Table 2.
CCRD design with experimental and predicted yields of glucosylation based on response surface methodology
| Run | X1 | X 2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | *Y- Experimental | Y-Predicted | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | (100) | −1 | (45) | −1 | (22.5) | −1 | (5) | 1 | (4) | 5.41 | 5.22 |
| 2 | −1 | (100) | −1 | (45) | −1 | (22.5) | 1 | (7) | −1 | (2) | 5.34 | 3.93 |
| 3 | −1 | (100) | −1 | (45) | 1 | (37.5) | −1 | (5) | −1 | (2) | 10.84 | 8.61 |
| 4 | −1 | (100) | −1 | (45) | 1 | (37.5) | 1 | (7) | 1 | (4) | 3.61 | 3.46 |
| 5 | −1 | (100) | 1 | (65) | −1 | (22.5) | −1 | (5) | −1 | (2) | 1.46 | 2.46 |
| 6 | −1 | (100) | 1 | (65) | −1 | (22.5) | 1 | (7) | 1 | (4) | 3.61 | 5.30 |
| 7 | −1 | (100) | 1 | (65) | 1 | (37.5) | −1 | (5) | 1 | (4) | 1.18 | 2.06 |
| 8 | −1 | (100) | 1 | (65) | 1 | (37.5) | 1 | (7) | −1 | (2) | 11.30 | 10.95 |
| 9 | 1 | (140) | −1 | (45) | −1 | (22.5) | −1 | (5) | −1 | (2) | 1.60 | 0.00 |
| 10 | 1 | (140) | −1 | (45) | −1 | (22.5) | 1 | (7) | 1 | (4) | 2.03 | 0.64 |
| 11 | 1 | (140) | −1 | (45) | 1 | (37.5) | −1 | (5) | 1 | (4) | 7.33 | 5.64 |
| 12 | 1 | (140) | −1 | (45) | 1 | (37.5) | 1 | (7) | −1 | (2) | 2.73 | 0.69 |
| 13 | 1 | (140) | 1 | (65) | −1 | (22.5) | −1 | (5) | 1 | (4) | 3.68 | 3.83 |
| 14 | 1 | (140) | 1 | (65) | −1 | (22.5) | 1 | (7) | −1 | (2) | 3.01 | 2.80 |
| 15 | 1 | (140) | 1 | (65) | 1 | (37.5) | −1 | (5) | −1 | (2) | 3.23 | 1.33 |
| 16 | 1 | (140) | 1 | (65) | 1 | (37.5) | 1 | (7) | 1 | (4) | 6.27 | 6.46 |
| 17 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | −2 | (4) | 0 | (3) | 4.35 | 6.16 |
| 18 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 2 | (8) | 0 | (3) | 8.62 | 9.24 |
| 19 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | −2 | (15) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 3.35 | 3.35 |
| 20 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 2 | (45) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 3.10 | 5.53 |
| 21 | 0 | (120) | −2 | (35) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 1.60 | 5.97 |
| 22 | 0 | (120) | 2 | (75) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 8.08 | 6.14 |
| 23 | −2 | (80) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 12.30 | 11.46 |
| 24 | 2 | (160) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 4.62 | 7.89 |
| 25 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | −2 | (1) | 2.27 | 5.66 |
| 26 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 2 | (5) | 3.62 | 2.66 |
| 27 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 20.05 | 19.89 |
| 28 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 20.12 | 19.89 |
| 29 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 20.77 | 19.89 |
| 30 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 20.18 | 19.89 |
| 31 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 20.35 | 19.89 |
| 32 | 0 | (120) | 0 | (55) | 0 | (30) | 0 | (6) | 0 | (3) | 20.30 | 19.89 |
*conversion yields were obtained from HPLC with respect to 0.75 mmoles D-glucose,the experimental yields are an average from two experiments
values in parenthesis indicate actual level
x1: pressure; bar, x2: temperature; °C, x3: enzyme; mg, x4: pH; x5: buffer volume; ml, Y: experimental glucosylation yield