4.5 Article

Degradation of wood and enzyme production by Ceriporiopsis subvermispora

期刊

ENZYME AND MICROBIAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 384-390

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2009.06.003

关键词

Wood degradation; Ceriporiopsis subvermispora; White-rot fungi; Lignin; Cellulose; Hemicellulose

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture [19580196]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19580196] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degradation of the components of Japanese beech and Japanese cedar wood was measured overtime in cultures of the white-rot fungus Ceriporiopsis subvermispora. Although there was no initial degradation of cedar wood, after 12 weeks the mass loss of both cedar and beech wood was 15-20%. The mass losses of filter paper in beech wood-containing cultures and glucose cultures after 12 weeks were 87% and 70%, respectively. The ratio of lignin loss to mass loss of both beech and cedar wood cultures approached 2.0. Although the cellulose loss in cedar wood was very low throughout the 12-week incubation, C subvermispora degraded the hemicellulose in Japanese cedar much more effectively than that in Japanese beech. These results confirm that C subvermispora is a selective lignin degrader. During the 12-week incubation with Japanese beech wood, C. subvermispora continuously produced at least one of three phenol oxidases: laccase was produced initially, followed by Mn-independent peroxidase activity peaking at 6 weeks and Mn-dependent peroxidase activity peaking at 10 weeks. Lignin peroxidase and carboxymethylcellulase activities peaked after 3 weeks of incubation. Avicelase activity was present throughout the incubation period, although the activity was very low. The low-molecular-mass fraction of the extracellular medium, which catalyzes a redox reaction between 02 and electron donors to produce hydroxyl radical, may act synergistically with the enzymes to degrade wood cell walls. (c) 2009 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

4.5
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