Banner

Chief Editor:
V. Geethalakshmi
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Coimbatore, INDIA
Frequency:Monthly
Indexing:
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Go...
Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 43 issue 3 (september 2009) : 223-226

LIGNOCELLULOLYTIC ENZYME ACTIVITIES AND SUBSTRATE DEGRADATION BY VOLVARIELLA VOLVACEA, THE PADDY STRAW MUSHROOM/CHINESE MUSHROOM

Madhu Choudhary, Shashi Dhanda, Shammi Kapoor, Giridhar Soni
1Department of Microbiology Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Choudhary Madhu, Dhanda Shashi, Kapoor Shammi, Soni Giridhar (2025). LIGNOCELLULOLYTIC ENZYME ACTIVITIES AND SUBSTRATE DEGRADATION BY VOLVARIELLA VOLVACEA, THE PADDY STRAW MUSHROOM/CHINESE MUSHROOM. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 43(3): 223-226. doi: .
All the six strains of Volvariella volvacea were investigated for their lignocellulolytic
potential. The strain VvS-4 and VvS-5 found to have maximum Carboxymethyl
cellulase (CMCase) and Filter paperase (FPase) activity. The cellobiase activity was
comparatively much higher than CMCase and FPase activity. Thus strain VvS-4 was
found to be the best strain in terms of CMCase, FPase and cellobiase activity. The
strain VvS-5 gave almost similar results except cellobiase activity. The xylanase activity
was found maximum in strain VvS-4 i.e. 147 IU/100ml and lesser in VvS-5 (108 IU/
100ml). Xylanase activity was higher than cellulase activity when it was correlated
with enzyme activities. None of the cultures showed a detectable laccase activity.
The maximum cellulose and hemicellulose degradation was found in VvS-4 and VvS-
5 (21.86% and 21.48%; 44.80% and 46.13% respectively) compared to all other
strains of V. volvacea and the minimum degradation in fresh paddy straw and control
(uninoculated). The pattern of cellulose and hemicellulose degradation was similar
in VvS-4 and VvS-5.
  1. A O A C (1975) Official Methods of Analysis (11th edn). Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
  2. Washington.
  3. Ahuja, A. K., et al (1986). Indian J Anim Sci 56(2): 285-87.
  4. Bucht, B. and Eriksson, K. E. (1968). Arch Biochem Biophys 124: 135-41.
  5. Buswell, J. A. et al. (1996). World J Microbiol Biotechnol 12: 537-42.
  6. Chang, S. T. and Miles, P. G. (1991). Mush J 504: 15-17.
  7. Chang, S. C. and Steinkraus, K. H. (1982). Appl Environ Microbiol 43(2): 440-46.
  8. Crampton, E. W. and Maynard, L. A. (1938). J. Nutr 15: 383.
  9. Datta, S. and Chakaravarty, D. K. (2002). Indian Phytopathol 55(3): 308-09.
  10. Datta, S. and Datta, S. (2002). J Mycopathol Res 40(2): 129-31.
  11. Goering, H. K. and Vansoest, P. J. (1970). Agricultural Handbook No. 379, USDA, Washington DC. pp 1-12.
  12. Kaur, K. (2002). M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
  13. Mandels, M. et al. (1976). Biotechnol Bioeng Symp 6: 21-23.
  14. Mandels, M. and Sternberg, D. (1976). J Ferment Technol 54: 267-28.
  15. Miller, G. L. (1959). Anal Chem 31: 426-28.
  16. Thakur, M. P. et al. (2003). In: Current Vistas in Mushroom Biology and Production (Upadhyay R C. et al.eds). pp 195-209.
  17. Toyama, N. and Ogawa, K. (1977). In: Symposium on “Bioconversion of cellulosic substances in to energy, chemical and microbial protein” (Ed. Ghosh T K) Vol 1: 305-27, IIT New Delhi.
  18. Turner, E. M. (1974). Trans Br Mycol Soc 63: 541-47.

Editorial Board

View all (0)