| Title |
Identification of two new keratinolytic proteases from a Bacillus pumilus strain using protein analysis and gene sequencing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-016-0213-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soltana Fellahi, Abdelwaheb Chibani, Elisabeth Feuk-Lagerstedt, Mohammad J. Taherzadeh |
| Abstract |
The Bacillus strain (CCUG 66887) has a high capacity to excrete keratinase with the ability to degrade both alpha- and beta keratin. In this study we aimed to show the characteristics of the keratinolytic protease and to identify its gene by using liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry methods (nanoHPLC-ESI-MS/MS) followed by Mascot data base search. The results showed that the enzyme in fact consists of two different keratinases, both with a molecular mass of 38 kDa. Further, DNA sequencing generated the open reading frame (ORF) of one of the genes (Ker1), and de novo genome sequencing identified the ORF of the second gene (Ker2). The two keratinase genes contain 1153 base pairs each and have a gene similarity of 67 %. In addition, the Bacillus strain was classified as Bacillus pumilus and its genes were annotated in the GeneBank at NCBI (accession: CP011109.1). Amino acid sequences alignment with known B. pumilus proteases indicated that the two keratinases of B. pumilus strain C4 are subtilisin-like serine proteases belonging to the Protease S8 family. Taken together, these result suggest the two keratinases as promising candidates for enzymatic processing of keratinous wastes in waste refinery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 28% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,856,861
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#346
of 1,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,564
of 351,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,236 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 351,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.