4.7 Article

Dynamic metabolic flux analysis of plant cell wall synthesis

期刊

METABOLIC ENGINEERING
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 78-85

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2013.04.006

关键词

Dynamic metabolic flux analysis; Plant cell wall; Sucrose invertase; Metabolic engineering; Bioenergy crops

资金

  1. DOE Center for Plant and Microbial Complex Carbohydrates [DE-FG02-09ER-20097]
  2. Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (DOE BER Office of Science) [DE-FC02-07ER64494]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The regulation of plant cell wall synthesis pathways remains poorly understood. This has become a bottleneck in designing bioenergy crops. The goal of this study was to analyze the regulation of plant cell wall precursor metabolism using metabolic flux analysis based on dynamic labeling experiments. Arabidopsis T87 cells were cultured heterotrophically with C-13 labeled sucrose. The time course of C-13 labeling patterns in cell wall precursors and related sugar phosphates was monitored using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry until steady state labeling was reached. A kinetic model based on mass action reaction mechanisms was developed to simulate the carbon flow in the cell wall synthesis network. The kinetic parameters of the model were determined by fitting the model to the labeling time course data, cell wall composition, and synthesis rates. A metabolic control analysis was performed to predict metabolic regulations that may improve plant biomass composition for biofuel production. Our results describe the routes and rates of carbon flow from sucrose to cell wall precursors. We found that sucrose invertase is responsible for the entry of sucrose into metabolism and UDP-glucose-4-epimerase plays a dominant role in UDP-Gal synthesis in heterotrophic Aradidopsis cells under aerobic conditions. We also predicted reactions that exert strong regulatory influence over carbon flow to cell wall synthesis and its composition. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据