journal article·2025-09-24Open access

Enzyme–Support Interactions of Burkholderia cepacia Lipase Immobilized on Silica Using Molecular Docking and Multitechnique Characterization

César A. Rodrigues, Jefferson C. B. Santos, Milson S. Barbosa, Nayára B. Carvalho, Meirielly S. Jesus, Ranyere L. Souza, Álvaro S. Lima, Matheus M. Pereira, Cleide M. F. Soares

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 17· Issue 38

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The influence of the microenvironment within enzyme–support complexes on the activity of Burkholderia cepacia lipase (BCL) immobilized on silica (SiO 2 –BCL) remains insufficiently understood. Without data on these interactions, it is challenging to determine whether modifications to the support material or immobilization protocols are needed for optimal enzyme activity and stability. Besides evaluating catalytic performance in esterification reactions, enzyme–support interactions were characterized using 29 Si NMR, FTIR, BET, DSC, TGA, SEM–EDS, and molecular docking simulations. In this study, NMR 29 Si-based structural analysis revealed significant protein–surface (pore wall) interaction networks. The immobilization resulted in 88.6% efficiency and a protein loading of 17.72 mg·g –1, enabling further structural and functional characterization. Molecular docking elucidated the interaction mechanisms between silica functional groups (Q n sites) and BCL binding residues. Docking simulations indicated that the Q3 group interacts with the catalytic residue Ser87, potentially hindering substrate access to the active site. Spectroscopic and morphological analyses confirmed this interaction and correlated it with a significant decrease in enzymatic activity. Experimental evidence and FTIR analyses demonstrated that the increase in the α-helix content of SiO 2 –BCL correlated with the observed decrease in catalytic productivity. BCL exhibited a significantly higher esterification productivity (150.82 μmol·h –1 ·mg –1 ) than SiO 2 –BCL (28.10 μmol·h –1 ·mg –1 ), confirming the importance of optimal enzyme conformation for catalytic efficiency. The results highlight that, beyond the support’s composition, the spatial orientation and specific interactions with functional groups are critical determinants of catalytic efficiency. This integrative approach may guide the rational design of enzyme-based biocatalysts using mesoporous materials.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Enzyme Catalysis and Immobilization · Electrochemical sensors and biosensors · Analytical Chemistry and Chromatography

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Universidade Tiradentes, Av. Murilo Dantas 300, Farolândia, Aracaju, Sergipe 49032-490, Brazil

Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Minas Gerais (IFMG)─Campus Governador Valadares, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais 35057-760, Brazil

CISAS─Center for Research and Development in Agrifood Systems and Sustainability, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua da Escola Industrial e Comercial Nun’Alvares 34, Viana do Castelo 4900-347, Portugal

Instituto de Tecnologia e Pesquisa, Av. Murilo Dantas 300, Prédio do ITP, Farolândia, Aracaju, Sergipe 49032-490, Brazil

Departamento de Engenharia Química, UFBA, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Rua Aristides Novis 2, Federação, Salvador, Bahia 40170-115, Brazil

University of Coimbra, CERES, Department of Chemical Engineering, Rua Sílvio Lima, Pólo II─Pinal de Marrocos, Coimbra 3030-760, Portugal

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico · Funda??o de Apoio ? Pesquisa e ? Inova??o Tecnol?gica do Estado de Sergipe · Funda??o para a Ci?ncia e a Tecnologia · Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior

References (69)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.nantod.2009.02.00110.1016/j.nantod.2009.02.001 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.cis.2023.10288910.1016/j.cis.2023.102889 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.cis.2013.08.01010.1016/j.cis.2013.08.010 ↗
4. 10.33263/BRIAC106.6744675610.33263/BRIAC106.67446756 ↗
5. 10.1002/bab.151510.1002/bab.1515 ↗
6. 10.1039/C3CS60075K10.1039/C3CS60075K ↗
7. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b0325710.1021/acssuschemeng.9b03257 ↗
8. 10.1002/bit.2645810.1002/bit.26458 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2006.03.08410.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2006.03.084 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.molcatb.2006.01.00510.1016/j.molcatb.2006.01.005 ↗
11. 10.2138/am.2012.392110.2138/am.2012.3921 ↗
12. 10.3390/catal1006060510.3390/catal10060605 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.tips.2014.12.00110.1016/j.tips.2014.12.001 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.04.00310.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.04.003 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2020.10461310.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2020.104613 ↗
16. 10.1039/C7GC02011B10.1039/C7GC02011B ↗
17. 10.1002/bab.174010.1002/bab.1740 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.procbio.2019.11.02610.1016/j.procbio.2019.11.026 ↗
19. 10.1111/ijfs.1432510.1111/ijfs.14325 ↗
20. 10.3389/fbioe.2020.0067610.3389/fbioe.2020.00676 ↗
21. 10.1007/s00449-021-02590-y10.1007/s00449-021-02590-y ↗
22. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.11354210.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113542 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.molcatb.2004.02.01410.1016/j.molcatb.2004.02.014 ↗
24. 10.1002/btpr.281610.1002/btpr.2816 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.01810.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.018 ↗
26. 10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-310.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3 ↗
27. 10.1021/acs.analchem.2c0143110.1021/acs.analchem.2c01431 ↗
28. 10.1007/s00249-021-01502-y10.1007/s00249-021-01502-y ↗
29. 10.1016/j.procbio.2010.03.02310.1016/j.procbio.2010.03.023 ↗
30. 10.1042/BJ2004129610.1042/BJ20041296 ↗
31. 10.3390/catal1302029910.3390/catal13020299 ↗
32. 10.1016/J.ENZMICTEC.2012.12.00710.1016/J.ENZMICTEC.2012.12.007 ↗
33. 10.1515/pac-2014-111710.1515/pac-2014-1117 ↗
34. 10.1007/S10971-020-05219-W10.1007/S10971-020-05219-W ↗
35. 10.1007/s00449-023-02956-410.1007/s00449-023-02956-4 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.cej.2014.04.08710.1016/j.cej.2014.04.087 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2015.12.00710.1016/j.enzmictec.2015.12.007 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.cej.2016.11.06910.1016/j.cej.2016.11.069 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.07.09710.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.07.097 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.bbrep.2021.10119310.1016/j.bbrep.2021.101193 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.13831010.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.138310 ↗
42. 10.34117/bjdv6n5-24210.34117/bjdv6n5-242 ↗
43. 10.3390/ijms1907182910.3390/ijms19071829 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.procbio.2018.09.01510.1016/j.procbio.2018.09.015 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.13981410.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.139814 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.bsecv.2020.03.00410.1016/j.bsecv.2020.03.004 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.bej.2023.10882710.1016/j.bej.2023.108827 ↗
48. 10.1016/S0730-725X(96)00180-410.1016/S0730-725X(96)00180-4 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.04.00910.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.04.009 ↗
50. 10.1023/A:102403750745910.1023/A:1024037507459 ↗
51. 10.3390/catal1112146310.3390/catal11121463 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2012.12.00710.1016/j.enzmictec.2012.12.007 ↗
53. 10.1002/jctb.608910.1002/jctb.6089 ↗
54. 10.3390/min1202020510.3390/min12020205 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2009.11.02610.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2009.11.026 ↗
56. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c0159410.1021/acs.langmuir.0c01594 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.12291510.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.122915 ↗
58. 10.1385/ABAB:113:1-3:30710.1385/ABAB:113:1-3:307 ↗
59. 10.1016/S0022-3093(02)01329-710.1016/S0022-3093(02)01329-7 ↗
60. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b0082110.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00821 ↗
61. 10.3390/su1505462610.3390/su15054626 ↗
62. Carrea G. · 200810.1002/9783527621729 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.biortech.2024.13050510.1016/j.biortech.2024.130505 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.12710.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.127 ↗
65. 10.1074/jbc.M21250820010.1074/jbc.M212508200 ↗
66. 10.1098/RSIF.2018.033010.1098/RSIF.2018.0330 ↗
67. 10.1007/s00449-020-02419-010.1007/s00449-020-02419-0 ↗
68. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.06.08610.1016/j.cej.2018.06.086 ↗
69. 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.12.06310.1016/j.jcis.2005.12.063 ↗