Food and Bioprocess Technology

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 301–305 | Cite as

Use of Poultry Byproduct for Production of Keratinolytic Enzymes

  • Franciani Casarin
  • Florencia Cladera-Olivera
  • Adriano BrandelliEmail author


The production of keratinolytic enzymes by Chryseobacterium sp. isolated from the poultry industry was tested on different growth substrates: casein, peptone, yeast extract, gelatin, soybean meal, fish meal, feather meal, raw feathers, and cheese whey. Raw feather, an important byproduct from the poultry industry, was the selected growth substrate to test the effect of three variables (temperature, initial pH, and feather concentration) on keratinase production by response surface methodology. A 23 central composite design was performed with the central point chosen as: temperature 30 °C, initial pH 8.0, and feather concentration 20 g l−1. Statistical analysis of results showed that, in the range studied, temperature had a strong effect on keratinase production. The interaction between temperature and feather concentration and between temperature and initial pH had a significant effect on enzyme production. Response surface data showed maximum keratinase production at 23 °C, initial pH 9.0, and 30 g l−1 of raw feathers. Under these conditions, the model predicted a keratinase activity of 1,559 U ml−1.


Enzyme production Feather biodegradation Keratinase Protease Response surface methodology Submerged culture 


  1. Bernal, C., Diaz, I., & Coello, N. (2006). Response surface methodology for the optimization of keratinase production in culture medium containing feathers produced by Kocuria rosea. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 52, 445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandelli, A. (2005). Hydrolysis of native proteins by a keratinolytic protease of Chryseobacterium sp. Annals of Microbiology, 55, 47–50.Google Scholar
  3. Brandelli, A. (2008). Bacterial keratinases: Useful enzymes for bioprocessing agroindustrial waste and beyond. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 1, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chauhan, B., & Gupta, R. (2004). Application of statistical experimental design for optimization of alkaline protease production from Bacillus sp. RGR-14. Process Biochemistry, 39, 2115–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clare, D. A., & Swaisgood, H. E. (2000). Bioactive milk peptides: A prospectus. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 1187–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grazziotin, A., Pimentel, F. A., de Jong, E. V., & Brandelli, A. (2006). Nutritional improvement of feather protein by treatment with microbial keratinase. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 126, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gupta, R., & Ramnani, P. (2006). Microbial keratinases and their prospective applications: A review. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 70, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lahl, W. J., & Braun, S. D. (1994). Enzymatic production of protein hydrolysates for food use. Food Technology, 48, 68–71.Google Scholar
  9. Martelli, S. M., Moore, G., Paes, S. S., Gandolfo, C., & Laurindo, J. B. (2006). Influence of plasticizers on the water sorption isotherms and water vapor permeability of chicken feather keratin films. LWT Food Science and Technology, 39, 292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Myers, R. H., & Montogomery, R. C. (2002). Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Ramnani, P., & Gupta, R. (2004). Optimization of medium composition for keratinase production on feather by Bacillus licheniformis RG1 using statistical methods involving response surface methodology. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry, 40, 491–496.Google Scholar
  12. Rao, M. B., Tanksale, A. M., Ghatge, M. S., & Desphande, V. V. (1998). Molecular and biotechnological aspects of microbial proteases. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 62, 597–635.Google Scholar
  13. Rao, Y. K., Lu, S. C., Liu, B. L., & Tzeng, Y. M. (2006). Enhanced production of an extracellular protease from Beauveria bassiana by optimization of cultivation processes. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 28, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Riffel, A., Brandelli, A., Bellato, C. M., Souza, G. H. M. F., Eberlin, M. N., & Tavares, F. C. A. (2007). Purification and characterization of a keratinolytic metalloprotease from Chryseobacterium sp. kr6. Journal of Biotechnology, 128, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Riffel, A., Lucas, F. S., Heeb, P., & Brandelli, A. (2003). Characterization of a new keratinolytic bacterium that completely degrades native feather keratin. Archives of Microbiology, 179, 258–265.Google Scholar
  16. Sangali, S., & Brandelli, A. (2000). Isolation and characterization of a novel feather-degrading bacterial strain. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 87, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thys, R. C. S., Guzzon, S. O., Cladera-Olivera, F., & Brandelli, A. (2006). Optimization of protease production by Microbacterium sp. in feather meal using response surface methodology. Process Biochemistry, 41, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang, J. J., & Shih, J. C. H. (1999). Fermentation production of keratinase from Bacillus licheniformis PWD-1 and a recombinant B. subtilis FDB-29. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 22, 608–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franciani Casarin
    • 1
  • Florencia Cladera-Olivera
    • 1
  • Adriano Brandelli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratório de Bioquímica e Microbiologia Aplicada, Departamento de Ciência de Alimentos, ICTAUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations