4.5 Article

High-Throughput Screening Techniques for Biomass Conversion

期刊

BIOENERGY RESEARCH
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 179-192

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12155-009-9051-0

关键词

Biomass conversion; Biomass pretreatment; Cellulase assay; Lignocellulosic biomass; High-throughput screening

资金

  1. DOE Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research through the BioEnergy Science Center (BESC), a DOE Bioenergy Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-throughput (HTP) screening of biomass or biomass-degrading enzymes, regardless of the desired outcome, is fraught with obstacles and challenges not typically faced in more traditional biotechnology. The enzyme systems are complex and synergistic and the substrate is highly heterogeneous, insoluble, and difficult to dispense. Digestions are often carried out for days at temperatures of 50 C or higher, leading to significant challenges regarding evaporation control in small well volumes. Furthermore, it is often desirable to condition or pretreat the biomass at extreme temperatures and/or pH to enhance enzyme digestibility. Once the substrate has been saccharified, evaluation of the extent and efficiency of conversion is made more difficult by time-consuming and tedious techniques used to measure the sugar products. Over the past decade or so, biomass researchers have creatively addressed these challenges by developing techniques to reduce biomass heterogeneity, uniformly distribute biomass samples at the small scale, pretreat the biomass at the small scale, quantitatively load these samples with enzymes, control evaporation of small reaction volumes for multiday incubations, and rapidly quantify the products. Other aspects of these measurements remain problematic and are being addressed. This review will address some of these challenges in detail, but more importantly, we will endeavor to educate the reader about the trials, tribulations, and pitfalls of carrying out HTP screening in biomass conversion research.

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

4.5
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