Multiple levers for overcoming the recalcitrance of lignocellulosic biomass.
Biomass deconstruction
CELF
Caldicellulosiruptor bescii
Clostridium thermocellum
Cotreatment
Fungal cellulase
Populus natural variants
Recalcitrance
Transgenic switchgrass
Journal
Biotechnology for biofuels
ISSN: 1754-6834
Titre abrégé: Biotechnol Biofuels
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101316935
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
05
10
2018
accepted:
04
01
2019
entrez:
25
1
2019
pubmed:
25
1
2019
medline:
25
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass is widely recognized as a key barrier to cost-effective biological processing to fuels and chemicals, but the relative impacts of physical, chemical and genetic interventions to improve biomass processing singly and in combination have yet to be evaluated systematically. Solubilization of plant cell walls can be enhanced by non-biological augmentation including physical cotreatment and thermochemical pretreatment, the choice of biocatalyst, the choice of plant feedstock, genetic engineering of plants, and choosing feedstocks that are less recalcitrant natural variants. A two-tiered combinatoric investigation of lignocellulosic biomass deconstruction was undertaken with three biocatalysts ( In the absence of augmentation and under the conditions tested, increased total carbohydrate solubilization (TCS) was observed for 8 of the 9 combinations of switchgrass modifications and biocatalysts tested, and statistically significant for five of the combinations. Our results indicate that recalcitrance is not a trait determined by the feedstock only, but instead is coequally determined by the choice of biocatalyst. TCS with Based on our results as well as literature studies, it appears that some form of non-biological augmentation will likely be necessary for the foreseeable future to achieve high TCS for most cellulosic feedstocks. However, our results show that this need not necessarily involve thermochemical processing, and need not necessarily occur prior to biological conversion. Under the conditions tested, the relative magnitude of TCS increase was augmentation > biocatalyst choice > plant choice > plant modification > plant natural variants. In the presence of augmentation, plant modification, plant natural variation, and plant choice exhibited a small, statistically non-significant impact on TCS.
Sections du résumé
Background
The recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass is widely recognized as a key barrier to cost-effective biological processing to fuels and chemicals, but the relative impacts of physical, chemical and genetic interventions to improve biomass processing singly and in combination have yet to be evaluated systematically. Solubilization of plant cell walls can be enhanced by non-biological augmentation including physical cotreatment and thermochemical pretreatment, the choice of biocatalyst, the choice of plant feedstock, genetic engineering of plants, and choosing feedstocks that are less recalcitrant natural variants. A two-tiered combinatoric investigation of lignocellulosic biomass deconstruction was undertaken with three biocatalysts (
Results
In the absence of augmentation and under the conditions tested, increased total carbohydrate solubilization (TCS) was observed for 8 of the 9 combinations of switchgrass modifications and biocatalysts tested, and statistically significant for five of the combinations. Our results indicate that recalcitrance is not a trait determined by the feedstock only, but instead is coequally determined by the choice of biocatalyst. TCS with
Conclusion
Based on our results as well as literature studies, it appears that some form of non-biological augmentation will likely be necessary for the foreseeable future to achieve high TCS for most cellulosic feedstocks. However, our results show that this need not necessarily involve thermochemical processing, and need not necessarily occur prior to biological conversion. Under the conditions tested, the relative magnitude of TCS increase was augmentation > biocatalyst choice > plant choice > plant modification > plant natural variants. In the presence of augmentation, plant modification, plant natural variation, and plant choice exhibited a small, statistically non-significant impact on TCS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30675183
doi: 10.1186/s13068-019-1353-7
pii: 1353
pmc: PMC6335785
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
15Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Stewart CN Jr [added]
Références
Chem Rev. 2015 Feb 11;115(3):1308-448
pubmed: 25629559
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 1;108(9):3803-8
pubmed: 21321194
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017 Feb;15(2):83-95
pubmed: 27941816
Science. 2007 Jun 15;316(5831):1570-1
pubmed: 17569847
New Phytol. 2012 Apr;194(1):91-101
pubmed: 22239166
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002 Sep;66(3):506-77, table of contents
pubmed: 12209002
Nat Commun. 2016 Jun 28;7:11989
pubmed: 27349324
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015 Mar 12;8:41
pubmed: 25802552
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015 Feb 12;8:18
pubmed: 25709714
Plant Biotechnol J. 2014 Sep;12(7):914-24
pubmed: 24751162
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Dec 13;108(50):20225-30
pubmed: 22135470
Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Jun;15(6):688-697
pubmed: 27862852
Science. 2014 Apr 4;344(6179):90-3
pubmed: 24700858
Biotechnol Bioeng. 1984 Dec;26(12):1498-505
pubmed: 18551682
Bioresour Technol. 2011 Dec;102(24):11063-71
pubmed: 21524908
Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2017 Jun;44:151-160
pubmed: 28390861
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 14;111(2):845-50
pubmed: 24379366
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Oct 31;103(44):16165-9
pubmed: 17060624
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016 Jan 12;9:8
pubmed: 26759604
Bioresour Technol. 2009 Nov;100(21):5170-5
pubmed: 19545999
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016 May 20;9:106
pubmed: 27213013
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012 Jun;39(6):943-7
pubmed: 22350066
Nat Genet. 2014 Oct;46(10):1089-96
pubmed: 25151358
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2013 Sep;110(9):2380-8
pubmed: 23568345
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013 May 07;6(1):71
pubmed: 23651942
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 28;111(4):1652-7
pubmed: 24474791
Sci Adv. 2016 Feb 05;2(2):e1501254
pubmed: 26989779
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2017 Jun;45:202-211
pubmed: 28528086
Science. 2013 Dec 20;342(6165):1513-6
pubmed: 24357319
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015 Feb 27;8:35
pubmed: 25798193
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001 Sep;56(5-6):634-49
pubmed: 11601609
Plant Cell. 2013 Nov;25(11):4342-61
pubmed: 24285795
BMC Genomics. 2015 Jan 23;16:24
pubmed: 25613058
New Phytol. 2012 Jan;193(1):121-36
pubmed: 21988539
ChemSusChem. 2015 May 22;8(10):1716-25
pubmed: 25677100
Science. 2007 Feb 9;315(5813):804-7
pubmed: 17289988