Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul 20;6(9):919-27.
doi: 10.1002/2211-5463.12097. eCollection 2016 Sep.

Effect of Tris, MOPS, and phosphate buffers on the hydrolysis of polyethylene terephthalate films by polyester hydrolases

Affiliations

Effect of Tris, MOPS, and phosphate buffers on the hydrolysis of polyethylene terephthalate films by polyester hydrolases

Juliane Schmidt et al. FEBS Open Bio. .

Abstract

The enzymatic degradation of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) occurs at mild reaction conditions and may find applications in environmentally friendly plastic waste recycling processes. The hydrolytic activity of the homologous polyester hydrolases LC cutinase (LCC) from a compost metagenome and TfCut2 from Thermobifida fusca KW3 against PET films was strongly influenced by the reaction medium buffers tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (Tris), 3-(N-morpholino)propanesulfonic acid (MOPS), and sodium phosphate. LCC showed the highest initial hydrolysis rate of PET films in 0.2 m Tris, while the rate of TfCut2 was 2.1-fold lower at this buffer concentration. At a Tris concentration of 1 m, the hydrolysis rate of LCC decreased by more than 90% and of TfCut2 by about 80%. In 0.2 m MOPS or sodium phosphate buffer, no significant differences in the maximum initial hydrolysis rates of PET films by both enzymes were detected. When the concentration of MOPS was increased to 1 m, the hydrolysis rate of LCC decreased by about 90%. The activity of TfCut2 remained low compared to the increasing hydrolysis rates observed at higher concentrations of sodium phosphate buffer. In contrast, the activity of LCC did not change at different concentrations of this buffer. An inhibition study suggested a competitive inhibition of TfCut2 and LCC by Tris and MOPS. Molecular docking showed that Tris and MOPS interfered with the binding of the polymeric substrate in a groove located at the protein surface. A comparison of the K i values and the average binding energies indicated MOPS as the stronger inhibitor of the both enzymes.

Keywords: 3‐(N‐morpholino)propanesulfonic acid; Tris; biocatalysis; inhibition; polyester hydrolase; polyethylene terephthalate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Initial hydrolysis rates of PET films (9 cm2) as a function of the concentration of TfCut2 (dashed line) and LCC (solid line) in (A) Tris; (B) MOPS; (C) sodium phosphate (0.2 m, pH 8.0). Error bars indicate the standard deviation of triplicate determinations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Initial hydrolysis rates of PET films (9 cm2) of LCC (light bars) and TfCut2 (dark bars) as a function of buffer concentration of (A) Tris, (B) MOPS, and (C) sodium phosphate (pH 8.0). In each buffer, LCC and TfCut2 were employed in concentrations corresponding to their maximum initial hydrolysis rates (see Fig. 1). Error bars indicate the standard deviation of triplicate determinations.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Double reciprocal plots of initial hydrolysis rates of PET films versus substrate concentration for LCC (A) and TfCut2 (B) at different concentrations of Tris: ● 0 m, ▲ 0.2 m, and ♦ 0.4 m.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Double reciprocal plots of initial hydrolysis rates of PET films versus substrate concentration for LCC (A) and TfCut2 (B) at different concentrations of MOPS: (A) ● 0 m, ▲ 0.2 m, and ♦ 0.4 m and (B) ● 0 m, ▲ 0.05 m, and ♦ 0.075 m.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Docking of Tris and MOPS to LCC and TfCut2. An overlay of multiple binding modes of the inhibitors is presented. The structures of the enzymes are shown in red with the catalytic triad highlighted as blue sticks and Tris and MOPS as yellow sticks. (A) docking of Tris (neutral) to LCC; (B) docking of Tris (neutral) to TfCut2; (C) docking of MOPS to LCC; (D) docking of MOPS to TfCut2. The docking was performed with AutoDock Vina 41.

References

    1. Vertommen MAME, Nierstrasz VA, van der Veer M and Warmoeskerken MMCG (2005) Enzymatic surface modification of poly(ethylene terephthalate). J Biotechnol 120, 376–386. - PubMed
    1. Paszun D and Spychaj T (1997) Chemical recycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate). Ind Eng Chem Res 36, 1373–1383.
    1. IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen e.V. (2014) IK Jahresbericht 2013/2014. IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen e.V. Bundesverband für Kunststoffverpackungen und Folien, Bad Homburg.
    1. Yoshioka T, Sato T and Okuwaki A (1994) Hydrolysis of waste PET by sulfuric acid at 150°C for a chemical recycling. J Appl Polym Sci 52, 1353–1355.
    1. Müller R, Schrader H, Profe J, Dresler K and Deckwer W (2005) Enzymatic degradation of poly(ethylene terephthalate): rapid hydrolyse using a hydrolase from T. fusca . Macromol Rapid Commun 26, 1400–1405.

LinkOut - more resources