4.8 Article

Lignin content in natural Populus variants affects sugar release

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1009252108

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science for the BioEnergy Science Center (BESC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary obstacle to producing renewable fuels from lignocellulosic biomass is a plant's recalcitrance to releasing sugars bound in the cell wall. From a sample set of wood cores representing 1,100 individual undomesticated Populus trichocarpa trees, 47 extreme phenotypes were selected across measured lignin content and ratio of syringyl and guaiacyl units (S/G ratio). This subset was tested for total sugar release through enzymatic hydrolysis alone as well as through combined hot-water pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis using a high-throughput screening method. The total amount of glucan and xylan released varied widely among samples, with total sugar yields of up to 92% of the theoretical maximum. A strong negative correlation between sugar release and lignin content was only found for pretreated samples with an S/G ratio < 2.0. For higher S/G ratios, sugar release was generally higher, and the negative influence of lignin was less pronounced. When examined separately, only glucose release was correlated with lignin content and S/G ratio in this manner, whereas xylose release depended on the S/G ratio alone. For enzymatic hydrolysis without pretreatment, sugar release increased significantly with decreasing lignin content below 20%, irrespective of the S/G ratio. Furthermore, certain samples featuring average lignin content and S/G ratios exhibited exceptional sugar release. These facts suggest that factors beyond lignin and S/G ratio influence recalcitrance to sugar release and point to a critical need for deeper understanding of cell-wall structure before plants can be rationally engineered for reduced recalcitrance and efficient biofuels production.

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

4.8
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