Hydrophobin solution containing antifoam

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9115349
  • Patent Number
    9,115,349
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, October 14, 2009
    15 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 25, 2015
    9 years ago
Abstract
Aqueous solution containing at least 300 mg/l of hydrophobin and at least 0.3 mg/l of antifoam, wherein the antifoam/hydrophobin weight ratio is below 0.2, preferably below 0.15, more preferably below 0.1.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a hydrophobin solution containing antifoam. In particular it relates to a hydrophobin solution containing antifoam obtained through a fermentation process.


BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION

Foaming is a common problem in aerobic, submerged fermentations. Foaming is caused by the sparging of gas into the fermentation medium for the purpose of providing oxygen for the growth of the aerobic organism being cultivated (e.g. bacteria, yeasts, fungi, algae, cell cultures). If the fermentation medium contains surface active components such as proteins, polysaccharides or fatty acids, then foam can be formed on the surface of the medium as the sparged gas bubbles disengage from the liquid. Foaming creates a number of problems including the undesirable stripping of product, nutrients, and cells into the foam, and can make process containment difficult. A known method for controlling foaming is to use antifoams, of which several types are commonly used: silicone-based (e.g. polydimethylsiloxanes), polyalkylene glycols (e.g. polypropylene glycol), fatty acids, polyesters and natural oils (e.g. linseed oil, soybean oil). Antifoams replace foam-forming components on bubble surfaces, resulting in destruction of the foam by bubble coalescence. Antifoams are added at the start of and/or during the fermentation.


When the fermentation product is intended for use in foods, personal products or medicine, it is highly desirable that the product is excreted by the producing organism into the fermentation medium (i.e. extra-cellular, rather than intra-cellular production). This avoids the need to disrupt the cells by physical or chemical means in order to release the product for recovery. By maintaining the cells intact, the cellular material can be easily separated from the product so that it is free of intracellular and genetic material which is usually regarded as an undesirable contaminant. This can be especially important when the producing organism has been genetically modified. However, extra-cellular production of a hydrophobin may intensify the degree of foaming in the fermenter. The use of antifoams presents a particular problem in the extra-cellular production of hydrophobin for two reasons: firstly the amount of antifoam required is increased because the hydrophobin itself contributes to foaming in the fermenter. Secondly, the antifoam must be substantially removed since the presence of antifoam together with the hydrophobin will impair the hydrophobin functionality.


Bailey et al, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 58 (2002) pp 721-727 disclose the production of hydrophobins HFB I and HFB II by the fermentation of transformants of Trichoderma reesei. An antifoam (Struktol J633) was used to prevent foaming and the hydrophobin was purified using aqueous two phase extraction.


It has now been found that a certain level of antifoam can be present in the hydrophobin solution while the hydrophobin retains at least part of its functionality. It is thus possible to have a hydrophobin solution containing antifoam, therefore simplifying its production process and leading to significant savings.


BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

It is the object of the present invention to provide an aqueous solution containing at least 300 mg/l of hydrophobin and at least 0.3 mg/l of antifoam, wherein the antifoam/hydrophobin weight ratio is below 0.2, preferably below 0.15, more preferably below 0.1.


Preferably, aqueous solution contains at least 0.5 mg/l of antifoam.


Preferably also, the hydrophobin is a class II hydrophobin, most preferably HFBI or HFBII from Trichoderma reesei.


Preferably also, the antifoam has a cloud point.


Preferably the aqueous solution is concentrated so that the antifoam/hydrophobin ratio remains below 0.2 but its hydrophobin content is above 1 g/l, preferably 10 g/l even more preferably 100 g/l.







DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g. in cell culture, molecular genetics, nucleic acid chemistry, hybridisation techniques and biochemistry). Standard techniques used for molecular and biochemical methods can be found in Sambrook et al., Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 3rd ed. (2001) Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. and Ausubel et al., Short Protocols in Molecular Biology (1999) 4th Ed, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.—and the full version entitled Current Protocols in Molecular Biology.


Hydrophobins


Hydrophobins can be obtained by culturing filamentous fungi such as hyphomycetes (e.g. Trichoderma, basidiomycetes and ascomycetes. Particularly preferred hosts are food grade organisms, such as Cryphonectria parasitica which secretes a hydrophobin termed cryparin (MacCabe and Van Alfen; 1999, App. Environ. Microbiol 65: 5431-5435). Similarly, surfactin can be obtained from Bacillus subtilis and glycolipids from e.g. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Rhodococcus erythropolis, Mycobacterium species and Torulopsis bombicola (Desai and Banat, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, March 1997, pp 47-64).


In EP 1 623 631 we have previously found that hydrophobins allow the production of aqueous foams with excellent stability to disproportionation and coalescence. Because hydrophobins are highly effective foaming agents, their presence in the fermentation medium presents a particular challenge for foam control.


Hydrophobins are a well-defined class of proteins (Wessels, 1997, Adv. Microb. Physio. 38: 1-45; Wosten, 2001, Annu Rev. Microbiol. 55: 625-646) capable of self-assembly at a hydrophobic/hydrophilic interface, and having a conserved sequence:

Xn—C—X5-9—C—C—X11-39—C—X8-23—C—X5-9—C—C—X8-18—C—Xm  (SEQ ID No. 1)


where X represents any amino acid, and n and m independently represent an integer. Typically, a hydrophobia has a length of up to 125 amino acids. The cysteine residues (C) in the conserved sequence are part of disulphide bridges. In the context of the present invention, the term hydrophobia has a wider meaning to include functionally equivalent proteins still displaying the characteristic of self-assembly at a hydrophobic-hydrophilic interface resulting in a protein film, such as proteins comprising the sequence:

Xn—C—X1-50—C—X0-5—C—X1-100—C—X1-100—C—X1-50—C—X0-5—C—X1-50—C—Xm  (SEQ ID No. 2)


or parts thereof still displaying the characteristic of self-assembly at a hydrophobic-hydrophilic interface resulting in a protein film. In accordance with the definition of the present invention, self-assembly can be detected by adsorbing the protein to Teflon and using Circular Dichroism to establish the presence of a secondary structure (in general, α-helix) (De Vocht et al., 1998, Biophys. J. 74: 2059-68).


The formation of a film can be established by incubating a Teflon sheet in the protein solution followed by at least three washes with water or buffer (Wosten et al., 1994, Embo. J. 13: 5848-54). The protein film can be visualised by any suitable method, such as labeling with a fluorescent marker or by the use of fluorescent antibodies, as is well established in the art. m and n typically have values ranging from 0 to 2000, but more usually m and n in total are less than 100 or 200. The definition of hydrophobin in the context of the present invention includes fusion proteins of a hydrophobin and another polypeptide as well as conjugates of hydrophobin and other molecules such as polysaccharides.


Hydrophobins identified to date are generally classed as either class I or class II. Both types have been identified in fungi as secreted proteins that self-assemble at hydrophobilic interfaces into amphipathic films. Assemblages of class I hydrophobins are generally relatively insoluble whereas those of class II hydrophobins readily dissolve in a variety of solvents. Preferably the hydrophobin is soluble in water, by which is meant that it is at least 0.1% soluble in water, preferably at least 0.5%. By at least 0.1% soluble is meant that no hydrophobin precipitates when 0.1 g of hydrophobin in 99.9 mL of water is subjected to 30,000 g centrifugation for 30 minutes at 20° C.


Hydrophobin-like proteins (e.g. “chaplins”) have also been identified in filamentous bacteria, such as Actinomycete and Streptomyces sp. (WO01/74864; Talbot, 2003, Curr. Biol, 13: R696-R698). These bacterial proteins by contrast to fungal hydrophobins, may form only up to one disulphide bridge since they may have only two cysteine residues. Such proteins are an example of functional equivalents to hydrophobins having the consensus sequences shown in SEQ ID Nos. 1 and 2, and are within the scope of the present invention.


More than 34 genes coding for hydrophobins have been cloned, from over 16 fungal species (see for example WO96/41882 which gives the sequence of hydrophobins identified in Agaricus bisporus; and Wosten, 2001, Annu Rev. Microbiol. 55: 625-646). For the purpose of the invention hydrophobins possessing at least 80% identity at the amino acid level to a hydrophobin that naturally occurs are also embraced within the term “hydrophobins”.


Antifoams


The term “antifoam” includes both antifoams which are usually added before foaming occurs and also those which are usually added once the foam has formed (sometimes known as defoamers). A definition of antifoams used in the present invention is found in “Foam and its mitigation in fermentation systems”—Beth Junker—Biotechnology Progress, 2007, 23, 768-784


A specific group of antifoams suitable for use in the present invention are those that exhibit a cloud point. The cloud point is the temperature at which an aqueous solution of the antifoam becomes visibly turbid as it phase separates (i.e. the antifoam molecules form aggregates which scatter light) as described on p63 of Surfactant Aggregation and Adsorption at Interfaces, J. Eastoe, in Colloid Science: Principles, Methods and Applications, ed. T. Cosgrove, Blackwell Publishing, 2005.


Examples of antifoams which display cloud points include poly(alkylene glycol) (PAG) based compounds such as ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block co-polymers, polyalcohols based on ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block copolymers and polyethers of ethylene and propylene oxides; and fatty acid ester-based compounds.


The cloud point depends on the surfactant composition and chemical structure. For example, for polyoxyethylene (PEO) non-ionic surfactants, the cloud point increases as the EO content increases for a given hydrophobic group. Preferably the cloud point of the antifoam is between 0° C. and 90° C., more preferably between 5° C. and 60° C.


Preferably, the antifoam comprises at least one non-ionic surfactant/polymer, such as a polyether, a poly(alkylene glycol), an ethylene/propylene oxide block co-polymer, a polyalcohol based on an ethylene/propylene oxide block co-polymer, a polypropylene glycol-based polyether dispersion, or an alkoxylated fatty acid ester. PAG-based antifoams (such as Struktol J647 obtainable from Schill and Seilacher), polyalcohols based on EO/PO block co-polymers (such as Struktol J647 obtainable from Schill and Seilacher) and other non-ionic surfactant antifoams are particularly effective at destroying foam, even in the presence of powerful foaming agents such as hydrophobin.


Mixtures of antifoams can be used, in which case, the cloud point of such a mixture is defined as the highest cloud point of the individual components.


Some common commercially available antifoams that exhibit a cloud point are shown in Table 1.










TABLE 1





Antifoam
Cloud Point/° C.







Poly(alkylene glycol)



Struktol J647, Schill & Seilacher
24


Struktol SB2121
ca. 30


UCON LB 65, Dow Chemical Company
25


UCON LB 285
15


UCON LB 625
10


UCON LB 1715
 8


KFO673, Lubrizol
25


ST934, Pennwhite Ltd
ca. 20


Ethylene/propylene oxide block copolymers


Pluronic PE3100, BASF
41


Pluronic PE6100
23


Pluronic PE6200
33


Pluronic PE8100
36


Pluronic PE10100
35


Mazu DF204, BASF
18-21


Polyalcohol based on EO/PO block copolymer


Struktol J650, Schill & Seilacher
13


Polypropylene glycol based polyether dispersions


Antifoam 204, Sigma
15


Alkoxylated fatty acid ester


Struktol J673, Schill & Seilacher
30









Antifoam Measurement Method


The concentrations of the antifoam in the filtrates were determined by using the Lange LCK 433 Water Testing Kit for non-ionic surfactants. This uses the principle that non-ionic surfactants (such as J647) form complexes with the indicator TBPE (tetrabromophenolphthalein ethyl ester), which can be extracted in dichloromethane and photometrically measured to determine the concentration. First, a calibration curve was constructed. A 0.3% (w/v) solution of Struktol J647 was prepared by taking an aliquot of 3.00 g Struktol J647 and diluting to 1 L with MilliQ water at 15° C. Aliquots were taken from this and diluted with MilliQ water to give concentrations of: 6, 15, 30, 60, 150 and 300 mg/L. MilliQ water was used as a blank sample. 0.2 ml samples of each concentration were added to the kit test tubes containing TBPE and dichloromethane. The tubes were gently mixed for 2 minutes and allowed to stand for 30 minutes. They were then measured in a Lange DR2800 spectrophotometer in at 605 nm in accordance with the Testing Kit instructions.


The filtrates were then diluted 1/10 with MilliQ water. 0.2 ml samples were measured in the spectrophometer as before, and the concentration of the antifoam in each filtrate was read off from the calibration graph. The amount (%) of antifoam remaining in the filtrate was calculated as

(measured concentration in filtrate)/(known starting concentration)×100%.


Antifoam concentrations down to 0.2 mg/L (2×10−5% w/v) can be measured by a similar technique, using the Lange LCK 333 Water Testing Kit, and constructing a calibration curve in the appropriate concentration range. In this case a 2 ml aliquot of the sample to be measured is added to the test kit, rather than 0.2 ml.


Fermentation Process and Removal of the Antifoam


The fermentation to produce the foaming agent is carried out by culturing the host cell in a liquid fermentation medium within a bioreactor (e.g. an industrial fermenter). The composition of the medium (e.g. nutrients, carbon source etc.), temperature and pH are chosen to provide appropriate conditions for growth of the culture and/or production of the foaming agent. Air or oxygen-enriched air is normally sparged into the medium to provide oxygen for respiration of the culture.


The antifoam may be included in the initial medium composition and/or added as required through the period of the fermentation. Common practice is to employ a foam detection method, such as a conductivity probe, which automatically triggers addition of the antifoam. In the present invention, the antifoam is preferably present at a final concentration of from 0.1 to 20 g/L, more preferably from 1 to 10 g/L.


The fermenter temperature during step i), i.e. during fermentation, may be above or below the cloud point of the antifoam. Preferably the fermenter temperature is above the cloud point of the antifoam, since the antifoam is most effective at causing bubble coalescence and foam collapse above its cloud point. The fermenter temperature is generally chosen to achieve optimum conditions for growth of the host cells and/or production.


At the end of the fermentation, the antifoam must be substantially removed to ensure that the functionality of the foaming agent is not impaired. Removal of the antifoam is achieved by ensuring that the temperature of the fermentation medium is above the cloud point of the antifoam, so that the antifoam phase separates. The phase separated antifoam can be removed from the fermentation medium by any suitable method such as:

    • filtration, e.g. dead-end filtration or a filter press
    • membrane (cross-flow) filtration, e.g. microfiltration or ultrafiltration
    • centrifugation
    • adsorption, using e.g. activated carbon, silica or diatomaceous earth as an absorbent.


More antifoam is removed if the temperature of the fermentation medium is at least 10° C. above the cloud point, preferably at least 20° C. above the cloud point, most preferably at least 30° C. above the cloud point. Preferably the temperature of the fermentation medium is less than 90° C., more preferably less than 75° C. In a preferred embodiment, the antifoam has a cloud point in the range 20-30° C. and the temperature of the fermentation medium is in the range 40-60° C.


A preferred method for separating the antifoam is membrane filtration. It has been generally thought that carrying out membrane filtration of fermentation broths containing an antifoam at temperatures above its cloud point results in fouling of the membrane by the precipitated antifoam, causing a low permeate flux and consequent processing difficulties: see for example Yamagiwa et al., J. Chem. Eng. Japan, 26 (1993) pp 13-18, and WO 01/014521. Thus it has previously been thought that membrane filtration should take place at temperatures below the cloud point. However, acceptable fluxes are obtained when carrying out ultrafiltration and microfiltration operations at a temperature of about 25° C. above the cloud point of the antifoam.


In order to ensure that the product foaming agent is free from of intracellular and genetic material (which is usually regarded as an undesirable contaminant) the cells must be removed from the fermentation medium. In a preferred embodiment, the cells are separated from the medium at the same time as the precipitated antifoam is removed, for example in a microfiltration step which takes place at a temperature above the cloud point.


In an alternative embodiment the cells may be removed from the medium in a separate step prior to the removal of the antifoam—for example by filtration (e.g. dead-end filtration or a filter press), membrane/cross-flow filtration, (e.g. microfiltration or ultrafiltration), or centrifugation—at a temperature below the cloud point. In this embodiment, a purification and/or concentration step (e.g. by ultrafiltration) may be carried out (again at a temperature below the cloud point) after cell removal but before antifoam separation. The medium is then heated to a temperature above the cloud point so that the antifoam can be removed as already described.


Once the antifoam and the cells have been removed from the fermentation medium, the product foaming agent may be further purified and concentrated as required, e.g. by ultrafiltration. If the foaming agent is a hydrophobin, it can be purified from the fermentation medium by, for example, the procedure described in WO01/57076 which involves adsorbing the hydrophobin to a surface and then contacting the surface with a surfactant, such as Tween 20, to elute the hydrophobin from the surface. See also Cohen et al., 2002, Biochim Biophys Acta. 1569: 139-50; Calonje et al., 2002, Can. J. Microbiol. 48: 1030-4; Askolin et al., 2001, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 57: 124-30; and De Vries et al., 1999, Eur J Biochem. 262: 377-85.


The present invention will now be further described with reference to the following examples which are illustrative only and non-limiting.


Example 1
Removal of Antifoam From a Fermentation Liquor Containing a Foaming Agent

A fed-batch fermentation of a genetically modified strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae was performed. The strain had been modified by incorporating the gene encoding the hydrophobin HFBII from the fungus Trichoderma reesei (a foaming agent) in such a way that extracellular expression of the hydrophobin was achieved during fermentation. Fermentation was carried out essentially as described by van de Laar T of al., in Biotechnol Bioeng. 96(3):483-94 (1997), using glucose as a carbon source and scaling the process to a total volume of 150 L in a 300 L fermentation vessel. The antifoam Struktol J647 was used to control foaming during the fermentation (instead of Struktol J673 used by van de Laar T et al).


At the end of the fermentation, the fermentation liquor was microfiltered at 15° C. (i.e. below the cloud point of the antifoam J647) to remove the yeast cells. Microfiltration was performed on pilot scale plant with Kerasep ceramic membranes having a pore size of 0.1 μm, using two volumes of diafiltration with deionised water. The liquor was then ultrafiltered, again at 15° C., to partially purify the HFBII. Ultrafiltration was by 1 kD Synder spiral wound polymeric membranes at a transmembrane pressure of 0.9 bar and four volumes of diafiltration.


The concentration of the antifoam in the fermentation liquor after the ultrafiltration step was measured to be 0.196 g/L. The concentration of HFBII was measured to be 0.320 g/L by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), as follows. The sample was diluted with 60% aqueous ethanol to give an approximate concentration of 200 μg/ml prior to analysis. HPLC separation was performed on a Vydac Protein C4 column (250×4.6 mm) at 30° C. Hydrophobin was measured by UV detection at 214 nm and the concentration was calculated by comparison with samples of known HFBII concentration obtained from VTT Biotechnology (Espoo, Finland).


The cell-free liquor was then heated to 50° C., held at that temperature for 30 minutes, and filtered (0.2 μm pore size) to remove the antifoam. The remaining amounts of antifoam and HFBII in the filtrate were measured as before and are given in Table 2 (Stage 1). The filtrate from this first stage was then re-heated to 50° C., held at this temperature for a further 30 minutes, and filtered as before. The HFBII and antifoam concentrations in the resulting filtrate were measured and are also given in Table 2 (Stage 2).












TABLE 2







Stage 1
Stage 2


















Amount of HFBII in filtrate (g/L)
0.32
0.30


% of initial HFBII concentration remaining
100%   
93.75%


Amount of antifoam in filtrate (g/L)
0.05
.028


% of initial antifoam concentration remaining
25.5% 
14.3%


Mass ratio antifoam:hydrophobin
 0.156
0.093









The resulting hydrophobin solution was found to have satisfactory foaming properties.


The various features and embodiments of the present invention, referred to in individual sections above apply, as appropriate, to other sections, mutatis mutandis. Consequently features specified in one section may be combined with features specified in other sections, as appropriate.


All publications mentioned in the above specification are herein incorporated by reference. Various modifications and variations of the described methods of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of the invention. Although the invention has been described in connection with specific preferred embodiments, it should be understood that the invention as claimed should not be unduly limited to such specific embodiments. Indeed, various modifications of the described modes for carrying out the invention which are apparent to those skilled in the relevant fields are intended to be within the scope of the following claims.

Claims
  • 1. A composition for production of stable aqueous foams comprising at least 300 mg/l of hydrophobin and at least 0.3 mg/l of antifoam, wherein the antifoam/hydrophobin weight ratio is below 0.2; wherein the antifoam has a cloud point between 0° C. and 90° C. and wherein the antifoam is selected from a polyether, a olyoxyethylene polymer, a poly(alkylene glycol), an ethylene/propylene oxide block co-polymer, a polyalcohol based on an ethylene/propylene oxide block co-polymer, a polypropylene glycol-based polyether, an alkoxylated fatty acid ester or a blend thereof.
  • 2. The composition according to claim 1 wherein the hydrophobin is a class II hydrophobin.
  • 3. The composition according to claim 1 wherein the hydrophobin is HFBI or HFBII from Trichoderma reesei.
  • 4. The composition according to claim 1 wherein the antifoam has a cloud point between 5° C. and 60° C.
  • 5. The composition according to claim 1 containing at least 1 g/l of hydrophobin.
  • 6. The composition of claim 1 wherein the antifoam/hydrophobin weight ratio is below 0.15.
  • 7. The composition of claim 1 wherein the antifoam/hydrophobin weight ratio is below 0.1.
  • 8. The composition of claim 1 wherein the antifoam/hydrophobin weight ratio is at least 10 g/1.
  • 9. The composition of claim 1 wherein the antifoam/hydrophobin weight ratio is at least 100 g/l.
Priority Claims (1)
Number Date Country Kind
PCT/EP2008/063929 Oct 2008 WO international
US Referenced Citations (107)
Number Name Date Kind
2604406 Bilhovde Jul 1952 A
2844470 Akerboom et al. Jul 1958 A
2937093 Gorman et al. May 1960 A
2970917 Melnick Feb 1961 A
3266214 Kramme Aug 1966 A
3346387 Moncrieff et al. Oct 1967 A
3914441 Finney et al. Oct 1975 A
3946122 Scharp Mar 1976 A
4012533 Jonas Mar 1977 A
4066794 Schur Jan 1978 A
4146652 Kahn et al. Mar 1979 A
4244982 Menzi et al. Jan 1981 A
4305964 Moran et al. Dec 1981 A
4325980 Rek et al. Apr 1982 A
4425369 Sakamoto et al. Jan 1984 A
4542035 Huang et al. Sep 1985 A
4627983 Scharf et al. Dec 1986 A
4629628 Negro Dec 1986 A
4668519 Dartey et al. May 1987 A
4869915 Inayoshi et al. Sep 1989 A
4874627 Greig et al. Oct 1989 A
4931397 Montgomery et al. Jun 1990 A
4946625 O'Lenick Aug 1990 A
4954410 Takuma et al. Sep 1990 A
4960540 Friel et al. Oct 1990 A
5084295 Whelan Jan 1992 A
5104674 Chen et al. Apr 1992 A
5202147 Traska et al. Apr 1993 A
5208028 Clement et al. May 1993 A
5215777 Asher et al. Jun 1993 A
5336514 Jones et al. Aug 1994 A
5393549 Badertscher et al. Feb 1995 A
5397592 Vermaas et al. Mar 1995 A
5436021 Bodor et al. Jul 1995 A
5486372 Martin et al. Jan 1996 A
5486732 Rondier Jan 1996 A
5536514 Bishay et al. Jul 1996 A
5624612 Sewall et al. Apr 1997 A
5681505 Phillips et al. Oct 1997 A
5738897 Gidley et al. Apr 1998 A
5770248 Leibfred et al. Jun 1998 A
5780092 Agbo et al. Jul 1998 A
5809787 Zittel Sep 1998 A
5925394 Levinson Jul 1999 A
5980969 Mordini et al. Nov 1999 A
6063602 Prosperi et al. May 2000 A
6096867 Byass et al. Aug 2000 A
6187365 Vaghela et al. Feb 2001 B1
6238714 Binder et al. May 2001 B1
6245957 Wagner et al. Jun 2001 B1
6284303 Rowe et al. Sep 2001 B1
6497913 Gray et al. Dec 2002 B1
6685977 Asano et al. Feb 2004 B1
6914043 Chapman et al. Jul 2005 B1
7338779 Nakari-Setala et al. Mar 2008 B1
8038740 Subkowski et al. Oct 2011 B2
8206770 Aldred et al. Jun 2012 B2
8216624 Berry et al. Jul 2012 B2
8354503 Hedges Jan 2013 B2
8357420 Cox et al. Jan 2013 B2
8394444 Cox et al. Mar 2013 B2
8647696 Norton et al. Feb 2014 B2
20010048962 Fenn et al. Dec 2001 A1
20020085987 Brown et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020155208 Benjamins et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020165114 Fowler et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020182300 Groh et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020197375 Adolphi et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030087017 Hanselmann et al. May 2003 A1
20030099751 Aldred et al. May 2003 A1
20030134025 Vaghela et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030148400 Haikara et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030166960 DeVocht et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030175407 Kunst et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030190402 McBride Oct 2003 A1
20040109930 Hooft et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040185162 Finnigan et al. Sep 2004 A1
20050037000 Stavenhagen et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050037110 Windhab et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050123666 Vaghela et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050123668 Kodali et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050129810 Lindner et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050193744 Cockings et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050220961 Cox et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050272646 Koteva et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060024417 Berry et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060024419 Aldred et al. Feb 2006 A1
20070014906 Leon Jan 2007 A1
20070071865 Aldred et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070116848 Aldred et al. May 2007 A1
20070286936 Bramley et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070298490 Sweigard et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080187633 Cox Aug 2008 A1
20080254180 Windhab et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080305237 Beltman et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090136433 Subkowski et al. May 2009 A1
20090162344 Soma et al. Jun 2009 A1
20100112179 Cox et al. May 2010 A1
20100184875 Bezemer et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100273983 Kaar et al. Oct 2010 A1
20100303987 Watts et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110020402 Meinke et al. Jan 2011 A1
20110287150 Norton et al. Nov 2011 A1
20120064201 Nafisi-Movaghar et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120070560 Kurokawa Mar 2012 A1
20120128858 Aldred et al. May 2012 A1
20130260007 Aldred et al. Oct 2013 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (69)
Number Date Country
2575325 Feb 2006 CA
101054407 Oct 2007 CN
101215321 Jul 2008 CN
216270 Apr 1987 EP
0285198 Oct 1988 EP
0322952 Jul 1989 EP
0469656 Feb 1992 EP
0477825 Dec 1996 EP
747301 Dec 1996 EP
0775444 May 1997 EP
1074181 Feb 2001 EP
0771531 Sep 2002 EP
1153084 Sep 2002 EP
1284106 Feb 2003 EP
1327390 Jul 2003 EP
1402790 May 2004 EP
1849461 Oct 2007 EP
459583 Jan 1937 GB
1233258 May 1971 GB
2134117 May 1986 GB
530006491 Jan 1978 JP
59017946 Jan 1984 JP
61219342 Sep 1986 JP
61293348 Dec 1986 JP
03164156 Jul 1991 JP
3244348 Oct 1991 JP
5503426 Jun 1993 JP
08500486 Jan 1996 JP
8503608 Apr 1996 JP
2002508303 Dec 1998 JP
2001136905 May 2001 JP
2002218907 Aug 2002 JP
200573612 Mar 2005 JP
2005073612 Mar 2005 JP
2005176738 Jul 2005 JP
2005278484 Oct 2005 JP
2002218907 Aug 2006 JP
2007202417 Aug 2007 JP
2007202417 Aug 2007 JP
2008000061 Jan 2008 JP
2012512302 May 2012 JP
WO9013571 Nov 1990 WO
WO9222581 Dec 1992 WO
WO9403617 Feb 1994 WO
WO 9413154 Jun 1994 WO
WO9412050 Jun 1994 WO
WO9523843 Sep 1995 WO
WO9611586 Apr 1996 WO
WO9621362 Jul 1996 WO
WO9804699 Feb 1998 WO
WO9937673 Jul 1999 WO
WO 0114521 Mar 2001 WO
WO0135756 May 2001 WO
WO 0174864 Oct 2001 WO
WO0184945 Nov 2001 WO
WO03015530 Feb 2003 WO
WO03051136 Jun 2003 WO
WO03053883 Jul 2003 WO
WO 01096821 Nov 2003 WO
WO2005036976 Apr 2005 WO
WO2005058067 Jun 2005 WO
WO 2005113387 Dec 2005 WO
WO2007008560 Jan 2007 WO
WO2008031796 Mar 2008 WO
WO2008046729 Apr 2008 WO
WO2008116715 Oct 2008 WO
WO 2009047657 Apr 2009 WO
WO2010067059 Jun 2010 WO
WO2010136355 Dec 2010 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (119)
Entry
Linder et al. ( FEMS Microbiology, Reviews, vol. 29, pp. 877-896, 2005).
Woesten, “Hydrophobins, the fungal coat unravelled”, Biochimica et Biophysica Scta. MR. Reviews on Biomembranes, Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL, vol. 1469, No. 2, Sep. 2000, pp. 79-86.
Wosten, “Hydrophobins: Multipurpose Proteins”, 2001, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55: pp. 625-646.
Co-pending application for Berry et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/168,209, filed Jun. 27, 2005.
Co-pending application for Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/168,214, filed Jun. 27, 2005.
Co-pending application for Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/524,977, filed Sep. 21, 2006.
Co-pending application for Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/525,060, filed Sep. 26, 2006.
Co-pending application for Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/524,675, filed Sep. 21, 2006.
Co-pending application for Bramley, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/639,851, filed Dec. 12, 2006.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/699,601, filed Jan. 30, 2007.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/699,602, filed Jan. 30, 2007.
Co-pending application for Burmester, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/002,684, filed Dec. 18, 2007.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/682,717, filed Apr. 12, 2010.
Co-pending application for Aldred, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/287,957, filed Oct. 15, 2008.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/578,752, filed Oct. 14, 2009.
Co-pending application for Aldred, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/788,395, filed May 27, 2010.
Co-pending application for Walts, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/786,419, filed May 27, 2010.
Co-pending application for Bialek, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/643,586, filed Dec. 21, 2008.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/532,667, filed Sep. 23, 2009.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12,532,670, filed Sep. 23, 2009.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/780,294, filed May 14, 2010.
Co-pending application for Cox, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/780,323, filed May 14, 2010.
Co-pending application for Hedges, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 636,157, filed Dec. 11, 2009.
Co-pending application for Aurnaitre, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/409,549, filed Mar. 24, 2009.
2012, West Search History for U.S. Appl. No. 12/636,157, Carbohydrates, pp. 1-29.
Joseph M. Light, 1990, Modified Food Starches Why What Where and How, Modified Food Starches, vol. 35, No. 11, pp. 1-20.
Pardun, 1977, Soy Protein Preparations as Antispattering Agents for Margarine, Fette Seifen Anstrichmittel, vol. 79, No. 5, pp. 195-203.
Patino and Pilosof, 2011, Protein-polysaccharide interactions at fluid interfaces, Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 1925-1937.
Penttila, et al., Jan. 1, 2004, Molecular Biology of Trichoderma & Biotechnological Applications, Handbook of Fungal Biotech, 2nd Ed, 413-427.
Quintas, et al., Jan. 1, 2006, Rheology of superstaurated sucrose solutions, Journal of Food Engineering, 77, pp. 844-852.
Samsudin, May 26, 20106, Low-Fat Chocolate Spread Based on Palm Oil, Malasyian Palm Oil Board, pp. 27-30.
Sanderson, 1981, Applications of Xanthan Gum, British Polymer Jr., 13, 71-75.
Schmitt, Feb. 27, 2012, Declaration of Christophe Schmitt, Declaration of Christophe Schmitt, 1-4.
Scott et al., 1983, Influence of Temperature on the Measurement of Water Activity of Food and Salt Systems, Journal of Food Science, vol. 48, pp. 552-554.
Sienkiewicz, Jan. 1, 1990, Whey and Whey Utilization, Verlag Th Mann, 2nd Ed, 82-83.
Soukoulis, et al, May 2, 2008, Impact of the acidification process hydrocolloids & protein fortifiers on the physical & Sensory properties of frozen yogurt, Intl Journal of Dairy Tech, 61, No. 2, 170-177.
Swern, Jan. 1, 1979, Baileys Industrial Oil and Fat Products, John Wiley & Sons, 1, 369.
Takai, et al., Jan. 1, 1978, Cerato-ulmin, a wilting toxin of ceratocystis ulmi: isolation & some properties of cerato-ulmin from the culture of C. ulmi, Phytopath, 91, 129-146.
Talbot, Sep. 16, 2003, Aerial Morphogenesis Enter the Chaplins, Current Biology, 13, R696-R698.
Talbot, et al., Jun. 1, 1996, MPG1 encodes a fungal hydrophobin involved in surface interactions during infection-related develop of magnaporthe grisea, Plant Cell, 8, 985-999.
Tchuenbou-Magaia, et al., Mar. 16, 2009, Hydrophobins stabilised air-filled emulsions for the food industry, Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 1877-1885.
Temple, 2000, Biological Roles for cerato-Ulmin, a Hydrophobin secreted by the elm pathogens, Opthiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi, Micological Society of America, 92, pp. 2-3 (abstract only).
Wang et al, May 31, 2004, Protease a Stability of Beer Foam II, China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House, ., 11-15.
Whitcomb, et al., Jan. 1, 1980, Rheology of Guar Solutions, Journal of Applied Polymer Sc, 25, 2815-2827.
Wosten, et al., Jan. 1, 1994, Interfacial self-assembly of a hydrophobin into an amphipathic protein membrane mediates fungal attachment to hydrophobic surfaces, EMBO Journal, 13, 5848-5854.
Wosten, et al., Nov. 1, 1993, Interfacial self-assembly of a fungal hydrophobin into a hydrophobic rodlet layer, Plant Cell, 5, 1567-1574.
Co-pending application Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/378,143, filed Feb. 10, 2012.
Co-pending application Hedges et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/636,157, filed Dec. 11, 2009.
Co-pending application Mitchell et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/498,157, filed Mar. 26, 2012.
Askolin, S., Characterization of the Trichoderma resel hydrophobins HFBI and HFBII, VTT Publication 601, May 2006, 1-99 ; I1-I19; VI1-VI20.
Celus, Fractionation and Characterization of Brewer's Spent Grain Protein Hydrolysates, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 20, 2009, 5563-5570, 57, BE.
Dusane et al., Disruption of Yarrowia lipolytica biofilms by rhamnolipid biosurfactant, Aquatic Biosystems, 2012, pp. 1-7, vol. 8, No. 7.
Eliassi et al., Determination of Cloud Points of Poly (propylene glycol) Aqueous Mixtures Using Particle Counting Method, A Chemical Industries Research Dept., 2006, pp. 1-7.
Huang, Sidai, Flour protein structure and functionality in baked products, Grain Storage, The countermove of controlling the resistance of insects to insecticide in warehouse, Dec. 31, 1988, 25-30, 17, CN.
Jackson, Hard or Soft, red or White—or a blend?, Flour Power, Apr. 16, 2008, pp. 1-4.
Co-Pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/585,257, filed Aug. 14, 2012.
Co-pending application Deborah Lynner Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/989,820, filed May 28, 2013, pp. 1-11.
Co-pending application Cox, U.S. Appl. No. 13/878,491, filed Apr. 9, 2013, pp. 1-20.
Co-pending application Deborah Lynne Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/992,299, filed Jun. 7, 2013.
Anonymous, List of Cookies, Wikipedia, 2014, pp. 1-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List—of—cookies.
Glaser et al, Foaming behavior of mixed bovine serum albumin protamine systems, Food Hydrocolloids Elsevier, May 22, 2006, 495-506, vol. 21.
Hafnar et al, Development and in Vitro Characterization of Chitosan based Microspheres ofr Nasal Delivery of Promethazine, DDIP Abstract, 2007, 427, vol. 33—No. 4.
Igoe et al., Dictionary of Food Ingredients, Dictionary of Food Ingredients 3rd Edition pp. 6, 69, 70 and 84 Chapman and Hall 1996, 1996, 6, 69, 70 and 84, .., Chapman & Hall, ., US.
IPRP2 in PCTEP2013050473, Jun. 27, 2014.
Martinac etal, Development and bioadhesive properties of chitosan ethylcellulose microspheres for nasal delivery, Int J Pharmac Abstract, Mar. 3, 2005, p. 69-77, vol. 291—No. 1-2.
Search Report in EP12152824, Jul. 23, 2012.
Search report in PCTEP2013050473, Mar. 14, 2013.
Srinivasan Damodaran, Protein Stabilization of Emulsions and Foams, Journal of Food Science, Mar. 22, 2005, 54-66, vol. 70—No. 3.
Tchuenbou-Magaia et al, Tribological study of suspensions of cysteine-rich protein stabilized microbubbles and subsequent triphasic A/O/W emulsions, Journal of Texture Studies, 2011, 185-196, vol. 42.
Wang et al, Mechanisms of Protein Adhesion on Surface Films of Hydrophobin, Langmuir American Chemical Society, Apr. 23, 2010, 8491-8496, vol. 26—No. 11.
Wang, Coalescence and disproportionation of air bubbles stabilized by proteins and emulsion droplets, School of Food Science and Nutrition, Nov. 2008, 1-187.
Written Opinion in EP12152824, Jul. 23, 2012.
Co-pending application Kuil et al., U.S. Appl. No. 14/373,428, filed Jul. 21, 2014.
Jan. 1, 2005, Fats Oils Fatty Acids Triglycerides, Scientific Psychic, 1-4.
Jun. 14, 2010, Guar Gum, Guargum.biz, 1.
Oct. 16, 2009, Search proteins matching the sequence pattern used for the hydrophobin definition in patent EP 1926 399 B1, Nestle Research Center, 1-3.
Feb. 25, 2008, Research pushes the right buttons, mushrooms are the new fat, University of Birmingham, 1-2.
Arbuckle, 1972, Ice Cream, Ice Cream, 2nd Edition, pp. 15, 18, 31, 35, 61, 65, 265-266, 284-285.
Akari-Setala, et al., May 26, 1997, Differential expression of the vegetative and spore-bound hydrophobins of Trichoderma reesei, Eur J. Biochem, 248, 415-423.
Murray, Aug. 3, 2007, Stabilization of bubbles and foams, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 12, 232-241.
Miquelim et al., 2010, pH Influence on the stability of foams with protein-polysaccharide complexes at their interfaces, Food Hydrocolloids, 24, No. 4, 398-405.
Minor, et al., Jan. 1, 2009, Preparation and sensory perception of fat-free foams effect of matrix properties and level of aeration, Intl Joum of Food Sc & Tech, 44, 735-747.
Askolin, et al., Jan. 10, 2006, Interaction & comparison of a Class I Hydrophobin from schizophyllum commune & Class II Hydro form trichoderma reesei, Biomacromolecules, 7, 1295-1301.
Bailey, et al., Jan. 31, 2002, Process Technol effects of deletion & amplification of hydrophobins I & II in transformants of Trich reesei, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 58, 721-727.
Bay, Jan. 1, 2002, La Cucina Italiana Italian Cuisine, Edizioni Piemme, 1233.
Berolzheimer, Jan. 1, 1988, Culinary Arts Institute Encyclopedic Cookbook, Culinart Arts Institute, 648.
Chaisalee, et al., Oct. 1, 2003, Mechanism of Antifoam Behavior of Solutions of Nonionic Surfactants Above the Cloud Point, Journal of Surfactants & Detergents, 6, No. 4, 345-351.
Chakraborty, et al., Jan. 1, 1972, Stabilization of Calcium Sensitive Plant Proteins by k-Carrageenan, Journal of Food Science, 37, 719-721.
Cheer, et al., Jan. 1, 1983, Effects of Sucrose on the Rheological Behavior of Wheat Starch Pastes, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 28, 1829-1836.
Cox, et al., Jun. 20, 2007, Surface Properties of Class II Hydrophobins from Trichoderma reesei & Influence on bubble stability, Langmuir, 23, 7995-8002.
CRC, Jan. 1, 2008, Fennema's Food Chemistry, CRC Press, 4th Ed., pp. 727-728, Taylor & Francis Group.
Cruse, May 26, 1970, Whipped Soup is Tasty, St. Petersberg Independant, p. 1.
Damodaran, Oct. 27, 2004, Adsorbed layers formed from mixtures of proteins, Current Opinion to Colloid & Interface Science, 9, 328-339.
Davis, et al., Jan. 1, 2001, Application of foaming for the recovery of surfactin from B. subtilis ATCC 21332 cultures, Enzyme & Microbial Technology, 28, 346-354.
Dickinson, Dec. 2, 2010, Mixed biopolymers at interfaces: Competitive adsorption and multilayer structures, Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 1966-1983.
Dictionary.com, Jun. 14, 2010, Stabilizer, Dictionary.com, 1-4.
Fellows, 2000, Principles and Practice, Food processing technology, 2nd, 83, 140, 429, Foodhead Publishing.
Fox, 1992, Analytical methods for Milk Proteins, Advanced Dairy Chemistry 1: Proteins, 1, 1, 6-7.
Goh, Apr. 8, 2002, Applications and Uses of Palm and Palm Kernel Oils, Malaysian Oil Science and Technology, 11, 46-50.
Graham et al, Jul. 3, 1979, Proteins at Liquid Interfaces, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 70, 415-426.
Grant, Jan. 1, 1987, Grant & Hackh's Chemical Dictionary, McGraw-Hill, 5th Ed, 212.
Guinee et al., 2004, Salt in Cheese: Physical, Chemical and Biological Aspects, Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology, vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 207-259.
Guner, et al., Jan. 1, 2007, Production of yogurt ice cream at different acidity, Intl Journ of Food Sc & Tech, 42, 948-952.
Holmes, et al., Oct. 10, 2006, Evaluation of antifoams in the expression of a recombinant FC fusion protein in shake flask cultures, Microbial Cell Factories, 5, No. 1, p. 30.
Hui, Jan. 1, 1992, Encyclopedia of Food Science & Tehcnology, John Wiley & Sons, 1, 204-210.
Hung, et al., Aug. 20, 2007, Cloud-point extraction of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by nonionic surfactants, Separation & Purification Tech, 57, 1-10.
Katzbauer et al, Jun. 19, 1997, Properties and applications of xanthan gum, Polymer Degradation and Stability, vol. 59, 81-84, Elsevier.
Kilcast et al., Jun. 20, 2002, Sensory perception of creaminess and its relationship with food structure, Food Quality and Preference, 13, 609-623.
Kinderlerer, 1997, Chrysosporium species, potential spoilage organisms of chocolate, Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 83, pp. 771-778.
Kloek, et al., Feb. 2, 2001, Effect of Bulk and Interfacial Rheological Properties on Bubble Dissolution, Journal of Colloid & Interface Sc, 237, 158-166.
Kododziejcxzyk, Nov. 16, 2009, Adsortion of different proteins to Teflon sheets: Experimental Results, Nestle Research Center, 1-10.
Lambou et al., 1973, Whey Solids as Agricultural Foam Stabilizers, Jr. of Agr. and Food Chemistry, 21 No. 2, 257-263.
Linder, et al., Jul. 1, 2001, The hydrophobins HFBI & HFBII from Trichoderma reesei showing efficient interatctions w nonionic surfactants in aqueous two-phase sys, Biomacromolecules, 2, No. 2, 511-517.
Lumsdon, et al., Sep. 1, 2005, Adsorption of hydrophobin proteins at hydrophobic & hydrophilic interfaces, Colloids & Surfaces, 44, 172-178.
Marshall, Jan. 1, 2003, Ice Cream, Springer, 6th Ed, 70-73.
Martin, et al., Jan. 14, 2000, Sc30 Hydrophobin Organization in Aqueous Media & Assembly onto Surfaces as Mediated by Assoc Polysaccharide Schizophyllan, Biomacromolecules, 1, 49-60.
Mathlouthi, et al., Jan. 1, 1995, Rheological properties of sucrose solutions and suspensions, Sucrose Properties & Applic, pp. 126-154.
McCabe, et al., Dec. 1, 1999, Secretion of Cryparin a Fungal Hydrophobin, Applied & Environmental Microbiology, 65, No. 12, 5431-5435.
McGregor, et al., Jan. 1, 1988, Antifoam effects on ultrafiltration, Biotechnology & Bioengineering, 31, No. 4, 385-389.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20100099844 A1 Apr 2010 US