochemical characterization and mechanism of action of a thermostable β-glucosidase purified from Thermoascus aurantiacus. Biochem J. 2001, 353: 117-127.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Schmid G, Wandrey C: Characterization of a cellodextrin glucohydrolase with soluble oligomeric substrates: experimental results and modeling of concentration-time-course data. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1989, 33: 1445-1460. 10.1002/bit.260331112.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yoon JJ, Kim KY, Cha CJ: Purification and characterization of thermostable β-glucosidase from the brown-rot basidiomycete Fomitopsis palustris grown on microcrystalline cellulose. J Microbiol. 2008, 46: 51-55. 10.1007/s12275-007-0230-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Korotkova OG, Semenova MV, Morozova VV, Zorov IN, Sokolova LM, Bubnova TM, Okunev ON, Sinitsyn AP: Isolation and properties of fungal β-glucosidases. Biochem Mosc. 2009, 74: 569-577. 10.1134/S0006297909050137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chirico WJ, Brown RD: Purification and characterization of a β-glucosidase from Trichoderma reesei. Eur J Biochem. 1987, 165: 333-341. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1987.tb11446.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Christakopoulos P, Goodenough PW, Kekos D, Macris BJ, Claeyssens M, Bhat MK: Purification and characterization of an extracellular β-glucosidase with transglycosylation and exo-glucosidase activities from Fusarium oxysporum. Eur J Biochem. 1994, 224: 379-385. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1994.00379.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Seidle HF, Marten I, Shoseyov O, Huber RE: Physical and kinetic properties of the family 3 β-glucosidase from Aspergillus niger which is important for cellulose breakdown. Protein J. 2004, 23: 11-23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yan TR, Lin YH, Lin CL: Purification and characterization of an extracellular β-glucosidase II with high hydrolysis and transglucosylation activities from Aspergillus niger. J Agric Food Chem. 1998, 46: 431-437. 10.1021/jf9702499.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Decker CH, Visser J, Schreier P: β-glucosidase multiplicity from Aspergillus tubingensis CBS 943.92: purification and characterization of four β-glucosidases and their differentiation with respect to substrate specificity, glucose inhibition and acid tolerance. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001, 55: 157-163. 10.1007/s002530000462.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Decker CH, Visser J, Schreier P: β-glucosidases from five black Aspergillus species: study of their physico-chemical and biocatalytic properties. J Agric Food Chem. 2000, 48: 4929-4936. 10.1021/jf000434d.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Figueira JA, Sato HH, Fernandes P: Establishing the feasibility of using β-glucosidase entrapped in Lentikas and in sol–gel supports for cellobiose hydrolysis. J Agric Food Chem. 2013, 61: 626-634. 10.1021/jf304594s.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Harnipcharnchai P, Champreda V, Sornlake W, Eurwilaichitr L: A thermotolerant β-glucosidase isolated from an endophytic fungi, Periconia sp., with a possible use for biomass conversion to sugars. Prot Express Purif. 2009, 67: 61-69. 10.1016/j.pep.2008.05.022.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka-Wos A, Bartasun B, Cieslinski H, Kur J: Cloning and characterization of a novel cold-active glycoside hydrolase family 1 enzyme with β-glucosidase, β-fucosidase and β-galactosidase activities. BMC Biotechnol. 2013, 13: 22-10.1186/1472-6750-13-22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Perezpons JA, Cayetano A, Rebordosa X, Lloberas J, Guasch A, Querol E: A β-glucosidase gene (BGL3) from Streptomyces sp. strain-QM-B814 – molecular cloning, nucleotide-sequence, purification and characterization of the encoded enzyme, a new member of family 1 glycosyl hydrolases. Eur J Biochem. 1994, 223: 557-565. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1994.tb19025.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Vallmitjana M, Ferrer-Navarro M, Planell R, Abel M, Ausin C, Querol E, Planas A, Perezpons JA: Mechanism of the family 1 β-glucosidase from the Streptomyces sp: catalytic residues and kinetic studies. Biochemistry. 2001, 40: 5975-5982. 10.1021/bi002947j.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Himmel ME, Tucker MP, Lastick SM, Oh KK, Fox JW, Spindler DD, Grohmann K: Isolation and characterization of an 1,4-β-D-glucan glucohydrolase from the yeast, Torulopsis wickerhamii. J Biol Chem. 1986, 261: 12948-12955.Google Scholar
Kengen SWM, Luesink EJ, Stams AJM, Zehnder AJB: Purification and characterization of an extremely thermostable β-glucosidase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus. Eur J Biochem. 1993, 213: 305-312. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1993.tb17763.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Belancic A, Gunata Z, Vallier MJ, Agosin E: β-glucosidase from the grape native yeast Debaromyces vanrijiae: purification, characterization, and its effect on monoterpene content of a muscat grape juice. J Agric Food Chem. 2003, 51: 1453-1459. 10.1021/jf025777l.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zemin F, Fang W, Liu J, Hong Y, Peng H, Zhang X, Sun B, Xiao Y: Cloning and characterization of β-glucosidase from marine microbial metagenome with excellent glucose tolerance. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010, 20: 1351-1358. 10.4014/jmb.1003.03011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Gruno M, Väljamäe P, Pettersson G, Johansson G: Inhibition of the Trichoderma reesei cellulases by cellobiose is strongly dependent on the nature of the substrate. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2004, 86: 503-511. 10.1002/bit.10838.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Jalak J, Kurašin M, Teugjas H, Väljamäe P: Endo-exo synergism in cellulose hydrolysis revisited. J Biol Chem. 2012, 287: 28802-28815. 10.1074/jbc.M112.381624.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Murphy L, Bohlin C, Baumann MJ, Olsen SN, Sorensen TH, Anderson L, Borch K, Westh P: Product inhibition of five Hypocrea jecorina cellulases. Enzyme Microb Technol. 2013, 52: 163-169. 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2013.01.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Cruys-Bagger N, Elmerdahl J, Praestgaard E, Tatsumi H, Spodsberg N, Borch K, Westh P: Pre-steady state kinetics for the hydrolysis of insoluble cellulose by cellobiohydrolase Cel7A. J Biol Chem. 2012, 287: 18451-18458. 10.1074/jbc.M111.334946.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Igarashi K, Uchihashi T, Koivula A, Wada M, Kimura S, Okamoto T, Penttilä M, Ando T, Samejima M: Traffic jams reduce hydrolytic efficiency of cellulase on cellulose surface. Science. 2011, 333: 1279-1282. 10.1126/science.1208386.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Sipos B, Benkö Z, Reczey K, Viikari L, Siika-aho M: Characterisation of specific activities and hydrolytic properties of cell-wall-degrading enzymes produced by Trichoderma reesei Rut C30 on different carbon sources. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2010, 161: 347-364. 10.1007/s12010-009-8824-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Tong CC, Cole AL, Shepherd MG: Purification and properties of the cellulases from the thermophilic fungus Thermoascus aurantiacus. Biochem J. 1980, 191: 83-94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
de Palma-Fernandez ER, Gomes E, da Silva R: Purification and characterization of two β-glucosidases from the thermophilic fungus Thermoascus aurantiacus. Folia Microbiol. 2002, 47: 685-690. 10.1007/BF02818672.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Hong J, Tamaki H, Kumagai H: Cloning and functional expression of thermostable β-glucosidase gene from Thermoascus aurantiacus. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007, 73: 1331-1339. 10.1007/s00253-006-0618-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Selecting β-glucosidases to support cellulases in cellulose saccharification

Background

Results

Conclusions

Kinetics of cellobiose hydrolysis

Inhibition of β-glucosidases by glucose

Materials

Enzymes

Hydrolysis of cellobiose by BGs

Activity and glucose inhibition of BGs using pNPG and MUG

Acknowledgements

Biotechnology for Biofuels

Contact us