Document Detail

QSAR study and the hydrolysis activity prediction of three alkaline lipases from different lipase-producing microorganisms.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23016923     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
The hydrolysis activities of three alkaline lipases, L-A1, L-A2 and L-A3 secreted by different lipase-producing microorganisms isolated from the Bay of Bohai, P. R. China were characterized with 16 kinds of esters. It was found that all the lipases have the ability to catalyze the hydrolysis of the glycerides, methyl esters, ethyl esters, especially for triglycerides, which shows that they have broad substrate spectra, and this property is very important for them to be used in detergent industry. Three QSAR models were built for L-A1, L-A2 and L-A3 respectively with GFA using Discovery studio 2.1. The models equations 1, 2 and 3 can explain 95.80%, 97.45% and 97.09% of the variances (R(2)(adj)) respectively while they could predict 95.44%, 89.61% and 93.41% of the variances (R(2)(cv)) respectively. With these models the hydrolysis activities of these lipases to mixed esters were predicted and the result showed that the predicted values are in good agreement with the measured values, which indicates that this method can be used as a simple tool to predict the lipase activities for single or mixed esters.
Authors:
Haikuan Wang; Xiaojie Wang; Xiaolu Li; Yehong Zhang; Yujie Dai; Changlu Guo; Heng Zheng
Related Documents :
22157163 - Airway assessment by four-phase rhinomanometry in septal surgery.
23849203 - The neural representation of unexpected uncertainty during value-based decision making.
16526493 - Recurrent neural network as a linear attractor for pattern association.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2012-09-28
Journal Detail:
Title:  Lipids in health and disease     Volume:  11     ISSN:  1476-511X     ISO Abbreviation:  Lipids Health Dis     Publication Date:  2012  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-01-21     Completed Date:  2013-06-19     Revised Date:  2013-07-11    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101147696     Medline TA:  Lipids Health Dis     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  124     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Industrial Fermentation Microbiology, Ministry of Education, College of Biotechnology, Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Tianjin, 300457, P, R, China.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Bacteria / enzymology*
Catalysis
China
Esters / chemistry,  metabolism
Hydrolysis
Kinetics
Lipase* / chemistry,  metabolism
Plant Oils / chemistry
Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship*
Substrate Specificity
Triglycerides* / chemistry,  metabolism
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Esters; 0/Plant Oils; 0/Triglycerides; EC 3.1.1.3/Lipase
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Lipids Health Dis
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Lipids Health Dis
ISSN: 1476-511X
Publisher: BioMed Central
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright ©2012 Wang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
open-access:
Received Day: 14 Month: 8 Year: 2012
Accepted Day: 12 Month: 9 Year: 2012
collection publication date: Year: 2012
Electronic publication date: Day: 28 Month: 9 Year: 2012
Volume: 11First Page: 124 Last Page: 124
PubMed Id: 23016923
ID: 3567427
Publisher Id: 1476-511X-11-124
DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-11-124

QSAR study and the hydrolysis activity prediction of three alkaline lipases from different lipase-producing microorganisms
Haikuan Wang1 Email: hkwang@tust.edu.cn
Xiaojie Wang1 Email: tjkdwxj10809036@126.com
Xiaolu Li1 Email: 504129652@qq.com
Yehong Zhang1 Email: siyuewuyu09@126.com
Yujie Dai1 Email: yjdai@126.com
Changlu Guo2 Email: guochanglu@163.com
Heng Zheng3 Email: zhengh18@hotmail.com
1Key Laboratory of Industrial Fermentation Microbiology, Ministry of Education, College of Biotechnology, Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Tianjin, 300457, P. R. China
2College of Oceanography, Harbin Institute of Technology, Weihai, 264209, P. R. China
3School of Life Science and Technology, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 210009, P. R. China

Introduction

Lipases are defined as triacylglycerol acylhydrolases (E.C. 3.1.1.3) that catalyze the hydrolysis of oils and fats at the oil–water interface to free fatty acids and glycerol. Microbial lipases have been proven to be useful biocatalysts for obtaining chiral, non-racemic compounds. Lipase from Burkholderia cepacia can efficiently the reaction of catalyze hydrolysis, alcoholysis, transesterification, aminolysis, acidolysis, and esterification [1-3]. In order to improve the usefulness of lipases as biocatalysts, an understanding of the lipase application in daily life is needed. They directly or indirectly form an integral part of the industries ranging from food, pharmaceuticals [4], and detergents [5,6] to organic synthesis, cosmetics [7], leather, and tea industries [8]. However, the single biggest market for their use is in detergents where their functional importance lies in the removal of fatty residues in laundry, dishwashers, and for cleaning clogged drains [9]. Though the lipase function is usually connected with enzyme activity, the higher enzyme activity, the better washing performance is, sometimes the washing performance is not fully consistent with the lipase activity. One reason is that there are different methods for the determination of lipase activity. At present, the lipase activity is usually determined by titrimetric methods [10], spectrophotometry [11], nephelometry and turbidimetry [12], electric conductivity [13], and so on. And each of them based on a specific property of the lipase reaction system, which leads to the different activity measuring values for the same lipase. The other reason is that the substrates in detergency ability evaluation are different from that in the determination of lipase activities [14]. In the washing performance evaluation, the substrates used are usually mixture of different fats or oil, for example, lipase decontamination capability was measured using emulsified olive oil as the substrate [15,16]. Decontamination capability is related to lipase activity, while animal fat and plant oils are main oil pollution daily in our lives. The main components of these oil pollutions are triglyceride, diacylglycerol, free fatty acid, etc. However, the substrate used in the determination of lipase activity is usually a pure matter, the difference in substrates result in the difference between the washing performance and the activity of lipase. There are different lipase activities for different substrates, which results from the differences in substrate composition and structure. A lipase with better detergency ability should have higher hydrolysis ability to a broad spectrum of esters. In order to obtain comprehensive understanding of the lipase activity and substrate spectrum, the substrates with various composition and structure are required to evaluate them, further, a quantitative structure and activity relationship should be built. There are some studies on this aspect, for example, there are two distinct modeling strategies for predicting lipase activity highlights: structure-based approach and data-driven approach. The structure-based models start with a known active site structure of the lipase [17-19] and then identify the preferred substrates based on conformation, charge, and other force field calculations [20,21]. On the other hand, data driven models such as quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) approach develops a mathematical relationship between the enzyme activity and structural descriptors of substrates using available experimental data. In context of lipases, such QSAR approach has been reported in predicting the substrate specificity [22] and enantioselectivity of a lipase in esterification/trans-esterification reactions [23]. However, there are few reports on the systematic evaluation of the lipase detergency ability using different substrates existed in oil spill.

Previously, three kinds of lipase from the soil collected from the Bay of Bohai, P. R. China was found by our laboratory including Burkholderia cepacia L-A1 [24], Acinetobacter johnsonii L-A2 [25,26] and Acinetobacter calcoaceticus L-A3 [27]. They have highly stability in the presence of various oxidizing agents, some commercial detergents and alkaline protease. The three enzymes hydrolyzed a wide range of oils and showed a high level of lipase activity in hydrolyzing glyceride. In order to systematic evaluate its ability to hydrolyze different esters including some usually existed in edible oils and fats, this study derived some quantitative structure and activity relationships (QSARs) between the experimental results and structural parameters important for the substrate specificity of Burkholderia cepacia L-A1, Acinetobacter johnsonii L-A2 and Acinetobacter calcoaceticus L-A3 towards triglyceride, ethyl oleate, methyl laurate and allyl phenylacetate, etc. Meanwhile, this study will be useful for developing a standard for lipase evaluation with their detergency ability.


Materials and methods
Lipase-producing strains

Alkaline lipase-producing microorganisms were isolated from the Bay of Bohai, P.R. China and they were numbered as Burkholderia cepacia L-A1, Acinetobacter johnsonii L-A2 and Acinetobacter calcoaceticus L-A3, respectively. Refined, edible vegetable oils were purchased locally. Glycerol tripalmitate from Alfa Aesar Chemical Co., LTD (Tianjin, China). Methyl hexadecanoate, methyl myristate, methyl laurate, methyl linoleate, ethyl tetradecanoate, ethyl palmitate, ethyl tetradecanoate and ethyl linoleate were from TCI (Shanghai, China). Triarachidin, ethyl palmitate, ellyl phenylacetate, eripalmitin were from Tokyo Chemical Industry Company (Japan). Methyl oleate, methyl gallate, mlyceryl monostearate, glycerol trioleate, ethyl oleate, ethyl stearate and allyl phenylacetate were bought from Sinopharm Medicine Holding Co., Ltd (Tianjin, China).

Lipase activity determination

Lipase activity was determined based on the method described by Nahas with some modifications [28]. The substrate was dispersed in 2% (w/v) polyvinyl alcohol to form 20% (v/v) emulsion prepared by homogenizing using a top-drive homogenizer (FSH-2 adjustable high-speed homogenizer, Jiangsu Zhengji Instruments Co., Ltd., China) for 5 min and pH was adjusted to 8.0. The reaction mixture contained 4 ml of the substrate, 5 ml of PBS, and 1 ml (0.1g/ml) of crude lipase solution. After incubation at 30°C for 1 h, the reaction was stopped by the addition of 10 ml acetone/ethanol (1:1, v/v). The resulting mixture was titrated with 0.05 M NaOH until 10.5 of the end point pH was reached. Blanks were obtained with the same volume of 2% (w/v) polyvinyl alcohol and lipase samples were boiled for 10 min and the activities were expressed as μ mol free fatty acids released. Determinations were done in duplicate and the lipase activity was obtained as follows:

[Formula ID: bmcM1]
(1) 
X=B−A×c0.05×50×160×n

X, enzyme activity,U/g (U/ml).

B, sample consumption volume of standard sodium hydroxide solution for titration, ml.

A, blank sample consumption volume of standard sodium hydroxide solution for titration, ml.

c, standard sodium hydroxide concentration, mol/L.

0.05, conversion factor of sodium hydroxide concentration of standard solution.

50, 1ml sodium hydroxide solution (0.05 mol/L) equivalent to 50μmol fatty acid.

1/60, the reaction time of 60 min with 1 min count.

In this study, the 17 esters commercially availed listed in Additional file 1: Table S1 were used as substrates to examine 3 lipase activities, the ester hydrolytic activity data of three lipases determined using spectrophotometry were also listed.

Generation of the 3D structure of the esters

The ester series were further subjected to molecular modeling studies using ChemBioOffice Software version 11 [29]. The 2D structure of the ester compounds was drawn in ChemBioDraw Ultra version 11 and then copied to Chem 3D Ultra version 11 to create the three-dimensional (3D) model. These structures were then subjected to energy minimization using molecular mechanics (MM2). The minimized molecules were further subjected to optimization via the Austin model 1 (AM1) method using the closed-shell (restricted) wave function of the Gamess [30].

Descriptors for QSAR

More than 120 physiochemical properties of the esters used as descriptors for QSAR construction were obtained using the “Calculate Molecular Properties” module of the Discovery Studio 2.1 package [31]. These descriptors include 2D (AlogP, Molecular_SurfaceArea, Num_RotatableBonds, Num_H_Donors,Molecular_Weight, Kappa_1 topological descriptors such as CIC, CHI_3_C, IAC_Mean, BIC,IC, IAC_Total and SIC, etc.) and 3D (Jurs descriptors, Dipole, MolecularVolume and shadowindices, etc.) parameters. All the definition of the descriptors can be seen in the help of DS2.1. The lipase activity in A U/ml was converted to the logarithmic scale before used for subsequent QSAR analyses as the response variable.

QSAR model development

The obtained QSAR models which are developed from the training set should be validated using new esters for checking the predictive ability of the developed models. Thus the original data set is divided into training and test sets for QSAR model development and validation respectively. The ability of a model to predict accurately the target property of compounds that were not used for the model development is based on the fact that a molecule which is structurally similar to the training set molecules will be predicted well because the model has captured features that are common to the training set molecules and is able to find them in the new molecule [32]. In our study, the whole data set (n =16) was divided into training (n =12) and test (n =4) sets by function groups. This approach (clustering) ensures that the similarity principle can be employed for the lipase activity prediction of the test set [33]. The splitting has been performed such that points representing both training and test sets are distributed within the whole descriptor space of the entire dataset, and each point of the test set has a closer point of the training set. Compared with the number of molecular physiochemical properties, the training set is comparatively very small. In order to obtain the model with statistical meaning, these properties should be cut down and the most suitable descriptors will be left for the final model. The difficult thing is how to select which properties as the most suitable descriptor set to build QSAR models. In this study, the genetic function approximation (GFA) technique was employed to deal with this problem. The principles of GFA can be seen elsewhere [34,35]. It uses the multivariate adaptive regression algorithm accompanied with the genetic algorithm (GA) to evolve population of models (each model containing a subset of variables) that best fit the training set data. With this methodology, a series of potential QSAR models (the population of organisms) are generated and tested repeatedly until an approximate optimal solution is reached finally. In this study, the QSAR models having different numbers of descriptor terms were selected by GFA and all the descriptors in the QSAR trial descriptor pool were used as linear terms. Subsequently, genetic partial least squares (G/PLS) module was employed to optimize the obtained model further.

Statistical quality assessment and model validation method

The successful QSAR model should be robust enough to make accurate and reliable predictions of the lipase activities, thus, the obtained QSAR models from the training set should be subsequently validated. There are several methods to evaluate the quality of QSAR models. In this study, Friedman lack-of-fit (LOF) [36] was selected as the rule for the selection of the GFA derived equations, while correlation coefficient R2 and adjusted R2 (R2adj), were taken as objective functions for G/PLS [37] equations’ selection. The predictivity of generated QSAR models were finally validated using leave-one-out cross-validation R2 (R2cv). Because the descriptor number available normally exceeds that of the samples (training set compounds), how to prevent over-fitting of GFA is critical to the successful construction of a statistically significant QSAR model. In this study, the QSAR models having different numbers of descriptor terms were selected by GFA and all the descriptors in the QSAR trial descriptor pool were used as linear terms. LOF is designed to control the model size and to avoid the over-fitting. The smoothing factor was set to 0.5, the optimal QSAR model was considered to be obtained when descriptors used became constant and independent of an increasing number of crossover operations. All the descriptors were used as linear terms during the GFA to generate QSAR models in the QSAR trial descriptor pool.

QSAR model predictivity for the lipase hydrolysis ability to some natural mixed esters

In order to assess the QSAR model predictivity for the lipase hydrolysis ability to some natural mixed esters, the hydrolysis ability of the lipases L-A1, L-A2 and L-A3 to some natural oils such as soybean oil, olive oil and rapeseed oil were also determined using the technique described as 2.2. The compositions and contents of various aliphatic acids in these oils were obtained from literature with the analysis of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) [38,39]. Because the composition complexity of the natural oils, the ester compositions are simply considered as the mixture of various triglycerides with three same kind of fatty acids. The esters with each content >1% are included and listed in Table 1. The hydrolysis activity of the lipase for the mixed esters is thought to be the average for each containing triglyce ation:

[Formula ID: bmcM2]
(2) 
Xmix=X¯=∑i=1nmi·yi%Mi∑i=1nyi%n·Xi

Xmix, the lipase activity for hydrolysis of the natural oil (U/ml).

Xi, the lipase activity for hydrolysis of i oil ester component.

yi, the proportion of fatty acid glycerides.

n, the ester numbers contained in natural oil.

mi, molar fraction of each triglycerides contained in natural oil with mass fractions >1%.

QSAR model predictivity for the lipase hydrolysis ability to natural mixed esters was assessed by the comparison of the Xmix obtained from the experiment with that obtained from QSAR models.


Results and discussion
Activity comparison of three lipases

The activities of three lipases include L-A1, L-A2 and L-A3 from our laboratory toward different fatty acid methyl and ethyl esters, and fatty acid glycerides are shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that three lipases all have the ability to catalyze the hydrolysis of the test esters, especially for triglycerides, which shows that they have a broad substrate spectra, and this property is very important for them to be used in detergent industry. On the other hand, each of three lipases has its own characteristics. Compared with other two lipases, L-A1 gave good hydrolysis activities for triglycerides with the highest activity of 33 U/ml for glycerol trioleate. L-A2 shows better catalysis spectrum because it gave comparatively better hydrolysis activity for most test esters though the highest activity is not as high as L-A1 for glyceride. Generally, the substrates order according to the hydrolysis abilities of three lipases are triglyceride > monoglyceride >other esters.

QSAR Modeling with 2D and 3D combined set of descriptors

In order to obtain the optimum descriptor set for constructing the QASR models and omit the insignificant descriptors, the GFA protocol in DS 2.1 was employed. The linear term was used for the model development with Friedman LOF smoothness parameter of 0.5 and the population size of 1500. The obtained QSAR models were then further treated with G/PLS and the models on the descriptors from DS 2.1 are as follows (Eq. 3, 4 and 5 are obtained the equations for L-A1, L-A2 and L-A3):

[Formula ID: bmcM3]
(3) 
LogXL−A1=1.197−0.1134×ALogPMR+0.0307×Molecular_Volume−0.0330×Molecular_PolarSASA−0.5881×Shadow_XYfrac+0.2295×Jurs_PPSA_3

The sample number N = 12; LOF = 0.0048; R2 =0.9833; R2adj =0.9694; Rcv2 =0.889; F = 51.18

[Formula ID: bmcM4]
(4) 
LogXL−A2=1.966+0.0572×Molecular_Weight−1.129×CHI_0−0.2433×Dipole_Y−1.4035×<Shadow_XYfrac−0.524612>+0.0167×<56.961−Jurs_PNSA_1

The sample number N = 12; LOF = 0.0029; R2 =0.9861; R2adj = 0.9745; R2cv =0.954; F = 84.98

[Formula ID: bmcM5]
(5) 
LogXL−A3=3.0049−0.1796×CHI_1+0.2427×Dipole_X−52.022×Jurs_FNSA_3−107.06×Jurs_FPSA_3+0.0194×Shadow_XY

The sample number N = 12; LOF = 0.0024; R2 =0.9841; R2adj =0.9709; R2cv =0.898; F = 74.44

All these descriptors included in the models and their values for 12 esters accompanied with the activities from experiments and the prediction of the obtained models are listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

In this study, R2, R2adj, R2pre and R2cv were employed to evaluate the obtained models. Eq.3, 4 and 5 can explain 96.94%, 97.45% and 97.09% of the variances (R2adj) respectively while they could predict 88.9%, 95.4% and 89.8% of the variances (R2cv) respectively [40]. F >F(a=0.05) showes that the models are those for a (non-multiplicity-corrected) confidence level of 0.95. It can be seen from Equation 3 that Molecular_Volume and Jurs_PPSA_3 have positive contribution to the bioactivity of the lipase. However, Molecular_PolarSASA, ALogP_MR and Shadow_XYfrac have the negative effect on the bioactivities of the lipase L-A1.

The standardized regression coefficient for each variable is 54.54, 39.42, 6.048, 0.6085 and 19.85 respectively. Therefore, the relative importance of the descriptors according to their standardized regression coefficients is in the following order:

ALogP_MR>Molecular_Volume>Jurs_PPSA_3>>Molecular_PolarSASA >Shadow_XYfrac.

It was found that ALogP_MR, Molecular_Volume and Jurs_PPSA_3 play the key role for the bioactivity of lipase L-A1. L-A1 tends to catalyze the hydrolysis of the esters with high ALogP_MR and Jurs_PPSA_3 values. For example, glycerol trioleate has the highest Molecular_Volume and comparatively higher Jurs_PPSA_3 values. And they counteract the negative contribution of ALogP_MR to L-A1 bioactivity, which make L-A1 possess the highest activity of 33.4U/ml.

For Eq.4, it can be found that <56.961 −Jurs_PNSA_1> and Molecular_Weight have positive contribution to the bioactivity of the lipase. However, CHI_0, Dipole_Y and <Shadow_XYfrac−0.5246> have the negative effect on the bioactivities of the lipase. The relative importance of the descriptors according to their standardized regression coefficients is in the following order:

CHI_0 > Molecular_Weight> >Dipole_Y > <Shadow_XYfrac −0.524612> > <56.961 −Jurs_PNSA_1 > (The standardized regression coefficient for each variable is 105.19, 105.75, 0.8094, 0.7227 and 0.0081 respectively). From this equation, it was found that L-A2 tends to hydrolyze glycerides with higher values of Molecular_Weight.

For Eq.5, the standardized regression coefficient for CHI_1, Dipole_X, Jurs_FNSA_3, Jurs_FPSA_3, and Shadow_XY is 13.68, 1.174, 3.802, 4.022 and 13.91 respectively. It can be seen that the relative importance of the descriptors is as follows:

Shadow_XY>CHI_1>Jurs_FPSA_3>Jurs_FNSA_3>Dipole_X.

Thus, Shadow_XY and CHI_1 play the key roles in determining the lipase activity. Jurs_FPSA_3, Jurs_FNSA_3 and CHI_1 have the opposite contribution to the lipase activity. The dimension of the actual lipase activity value is determined by the one with higher values. For example, substrate 5 has a far higher value of Shadow_XY than that of Dipole_X, which makes L-A3 possesses comparatively higher bioactivity for it.

The plot of the observed lipase activities vs. the predicted data of the training set is shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. It can be seen that the predicted data by this model is in accordance with the experimental results, which shows the good predictivity of the three models.

In order to evaluate the predictivities of these models, the four esters listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4 were used as test set and their activities were predicted with the three models were listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Prediction for the hydrolysis activity to vegetable oils

In order to predict the activities of three lipases to hydrolyze the natural oils, two vegetable oils, soybean oil and olive oil were selected as the objected oils. In order to simplify their composition, we considered that the oils are the mixture of various homotriglycerides. The esters with each content >1% and the lipase activities acquired from experiments and prediction of the QSAR models are included and listed in Table 5.

It can be seen that they have good prediction for the hydrolysis ability of three lipases. For example, the predicted values of L-A1, L-A2 and L-A3 are 25.83 U/ml, 27.86 U/ml and 26.43 U/ml which is concord well with the measured values of 27.53 U/ml, 26.52 U/ml and 27.47 U/ml respectively. This result shows that these QSAR models not only can predict the lipase activity for one fat acid ester, but they can be used to predict the lipase activity for hydrolysis the natural oils composed of mixture of different esters.


Conclusion

In this study, three QSAR models for lipases L-A1, L-A2 and L-A3 respectively were obtained using GFA algorithm in DS 2.1. The prediction of these QSAR model were evaluated by internal validation and external validation. The results showed that they have good prediction for the hydrolysis ability of three lipases it can also be used to predict and evaluate the hydrolytic activity to mixed oils.


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


Authors’ contributions

H W, Y D and X W participated in the design, QSAR model analysis, the analysis of the ester hydrolysis results, and drafted the manuscript. X L, Y Z and C G took part in the experimental work. H Z conducted the operation of computer modeling. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


Supplementary Material Additional file 1

Table S1. Structures of 17 esters used as substrates.


Click here for additional data file (1476-511X-11-124-S1.doc)


Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Tianjin Natural Science Foundation (No. 09JCZDJC17800, No. 07JCYBJC07900) and the Program of Weihai Science and Technology Development (IMJQ01110034).


References
Jaeger KE,Reetz MT,Microbial lipases form versatile tools for biotechnologyTrends BiotechnolYear: 19981639640310.1016/S0167-7799(98)01195-09744114
Fernandes MLM,Saad EB,Meira JA,Ramos LP,Mitchell DA,Krieger N,Esterification and transesterification reactions catalysed by addition of fermented solids to organic reaction mediaJ Mol Catal B: EnzymYear: 20074481310.1016/j.molcatb.2006.08.004
Laumen K,Schneider MP,A highly selective ester hydrolase from pseudomonas sp for the enzymatic preparation of enantiomerically pure secondary alcohols - chiral auxiliaries in organic-synthesisJ Chem Society-Chem CommunYear: 198822598600
Tsai SW,Tsai CS,Chang CS,Lipase-catalyzed synthesis of (S)-naproxen ester prodrug by transesterification in organic solventsAppl Biochem BiotechnolYear: 19998020521910.1385/ABAB:80:3:20510488552
Ito S,Kobayashi T,Ara K,Ozaki K,Kawai S,Hatada Y,Alkaline detergent enzymes from alkaliphiles: enzymatic properties, genetics, and structuresBiomed Life SciYear: 19982185190
Bora LK,Mohan C,Production of thermostable alkaline lipase on vegetable oils from a thermophilic Bacillus sp. DH4, characterization and its potential applications as detergent additiveChem Tech BiotechnolYear: 2008831924
Maugard T,Legoy MD,Enzymatic synthesis of derivatives of vitamin A in organic mediaJ Mol Catal B: EnzymYear: 2000827528010.1016/S1381-1177(99)00078-8
Saxena RK,Ghosh PK,Gupta R,Davidson WS,Bradoo S,Gulati R,Microbial lipases: Potential biocatalysts for the future industryCurr SciYear: 199977101115
Hemachander C,Puvanakrishnan R,Lipase from Ralstonia pickettii as an additive in laundry detergent formulationsProcess BiochemYear: 20003580981410.1016/S0032-9592(99)00140-5
Dharmsthiti S,Kuhasuntisuk B,Lipase from Pseudomonas aeruginosa LP602: biochemical properties and application for wastewater treatmentJ Ind Microbiol BiotechnolYear: 199821758010.1038/sj.jim.2900563
Vorderwulbecke T,Kieslich K,Comparison of lipases by different assaysEnzyme Microb TechnolYear: 19921463163910.1016/0141-0229(92)90038-P
Tietz NW,Shuey DF,Astles JR,Turbidimetric measurement of lipase activity problems and some solutionsClin ChemYear: 198733162416293621561
Ballot C,Favre-Bonvin G,Wallach J,Conductimetric assay of a bacterial lipase, using triacetin as a substrateBiochem Eng JYear: 198215119129
Saisubramanian N,Edwinoliver NG,Nandakumar N,Kamini NR,Puvanakrishnan R,Efficacy of lipase from Aspergillus niger as an additive in detergent formulations: a statistical approachJ Ind Microbiol BiotechnolYear: 20063366967610.1007/s10295-006-0100-916491364
Han D,Rhee JS,Characteristics of lipase-catalyzed hydrolysis of olive oil in AOT-isooctane reversed micellesBiotechnol BioengYear: 2004281250125518555453
Grbavcic S,Bezbradica D,Izrael-Zivkovic L,Avramovic N,Milosavic N,Karadzic I,Knezevic-Jugovic Z,Production of lipase and protease from an indigenous Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain and their evaluation as detergent additives: Compatibility study with detergent ingredients and washing performanceBioresour TechnolYear: 2011102112261123310.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.07622004595
Hæffner F,Norin T,Hult K,Molecular Modeling of the Enantioselectivity in Lipase Catalyzed Transesterification ReactionsBiophys JYear: 1998741251126210.1016/S0006-3495(98)77839-79512023
Tendulkar AV,Wangikar PP,Sohoni MA,Samant VV,Mone CY,Parameterization and classification of the protein universe via geometric techniquesJ Mol BiolYear: 200333415717210.1016/j.jmb.2003.09.02114596807
Wangikar PP,Tendulkar AV,Ramya S,Mail DN,Sarawagi S,Functional sites in protein families uncovered via an objective and automated graph theoretic approachJ Mol BiolYear: 200332695597810.1016/S0022-2836(02)01384-012581652
Berti F,Forzato C,Nitti P,Pitacco G,Valentin E,A study of the enantio preference of lipase PS (Pseudomonas cepacia) towards diastereomeric dihydro-5-alkyl-4-hydroxymethyl-2(3 H)-furanonesTetrahedron: AsymmetryYear: 2005161091110210.1016/j.tetasy.2005.01.036
Schrag JD,Cygler M,A refined structure of the lipase from Geotrichum candidumJ Mol BiolYear: 199323057559110.1006/jmbi.1993.11718464065
Botta M,Cernia E,Corelli F,Manetti F,Soro S,Probing the substrate specificity for lipases. A CoMFA approach for predicting the hydrolysis rates of 2-arylpropionic esters catalyzed by Candida rugosa lipaseBiochim Biophys ActaYear: 1996129612112610.1016/0167-4838(96)00064-78765237
Tomic S,Kojic-Prodic B,A quantitative model for predicting enzyme enantioselectivity: application to Burkholderia cepacia lipase and 3-(aryloxy)-1,2-propanediol derivativesJ Mol Graphics ModellYear: 20022124125210.1016/S1093-3263(02)00148-1
Wang H,Liu R,Lu F,Qi W,Shao J,Ma H,A novel alkaline and low-temperature lipase of Burkholderia cepacia isolated from Bohai in China for detergent formulationAnn MicrobiolYear: 20095910511010.1007/BF03175606
Wang H,Zhang J,Wang X,Qi W,Dai Y,Genome shuffling improves production of the low-temperature alkalophilic lipase by Acinetobacter johnsoniiBiotechnol LettYear: 20123414515110.1007/s10529-011-0749-721972140
Wang H,Shao J,Wei YJ,Zhang J,Qi W,A Novel Low-Temperature Alkaline Lipase from Acinetobacter johnsonii LP28 Suitable for Detergent FormulationFood Technol BiotechnolYear: 20114996102
Wang H,Zhong S,Ma H,Zhang J,Qi W,Screening and characterization of a novel alkaline lipase from acinetobacter calcoaceticus 1–7 isolated from bohai bay in china for detergent formulationBraz J MicrobiolYear: 20124314815610.1590/S1517-83822012000100016
Nahas E,Control of lipase production by Rhizopus oligosporus under various growth conditionsJ Gen MicrobiolYear: 19884227233
CambridgeSoft IncChemBioOffice Ultra Version 11.0Year: 2008Cambridge, USA
Schmidt MW,Baldridge KK,Boatz JA,Elbert ST,Gordon MS,Jensen JH,Koseki S,Matsunaga N,Nguyen KA,Su S,et al. General atomic and molecular electronic structure systemJ Comput ChemYear: 1993141347136310.1002/jcc.540141112
Accelrys IncDiscovery Studio 2.1Year: 2010San Diego, CA,USA
Leonard JT,Roy K,On selection of training and test sets for the development of predictive QSAR modelsQsar & Comb SciYear: 20062523525110.1002/qsar.200510161
Roy K,Mandal AS,Development of linear and nonlinear predictive QSAR models and their external validation using molecular similarity principle for anti-HIV indolyl aryl sulfonesJ Enzym Inhib Med ChemYear: 20082398099510.1080/14756360701811379
Fan Y,Shi LM,Kohn KW,Pommier Y,Weinstein JN,Quantitative structure-antitumor activity relationships of camptothecin analogues: Cluster analysis and genetic algorithm-based studiesJ Med ChemYear: 2001443254326310.1021/jm000515111563924
Rogers D,Hopfinger AJ,Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure -activity relationship and quantitative structure -property relationshipJ Chem Inf Comput SciYear: 199434854866
Friedman JH,Multivariate adaptive regression splines (with discussion)Ann StatYear: 199119114110.1214/aos/1176347963
Dunn WJ,Hopfinger AJ,Catana C,Duraiswami C,Solution of the conformation and alignment tensors for the binding of trimethoprim and its analogs to dihydrofolate reductase: 3D-quantitative structure-activity relationship study using molecular shape analysis, 3-way partial least-squares regression, and 3-way factor analysisJ Med ChemYear: 1996394825483210.1021/jm960491r8941396
Zelles L,Bai QY,Fractionation of fatty acids derived from soil lipids by solid phase extraction and their quantitative analysis by GC-MSSoil Biol BiochemYear: 19932549550710.1016/0038-0717(93)90075-M
Lee DS,Noh BS,Bae SY,Kim K,Characterization of fatty acids composition in vegetable oils by gas chromatography and chemometricsAnal Chim ActaYear: 199835816317510.1016/S0003-2670(97)00574-6
Greenland S,Maclure M,Schlesselman JJ,Poole C,Morgenstern H,Standardized regression coefficients: a further critique and review of some alternativesEpidemiol (Cambridge, Mass)Year: 1991238739210.1097/00001648-199109000-00015

Figures

[Figure ID: F1]
Figure 1 

The hydrolysis activity of three lipases for different esters.



[Figure ID: F2]
Figure 2 

The plot of observed vs. predicted L-A1 activities of different esters in Table 2 with Equation 3.



[Figure ID: F3]
Figure 3 

The plot of the observed LogL-A2 vs. the predicted data with Equation 4.



[Figure ID: F4]
Figure 4 

The plot of the observed LogL-A3 vs. the predicted data with Equation 5.



Tables
[TableWrap ID: T1] Table 1 

Compositions of the vegetable oils


Composition vegetable oil Palmitic acid Stearic acid Oleic acid Linolenic acid Linoleic acid
Soybean oil
11.0 ± 0.8(%)
4.5 ± 0.4(%)
20.7 ± 1.0(%)
8.9 ± 1.8(%)
54.2 ± 2.4(%)
Olive oil 14.5 ± 1.3(%) 2.5 ± 1.2(%) 70.0 ± 1.0(%) 1.5 ± 0.5(%) 12.0 ± 1.0(%)

[TableWrap ID: T2] Table 2 

Observed and predicted L-A1 activities, physiochemical properties of different substances from DS 2.1 used for the construction of QSAR models


Substance ALogPMR Molecular_Volume Molecular_PolarSASA Shadow_XYfrac Jurs_PPSA_3 LogL-A1(Obs) LogL-A1(Pred) Residual
Training set
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
51.297
122.79
49.521
0.623
17.109
1.097
1.084
0.013
3
296.502
793.01
115.261
0.185
58.06
1.389
1.388
0.001
4
77.398
204.42
49.521
0.677
18.406
0.875
0.902
−0.027
5
72.65
194.13
49.521
0.584
18.693
1.283
1.244
0.039
7
272.246
710.35
115.261
0.263
55.106
0.875
0.871
0.004
8
93.287
229.8
49.521
0.438
23.066
1.09
1.092
−0.002
9
103.309
283.66
120.524
0.645
32.625
1.336
1.341
−0.005
10
95.802
251.41
49.521
0.534
21.828
1.124
1.131
−0.007
12
96.919
247.3
49.521
0.44
22.368
1.033
1.057
−0.024
13
63.448
169.09
49.521
0.69
16.925
1.049
1.041
0.008
14
81.852
218.14
49.521
0.696
20.233
1.199
1.228
−0.029
15
86.6
227.4
49.521
0.677
19.962
0.959
0.923
0.036
Test set
2
91.054
239.07
49.521
0.696
21.797
1.158
1.084
0.074
6
102.636
253.81
49.521
0.64
23.527
1.452
1.127
0.325
11
241.29
651.35
115.261
0.394
48.528
1.097
1.058
0.039
16 42.667 111.47 156.026 0.251 27.008 0.987 1.191 −0.204

a Obs, observed.

b Pred, predicated.


[TableWrap ID: T3] Table 3 

Observed and predicted L-A2 activities, physiochemical properties of different Substances from DS 2.1 used for the construction of QSAR models


Substance Molecular_Weight CHI_0 Dipole_Y Shadow_XYfrac Jurs_FPSA_1 LogL-A2(Obs) LogL-A2(Pred) Residual
Training set
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
176.212
9.519
0.059
0.623
0.677
1.161
1.158
0.003
3
885.432
45.786
0.001
0.263
0.896
0.973
0.98
−0.007
4
358.556
18.59
0.135
0.645
0.882
1.288
1.311
−0.023
5
975.639
50.029
−0.166
0.185
0.94
1.403
1.396
0.007
7
214.344
11.356
0.917
0.69
0.901
1.107
1.107
0.005
8
256.424
13.477
0.943
0.677
0.912
0.973
0.995
−0.022
9
270.451
14.184
0.199
0.696
0.918
1.236
1.205
0.031
10
294.472
15.598
0.054
0.438
0.865
1.215
1.207
0.008
12
242.397
12.77
0.223
0.584
0.91
1.344
1.367
−0.023
13
284.477
14.891
0.949
0.677
0.919
1.013
1.002
0.011
14
310.515
16.305
1.094
0.44
0.901
1.068
1.074
−0.006
15
312.53
16.305
0.934
0.534
0.926
1.236
1.215
0.021
Test set
2
322.525
15.525
1.153
0.251
1.332
1.121
1.084
0.037
6
807.32
38.64
−0.077
0.669
0.911
1.427
1.127
0.300
11
184.146
6.813
1.384
0.394
1.392
1.155
1.058
0.097
16 298.504 14.63 0.905 0.696 3.655 1.121 1.191 −0.07

a Obs, observed.

b Pred, predicated.


[TableWrap ID: T4] Table 4 

Observed and predicted L-A3 activities, physiochemical properties of different Substances from DS 2.1 used for the construction of QSAR models


Substance CHI_1 Dipole_X Jurs_FNSA_3 Jurs_FPSA_3 Shadow_XY LogL-A3(Obs) LogL-A3(Pred) Residual
Training set
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
6.326
0.67
−0.042
0.041
62.211
1.025
1.028
−0.003
3
31.028
1.397
−0.019
0.029
280.042
1.053
1.051
0.002
4
12.202
1.297
−0.037
0.04
127.108
1.243
1.239
0.004
5
34.028
0.379
−0.013
0.028
342.582
1.334
1.337
−0.003
7
7.308
−0.244
−0.024
0.031
75.615
1.021
1.037
−0.016
8
8.808
−0.173
−0.018
0.029
90.705
1.053
1.012
0.041
9
9.308
0.926
−0.02
0.03
95.404
1.212
1.218
−0.006
10
10.308
0.67
−0.023
0.033
109.456
1.152
1.146
0.006
12
8.308
0.898
−0.021
0.031
86.059
1.199
1.202
−0.003
13
9.808
−0.171
−0.016
0.028
100.225
0.929
0.948
−0.019
14
10.808
−0.019
−0.017
0.029
113.043
1.017
1.011
0.006
15
10.808
0.109
−0.015
0.028
111.62
1.004
1.015
−0.011
Test set
2
19.308
1.67
−0.052
0.032
105.063
1.053
1.084
−0.0309
6
7.308
0.898
−0.089
0.055
261.979
1.439
1.127
0.3123
11
9.608
−0.271
−0.096
0.092
119.779
1.124
1.058
0.0658
16 11.808 −0.119 −0.019 0.011 57.29 1.127 1.191 −0.0639

a Obs, observed.

b Pred, predicated.


[TableWrap ID: T5] Table 5 

Measured and predicted lipase activities for olive oil and soybean oil


Nature oil Predicted value activity(U/ml)
Measured value activity(U/ml)
L-A1 L-A2 L-A3 L-A1 L-A2 L-A3
Olive oil
25.83
27.86
26.43
27.53
26.52
27.47
Soybean oil 28.32 26.65 29.45 29.21 28.43 28.38


Article Categories:
  • Research

Keywords: QSAR, GFA, Ester, Lipase activity, Vegetable oils.

Previous Document:  Mechanism of Metal-Free Hydrogen Transfer between Amine-Boranes and Aminoboranes.
Next Document:  Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of the Histamine H(3) Receptor Antagonist, ABT-288, in Hea...