2009
DOI: 10.1128/aem.02136-08
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Isolation and Characterization of Metalloproteases with a Novel Domain Structure by Construction and Screening of Metagenomic Libraries

Abstract: Small-insert metagenomic libraries from four samples were constructed by a topoisomerase-based and a T4 DNA ligase-based approach. Direct comparison of both approaches revealed that application of the topoisomerase-based method resulted in a higher number of insert-containing clones per g of environmental DNA used for cloning and a larger average insert size. Subsequently, the constructed libraries were partially screened for the presence of genes conferring proteolytic activity. The function-driven screen was… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
45
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
1
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Small-insert libraries can be employed for the identification of novel biocatalysts encoded by a single gene or a small operon, whereas large-insert libraries are required to recover large gene clusters, which code for complex pathways (18). Construction and screening of both types of metagenomic libraries have resulted in the identification of many novel biocatalysts, e.g., lipases/esterases (15,26,48,49), cellulases (25,47), chitinases (50), DNA polymerases (109), proteases (139), and antibiotics (95). To date, lipases/esterases are probably the biocatalysts which have been most frequently recovered from metagenomes.…”
Section: Bioprospecting Of Metagenomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Small-insert libraries can be employed for the identification of novel biocatalysts encoded by a single gene or a small operon, whereas large-insert libraries are required to recover large gene clusters, which code for complex pathways (18). Construction and screening of both types of metagenomic libraries have resulted in the identification of many novel biocatalysts, e.g., lipases/esterases (15,26,48,49), cellulases (25,47), chitinases (50), DNA polymerases (109), proteases (139), and antibiotics (95). To date, lipases/esterases are probably the biocatalysts which have been most frequently recovered from metagenomes.…”
Section: Bioprospecting Of Metagenomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reasons for this include the reluctance of many microorganisms present in these samples to lyse by protocols that have been developed mainly for DNA extraction from mesophilic samples and the release of very stable nucleases upon cell lysis. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made, and various methods allowing the isolation of highquality DNA from a variety of environments, i.e., soil (45,87,134,139), marine picoplankton (117), contaminated subsurface sediments (1), groundwater (128), hot springs and mud holes in solfataric fields (94), surface water from rivers (145), glacier ice (109), Antarctic desert soil (48), and buffalo rumens (25), have been developed.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These two proteases are zinc-containing metalloproteases, many of which are involved in pathogenesis (Bitar, Cao, & Marquis, 2008;Chuang, Chang, & Chang, 1997;Häse & Finkelstein, 1993;Kim, Yang, & Cha, 2002;Miyoshi, Kawata, Tomochika, Shinoda, & Yamamoto, 2001). Screening for these proteases was possible as they were necessary to hydrolyze milk proteins, leading to detection of clear halos formed on the plates (Waschkowitz, Rockstroh, & Daniel, 2009). Other enzymatic functions identified using a similar detection methodology include phosphatase and lipolytic activities (Bornscheuer & Kazlauskas, 2006;Calamia & Manoil, 1990;Lämmle et al, 2007).…”
Section: Approaches To Functional Screening Of Metagenomesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T (Hardeman and Sjoling, 2007, Pathak et al, 2009, Voget et al, 2006, Waschkowitz et al, 2009, marine picoplankton (Stein et al, 1996), saline soil (Purohit and Singh, 2009), contaminated subsurface sediments (Abulencia et al, 2006), groundwater (Uchiyama et al, 2005), hot springs and mud holes in solfataric fields (Rhee et al, 2005), Urania hypersaline basins (Ferrer et al, 2009), surface water from rivers (Wu and Sun, 2009), glacier ice (Simon et al, 2009), glacier soil (Yuhong et al, 2009), Antarctic and Arctic desert soil (Cieslinski et al, 2009, Heath et al, 2009, Jeon et al, 2009, and buffalo rumens (Duan et al, 2009).…”
Section: Dna Extraction Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%