| Title |
New keratinolytic bacteria in valorization of chicken feather waste
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-018-0538-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wojciech Łaba, Barbara Żarowska, Dorota Chorążyk, Anna Pudło, Michał Piegza, Anna Kancelista, Wiesław Kopeć |
| Abstract |
There is an increasing demand for cost-effective and ecologically-friendly methods for valorization of poultry feather waste, in which keratinolytic bacteria present a great potential. Feather-degrading bacteria were isolated from living poultry and a single strain, identified as Kocuria rhizophila p3-3, exhibited significant keratinolytic properties. The bacterial strain effectively degraded up to 52% of chicken feathers during 4 days of culture at 25 °C. Zymographic analysis revealed the presence of two dominating proteolytic enzymes in the culture fluid. Culture conditions were optimized in order to maximize the liberation of soluble proteins and free amino acids. A two-step procedure was used, comprising a Plackett-Burman screening design, followed by a Box-Behnken design. Concentration of feather substrate, MgSO4 and KH2PO4 were the most influential parameters for the accumulation of soluble proteins in culture K. rhizophila p3-3, while feathers and MgSO4 also affected the concentration of amino acids. The resultant raw hydrolysate supernatant, prior to and after additional treatments, was rich in phenylalanine, histidine, arginine and aspartic acid. Additionally the hydrolysate exhibited radical-scavenging activity and ferric reducing power. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 6 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#447
of 1,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,062
of 441,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,241 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.