Thermodynamics of Chitinase Partitioning in Soy Lecithin Liposomes and Their Storage Stability
- 192 Downloads
The goal of this study was to define the partitioning behavior of chitinase from Trichoderma spp. in soy lecithin liposomes, using a thermodynamic approach based on the partitioning variation with temperature. An effort has been made to define the liposomes, as well as free and immobilized enzyme stability during storage at 4 and 25 °C. The partition coefficients (K o/w) were greater than 1; therefore, the standard free energies of the enzyme transfer were negative, indicating an affinity of the enzymes for encapsulation in liposomes. The enthalpy calculation led to the conclusion that the process is exothermic. The presence of enzyme decreased the liposome storage stability from 70 days to an approximately 20 days at 25 °C and 30 days at 4 °C. Monitoring of the liposome’s diameter demonstrated that their size and concentration decreased during storage. The liposome’s diameters ranged from 1.06 to 3.30 μm. The higher percentage of liposome corresponded to a diameter range from 1.06 to 1.34 μm. This percentage increased during storage. There were no evidences for liposome fusion process. The stability of immobilized enzyme was increased in comparison with free chitinase.
KeywordsChitinase Microencapsulation Soy lecithin liposomes Storage stability Immobilized enzyme
The authors are grateful for the financial support of this project from SEP-CONACYT of Mexico No. 57118, the valuable help of Dr. E. Rodríguez Campos for discussion of this project, and to Dr. Y. Troitsky and MS A. Schluraff for reviewing this paper for publication.
- 4.Prapagdee, B., Kuekulvong, C., & Mongkolsuk, S. (2008). International Journal of Biological Sciences, 4, 330–337.Google Scholar
- 5.Estrella-Favret, A., Juarez-Ordaz, A. J., Cano-Salazar, L. F., Martínez-Hernández, J. L., & Ilina, A. (2008). Ciencia Cierta, 15, 26–29.Google Scholar
- 7.El-Katatny, M. H., Somitsch, W., Robra, K. H., El-Katatny, M. S., & Gübitz, G. M. (2000). Food Technology and Biotechnology, 38, 173–180.Google Scholar
- 9.Cook, R. J., & Baker, K. F. (1983). The nature and practice of biological control of plant pathogens. St. Paul: The American Phytopathological Society.Google Scholar
- 10.Dekker, J. (1982). In J. Dekker & S. G. Georgopoulos (Eds.), In countermeasures for avoiding fungicide resistance (pp. 177–186). Wageningen: Pudoc.Google Scholar
- 11.Balvantin-García, C., Ilina, A., Martínez-Hernández, J. L., Cerda-Ramírez, F., & Lira, R. H. (2009). Ciencia Cierta, 19, 20–24.Google Scholar
- 12.Anitha, A., & Rabeeth, M. (2010). African Journal of Plant Science, 4, 061–066.Google Scholar
- 13.Joublanc, E., Vázquez-Gutiérrez, B. B., Ramírez-Esquivel, G., Martínez-Hernández, J. L., & Iliná, A. (2010). In C. Regalado & B. E. García (Eds.), In innovations in food science and food biotechnology in developing countries (pp. 73–84). Querétaro: AMECA.Google Scholar
- 18.Ávila, C. M., Gómez, A., & Martínez, F. (2003). Acta Farm Bonaerense, 22, 119–126.Google Scholar
- 21.Lozano, H. R., & Martínez, F. (2006). Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 42, 601–613.Google Scholar
- 23.Sturges, H. (1926). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 21, 65–66.Google Scholar
- 29.Tanford, C. (1973). The hydrophobic effect: Formation of micelles and biological membranes. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 32.Pérez-Molina, A. I., Juárez-Ordaz, A. J., Gregorio-Jáuregui, K. M., Segura-Ceniceros, E. P., Martínez-Hernández, J. L., Rodríguez-Martínez, J., et al. (2011). Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic. doi: 10.1016/j.molcatb.2011.05.004.
- 37.León-Joublanc, E. (2009). M.S. thesis. University Autonomous of Coahuila, Coahuila, Mexico.Google Scholar