Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 128–131 | Cite as

Biotransformation of (−)-codeinone to (−)-codeine byPapaver somniferum cells immobilized in reticulate polyurethane foam

  • P. Corchete
  • M. M. Yeoman
Article
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

Papaver somniferum cells immobilized in reticulate-polyurethane foam biotransformed (−)-codeinone to (−)-codeine. A biotransformation ratio of 79% was found in immobilized cells whereas a ratio of 57% was found in suspended cells. Of the total amount of codeine formed only 12.2% was detected inside the cells, most of the product (87.3%) being released into the medium. When immobilized cells were cultivated in the absence of nitrate, only 40% of the cells remained alive and the biotransformation of codeinone was strongly reduced. When orthophosphate was omitted from the growth medium a bioconversion ratio of 86% was achieved.

Keywords

Orthophosphate Nitrate Suspended Cell Growth Medium Immobilize Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brodelius P, Deus B, Mosbach K, Zenk MH (1979) FEBS Lett 103:93–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brodelius P, Nilsson K (1980) FEBS Lett 122:312–316Google Scholar
  3. Brodelius P, Mosbach K (1982) Advances in Applied Microbiology 28:1–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Furuya T, Nakano M, Yoshikawa T (1978) Phytochemistry 17:891–893Google Scholar
  5. Furuya T, Yoshikawa T, Taira M (1984) Phytochemistry 23:999–1002Google Scholar
  6. Grützman KD, Schröter HB (1966) K.L. Chemie 3:347Google Scholar
  7. Jirku U, Macek T, Vanek T, Krumphanzl V, Kubanek V (1981) Biotechnology Letters 3:447–450Google Scholar
  8. Lindsey K, Yeoman MM (1983) In: Mantell SH Smith H (eds) Plant Biotechnology, Soc.Exp.Biol.Sem.Ser. Vol.18, Cambridge University Press, pp 39–66Google Scholar
  9. Lindsey K, Yeoman MM, Black GM, Mavituna F (1983) FEBS Lett 15:143–149Google Scholar
  10. Lindsey K, Yeoman MM (1984) J. Exp. Bot. 35:1684–1696Google Scholar
  11. Mantell SH, Smith H (1983) In: Mantell SH, Smith H (eds) Plant Biotechnology, Soc.Exp.Biol.Sem.Ser. Vol.18, Cambridge University Press, pp 75–108Google Scholar
  12. Sisco WR, Rittenhouse CT, Everhart LA (1985) J. of Chromatography 348:253–263Google Scholar
  13. Tam W, Constabel F, Kurz W (1980) Phytochemistry 19:486–487Google Scholar
  14. Widholm JM (1976) Stain Technol. 47:189–194Google Scholar
  15. Yeoman MM, Lindsey K, Miedzybrodska MB, McLauchlan WR (1982) In: Yeoman MM, Truman DE (eds) Brit. Soc. Cell Biol. Symp. Vol.4, Cambridge University Press, pp 65–82Google Scholar
  16. Zeleneva IW, Khavkin EE (1980) Planta 148:108–115Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Corchete
    • 1
  • M. M. Yeoman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations