COMPARATIVE PHYSIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF HYDROPHOBINS PRODUCED IN ESCHERICHIA COLI AND PICHIA PASTORIS

dc.contributor.authorPrzylucka, Agnes
dc.contributor.authorAkcapinar, Gunseli Bayram
dc.contributor.authorBonazza, Klaus
dc.contributor.authorMello-de-Sousa, Thiago M.
dc.contributor.authorMach-Aigner, Astrid R.
dc.contributor.authorLobanov, Victor
dc.contributor.authorGrothe, Hinrich
dc.contributor.authorKubicek, Christian P.
dc.contributor.authorReimhult, Erik
dc.contributor.authorDruzhinina, Irina S.
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-21T12:39:49Z
dc.date.available2023-02-21T12:39:49Z
dc.date.issued2017-01-01
dc.description.abstractHydrophobins (HFBs) are small surface-active proteins secreted by filamentous fungi. Being amphiphilic, they spontaneously form layers that convert surfaces from hydrophilic to hydrophobic and vice versa. We have compared properties of the class II HFB4 and HFB7 from Trichoderma virens as produced in Escherichia coli and Pichiapastoris. Since the production in E. coli required denaturation/renaturation steps because of inclusion bodies, this treatment was also applied to HFBs produced and secreted in yeast. The protein yields for both systems were similar. Both HFBs produced by E. coli proved less active on PET compared to HFBs produced in P. pastoris. HFBs produced in E. coli decreased the hydrophilicity of glass the most, which correlated with the adsorption of a more dense protein layer on glass compared to HFBs produced in P. pastoris. The hydrophobins produced in P. pastoris formed highly structured monolayers. Layers of hydrophobins produced in E. coli were less prone to self-organization. Our data suggests that irrespective of the production host, the HFBs could be used in various applications that are based on their surface activity. However, the production host and the subsequent purification procedure will influence the stability of HFB layers. In the area of high-value biomedical devices and nanomaterials, where the formation of highly ordered protein monolayers is essential, our results point to P. pastoris as the preferred production host. Furthermore, the choice of an appropriate hydrophobin for a given application appears to be equally important. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
dc.description.issueNOV 1
dc.description.pages913-923
dc.description.volume159
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.08.058
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/2547
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.08.058
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000418729600104
dc.publisherELSEVIER
dc.relation.ispartofCOLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
dc.subjectAtomic force microscopy (AFM)
dc.subjectcircular dichroism (CD)
dc.subjectfungi
dc.subjecthydrophobin (HFB)
dc.subjectdynamic light scattering (DLS)
dc.subjectquartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (QCM-D)
dc.subjectrecombinant protein production
dc.subjectsmall secreted cysteine rich proteins (SSCPs)
dc.subjectTrichoderma water contact angle (WCA)
dc.titleCOMPARATIVE PHYSIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF HYDROPHOBINS PRODUCED IN ESCHERICHIA COLI AND PICHIA PASTORIS
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S092777651730574X-main.pdf
Size:
2.62 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections