Effect of short-chain acids on the carboxymethylcellulase activity of the ruminal bacterium Ruminococcus albus
Language English Country United States Media print
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
15530016
DOI
10.1007/bf02931612
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Acetates pharmacology MeSH
- Rumen microbiology MeSH
- Butyrates pharmacology MeSH
- Cellulase metabolism MeSH
- Sodium Chloride pharmacology MeSH
- Propionates pharmacology MeSH
- Ruminococcus enzymology MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Acetates MeSH
- Butyrates MeSH
- carboxymethylcellulase MeSH Browser
- Cellulase MeSH
- Sodium Chloride MeSH
- Propionates MeSH
The addition of 100-300 mmol/L of acetic, propionic, butyric or lactic acids (short-chain acids), or of acetic, propionic, and butyric acids (volatile fatty acids, VFA) mixtures increased the degradation of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) by R. albus (7.5 to 46 and 6 to 39 %, respectively). Differences among individual acids were observed at 300 mmol/L whereas VFA mixtures differed at 100 mmol/L. When assayed at the same concentration, CMCase activity was increased less by NaCl than by the short-chain acids, whereas ethylene glycol decreased the activity. Since osmolarity and/or ionic strength changes in the medium cannot completely account for the observed increases of carboxymethylcellulase (CMCase) activity, it is suggested that the anions of short-chain acids produce changes in the reaction media polarity that contribute to the effects observed. Alterations in the media could also bring about conformational changes in CMCase leading to increased rates of reaction and subsequent increases in CMC degradation. Finally, explanations for the observed phenomena based on the direct effect of the compounds tested on the cellulosome complex, its domains, and/or its component enzymes are proposed.
See more in PubMed
Appl Microbiol. 1966 Sep;14(5):794-801 PubMed
Q Rev Biophys. 1985 Nov;18(4):323-422 PubMed
Can J Microbiol. 1996 Mar;42(3):267-78 PubMed
Biochem J. 1982 Jul 1;205(1):129-37 PubMed
J Bacteriol. 1998 Nov;180(22):5921-7 PubMed
Curr Microbiol. 1992 Oct;25(4):197-201 PubMed
J Bacteriol. 1973 May;114(2):729-37 PubMed
Appl Microbiol. 1965 Sep;13(5):771-5 PubMed
Mol Gen Genet. 1990 Sep;223(2):217-23 PubMed
J Appl Microbiol. 2001 Oct;91(4):677-85 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1984 Jul;48(1):218-23 PubMed
Adv Microb Physiol. 1998;39:205-34 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2003;48(6):731-5 PubMed
Anal Biochem. 1976 May 7;72:248-54 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2003 Dec;27(5):663-93 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2002;47(2):171-7 PubMed
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1969 Apr;62(4):1129-36 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1983 Sep;46(3):539-44 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2000 Apr 15;185(2):109-15 PubMed
Distribution of bifidobacteria in the gastrointestinal tract of calves
Diet-dependent shifts in ruminal butyrate-producing bacteria
The effects of organic selenium supplementation on the rumen ciliate population in sheep