Method for extracting hydrophobin from a solution

- Conopco, Inc.

Process for extracting hydrophobin from a solution wherein carrageenan is added to the solution and the pH of the solution is brought below 3.5, and the ionic strength of the solution is below 0.5.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
PRIORITY TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 8,354,503 B2, which was filed Dec. 11, 2009, and was assigned U.S. application Ser. No. 12/636,157, which claims the benefit of European Application No. 08171868.6, filed Dec. 16, 2009. The entire contents of the above-identified applications are hereby incorporated by reference.

TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to method for extracting hydrophobin from a solution. In particular it relates to a method for extracting hydrophobin in 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 may intensify the degree of foaming in the fermenter, especially if the product facilitates foam formation or enhances foam stability, for example a biosurfactant or a hydrophobin. The use of antifoams presents a particular problem in the extra-cellular production of such foaming agents for two reasons: firstly the amount of antifoam required is increased because the foaming agent itself contributes to foaming in the fermenter. Secondly, it is not necessary to remove the antifoam from most fermentation products since it is present in low concentrations which do not affect the functionality of the product. However, when the fermentation product is a foaming agent, the antifoam must be substantially removed since the presence of antifoam in the product will impair its 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. However separation methods such as aqueous two phase extraction or chromatographic processes are expensive and may require food-incompatible chemicals.

It has now been found that, rather than removing the antifoam from the solution it is possible to remove the hydrophobin.

TESTS AND DEFINITIONS

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. Pseudomanas 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:

(SEQ ID NO. 1) Xn-C-X5-9-C-C-X11-39-C-X8-23-C-X5-9-C-C-X6-18-C-Xm

where X represents any amino acid, and n and m independently represent an integer. Typically, a hydrophobin 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 hydrophobin 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:

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

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.

Fermentation Process

The fermentation to produce hydrophobin 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.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

It is the object of the invention to provide a process for extracting hydrophobin from a solution wherein carrageenan is added to the solution and the pH of the solution is brought below 3.5, preferably below 3.

In a first preferred embodiment of the invention, the solution is then filtered to produce a retentate and a filtrate, hydrophobin being recovered from the retentate. In a second preferred embodiment of the invention, the solution is submitted to a centrifugation step to produce a supernatant which is removed, leaving a remaining phase. Hydrophobin is then removed from the remaining phase.

Preferably, the process comprises the step of cultivating a host cell in a fermentation medium wherein the host cell extra-cellularly secretes hydrophobin; and the fermentation medium contains an antifoam. More preferably, the fermentation medium is aerated by sparging air or oxygen-enriched air into it.

Preferably the hydrophobin is HFBI or HFBII from Trichoderma reesei.

Preferably the host cell is a genetically-modified fungus, more preferably a yeast, most preferably Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Preferably the ionic strength of the solution is below 0.5, preferably below 0.4, more preferably below 0.3, even more preferably below 0.2

Preferably, carrageenan is kappa or iota carrageenan, more preferably iota carrageenan.

Preferably also the carrageenan/hydrophobin ratio (w/w) is between 1:10 and 10:1, preferably above 1:5, more preferably above 1:1.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention will be further described in the following examples wherein the hydrophobin is always HFB II.

Example 1 Comparative

Starting concentration 145.4 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid solution. The solution was filtered leading to a concentration in filtrate of 67.9 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3.

There for 93% of the original hydrophobin filtered through.

Example 2 Comparative

Starting concentration 146.3 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM sodium Citrate. The solution was filtered leading to a concentration in filtrate of 68.0 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3.

Therefore again 93% of the original hydrophobin filtered through.

Example 3 Invention

Starting concentration 145.9 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid solution+1% kappa carrageenan sheared gel. The solution was filtered leading to a concentration in filtrate of 3.8 μg/cm3 hydrophobin in 9 cm3.

Therefore, only 5% of the hydrophobin filtered through.

Then 9 cm3 of 25 mM sodium citrate at pH 8 were passed through filter. The concentration in the filtrate was 40.9 μg/ml, therefore 56% of the original hydrophobin was recovered that way.

Example 4 Comparative

Starting concentration 145.9 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid solution+1% kappa carrageenan sheared gel.

Then add 0.325 cm3 NaOH (to go to pH 7.0) and filter

Concentration in filtrate=75.6 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3

Here, 100% of the hydrophobin ended in the filtrate despite the use of carrageenan, showing the importance of pH.

Example 5 Invention

Starting concentration 145.9 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid solution+1% kappa carrageenan sheared gel.

Then add solid NaCl to give a concentration of 0.5M NaCl and filter. The concentration in filtrate is 50.9 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3. So, about 70% of the original amount of hydrophobin filtered through despite the right pH and the use of 1% kappa carrageenan sheared gel.

Then 9 cm3 of 25 mM sodium citrate at pH 8 passed through filter leading to a concentration in filtrate of 13.8 μg/cm3. Therefore, only 19% of the hydrophobin was recovered that way, showing the influence of the ionic strength on the whole process. The higher the ionic strength, the lower the recovery, everything else being equal.

Example 6a Invention

Starting concentration 145.9 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid solution+0.025% iota carrageenan.

The concentration in filtrate was 1.6 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3, only 2% of the original hydrophobin having passed through.

Then 9 cm3 of 25 mM sodium citrate at pH 8 passed through filter, leading to a concentration in filtrate=29.5 μg/cm3

Over 40% of the original hydrophobin was recovered.

Example 6b Invention

Starting concentration 145.9 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid solution+0.025% kappa carrageenan.

The concentration in filtrate was 28.4 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3, 39% of the original hydrophobin having passed through.

This example shows that iota carrageenan performs better that kappa carrageenan when retaining hydrophobin

Example 7 Comparative

Starting concentration 145.9 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid solution+1% sheared pectin.

The concentration in filtrate was 57.3 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3, representing 79% of the original hydrophobin, showing that pectin does not work.

Example 8 Comparative

Starting concentration 145.9 μg/cm3 of hydrophobin in 4.5 cm3 of a 25 mM citric acid and 1% N creamer 46.

The concentration in filtrate was 64.2 μg/cm3 in 9 cm3 representing 88% of the original hydrophobin, showing that hydrophobic starch does not work.

Claims

1. Process for extracting hydrophobin from a solution comprising the steps of:

a) adding carrageenan to the solution;
b) adjusting the pH of the solution to below 3.5;
c) filtering the solution to produce a retentate and a filtrate; and
d) recovering the hydrophobin from the retentate;
e) centrifuging the solution to produce a supernatant which is removed, leaving a remaining phase; and
f) removing the hydrophobin from the remaining phase;
wherein the resulting hydrophobin is suitable for use in foods, personal care products and medicine.

2. Process according to claim 1 further comprising the step of cultivating a host cell in the solution including a fermentation medium wherein the host cell extra-cellularly secretes hydrophobin; and the fermentation medium contains an antifoam.

3. Process according to claim 2 wherein the host cell is a genetically-modified fungus.

4. Process according to claim 3 wherein the host cell is a yeast.

5. Process according to claim 4 wherein the host cell is Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

6. Process according to claim 1 wherein the hydrophobin is HFBI or HFBII from Trichoderma reesei.

7. Process according to claim 1 wherein the solution has an ionic strength below 0.5.

8. Process according to claim 1 wherein the carrageenan is kappa or iota carrageenan.

9. Process according to claim 8 wherein the carrageenan is iota carrageenan.

10. Process according to claim 1 wherein the carrageenan/hydrophobin ratio (w/w) is between 1:10 and 10:1.

11. Process according to claim 1 wherein the carrageenan is a shear gel.

12. Process for extracting hydrophobin from a solution comprising the steps of:

a) adding carrageenan to the solution;
b) adjusting the pH of the solution to below 3.5;
c) centrifuging the solution to produce a supernatant which is removed, leaving a remaining phase; and
d) removing the hydrophobin from the remaining phase;
wherein the resulting hydrophobin is suitable for use in foods, personal care products and medicine.

13. Process according to claim 12 further comprising the step of cultivating a host cell in the solution including a fermentation medium wherein the host cell extra-cellularly secretes hydrophobin; and the fermentation medium contains an antifoam.

14. Process according to claim 13 wherein the host cell is a genetically-modified fungus.

15. Process according to claim 14 wherein the host cell is a yeast.

16. Process according to claim 15 wherein the host cell is Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

17. Process according to claim 12 wherein the hydrophobin is HFBI or HFBII from Trichoderma reesei.

18. Process according to claim 12 wherein the solution has an ionic strength below 0.5.

19. Process according to claim 12 wherein the carrageenan is kappa or iota carrageenan.

20. Process according to claim 19 wherein the carrageenan is iota carrageenan.

21. Process according to claim 12 wherein the carrageenan/hydrophobin ratio (w/w) is between 1:10 and 10:1.

22. Process according to claim 12 wherein the carrageenan is a shear gel.

Referenced Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
2604406 July 1952 Blihovde
2844470 July 1958 Akerboom et al.
2937093 May 1960 Gorman et al.
2970017 February 1961 Melnick
2970917 February 1961 Melnick
3266214 August 1966 Kramme
3346387 October 1967 Moncrieff et al.
3914441 October 1975 Finney et al.
3946122 March 23, 1976 Scharp
4066794 January 3, 1978 Schur
4146652 March 27, 1979 Kahn et al.
4305964 December 15, 1981 Moran et al.
4325980 April 20, 1982 Rek et al.
4425369 January 10, 1984 Sakamoto et al.
4542035 September 17, 1985 Huang et al.
4627631 December 9, 1986 Sherman
4627983 December 9, 1986 Scharf et al.
4629628 December 16, 1986 Negro
4668519 May 26, 1987 Dartey et al.
4869915 September 26, 1989 Inayoshi et al.
4874627 October 17, 1989 Greig et al.
4946625 August 7, 1990 O'Lenick
4954440 September 4, 1990 Johal et al.
4960540 October 2, 1990 Friel et al.
5084295 January 28, 1992 Whelan et al.
5104674 April 14, 1992 Chen et al.
5202147 April 13, 1993 Traska et al.
5208028 May 4, 1993 Clement et al.
5215777 June 1, 1993 Asher et al.
5336514 August 9, 1994 Jones et al.
5393549 February 28, 1995 Badertscher et al.
5397592 March 14, 1995 Vermaas et al.
5436021 July 25, 1995 Bodor et al.
5486372 January 23, 1996 Martin et al.
5536514 July 16, 1996 Bishay et al.
5620732 April 15, 1997 Clemmings et al.
5624612 April 29, 1997 Sewall et al.
5681505 October 28, 1997 Phillips et al.
5738897 April 14, 1998 Gidley
5770248 June 23, 1998 Liebfred et al.
5980969 November 9, 1999 Mordini et al.
6063602 May 16, 2000 Prosperi et al.
6096867 August 1, 2000 Byass et al.
6187365 February 13, 2001 Vaghela et al.
6238714 May 29, 2001 Binder et al.
6284303 September 4, 2001 Rowe et al.
6497913 December 24, 2002 Gray et al.
6579557 June 17, 2003 Benjamins et al.
6685977 February 3, 2004 Asano et al.
6914043 July 5, 2005 Chapman et al.
7338779 March 4, 2008 Nakari-Setala et al.
8178151 May 15, 2012 Bramley et al.
8206770 June 26, 2012 Aldred et al.
8216624 July 10, 2012 Berry et al.
8354503 January 15, 2013 Hedges et al.
8357420 January 22, 2013 Cox et al.
8394444 March 12, 2013 Cox et al.
20010048962 December 6, 2001 Fenn et al.
20020085987 July 4, 2002 Brown et al.
20020155208 October 24, 2002 Benjamins et al.
20020182300 December 5, 2002 Groh et al.
20020197375 December 26, 2002 Adolphi et al.
20030087017 May 8, 2003 Hanselmann et al.
20030099751 May 29, 2003 Aldred et al.
20030134025 July 17, 2003 Vaghela et al.
20030148400 August 7, 2003 Haikara et al.
20030166960 September 4, 2003 de Vocht et al.
20030175407 September 18, 2003 Kunst et al.
20030190402 October 9, 2003 McBride
20040109930 June 10, 2004 Hooft et al.
20040161503 August 19, 2004 Malone et al.
20040185162 September 23, 2004 Finnigan et al.
20050037110 February 17, 2005 Windhab et al.
20050058058 March 17, 2005 Cho et al.
20050123666 June 9, 2005 Vaghela et al.
20050123668 June 9, 2005 Kodali et al.
20050129810 June 16, 2005 Lindner et al.
20050193744 September 8, 2005 Cockings et al.
20060024417 February 2, 2006 Berry et al.
20060024419 February 2, 2006 Aldred et al.
20070014908 January 18, 2007 Bramley et al.
20070071865 March 29, 2007 Aldred et al.
20070071866 March 29, 2007 Cox et al.
20070116848 May 24, 2007 Aldred et al.
20070286936 December 13, 2007 Bramley et al.
20070298490 December 27, 2007 Sweigard et al.
20080175972 July 24, 2008 Cox
20080254180 October 16, 2008 Windhab et al.
20080305237 December 11, 2008 Beltman et al.
20090136433 May 28, 2009 Subkowski et al.
20090142467 June 4, 2009 Aldred et al.
20100303998 December 2, 2010 Cox et al.
Foreign Patent Documents
271999 June 1927 CA
1094866 October 2003 CA
1218557 November 2004 CA
101054407 October 2007 CN
101215321 July 2008 CN
29715519 November 1997 DE
102004038685 February 2006 DE
216270 April 1987 EP
0274348 July 1988 EP
0285198 October 1988 EP
0322952 July 1989 EP
0336817 October 1989 EP
0426211 May 1991 EP
0426211 May 1991 EP
0469656 February 1992 EP
0521543 January 1993 EP
0477825 December 1996 EP
775444 May 1997 EP
0777969 June 1997 EP
0777969 June 1997 EP
0930017 July 1999 EP
0930017 July 1999 EP
1061006 December 2000 EP
1074181 February 2001 EP
0747301 August 2001 EP
0783254 August 2001 EP
0919134 November 2001 EP
0771531 September 2002 EP
1284106 February 2003 EP
0995685 April 2003 EP
1400486 March 2004 EP
1520483 April 2005 EP
1520484 April 2005 EP
1520485 April 2005 EP
1557092 July 2005 EP
1621084 February 2006 EP
1621084 February 2006 EP
1623631 February 2006 EP
1626361 February 2006 EP
1541034 June 2006 EP
1849461 October 2007 EP
2052628 April 2009 EP
2052628 April 2009 EP
459583 January 1937 GB
1556297 November 1979 GB
530006491 January 1978 JP
530006491 July 1978 JP
61219342 September 1986 JP
61293348 December 1986 JP
03164156 July 1991 JP
3244348 October 1991 JP
08500486 January 1996 JP
2005278484 October 2005 JP
2004018844 March 2004 KR
WO9013571 November 1990 WO
WO9111109 August 1991 WO
WO9222581 December 1992 WO
WO9403617 February 1994 WO
WO9412050 June 1994 WO
WO9413154 June 1994 WO
WO9523843 September 1995 WO
WO9611586 April 1996 WO
WO9621362 July 1996 WO
WO9639878 December 1996 WO
WO9641882 December 1996 WO
WO9804148 February 1998 WO
WO9804699 February 1998 WO
WO9937673 July 1999 WO
WO9954725 October 1999 WO
WO0022936 April 2000 WO
WO0053026 September 2000 WO
WO0058342 October 2000 WO
WO0114521 March 2001 WO
WO0135756 May 2001 WO
WO0157076 August 2001 WO
WO0174864 October 2001 WO
WO0183534 November 2001 WO
WO0184945 November 2001 WO
WO03015530 February 2003 WO
WO03051136 June 2003 WO
WO03053383 July 2003 WO
WO03053883 July 2003 WO
WO03096821 November 2003 WO
WO2005058055 June 2005 WO
WO2005058067 June 2005 WO
WO2005102067 November 2005 WO
WO2005113387 December 2005 WO
WO2005113387 December 2005 WO
WO2006010425 February 2006 WO
WO2007087967 August 2007 WO
WO2008031796 March 2008 WO
WO2008116733 October 2008 WO
WO2009047657 April 2009 WO
WO2010067059 June 2010 WO
WO2010067059 June 2010 WO
Other references
  • 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.
  • Arbuckle, Jan. 1, 1972, Ice Cream, Ice Cream 2nd Ed, pp. 15, 18, 31, 35, 61, 65, 265-266 and 284-285.
  • Askolin, et al., Aug. 9, 2001, Overproduction purification and characterization of Trichoderma reesei hydrophobin HFBI, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 57, 124-130.
  • 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.
  • Calonje, et al., Dec. 13, 2002, Properties of a hydrophobin isolated from the mycoparasitic fungus verticillium fungicola, Can J Microbiol, 48, 1030-1034.
  • 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.
  • Collen, et al., Jan. 15, 2002, A novel two-step extraction method w detergent polymer sys for primary recovery of the fusion protein endoglucanase I-hydro I, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1569, No. 1-3, 139-150.
  • CP Kelco US Inc., Apr. 17, 2007, Certificate of Analysis for Keltrol RD, CP Kelco, *, 1.
  • 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, ., B-4, 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.
  • De Vocht et al., Apr. 1998, Structural Characterization of the Hydrophobin SC3, as a Monomer and after Self-Assembly at Hydrophobic/Hydrophilic Interfaces, Biophysical Journal, 74, 2059-2068.
  • De Vries, et al., Mar. 2, 1999, Identification & characterization of a tri-partite hydrophobin from Claviceps fusiformis, Eur J Biochem, 262, 377-385.
  • Dictionary.com, Jun. 14, 2010, Stabilizer, Dictionary.com, *, 1-5.
  • Dr. E. Kododziejcxzyk, Nov. 16, 2009, Adsortion of different proteins to Teflon sheets: Experimental Results, Nestle Research Center, pp. 1-10.
  • Fellows, 2000, Principles and Practice, Food processing technology, 2nd, 83, 140, 429, Foodhead Publishing.
  • Goh, Apr. 8, 2002, Applications and Uses of Palm and Palm Kernel Oils, Malaysian Oil Science and Technology, 11, 46-50.
  • Grant, Jan. 1, 1987, Grant & Hackh's Chemical Dictionary, McGraw-Hill, 5th Ed, 212.
  • Guner, et al., Jan. 1, 2007, Production of yogurt ice cream at different acidity, Intl Journ of Food Sc & Tech, 42, 948-952.
  • Hakanpaa, et al., Jan. 2, 2004, Atomic Resolution Structure of the HFBII Hydrophobin a Self-assembling Amphiphile, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 279, No. 1, 534-539.
  • 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, pp. 1-3.
  • Hung, et al., Aug. 20, 2007, Cloud-point extraction of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by nonionic surfactants, Separation & Purification Tech, 57, 1-10.
  • Hunter, et al., Jan. 1, 2008, The role of particles in stabilising foams and emulsions, Advances in Colloid & Interface Science, 137, 57-81.
  • Katzbauer et al, Jun. 19, 1997, Properties and applications of xanthan gum, Polymer Degradation and Stability, vol. 59, 81-84, Elsevier.
  • Kershaw, et al., Jan. 1, 1998, Hydrophobins and Repellents Proteins with Fundamental Roles in Fungal Morphogenesis, Genetics & Biology, 23, 18-33.
  • Kilcast et al., Jun. 20, 2002, Sensory perception of creaminess and its relationship with food structure, Food Quality and Preference, 13, 609-623.
  • Kloek, et al., Feb. 2, 2001, Effect of Bulk and Interfacial Rheological Properties on Bubble Dissolution, Journal of Colloid & Interface Sc, 237, 158-166.
  • Lambou et al., 1973, Whey Solids as Agricultural Foam Stabilizers, Jr. of Agr. and Food Chemistry, 21 No. 2, 257-263.
  • Linder, Jan. 21, 2005, Hydrophobins: the protein-amphiphiles of filamentous fungi, Microbiology Reviews, vol. 29 No. 5, 877-896.
  • 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, 514, 515, 516.
  • 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, 49-58.
  • Mathlouthi, et al., Jan. 1, 1995, Rheological properties of sucrose solutions and suspensions, Sucrose Properties & Applic, *, 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.
  • Minor, et al., Jan. 1, 2009, Preparation and sensory perception of fat-free foams effect of matrix properties and level of aeration, Intl Journ of Food Sc & Tech, 44, 735-747.
  • Murray, Aug. 3, 2007, Stabilization of bubbles and foams, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 12, 232-241.
  • Wang et al, Protease A Stability of Beer Foam II, China Academic Journal, May 31, 2004, pp. 11-15, ., CN.
  • Research pushes the right buttons, mushrooms are the new fat, University of Birmingham, Feb. 25, 2008, pp. 1-2.
  • Cox, et al., Jan. 1, 2009, Exceptional Stability of food foams using class II hydrophobin HFBII, Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 366-376.
  • Cox, et al., Jun. 20, 2007, Surface Properties of Class II Hydrophobins from Trichoderma reesei & Influence on bubble stability, Langmuir, 23, 7995-8002.
  • Pardun, 1977, Soy Protein Preparations as Antispattering Agents for Margarine, Fette Seifen Anstrichmittel, vol. 79, No. 5, pp. 195-203 (Abstract Only).
  • Samsudin, 2010, Low-Fat Chocolate Spread Based on Palm Oil, retrieved from Internet: http://palmoils.mpob.gov.my/pulibcations/pod45-salmi.pdf, pp. 27-30.
  • Kinderlerer, 1997, Chrysosporium species, potential spoilage organisms of chocolate, Jr. of Applied Microbiology, vol. 83, pp. 771-778.
  • 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.
  • Co-Pending application Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/525,060, filed Sep. 21, 2006; pp. 1-32.
  • Co-Pending application Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/524,977, filed Sep. 21, 2006; pp. 1-39.
  • Co-pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/524,675, filed Sep. 21, 2006, pp. 1-19.
  • Co-Pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/699,601, filed Jan. 30, 2007, pp. 1-28.
  • Co-Pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/699,602, filed Jan. 30, 2007, pp. 1-26.
  • Co-Pending application Burmester et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/002,684, filed Dec. 18, 2007, pp. 1-35.
  • Co-Pending application Burmester et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/091,796, filed Apr. 21, 2011, pp. 1-35.
  • Co-Pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/682,717, filed Apr. 12, 2010; pp. 1-27.
  • Co-Pending application Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/287,957, filed Oct. 15, 2008; pp. 1-28.
  • Co-Pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/578,752, filed Oct. 14, 2009; pp. 1-14.
  • Co-Pending application Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/788,395, filed May 27, 2010; pp. 1-13.
  • Co-Pending application Watts et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/788,419, filed May 27, 2010; pp. 1-15.
  • Co-Pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/532,667, filed Sep. 23, 2009; pp. 1-18.
  • Co-Pending application Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/532,670, filed Sep. 23, 2009; pp. 1-23.
  • Co-Pending application Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/378,143, filed Feb. 10, 2012; pp. 1-15.
  • Co-Pending application Mitchell et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/498,157, filed Mar. 26, 2012; pp. 1-16.
  • Co-Pending application Deborah Lynne Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/992,299, filed Jun. 7, 2013, pp. 1-11.
  • Co-Pending application Deborah Lynne Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/989,820, filed Jun. 21, 2013, pp. 1-11.
  • Co-Pending application Deborah Lynne Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/982,292, filed Jul. 29, 2013.
  • Co-Pending application Andrew Richard Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/585,257, filed Aug. 14, 2012, pp. 1-32.
  • Co-Pending application Aumaitre et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/409,549, filed Mar. 24, 2009; pp. 1-19.
  • Co-Pending application Cox, U.S. Appl. No. 13/878,491, filed Apr. 9, 2013; pp. 1-20.
  • Askolin, S., Characterization of the Trichoderma resel hydrophobins HFBI and HFBII, VTT Publication 601, May 2006, 1-99 ; I1-I19; VI1-V120.
  • Notice of Opposition and Grounds of Opposition, dated Dec. 23, 2009—Nestec S.A./Unilever N.V. (EP1926399).
  • Response to Notice of Opposition, dated Oct. 29, 2010—Nestec S.A./Unilever N.V. (EP1926399).
  • Talbot et al. (1996) MPG1 Encodes a Fungal Hydrophobin Involved in Surface Interactions during Infection-Related Development of Magnaporthe grisea, Plant Cell., vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 985-999.
  • Martin et al. (2000) Sc3p hydrophobin organization in aqueous media and assembly onto surfaces as mediated by the associated polysaccharide schizophyllan, Biomacromol., vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 49-60.
  • Linder et al. (2005) Hydrophobins: the protein-amphiphiles of filamentous fungi, FEMS Microbiol. Rev., vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 877-896.
  • Reference (2012, updated), “Carbohydrates”, pp. 1-29.
  • Wosten, et al., Interfacial self-assmbly of a hydrophobin into an amphipathic protein membrane mediates fungal attachment to hydrophobic surfaces, EMBO Journal, Jan. 1, 1994, 13, 5848-5854.
  • Swern, Baileys Industrial Oil and Fat Products, John Wiley & Sons, Jan. 1, 1979, 1, 369.
  • Scholtmeijer, et al., Fungal hydrophobins in medical and technical applications, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, May 19, 2001, 56, 1-8.
  • Arbuckle, Ice Cream, Avi Publishing, Jan. 1, 1972, 2nd Ed, 284.
  • Wosten, et al., Hydrophobins the fungal coat unravelled, Biophysica Acta, May 29, 2000, 1469, 79-86.
  • Talbot, Aerial Morphogenesis Enter the Chaplins, Current Biology, Sep. 16, 2003, 13, R696-R698.
  • Murray, et al., Foam stability proteins and nanoparticles, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Sc, Jan. 1, 2004, 9, 314-320.
  • Eleves, Teadora Gliga, Eleves, Jun. 8, 2007, &, 1.
  • Nakari-Setala, et al., Differential expression of the vegetative and spore-bound hydrophobins of Trichoderma reesei, Eur J. Biochem, May 26, 1997, 248, 415-423.
  • Tchuenbou-Magaia, et al., Hydrophobris stabilised air-filled emulsions for the food industry, Food Hydrocolloids, Mar. 16, 2009; 23, 1877-1885.
  • Hoi, Encyclopedia of Food Science & Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Jan. 1, 1992, 1, 204-210.
  • Wessels, Hydrophobins Proteins that Change the Nature of the Fungal Surface, Advances in Microbial Physiology, Jan. 1, 1997, 38, No. 38, 1-45.
  • Wosten, Hydrophobins Multipurpose Proteins, Annu Rev Microbiol, Jan. 1, 2001, 55, 625-646.
  • Co-pending appln. Berry et al., U.S. appl. No. 11/168,209, filed Jun. 27, 2005.
  • Co-pending appln. Aldred et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/168,214, filed Jun. 27, 2005.
  • Co-pending appln. Bramley et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/639,851, filed Dec. 15, 2006.
  • Co-pending appln. Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/780,294, filed May 14, 2010.
  • Co-pending appln. Cox et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/780,323, filed May 14, 2010.
  • Dickinson, Dec. 2, 2010, Mixed biopolymers at interfaces: Competive adsorption and multilayer structures, Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 1966-1983.
  • Fox, 1992, Analytical methods for Milk Proteins, Advanced Dairy Chemistry 1: Proteins, vol. 1, pp. 1, 6-7.
  • Graham et al., Jul. 3, 1979, Proteins at Liquid Interfaces, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 70, 415-426.
  • 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.
  • Patino and Pilosof, 2011, Protein-polysaccharide interactions at fluid interfaces, Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 1925-1937.
  • Schmitt, Feb. 27, 2012, Declaration of Christophe Schmitt, Declaration of Christophe Schmitt, 1-4.
  • Guinee et al., 2004, Salt in Cheese: Physical, Chemical and Biological Aspects, vol. 1, 3rd Ed., pp. 207-259.
  • Guar Gum, Guargum biz, Jun. 14, 2010, p. 1.
  • Penttila, et al., Molecular Biology of Trichoderma & Biotechnological Applications, Handbook of Fungal Biotech, Jan. 1, 2004, 2nd Ed. pp. 413-427.
  • Talbot, 7 Fungal Hydrophobins, Howard & Gow, Jan. 1, 2001, vol. 7, pp. 145-159.
  • Soukoulis, et al., Impact of the acidification process hydrocolloids & protein fortifiers on the physical & Sensory properties of frozen yogurt, Intl Journal of Dairy Tech, May 2, 2008, vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 170-177.
  • Whitcomb, et al., Rheology of Guar Solutions, Journal of Applied Polymer Sc, Jan. 1, 1980, vol. 25, pp. 2815-2827.
  • Quintas, et al., Rheology of superstaurated sucrose solutions, Journal of Food Engineering, Jan. 1, 2006, vol. 77, pp. 844-852.
  • Van Der Werf, Green coatings healthy foods and drug targeting, Leads in Life Science, Jan. 1, 2000, vol. 5, p. 1.
  • Russo, et al., Surface activity of the phytotoxin cerato-ulmin, Natl Research Council of Canada, Jan. 1, 1982, vol. 60, pp. 1414-1422.
  • Search proteins matching the sequence pattern used for the hydrophobin definition in patent EP 1926 399 B1, Nestle Research Center, Oct. 16, 2009, pp. 1-3.
  • Takai, et al., Cerato-ulmin, a wilting losin of ceratocystis ulmi: isolation & some properties of cerato-ulmin from the culture of C. ulmi, Phytopath, Jan. 1, 1978, vol. 91, pp. 129-146.
  • Wosten, et al., Interfacial self-assembly of a fungal hydrophobin to a hydrophobic rodlet layer, Plant Cell, Nov. 1, 1993, vol. 5, pp. 1567-1574.
  • Stringer, et al., Cerato-ulmin a toxin involved in dutch elm disease is a fungal hydrophobin, Plant Cell, Feb. 1, 1993, *, pp. 145-146.
  • Fats Oils Fatty Acids Triglycerides, Scientific Psychic, Jan. 1, 2005, pp. 1-4.
  • Wessels, et al., Fungal hydrophobins proteins that function at an interface, Trends in Plant Science, Jan. 1, 1996, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 9-15.
  • Sienkiewicz, Whey and Whey Utiliztion, Verlag Th Mann, Jan. 1, 1990, 2nd Ed, pp. 82-33.
  • Arbuckle, Ice Cream, Ice Cream 2nd Ed 1972 pp. 35 266 284-285, Jan. 1, 1972, 2nd Edition, pp. 35, 266, 284-285.
  • Arbuckle, Ice Cream, Ice Cream, 1972, 2nd, p. 31.
  • Arbuckle, Ice Cream, Ice Cream, 1972, 2nd Ed., p. 265, Avi Publishing Company.
  • Sanderson, Applications of Xanthan Gum, British Polymer Jr., 1981, vol. 13, pp. 71-75.
  • Temple, Biological Roles for cerato-Ulmin, a Hydrophobin secreted by the elm pathogens, Opthiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi, Micological Society of America, 2000, vol. 92, pp. 1-9.
  • European Search Report Application No. EP 08171868, dated May 18, 2009.
  • International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/EP2009/066258, mailed Mar. 4, 2010.
  • Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/EP2009/066258.
  • Arbuckle, 1972, Ice Cream, Ice Cream, 2nd Edition, pp. 15, 18, 35, 61, 65.
  • Co-Pending application Hedges et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/636,157, filed Dec. 11, 2009.
  • Fox, et al., Jan. 1, 2004, Cheese: Physical, Chemical and Biological Aspects, Cheese Chemistry, Physics & Microbiology, 3rd, vol. 1, 207-223 9 (Best Available Copy).
Patent History
Patent number: RE44812
Type: Grant
Filed: Jul 30, 2013
Date of Patent: Mar 18, 2014
Assignee: Conopco, Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
Inventor: Nicholas David Hedges (Sharnbrook)
Primary Examiner: Manjunath Rao
Assistant Examiner: Samuel Liu
Application Number: 13/954,091