Current Developments in

Biotechnology and Bioengineering.

Production, Isolation and Purification of
Industrial Products - eBook PDF
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/current-developments-in-biotechnology-and-bioen
gineering-production-isolation-and-purification-of-industrial-products-ebook-pdf/
 Current Developments
in Biotechnology and
Bioengineering
Production, Isolation and Purification
of Industrial Products

Edited by
Ashok Pandey, Sangeeta Negi,
Carlos Ricardo Soccol

AMSTERDAM l BOSTON l HEIDELBERG l LONDON l NEW YORK l OXFORD

PARIS l SAN DIEGO l SAN FRANCISCO l SINGAPORE l SYDNEY l TOKYO
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage
and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to
seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our
arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright
Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by
the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and
experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices,
or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein.
In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety
of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of
products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods,
products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-444-63662-1

For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/

Publisher: John Fedor

Acquisition Editor: Kostas Marinakis
Editorial Project Manager: Anneka Hess
Production Project Manager: Vijayaraj Purushothaman
Designer: Greg Harris

Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals

List of Contributors

M. Adsul DBT-IOC Centre for Advanced Bioenergy Research, IndianOil Corporation

Limited

Cristóbal N. Aguilar Food Research Department, School of Chemistry,

Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

A. Angel-Cuapio Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Mexico City,

DF, Mexico

G.S. Anisha Government College for Women, Trivandrum, Kerala, India

P. Binod CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology (NIIST),

Trivandrum, India

J. Buenrostro-Figueroa Department of Biotechnology, Division of Health and

Biological Sciences, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Iztapalapa, México

S. Chakraborty Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

M.L. Chávez González Food Research Department, School of Chemistry,

Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

G.-Q. Chen Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

S. Chen Hubei University, Wuhan, PR China

Juan C. Contreras-Esquivel Food Research Department, School of Chemistry,

Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

J.D. Coral Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

J.C. de Carvalho Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

xxi
xxii List of Contributors

J. de Oliveira Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

A. Dhillon Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

M.J. Fernandes Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

R. Gaur Indian Oil Corporation Limited, R&D Centre, Faridabad, India

A. Goyal Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

L.R.C. Guimarães Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

M. Haridas Kannur University, Kannur, India

R. Hemamalini Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

Ayerim Hernandez-Almanza Food Research Department, School of Chemistry,

Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

A. Illanes Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile

J. Isar University of Delhi South Campus, New Delhi, India

A. Joseph Kannur University, Kannur, India

S.G. Karp Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

N. Karthik CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

R. Kaushik University of Delhi South Campus, New Delhi, India

S.K. Khare Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

P.C.S. Kirnev Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

D. Kothari Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

 List of Contributors xxiii

C. Larroche Blaise Pascal University, Aubière Cedex, France

L.A.J. Letti Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

O. Loera-Corral Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Mexico City, DF,

Mexico

A.I. Magalhães, Jr. Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department,

Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

A.B.P. Medeiros Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

J.D.C. Medina Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

F. Miranda-Hernández Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Mexico

City, DF, Mexico

N.R. Nair CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

S. Nair Dow Chemicals GmBH, Dubai, UAE

K.M. Nampoothiri CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and

Technology (NIIST), Trivandrum, India

A. Nandan CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

S. Negi Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India

M.G.B. Pagnoncelli Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department,

Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil; Federal Technological
University of Parana, Dois Vizinhos, Brazil

A. Pandey Center of Innovative and Applied Bioprocessing, (a national institute

under Dept of Biotechnology, Ministry of S&T, Govt of India), Mohali, Punjab, India

A.K. Patel DBT-IOC Centre for Advanced Bioenergy Research, IndianOil Corporation
Limited
xxiv List of Contributors

V. Rajulapati Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

S. Ramachandran Insight Professional Institute, Dubai, UAE

A. Rani Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

C. Rodrigues Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

Rosa M. Rodríguez-Jasso Food Research Department, School of Chemistry,

Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

R. Rodríguez Food Research Department, School of Chemistry, Autonomous

University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

L.V. Rodríguez Durán Department of Biotechnology, Division of Health and

Biological Sciences, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Iztapalapa, México

Héctor A. Ruiz Food Research Department, School of Chemistry, Autonomous

University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

A. Sabu Kannur University, Kannur, India

R. Saini DBT-IOC Centre for Advanced Bioenergy Research, IndianOil Corporation

Limited

S. Sajitha CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

S. Saran University of Delhi South Campus, New Delhi, India

R.K. Saxena University of Delhi South Campus, New Delhi, India

V.C. Sekhar CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

K. Sharma Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

R. Sindhu CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

R.P. Singh Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab, India

 List of Contributors xxv

R.S. Singh Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab, India

Reeta R. Singhania DBT-IOC Centre for Advanced Bioenergy Research, IndianOil

Corporation Limited

C.R. Soccol Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

T.S. Swapna Government Victoria College, Palakkad, India

D. Tan Xían Jiaotong University, Xían, China

L. Thomas CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

M.V. Ushasree CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology

(NIIST), Trivandrum, India

P. Valencia Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile

L.P.S. Vandenberghe Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department,

Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

K. Vibha Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India

J. Vidya CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology (NIIST),

Trivandrum, India

N. Vijayan Kannur University, Kannur, India

N. Vivek CSIR-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology (NIIST),

Trivandrum, India

Q. Wang Hubei University, Wuhan, PR China

X. Wei Hubei University, Wuhan, PR China

A.L. Woiciechowski Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department,

Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

J. Yin Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

xxvi List of Contributors

A. Zandoná Filho Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

P.A. Zárate Food Research Department, School of Chemistry, Autonomous

University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

S.F. Zawadzki Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology Department, Federal

University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil
About the Editors

Ashok Pandey
Professor Ashok Pandey is Eminent Scientist at the Center of
Innovative and Applied Bioprocessing, Mohali (a national
institute under the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry
of Science and Technology, Government of India), and
former chief scientist and head of the Biotechnology
Division at the CSIR’s National Institute for Interdisciplinary
Science and Technology at Trivandrum. He is an adjunct
professor at Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Studies
Thiruvalla, Kerala, and at Kalasalingam University, Krishnan
Koil, Tamil Nadu. His major research interests are in the
areas of microbial, enzyme, and bioprocess technology,
which span various programs, including biomass to fuels
and chemicals, probiotics and nutraceuticals, industrial
enzymes, solid-state fermentation, etc. He has more than
1100 publications and communications, which include 16
patents, 50+ books, 125 book chapters, and 425 original and review papers, with an h index
of 75 and more than 23,500 citations (Google Scholar). He has transferred several tech-
nologies to industries and has been an industrial consultant for about a dozen projects for
Indian and international industries.
Professor Pandey is the recipient of many national and international awards
and fellowships, which include Elected Member of the European Academy of Sciences
and Arts, Germany; Fellow of the International Society for Energy, Environment and
Sustainability; Fellow of the National Academy of Science (India); Fellow of the Biotech
Research Society, India; Fellow of the International Organization of Biotechnology and
Bioengineering; Fellow of the Association of Microbiologists of India; honorary doctorate
degree from the Université Blaise Pascal, France; Thomson Scientific India Citation
Laureate Award, United States; Lupin Visiting Fellowship; Visiting Professor at the
Université Blaise Pascal, France, the Federal University of Parana, Brazil, and the École
Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland; Best Scientific Work Achievement
Award, Government of Cuba; UNESCO Professor; Raman Research Fellowship Award,
CSIR; GBF, Germany, and CNRS, France fellowships; Young Scientist Award; and others.
He was chairman of the International Society of Food, Agriculture and Environment,
Finland (Food & Health) during 2003e04. He is the Founder President of the Biotech

xxvii
xxviii About the Editors

Research Society, India (www.brsi.in); International Coordinator of the International

Forum on Industrial Bioprocesses, France (www.ifibiop.org); chairman of the
International Society for Energy, Environment & Sustainability (www.isees.org); and vice
president of the All India Biotech Association (www.aibaonline.com). Professor Pandey
is editor-in-chief of Bioresource Technology, Honorary Executive Advisor of the Journal of
Water Sustainability and Journal of Energy and Environmental Sustainability, subject
editor of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (India), and editorial board
member of several international and Indian journals, and also a member of several
national and international committees.

Sangeeta Negi
Dr. Sangeeta Negi is an assistant professor in the Department
of Biotechnology at the Motilal Nehru National Institute of
Technology, India. She has a First Class Master’s degree in
biochemistry and a PhD in biotechnology from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. She has also worked as
an academic guest at the Biological Engineering Department,
Polytech Clermont-Ferrand; the Université Blaise Pascal,
France; and the Bioenergy and Energy Planning Research
Group, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne,
Switzerland. Dr. Negi’s current research interests are in the
areas of biofuels, industrial enzymes, and bioremediation. She is an editorial board
member of the Journal of Waste Conversion, Bioproducts and Biotechnology and the Journal
of Environmental Science and Sustainability. She has been awarded as Outstanding
Reviewer by Elsevier and has won the Young Scientist Award by DST at the National
Seminar on Biological and Alternative Energies Present and Future, organized by Andhra
University, Visakhapatnam, in 2009. She has also won the Best Poster Award at the
International Congress on Bioprocesses in Food Industries (2008) at Hyderabad. Dr. Negi
has contributed to nearly 70 publications, including review articles, original papers, and
conference communications.
 About the Editors xxix

Carlos Ricardo Soccol

Professor Carlos Ricardo Soccol is the research group leader
of the Department of Bioprocesses Engineering and
Biotechnology at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR),
Brazil, with 20 years of experience in biotechnological
research and development of bioprocesses with industrial
application. He graduated with a BSc in chemical engi-
neering (UFPR, 1979), Master’s in food technology (UFPR,
1986), and PhD in Génie Enzymatique, Microbiologie et
Bioconversion (Université de Technologie de Compiègne,
France, 1992). He did his postdoctoral work at the Institut
ORSTOM/IRD (Montpellier, 1994 and 1997) and at the
Université de Provence et de la Méditerranée (Marseille,
2000). He is an HDR Professor at the École d’Ingénieurs Supériure of Luminy,
MarseilleeFrance. He has experience in the areas of science and food technology, with
emphasis on agro-industrial and agro-alimentary biotechnology, acting in the following
areas: bioprocess engineering and solid-state fermentation, submerged fermentation,
bioseparations, industrial bioprocesses, enzyme technology, tissue culture, bio-
industrial projects, and bio-production. He is currently the Coordinator of Master
BIODEV-UNESCO, associate editor of five international journals, and editor-in-chief of
the journal Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. Professor Soccol has received
several national and international awards, which include the Science and Technology
Award of the Government of Paraná (1996); Scopus/Elsevier Award (2009); Dr. Honoris
Causa, Université Blaise Pascal, France (2010); Outstanding Scientist at the 5th
International Conference on Industrial Bioprocesses, Taipei, Taiwan (2012); and Elected
Titular Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (2014). He is a technical and sci-
entific consultant for several companies, agencies, and scientific journals in Brazil and
abroad. He has supervised and mentored 96 Master of Science students, 48 PhD stu-
dents, and 14 postdoctoral students. He has 995 publications and communications,
which include 17 books, 107 book chapters, 270 original research papers, and 557
research communications in international and national conferences and has registered
44 patents. His research articles as of this writing have been cited (Scopus database) 5600
times with an h index of 36.
Preface

This book is a part of the comprehensive series Current Developments in Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, comprising nine volumes (Editor-in-chief: Ashok Pandey), and deals with the
production, isolation, and purification of industrial products produced by biotechnological
processes. This book covers recent technological advances of a great number of biotechno-
logical products and is divided into four different parts: Production of Industrial and
Therapeutic Enzymes, Organic Acids, Biopolymers and Other Products, and Products
Isolation and Purification.
Part 1 is devoted to the production of industrial and therapeutic enzymes. The first
chapter describes the current and future trends of production, application, and strain
improvement of a-amylases, one of the most important enzymes used in industry.
a-Amylases find application in several industrial processes, such as starch liquefaction,
desizing of textiles, detergents, baking, bioethanol production, etc. Glucoamylase is another
enzyme extensively used in the food and fermentation industries, mainly for the saccharifi-
cation of starch, brewing, and production of high-fructose syrup, which are discussed in
Chapter 2. Cellulases, b-glucosidases, and xylanases are the second most used enzymes in
industry by sales volume, with an increasing demand since 1995 in several industrial appli-
cations, comprising detergents and textiles, animal feed, food, paper, and biofuels. These
enzymes are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this book. Chapter 7 discusses proteolytic
enzymes, also known as “proteases,” which are used to cleave the peptide bonds connecting
two amino acids. They are produced mainly by microorganisms and have great commercial
value, being used in food, dairy, detergents, and leather processing. Lipolytic enzymes are
hydrolases comprising 15 families of lipases, as shown in Chapter 8 of this book through a
study of the industrial applications and other important aspects of these enzymes. The
purpose of Chapters 9 and 10 is to present an overview of laccases and peroxidases, covering
their production and use in the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass and biopulping, and
also projecting new perspectives on improving such processes and products using these
enzymes. Sources of production, strategies, characteristics, applications, and industrial
importance of therapeutic enzymes, such as L-glutaminase, L-asparaginase, and penicillin
acylase, are presented and discussed in Chapters 11, 12, and 13. Other enzymes, such as
phytases, chitinases, keratinases, tannases, aminopeptidases, nattokinases, and poly-
saccharide lyases, are reviewed in Chapters 14 to 23, covering recent advances, production
methods, potential applications, and the global market.
The second part of the book is dedicated to organic acids. In Chapters 24 and 25, lactic
acid and citric acid production, synthesis (covering factors that affect biochemical pathways),
and recovery are addressed. Chapter 26 reviews the microbial production of gluconic acid,
properties of glucose oxidase, production, recovery, and applications. Succinic acid is an
important platform molecule, used as an intermediate in the production of numerous
everyday products, among which are pharmaceuticals and adhesives, representing a total
immediate addressable market of more than $7.2 billion. Chapter 27 presents an analysis of
the current market, biological-based production processes, enzymatic regulation, and
recovery systems of succinic acid.

xxxi
xxxii Preface

Part 3 discusses polymer production and other products. Polylactide (PLA), derived
from lactic acid, a biodegradable polyester, has applications in packaging, textiles, and the
biomedical and pharmaceutical industries. Chapter 28 reviews the properties and applica-
tions of PLA, focusing on recent technologies and improvement of production techniques.
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), a family of environmentally friendly polyesters that can be
synthesized by a wide range of microorganisms as carbon and energy reserves, have been
considered an alternative to petroleum-based chemicals. The composition and structural
diversity of PHAs have led to various properties and endless applications to form a PHA value
chain. Chapter 29 briefly introduces their production and application, highlighting the lab-
oratory production by the microbial strains developed using genetic and/or metabolic en-
gineering or synthetic biology techniques. Industrial production, recent technologies, and
improvement of PHA production are also discussed. Poly-g-glutamic acid (g-PGA) is a natural
polymer, synthesized by various strains of Bacillus spp., that is used in food, cosmetics,
agriculture, and the wastewater industry. Chapter 30 provides updated information on the
biosynthesis, fermentation, purification, and application of g-PGA. In Chapter 31, recent
developments in the biological production of 1,3-propanediol by various natural and
genetically engineered microorganisms, nonnative 1,3-propanediol producers, as well as
mixed cultures, are discussed. Important aspects of downstream processing and various
methods and steps involved in the extraction and purification of 1,3-propanediol from the
fermentation broth are also covered in this chapter. The production of petroleum-based
plastics is a challenging environmental problem, causing the production and consumption
of biodegradable plastics to receive considerable attention nowadays. Chapter 32 provides an
overview of the degradation mechanisms of biodegradable polymers, with particular
emphasis on the main parameters affecting the degradation of these polymeric biomaterials.
In Chapter 33 the potential of biological control is presented and discussed as a promising
alternative to chemical pesticides. The final two chapters of this book, Chapters 34 and 35,
present the most relevant downstream processes to extract, isolate, purify, and refine
fermentation products.
We are confident that this book will be profitable to students, professors, researchers,
and professionals interested in studying biotechnology and bioengineering. We thank
Dr. Kostas Marinakis, Book Acquisition Editor; Ms. Anneka Hess; and entire production team
at Elsevier for their help and support in bringing out this volume.

Editors
Ashok Pandey
Sangeeta Negi
Carlos Ricardo Soccol
 1
a-Amylases

R. Sindhu1, *, P. Binod1, A. Pandey2

1
CSIR-NATIONAL INSTITUTE F OR INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (NIIST),
TRIVANDRUM, INDIA; 2 CE NTER OF INNOVATIVE AND APPLIED BIOPROCESSING,
(A NATIONAL INSTITUTE UNDER DEPT OF BIOTECHNOL OGY, MINISTRY OF S&T, GOVT OF
INDIA), MOHALI, PUNJAB , INDIA

1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Starch
Starch is the major polysaccharide food reserve in nature after cellulose. It serves as an
important source of nutrition for other living organisms [1]. It is synthesized in the
plastids present in leaves and accumulates as insoluble granules in higher and lower
plants. Starch is composed of a large number of glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds.
It consists of two types of molecules: amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is a linear,
water-insoluble polymer of glucose joined by a-1,4 bonds, whereas amylopectin is a
branched, water-soluble polysaccharide with short a-1,4-linked linear chains of 10e60
glucose units and a-1,6-linked side chains with 15e45 glucose units. The levels of
amylase and amylopectin vary among different starches. Generally, starch is composed
of amylose and amylopectin in the range 25e28% and 72e75%, respectively.

1.1.2 Amylases
Amylases are the enzymes that break down starch, or glycogen. These enzymes are
produced by a variety of living organisms, ranging from bacteria to plants to humans.
Though amylases are produced by several microorganisms, those produced by fungi and
bacteria have dominated applications in the industrial sector [2]. Bacteria and fungi
secrete amylases to the outside of their cells to carry out extracellular digestion, which
breaks down the insoluble starch, and then the soluble end products (such as glucose or
maltose) are absorbed into the cells.
Amylases constitute a class of industrial enzymes occupying about 25% of the enzyme
market. Because of the increasing demand for these enzymes in various industries, there
is enormous interest in developing them with better properties, such as raw starch-
degrading amylases suitable for industrial applications, and cost-effective production
*
Corresponding Author.

Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering: Production, Isolation and Purification of Industrial Products
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63662-1.00001-4 3
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
4 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING

techniques. Although amylases can be derived from several sources, including plants,
animals, and microorganisms, microbial enzymes generally meet industrial demands.
A large number of microbial amylases are available commercially and they have almost
completely replaced the chemical hydrolysis of starch in the starch processing industry
[3]. One of the most important advantages of using microbes for the production of
amylases is the bulk production capacity and the fact that microbes can be genetically
modified to produce enzymes with desired characteristics [4]. These enzymes are of great
significance in biotechnology, with various applications ranging from food, fermentation,
and textiles to the paper industry. Each application of a-amylase requires unique
properties with respect to specificity, stability, and temperature and pH dependence.
Modern technologies such as computational packages and online servers are the
current tools used in protein sequence analysis and characterization. The physico-
chemical and structural properties of these proteins are well understood with the use of
computational tools. The protein sequence profile, such as number of amino acids and
sequence length, and the physicochemical properties of the protein, such as molecular
weight, atomic composition, extinction coefficient, aliphatic index, instability index, etc.,
can be computed by ProtParam, and the secondary structure prediction, sequence
similarity, evolutionary relationships, and 3-D structure of various proteins can be
computed using the ESyPred3D server [5].

1.1.3 Classification of Amylases

Based on the mechanism of breakdown of starch, the molecules are classified into three
types: a-amylase, b-amylase, and amyloglucosidase. a-Amylase reduces the viscosity of
starch by breaking down the bonds at random, thereby producing variably sized chains
of glucose. b-Amylase enzyme breaks the glucoseeglucose bonds by removing two
glucose units at a time, thereby producing maltose. Amyloglucosidase is the enzyme that
breaks successive bonds from the nonreducing end of the straight chain, producing
glucose. Many microbial amylases usually contain a mixture of these amylases. This
chapter focuses only on a-amylases.
a-Amylases (EC 3.2.1.1) are starch-degrading enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of
internal a-1,4-O-glycosidic bonds in the polysaccharides with the retention of the
a-anomeric configuration in the products. Most of the a-amylases are metalloenzymes,
which require calcium ions (Ca2þ) for their activity, structural integrity, and stability.
They belong to family 13 (GH-13) of the glycoside hydrolase group of enzymes [6,7].
Based on the end-product formation a-amylases are classified as saccharifying and
liquefying amylases. The saccharifying a-amylases are further classified as maltose
forming, maltotetraose forming, maltopentaose forming and maltohexaose forming
based on the end products formed [1].
The a-amylase family is the largest family of glycoside hydrolases, transferases, and
isomerases, comprising 30 different enzyme specificities. These enzymes are classified
into four groups: endoamylases, exoamylases, debranching enzymes, and transferases.
Endoamylases are enzymes that cleave internal a-1,4 bonds resulting in a-anomeric
 Chapter 1  a-Amylases 5

products. Exoamylases are enzymes that cleave a-1,4, or a-1,6 bonds of the external
glucose residues resulting in a- or b-anomeric products. Debranching enzymes are
enzymes that hydrolyze a-1,6 bonds leaving linear polysaccharides. Transferases are
enzymes that cleave a-1,4 glycosidic bonds of the donor molecule and transfer part of
the donor molecule to a glycosidic acceptor, forming a new glycosidic bond [7].

1.2 Sources of a-Amylase

a-Amylases are universally distributed throughout the plant, animal, and microbial
kingdoms. The enzymes from microbial sources have dominated applications in in-
dustrial processes [2]. Though a-amylases have been derived from several microbial
sources, including bacteria, fungi, yeast, and actinomycetes, the enzymes produced from
bacterial and fungal sources have dominated applications in industrial sectors. Because
of their short growth period, their biochemical diversity, and the ease with which
enzyme concentrations might be increased by environmental and genetic manipulation,
the enzymes from microbial sources generally meet industrial demands.

1.2.1 Plant a-Amylases

Plants store carbon predominantly as starch and the metabolism of starch is essential to
all life. Family 1 a-amylases are characterized by having a secretary signal peptide.
This plays an important role in the degradation of extracellular starch in cereal grain
endosperms. Family 2 a-amylases are characterized by having no predicted targeted
peptide and are localized in the cytoplasm. These amylases have been identified from
monocotyledons, dicotyledons, and gymnosperms. They become most active when the
plastidial starch reserves of leaves are more depleted. They are involved in general stress
responses. Family 3 a-amylases are characterized by having a large N-terminal domain,
which contains a large predicted chloroplast transit peptide. These enzymes are
responsible for degrading plastid-bound starch in storage tissues and leaves [8].

1.2.2 Bacterial a-Amylases

a-Amylases are produced from various bacterial sources, including Bacillus, Brevi-
bacterium, Clostridium, Halomonas, Naxibacter, Nesterenkonia, Paenibacillus,
Pseudomonas, Streptomyces sp., etc. Among the bacterial sources, Bacillus sp. is widely
used, especially for the production of thermostable a-amylases. Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus
stearothermophilus, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus acid-
ocaldarius, Bifidobacterium bifidum, and Bifidobacterium acerans are important sources
used for a-amylase production [9]. Alkaline and thermotolerant amylases have been
reported from Bacillus sp., B. licheniformis, and Bacillus halodurans [10]. Other bacteria
producing a-amylase include Anoxybacillus beppuensis [11], Bacillus laterosporus [12],
Bacillus acidicola [13], Chryseobacterium taeanense [14], Clostridium sp. [15],
Microbacterium foliorum [16], Nesterenkonia sp. [17], Thermococcus sp. [18], Anoxybacillus
flavithermus [19] etc.
6 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING

1.2.3 Fungal a-Amylases

Several fungal species also produce a-amylases, including Acremonium, Aspergillus,
Penicillium, Mucor, Neurospora, and Thermomyces sp. Among the fungal sources, the
genus Aspergillus has been widely used for the production of a-amylases. Aspergillus
niger, Aspergillus flavus, and Aspergillus oryzae are important sources used among the
fungal sources [20,21]. Other fungal strains producing a-amylase include Thermomyces
lanuginosus [22].

1.3 Production of a-Amylase

1.3.1 Production Methods
To meet the industrial demand, it is essential to develop a low-cost medium for the
production of a-amylase. It can be produced by submerged fermentation (SmF) and
solid-state fermentation (SSF). The production is affected by a variety of physiological
factors, which include pH, temperature, aeration, inoculum concentration, inoculum
age, composition of the growth medium, surfactants, carbon source, nitrogen source,
etc. [23]. Interactions of these parameters have a significant influence on the production
of the enzyme. Generally, SmF is carried out using synthetic media, incorporating me-
dium constituents such as nutrient broth and soluble starch, as well as other compo-
nents, which are very expensive. Replacement of such constituents by cheaper carbon
and nitrogen sources as well as nutrients would benefit the process in cost reduction.
Agricultural by-products offer potential benefits in this regard [7].
SSF is defined as the process in which the growth of microorganisms is carried out on
solid substrates with negligible free water, or free-flowing water [24]. SSF plays an
important role in the production of enzymes. Agro-industrial substrates are considered
the best substrates for SSF processes. It is of special interest in those processes in which a
crude fermented product may be used directly as an enzyme source. The common
substrates used for SSF processes are wheat bran, rice bran, cassava waste, palm oil
waste, banana waste, tea waste, coconut oil cake, coir pith, corn cobs, etc. In SSF, it is
important to provide optimized water content and to control the water activity of the
fermenting substrate. At times, SSF is preferred to SmF because of its simple technique,
low capital investment, lower levels of catabolite repression and end-product inhibition,
low wastewater output, better product recovery, and high-quality production [25].
Continuous and fed-batch studies are more effective for the production of a-amylase.
The study conducted by Lee and Parulekar [26] revealed that the a-amylase production
by B. subtilis TN 106 was enhanced when batch cultivation was extended with fed-batch
cultivation, and the enzyme activity was 54% higher in a two-stage fed-batch operation
compared to a single-stage batch culture. Mishra and Maheswari [27] reported
a-amylase from a thermophilic fungus, T. lanuginosus; the enzyme was a dimeric protein
with a molecular mass of 42 kDa with optimum pH and temperature of 5.6 and 65 C,
 Chapter 1  a-Amylases 7

respectively. The enzyme produced high levels of maltose from potato starch, suggesting
its usefulness in the commercial production of maltose and glucose syrups. The study
conducted by Krishna and Chandrasekharan [28] revealed that banana peel could be
utilized as a potential substrate for a-amylase production by A. niger. Saxena and Singh
[29] screened various agro-industrial residues for amylase production from Bacillus sp.
and found mustard oil cake to be the best substrate. The strain produced 5400 U/g of
amylase at 1:3 moisture content, 20% inoculum, and an incubation period of 72 h. Yang
and Wang [30] reported a-amylase production by Streptomyces rimosus TM 55 using
sweet potato residue and peanut meal residue as a substrate. The strain produced
1903 U of a-amylase after 96 h of incubation.
Ramachandran et al. [20] used coconut oil cake (COC), a by-product of oil extraction
from dried copra, as a substrate for the production of a-amylase from fungi. COC sup-
plemented with 0.5% starch and 1% peptone enhanced a-amylase production by
A. oryzae. COC serves as a source of soluble proteins and lipids thus providing essential
nutrients for the growth of and enzyme synthesis by the organism. Production of
a-amylase by B. amyloliquefaciens under SSF using corn gluten meal (CGM) was re-
ported by Saban et al. [31]. The study revealed that a-amylase production in a medium
with CGM was five times higher than that in a medium containing starch and other
components. Utilization of CGM as a substrate makes the process economically viable
because CGM is a by-product of starch-based industries.
Production and optimization of a-amylase from A. oryzae CBS 819 using a by-product
of wheat grinding (gruel) as the sole carbon source was done by Kammoun et al. [32].
Various process parameters affecting the production were optimized by adopting a
BoxeBehnken design, which increased the enzyme production from 40.1 to 151.1 U/mL.
Murthy et al. [33] reported coffee by-products as suitable substrate for the production of
a-amylase under SSF. Coffee waste was converted into value-added products by
fermentation using Neurospora crassa CFR 308. The optimum conditions for a-amylase
production were moisture content of 60%, pH 4.5, incubation temperature of 27 C,
particle size of 1 mm, and incubation time of 5 days. Under optimized conditions the
strain produced 7084 U/gds of a-amylase.
Syed et al. [34] reported extracellular amylase production by Streptomyces gulbar-
gensis DAS 131 by SmF. The highest amylase production was observed when the medium
was supplemented with 1% starch. The enzyme was thermotolerant and stable at pH 9.0.
Starch and peptone were good sources of carbon and nitrogen. Sharma and
Satyanarayana [13] reported enhanced production of acidic high-maltose-forming and
Ca2þ-independent a-amylase by B. acidicola; a maximum enzyme titer of 366 IU/L was
attained after 36 h of fermentation at pH 4.5, 33 C, with 0.5 vvm aeration. The enzyme
titer was 10,100 IU/L in fed-batch fermentation. One of the main advantages of fed-
batch fermentation over the batch fermentation is that the concentration of limiting
substrate is maintained at low levels, thus avoiding the repressing effect of high substrate
concentration and thereby minimizing the accumulation of inhibitory metabolites.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The Project Gutenberg eBook of Mr. Belloc
still objects to Mr. Wells's "Outline of history"
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Mr. Belloc still objects to Mr. Wells's "Outline of history"

Author: Hilaire Belloc

Release date: December 5, 2023 [eBook #72334]

Language: English

Original publication: San Francisco: Ecclesiastical Supply

Association, 1927

Credits: Aaron Adrignola, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was
produced from images made available by the HathiTrust
Digital Library.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MR. BELLOC

STILL OBJECTS TO MR. WELLS'S "OUTLINE OF HISTORY" ***
MR. BELLOC STILL OBJECTS
 MR. BELLOC
STILL OBJECTS
TO MR. WELLS’S “OUTLINE OF HISTORY”

BY
HILAIRE BELLOC

ECCLESIASTICAL * SUPPLY * ASSOCIATION

E * S * A
PUBLISHERS AND IMPORTERS

328–330 STOCKTON ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.

1927
 Made and Printed in Great Britain at
The Mayflower Press, Plymouth. William Brendon & Son, Ltd.
 CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction vii
I. Mr. Wells’s General Grievances 1
II. Mr. Wells as Biologist 12
III. Mr. Wells’s Ignorance of the Catholic Church 22
IV. My Errors 28
V. Mr. Wells Shirks 36
VI. The Great Rosy Dawn 40
 INTRODUCTION
MR. H. G. WELLS brought out some time ago an Outline of History,
the object of which was to deny the Christian religion.
I examined this production for the benefit of my co-religionists in
the columns of certain Catholic papers. I did full justice to Mr. Wells’s
talents as a writer, but I exposed his ill acquaintance with modern work
on Biology, with early Christian writing and tradition, with Christian
doctrine itself: and, in general, his incompetence.
Stung by this exposure, Mr. Wells has just brought out against me
a small pamphlet, under the title of Mr. Belloc Objects to the “Outline of
History.” It is an excited, popular, crude attack, full of personal insult
and brawling, and ample proof that he is hit. But it is singularly weak in
argument, confused in reply, and, as I shall show in a moment, shirks
nine-tenths of the very damaging criticism which I directed against his
book.
That book denies a creative God. There is no God, the Father
Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Incarnation is a myth; the
Resurrection a falsehood; the Eucharist a mummery.
Probably Mr. Wells is thus infuriated, not only at being exposed,
but also because he cannot understand how such an assault upon
religious truth should possibly provoke resentment; yet I think I can
explain the thing to him by a parable.
Supposing (it is mere hypothesis) that a man were to attack the
Royal Family, and His Majesty in particular, jeering at the functions
which monarchy performs for the State and holding up the King of
England to contempt.
Mr. Wells would be the first to admit that a man so misbehaving
himself would receive very hard knocks indeed. He would be called
severely to account on all sides. It would be said that his spite arose
from some personal grievance against the Great; that he thus relieved
his soreness at feeling himself socially neglected, and so on. He might
justify himself as a martyr in the cause of political duty, but he would be
a fool if he did not look out for squalls.
Now the great and fundamental truths of the Christian religion are
still sacred to quite a number of Mr. Wells’s fellow-citizens, including
myself. Our attachment to them is at least as strong as the loyalty of
the average Englishman to the Royal Family; and if he attacks them by
way of History—making out that History disproves the Christian
religion—then it is not, as he seems to imagine, an outrage; but, on the
contrary, a natural and inevitable consequence that he should be taken
to task, and his competence for writing history severely examined.
I propose to reply in this pamphlet, not because I have any
intention of being drawn into a slanging match with a writer who is my
superior in this form of art, but because no challenge to Truth must be
allowed to pass unheeded. So far from imitating Mr. Wells, I shall take
care when I publish—as I do in a few weeks—my whole book, entitled
A Companion to Mr. Wells’s “Outline of History,” to go carefully over my
text and to cut out anything which could be construed into mere
personal attack; though I shall preserve, of course, and even add to,
the due and often severe criticism which Mr. Wells deserves for
pretending to teach others on the basis of his own most insufficient
instruction.
I should, no doubt, greatly increase the circulation of this little
pamphlet of mine were I to season it with those offensive references to
personal habits and appearance which are now fashionable between
contemporaries. But I do not aim at any large circulation, beyond that
reasonable amount which will secure my being heard by the people
whose attention is worth having.
Invective such as Mr. Wells substitutes for argument is wholly
irrelevant. When you are discussing the competence of a man to write
history, it is utterly meaningless to throw about the jeers of the gutter
on his dress, accent or any other private detail concerning him. If you
discover a man pretending to write about Roman antiquity and yet
wholly blind to the effect of Latin literature, you rightly point out his
ignorance. But it is not to the purpose to accuse him of having a round
face or a thin voice. Indeed, were invective my object (which it most
certainly is not), I should rather have answered in verse as being the
more incisive and enduring form.
If it be a test of literary victory over an opponent to make him foam
at the mouth, then I have won hands down; but I do not regard Mr.
Wells as my opponent, nor am I seeking any victory. I am simply taking
a book which proposes to destroy the Faith of Christian men by the
recital of pretended history, and showing that the history is bad. While
praising many qualities in the book, I point out with chapter and verse
that the history is uninformed. That is my point and my only point.
Now that I have made it, I hope, quite clear that I am neither
interested in Mr. Wells’s personalities nor intend to go one better upon
them, but to deal strictly with things capable of argument and intelligent
examination, let us cut the cackle and come to the horses.

* * * * *
Mr. Wells’s pamphlet against me, to which I am here replying, is a
web of six elements. These are not put in any regular order, and the
author himself would probably not be capable of analysing them; but a
competent critic has no difficulty in separating them one from the other.
They are:—
First: A number of shrill grievances on general grounds. For
instance, that though I have praised him highly I have not praised him
highly enough; that where I had to blame him I have used adjectives
upon his work such as “confused,” “ignorant,” which were not
warranted; that in general he is an ill-used fellow, and is moved to
complain most bitterly.
Secondly: He violently (and this is the main gist of all his pamphlet)
assaults me for pointing out that his statement of Darwinian Natural
Selection as the chief agent of evolution is antiquated stuff, exploded,
and proves him quite unacquainted with modern work. Here he jeers at
me as putting on a pose of special learning, and challenges me to
quote any modern authorities substantiating my criticism. He calls my
argument fantastic, a thing made up out of my own head, without any
authority from competent biologists. He denies the existence of any
such group of modern men of science opposed to Darwinian Natural
Selection. It is an amazing thing that his ignorance should reach such
a level as that, but it does. And it is there I am going to hammer him.
Thirdly: There runs all through the little pamphlet, and still more
through the book itself, a startling ignorance upon the Catholic Church,
and in particular the idea that the Church is opposed to scientific work,
even such elementary science as Mr. Wells attempts to expound.
Fourthly: He complains that I have in certain specific points
misread his meaning, misstated his conclusions or affirmations, and
made errors myself in attempting to correct his. He brings, it is true, no
more than three specific allegations; three out of a total of I know not
how many score, in a body of work which catches him up and exposes
him over and over again. Nevertheless, such as they are, being
specific allegations, however few, they must in justice be met; and I will
here meet them.
Fifthly: (and most significant): There is the embarrassed silence of
Mr. Wells’s pamphlet: his inability to meet nine-tenths of the points I
have brought against him, and his discreet shirking all mention of
them.
Sixthly: The book ends with Mr. Wells’s usual glorious vision of a
glorious Millennium contrasted with the sad blindness of Catholics in
general, and myself in particular, to this approaching Seventh
Monarchy.
I will deal with these six matters which build up Mr. Wells’s
pamphlet, taking them in the order I have given.
 I
MR. WELLS’S GENERAL GRIEVANCES

I CANNOT pretend in so short a pamphlet as this to deal with all the

separate lamentations with which Mr. Wells has filled the air. But I
can state the principal of them, and try to make him understand how
wrong-headed he is in his objections.
Of these general points, the first and, perhaps, most important is
that he was refused a right of reply. On page v of his pamphlet he
distinctly insinuates that I was afraid of hearing his reply, and had it
suppressed. For he says that the Editor of the paper in which my
articles appeared would not give him his opportunity, and that he so
refused “after various consultations with Mr. Belloc.”
As to the space which was offered, and the exceptional facilities
which, I understand, were granted to this angry man, the Editor
must, of course, speak for himself, and has, I believe, done so. But
as to the part which I took, it can be stated very simply. I was told by
the Editor (who had asked to see me on the matter) that Mr. Wells
desired to reply in the same columns in which he had been criticised.
I was asked what my attitude was in the matter, and I affirmed in the
strongest fashion (to which the Editor will bear witness) my belief
that the fullest right of reply should always be given to anyone
criticised on matters of fact or judgment. The interview did not last
ten minutes, but, to give a record of my attitude, I wrote a strong and
clear letter to the same effect. So far as I am concerned I asked for
nothing better than a reply, and I believe the Editor offered it.
Of two things, one, either Mr. Wells knew my attitude, in which
case his insinuation is inexcusable, or he did not, in which case it
was only rash; but at any rate he is, in this first grievance of his, quite
wrong. I particularly wanted him to have every opportunity for reply.
Nothing could suit me better.
Next he complains that I have not given him sufficient praise, or,
at any rate, not praised him as continuously, highly and
enthusiastically as I ought to have done. He complains that I only
give him “slow” and “formal compliments” (page 2) and “patronising
praise” (page 5).
He is wounded because I accuse him of violent antagonism to
the Catholic Church (page 1) (an accusation which he denies very
earnestly).
He indignantly repudiates any bias against the gentry in history
—which social class I ask him to revere.
Lastly, he accuses me of using such terms about many
passages in the History as “ignorant,” “childish,” “confused.”
I am afraid it is necessary before touching on these grievances
to explain to Mr. Wells what criticism is, for it is clear that he has
never considered the nature of that literary function.
When you criticise the writing of a man who deals with definite
facts and the conclusions to be drawn from them, it is your business
to praise what is praiseworthy in his effort, and to condemn what is
insufficient, false or bad.
You do not praise (if you are a serious critic) simply as a sort of
sop or counterbalance to blame; you praise because you find things
worthy of praise—and you blame where you find things worthy of
blame.
There was nothing oily or patronising, nor even adventitious and
artificial in the praise which I saw fit to offer. It was not vague, it was
very definite, and, I think, just. Moreover, it was very strong praise, of
which any writer might be proud at the hands of a colleague. I
praised Mr. Wells’s lucidity and economy of manner, his sense of
proportion, and, above all, his most remarkable talent for presenting
a vivid picture to the reader. In this my words were, “None of our
contemporaries possesses it” (the gift of lucid and vivid description)
“in anything like the same degree.” In other words, I said that he
possessed a talent of the most important literary kind, which any
writer would envy, and that he possessed it in a degree which made
him superior to any contemporary.
I also said that he was conspicuously sincere, that he wrote very
clearly, with an “excellent economy in the use of words,” and was
unreserved in my hearty appreciation of his accuracy in details of
reference, such as dates, spelling of names, etc.
I went on to say how strongly he felt the importance of history to
mankind, though it is true that I qualified this by saying that by
mankind he meant the only sort of mankind he knew. I said of his
honesty of purpose, “that it was a quality apparent in every line of the
work.”
Really, if that sort of thing is “oiliness,” Mr. Wells must be very
difficult to please! It may be “slow”; it is not a torrent of
undiscriminating adulation; it is mixed with justified blame. But it is
such a catalogue of remarkable literary powers as I would not make
for another writer.
I did much more than this. I specifically praised whole portions of
the book as being quite excellent, notably his handling of the story of
language, and the précis on many sections of history. I have no
space here to give a list of the passages in which I compliment him;
but they are numerous, as any one of my readers will see when my
book (A Companion to Mr. Wells’s “Outline”) shall appear.
But he is not satisfied; and I am afraid the truth must be that
these recent large, popular circulations of his have gone to his head,
and now make him think himself much more talented than he is.
Next he has a grievance which I have no doubt is quite sincere
in his own mind, but which any impartial observer, I think, would
smile at. I have said that he acts with violent antagonism to the
Catholic Church, and I have called that his motive. That it is his
motive Mr. Wells “earnestly denies.”
Well, the whole book is written quite clearly round the object of
convincing the reader, by so-called evidence, rather than reasoned
argument, that there is no design in nature, and therefore no all-
powerful creative God as the Author of nature; therefore, again, no
revelation of such a God to men, therefore, naturally, no question of
the Incarnation in Jesus Christ. The Atonement is man-made
nonsense: The Fall of Man never happened, the Resurrection is a
foolish story, and the Eucharist a make-believe.
Now what Body is it which maintains in their entirety the
doctrines thus attacked? Can anyone deny that it is the Catholic
Church? Many of them have been held by other Bodies schismatical
or heretical to it, and therefore the doctrines are often alluded to as
those not of the Catholic Church, but of a vague entity, impossible to
define, called “Christianity.” Nevertheless, we all know that the denial
to-day of those doctrines does not provoke determined resistance in
any large organised Body outside the Catholic Church.
Apart from this, there are expressions of contempt which quite
clearly show the rabidness of the author’s reaction against the
Creed. There is no doubt at all that the Church makes him “see
red”—as she does so many others.
He says he is not conscious of any such motive in attacking all
the prime dogmas of the Christian Faith.
Well, I will give him a parallel. Suppose a foreigner were to write
an Outline of Nineteenth Century History, and to say in it that
Islanders were always rascals, that the love of sport and games was
degrading—and particularly vicious that of football and cricket—that
the English language was an offensive vehicle of thought and had
produced nothing worthy; that sea-power was a myth, and that
Nelson in particular was a bungler at handling ships; that the
administration of India was a failure and a crime; and that the
creation of large Overseas Colonies from the Mother Country was a
fatuous experiment.
Should we not say that the gentleman had some bias against
England?
Were he to tell us that he was not conscious of such a motive,
we should answer, “Very well, then, you aren’t—since you say so.
But the motive is certainly there, and your case is the most
extraordinary case of the subconscious ever presented to a
bewildered onlooker.”
Next, Mr. Wells objects most emphatically that I have done him
the grievous wrong of calling him a patriot.
I am quite willing to withdraw the words, to admit my blunder,
and to apologise to Mr. Wells for having made it. Every man is the
judge of his own thoughts, and if he assures me that he hates his
country, or is even indifferent to its fate, I will readily accept the
statement. I will substitute in my book for the word “patriot” the word
“national,” my only point being that Mr. Wells is highly local in his
outlook. I was careful to say that the patriotic (or national) motive
was, in my opinion, an advantage to the historian; but that its great
danger was limitation, and that in the particular case of Mr. Wells the
limitation was so narrow as to be disastrous to a general view of
Europe: making him unable to understand anything that was not of
his own particular suburban world.
He is wounded because I pointed out his odd reaction against
the idea of a gentleman, and his dislike of the gentry, and says that I
bid him “revere” them. I never asked him to do anything so silly as to
revere the gentry. I am sure I do not revere them myself. What I did
say was that it weakened an historian and pretty well put him out of
court when he wrote, not with balanced judgment, but negatively, out
of hatred; and that piece of criticism I must maintain.
As for his attitude towards the type called “a gentleman” in
history, and in contemporary life, it would be easy to give examples
out of other books from the same pen. But I am rigidly confining
myself to this book—the Outline of History—and I submit that right
through this work you see this strong dislike appearing. It appears in
his treatment of the type, Roman, French or English, ancient,
mediæval or modern. To take one instance out of a hundred, his
sneer at the late Lord Salisbury in the pamphlet against me is
characteristic. He suggests that this great man and considerable
scientist was incompetent to discuss a simple question in biology,
and had to be coached for the purpose, and badly coached. All our
generation is a witness to the great talent of Lord Salisbury and to
the range of his learning, and since he was no man’s enemy, and
certainly never can have done any harm, direct or indirect, to Mr.
Wells, I can only suggest that the word “Lord” was sufficient to throw
Mr. Wells off his balance.
Now for the condemnatory words to which he objects,—
presumably on account of their force—words which I have, indeed,
used in connection with his work, and shall certainly use again: such
words as “ignorance,” “blunders,” “childish,” “unscientific,” etc. I see I
must again explain to Mr. Wells an obvious principle in criticism
which he fails to grasp. A word is not out of place in criticism unless
it is either irrelevant or false in statement or in degree. The mere
strength of a word does not put it out of court. On the contrary, if the
strength of the word is exactly consonant to the degree of error
noted the criticism is more just than if a milder word had been used.
To say that a man who poisons his mother in order to obtain her
fortune is “reprehensible” is bad criticism. To call him an “inhuman
criminal” is sound criticism.
Irrelevant condemnatory words are very properly objected to by
their victims. But relevant condemnatory words are not only
admissible, but just and even necessary.
I must not fill the whole of this little reply of mine with a mass of
quotation illustrating the justice of the words I have used, but I can
give a few examples which are conclusive, and which the reader has
only to hear to be convinced.
As to “ignorance.” This is a word exactly applicable to point after
point in the Outline which I have thoroughly exposed. For instance, it
is ignorance not to appreciate the overwhelming effect of Latin
literature upon all our civilisation. It is not mere omission which has
left out this capital factor from Mr. Wells’s strange idea of Rome; it is,
and could only be, an insufficient knowledge of what that factor was.
If a schoolboy, writing an outline of the Battle of Waterloo, leave out
all mention of Blücher, that is not a mere omission, it is ignorance.
There is an example of ignorance on a very wide general point.
Next let me give an example of a highly particular point. It is really
startling in its effect.
 Mr. Wells nourishes the idea that the technical name for the
Incarnation is the Immaculate Conception!
It is perfectly legitimate to say that the man of average education
is not bound to be familiar with technical terms in a special
department, such as that of religious terminology; but when he sets
out to discuss that particular department, he must at least have the
alphabet of it. Had he never mentioned the Immaculate Conception
at all, the accusation would not lie: as he has foolishly blundered into
mentioning it, the accusation does lie. A Frenchman who has never
been to England cannot be called ignorant because he is unfamiliar
with the streets of London. But what of a Frenchman who writes a
guide to London and mixes up Victoria Station with Buckingham
Palace?
But by far the most striking example of ignorance in his work, an
example upon so astonishing a scale that one could hardly believe it
even of popular “scientific” stuff, is to be found in Mr. Wells’s
complete ignorance of the modern destructive criticism of Darwinian
Natural Selection. He not only (as we shall see in a moment) has
never heard of this European, English and American work—he
actually denies its existence and imagines I have made it up!
Again, I have used the word “childish” of his attitude on more
than one occasion.
Is the word “childish” too strong? I will give examples. In his fury
against me he suggests that I cannot “count beyond zero,” and he
admits, with a sneer, that I perhaps understand the meaning of the
word “strata.”
He tries to make capital of my giving the name of the very
eminent anthropologist, E. Boule, without putting “Monsieur” before
it, and says that I “elevate Monsieur Boule to the eminence of
‘Boule.’” That is childish. All the world cites eminent men by their
unsupported name. It is a sign of honour. For instance, that great
authority, Sir Arthur Keith (whom Mr. Wells sets up to have read and
followed), says “Boule.” Didn’t Mr. Wells know that?
 He says that he uses the term “Roman” Catholic because it is
the only one he knows with which to distinguish between the many
kinds of Catholics. Whereas (and everybody knows it, including Mr.
Wells in his more sober moments) the term is only used either
because it is the legal and traditional word of English Protestantism,
or, much more legitimately, to distinguish between us of the world-
wide Roman Communion and those sincere men (many of whom I
am proud to count my friends) who emphasise Catholic doctrine in
the English Church and call themselves “Anglo-Catholics.” This wild
protest, that there are any number of other Catholics—Scotto-
Catholics, Americano-Catholics, Morisco-Catholics, Indo-Catholics,
Mongolo-Catholics—is frankly ridiculous, and ridiculous after a
fashion which it is legitimate to call “childish”: the mere explosion of a
man in a passion.
Yet another example. Finding me to have overlooked a tiny
misprint (“ai” for “ia”) in the printing of a proper name, he writes a
whole page about it.
The proper adjective for absurdities of that kind is the adjective
“childish.” I could give any number of other examples, but I think
these are quite enough.
In point of fact, I only use the word “childish” rarely—I do not
know how often in my whole book, but at a guess I should say not
more than three times. But each time I am sure that it is well
deserved. However, if he prefer a more dignified adjective, such as
“immature” or “unstable” or “puerile,” or any other, I am quite willing
to meet him, so long as he allows me to say that he only too often in
his violence does write things which make him ridiculous from their
lack of poise.
And what of the adjective “confused” or (for I am afraid I allowed
myself that licence) “muddle-headed”? Well, I can give examples of
that innumerable. For instance, he cannot conceive that I should call
him unscientific, seeing that he was one of Huxley’s students. What
on earth has that got to do with my accusation? If a man should call
me a very poor Latin scholar (which I am—but then I do not write
popular manuals on Latin poetry), would it be any reply to tell him