Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T13:14:46.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of membrane perturbing treatments on the membrane-bound peptidases of Streptococcus cremoris HP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Fred A. Exterkate
Fred A. Exterkate
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute for Dairy Research (NIZO), Ede, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effects of solubilization, treatment with organic solvents and storage under alkaline conditions on membrane-associated peptidases of intact cells of Streptococcus cremoris HP were studied. Differences in the response of the peptidase activities towards these membrane perturbing treatments were observed. Pyrrolidonecarboxylylpeptidase (PCP) and an endopeptidase (P50) showed 50% irreversible inhibition at the same concentration of each solvent tested. An amino- and proline iminopeptidase activity and the endopeptidase P37 were in this respect much more sensitive to the action of the solvents. Within a homologous series of n-alkanols irreversible inhibition of PCP showed a dependence on the hydrophobicity of the solvent molecules. Only P37 activity was increased considerably upon solubilization of the enzyme. Similar levels of activation were found upon treatment of cells with 3% (v/v) n-butanol at 25 °C or storage at 30 °C at an alkaline pH. Optimal activity of P50 during n-butanol treatment was at 25 °C using a concentration of 5% (v/v), but no activation was observed upon solubilization. The results are discussed in terms of enzyme–lipid interaction and accessibility of the enzymes in situ. It is concluded that the enzymes apparently occupy different positions within the membrane although they may together constitute a functional peptide-hydrolysing unit.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1979 , pp. 473 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Dunn, W. J. & Hansch, C. (1974). Chemico-Biological Interactions 9, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exterkate, F. A. (1973). Analytical Biochemistry 53, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exterkate, F. A. (1975). Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 29, 303.Google Scholar
Exterkate, F. A. (1976). Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 30, 3.Google Scholar
Exterkate, F. A. (1977). Journal of Bacteriology 129, 1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exterkate, F. A. (1978). FEMS Microbiology Letters 5, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisham, C. M. & Barnett, B. E. (1973). Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 311, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansch, C. & Glave, W. R. (1971). Molecular Pharmacology 7, 337.Google Scholar
Law, B. A., Sharpe, M. E. & Reiter, B. (1974). Journal of Dairy Research 41, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marčelja, S. (1976). Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 455, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mou, L., Sullivan, J. J. & Jago, G. R. (1975). Journal of Dairy Research 42, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. W. (1976). In Advances in Microbial Physiology 13, 55. (Eds Rose, A. H. & Tempest, D. W..) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, B., De Gieb, J. & Van Deenen, L. L. M. (1965). Proceedings, Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen, section B 68, 249.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, B., Zwaal, R. F. A. & Van Deenen, L. L. M. (1971). In Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 14, 209. (Eds Porcellati, G. & Di Jeso, F.) New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. H., Morris, H. A., Castberg, H. B. & Mckay, L. L. (1976). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 24, 1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. H., Morris, H. A. & Mckay, L. L. (1977). Journal of Dairy Science 60, 710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, S. J. (1972). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 195, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar