Revisiting the activity of two poly(vinyl chloride)- and polyethylene-degrading enzymes

Anton A. Stepnov, Esteban Lopez-Tavera, Ross Klauer, Clarissa L. Lincoln, Ravindra R. Chowreddy, Gregg T. Beckham, Vincent G. H. Eijsink, Kevin Solomon, Mark Blenner () and Gustav Vaaje-Kolstad ()
Additional contact information
Anton A. Stepnov: NMBU - Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Esteban Lopez-Tavera: NMBU - Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Ross Klauer: University of Delaware
Clarissa L. Lincoln: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Ravindra R. Chowreddy: Norner Research AS
Gregg T. Beckham: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Vincent G. H. Eijsink: NMBU - Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Kevin Solomon: University of Delaware
Mark Blenner: University of Delaware
Gustav Vaaje-Kolstad: NMBU - Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Nature Communications, 2024, vol. 15, issue 1, 1-15

Abstract: Abstract Biocatalytic degradation of non-hydrolyzable plastics is a rapidly growing field of research, driven by the global accumulation of waste. Enzymes capable of cleaving the carbon-carbon bonds in synthetic polymers are highly sought-after as they may provide tools for environmentally friendly plastic recycling. Despite some reports of oxidative enzymes acting on non-hydrolyzable plastics, including polyethylene or poly(vinyl chloride), the notion that these materials are susceptible to efficient enzymatic degradation remains controversial, partly driven by a general lack of studies independently reproducing previous observations. Here, we attempt to replicate two recent studies reporting that deconstruction of polyethylene and poly(vinyl chloride) can be achieved using an insect hexamerin from Galleria mellonella (so-called “Ceres”) or a bacterial catalase-peroxidase from Klebsiella sp., respectively. Reproducing previously described experiments, we do not observe any activity on plastics using multiple reaction conditions and multiple substrate types. Digging deeper into the discrepancies between the previous data and our observations, we show how and why the original experimental results may have been misinterpreted.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52665-z Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-52665-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-52665-z

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().