Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INHql<;MolO2q
lNHq'2S0q
(H2NH2(OOH
(
OlNH
2'2
NaN03
NaN02
lNHq1N03
o
I
With regard to the cellulase activity, again
there was no correlation between the mycelial
growth and cellulase production (Fig. 6). Ferrum
ammonium sulphate heptahydrate and glycine
stimulated maximum production of the cellulase
enzymes followed by ammonium sulphate, urea,
sodium nitrite and ammonium nitrate. Although
ammonium nitrate supported the best mycelial
growth, it did not stimulate as high a level of
Fig. 6: Effect of diJJerent nitrogen sourm on the pTOduction of
cellulase activities. All values aTe average of dupli-
cates.
Activity (Unit/ml>
Effect oj Nine Different Nitrogen Sources on the Mycelial
Growth and Production oj Cellulase Enzymes
The effect of nine different nitrogenous com-
pounds on the mycelial growth of Aspergillus sp and
were produced when cellulose was present as the
carbon source in submerged cultures of fingal
mycelia. Other carbon sources which are easily
assimilated and have been shown to promote
fungal growth may not induce the production of
cellulolytic enzymes (Mandels and Reese 1965;
Noviella, 1966). In addition, Rautela and King
(1965), as well as Fan et al. (1982) have shown
that different forms of cellulose vary from one
another in their growth-supporting, enzyme-in-
ducing and reacting capabilities. This may be due
to the difference in the microstructures among
the cellulose substrates (Wang 1982). The cellulase
activity observed may not be due to the actual
amount of enzymes secreted in the cultures. This
is due to the fact that cellulases have an affinity
for certain cellulose sources. The cellulase enzymes
would then be adsorbed onto the cellulose
substrate thereby reducing the amount of detect-
able cellulase enzymes in the culture filtrate
(Halliwell 1961). The percentage of this adsorbed
cellulolytic activity has been estimated to vary
from 0 to 40% depending on the species of the
fungus. Greaves (1971) reported that by succes-
sively washing and gently agitating the mycelium
and cellulose several times, the cellulase enzymes
can be released from cellulose. Similarly, certain
cellulose substrates, for example, the non-absorb-
ent cotton wool, have surfaces that are not suit-
able for the absorption of cellulolytic enzymes
leaving a higher amount of enzymes detectable in
the filtrates.
Fig. 4: 1'-Ifect of diJJerent carbon SOU1"CeS on the production of
cellulase activities. All values are average of dupli-
cates.
PERTANIKA VOL. 15 NO.1, 1992
49
CHOW-CHI TONG Aj\lD K. RAJENDRA
cellulase production as that achieved by ferrum
ammonium sulphate heptahydrate and glycine.
This may be explained by the fact that ammo-
nium ions were absorbed by the mycelium which
resulted in a lowering of the pH that subsequently
inhibited the production of cellulase enzymes
(Wang 1982).
REFERENCES
FAN, L.T., Y.H. LEE & M.M. GHARPURAY. 1982. The
Nature of Lignocellulosics and Their Pre-treat-
ment for Enzymic Hydrolysis. Adv. Biochern. Eng.
23: 157-187.
FERGUS, C. L. 1969. The Cellulolytic Activity of
Thermophilic Fungi and Actinimycetes. Mycologia
61: 120-129.
GREAVES, H. 1971. Effect of Substrate Availability on
Cellulolytic Enzyme Production by Selected
Wood-rotting Microorganisms. Aust. J. Bioi. Sci.
24(6): 1169-1182.
HALLIWELL, G. 1961. The Action of Cellulolytic En-
zymes from jVJ.yrotheciurn verrucaria. Biochern. J.
79: 185-192.
HUDSON, JA., H.W. MORGAN & R.M. DANIEL. 1990. A
Survey of Cellulolytic Anaerobic Thermophiles
from Hot Springs. Syst. Appl. Microbial. 13: 72-76.
KHATIZAH, M., M. 1. YAZIZ & C.C. TONG. 1983. Deg-
radation of Cellulose by Aspergillus sp.,
Trichoderma koningii and Myriococcurn sp. Pertanika
6: 8-16.
M DELS, M. & R.T. REESE. 1965. Inhibition of a
Cellulase. Ann. Rev. Phytopath 3: 85-102.
NELSON, N. 1944. A Photometric Adaptation for the
Somogyi Method for the Determination of Glu-
cose. J. Biol. Chern. 153: 375-380.
NOVIELLA, C. 1966. Pectolysis and Cellulolytic Activi-
ties of Sclerotiurn rofsii. Ann. Fac. Sci. Agron. Univ.
Studio Napoli Portici 30: 461-474.
RAUTELA, C. & K W. KING. 1965. Significance of the
Crystal Structure of Cellulose. Arch. Biochem.
Biophys. 123(3): 599-601.
REESE, E.T. and M. MANDELS 1971. Degradation of
Cellulose and its Derivatives. New York: John Wiley.
SHEPHERD, M.G., A.LJ. COLE & e.C. TONG. 1988.
Cellulases of Thermoascus aumntiacus. Methods in
Enzymology 160: 301-307.
SOMOGYI, M. 1952. Notes on Sugar Determination. J.
Biol. Chern. 195: 19-23.
TA..t'JAKA, M., T. MORITA, M. TANIGUCHI, R. MATSUNO &
T. KAMIKUBO, 1980. J. Ferment Tech. 58: 517.
TONG, e.C., A.LJ. COLE & M.G. SHEPHERD. 1980. Pu-
rification and Properties of the Cellulases from
the Thermophilic Fungus, Thermoascus
aumntiacus. Biochem. J. 191: 83-94.
TONG, C.C. & A.LJ. COLE 1982. Cellulase Production
by the Thermophilic Fungus, Thermoascus
aumntiacus. Pe1tanika 5: 255-262.
WA..t'1G, C.W. 1982. Cellulolytic Enzymes of Volvariella
volvacea. p. 167-185. Hong-Kong: The Chinese
University Press.
WOOD, T.M. 1969. Cellulolytic Enzymes System of
Trichoderma koningii. Separation of Components
Attacking Native Cotton. BiocheJn. J. 109: 217-277.
(Received 29 Novernber 1991)
50
VOL. 15 0.1,1992