Composition and yield of non-cellulosic and cellulosic sugars in soluble and particulate fractions during consolidated bioprocessing of poplar biomass by Clostridium thermocellum.
Cellulose
Clostridium thermocellum
Consolidated bioprocessing
Hemicellulose (xylan)
Lignin
Non-cellulosic wall polysaccharides
Pectin
Populus
Journal
Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts
ISSN: 2731-3654
Titre abrégé: Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300888906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Feb 2022
28 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
19
10
2021
accepted:
10
02
2022
entrez:
1
3
2022
pubmed:
2
3
2022
medline:
2
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Terrestrial plant biomass is the primary renewable carbon feedstock for enabling transition to a sustainable bioeconomy. Consolidated bioprocessing (CBP) by the cellulolytic thermophile Clostridium thermocellum offers a single step microbial platform for production of biofuels and biochemicals via simultaneous solubilization of carbohydrates from lignocellulosic biomass and conversion to products. Here, solubilization of cell wall cellulosic, hemicellulosic, and pectic polysaccharides in the liquor and solid residues generated during CBP of poplar biomass by C. thermocellum was analyzed. The total amount of biomass solubilized in the C. thermocellum DSM1313 fermentation platform was 5.8, 10.3, and 13.7% of milled non-pretreated poplar after 24, 48, and 120 h, respectively. These results demonstrate solubilization of 24% cellulose and 17% non-cellulosic sugars after 120 h, consistent with prior reports. The net solubilization of non-cellulosic sugars by C. thermocellum (after correcting for the uninoculated control fermentations) was 13 to 36% of arabinose (Ara), xylose (Xyl), galactose (Gal), mannose (Man), and glucose (Glc); and 15% and 3% of fucose and glucuronic acid, respectively. No rhamnose was solubilized and 71% of the galacturonic acid (GalA) was solubilized. These results indicate that C. thermocellum may be selective for the types and/or rate of solubilization of the non-cellulosic wall polymers. Xyl, Man, and Glc were found to accumulate in the fermentation liquor at levels greater than in uninoculated control fermentations, whereas Ara and Gal did not accumulate, suggesting that C. thermocellum solubilizes both hemicelluloses and pectins but utilizes them differently. After five days of fermentation, the relative amount of Rha in the solid residues increased 21% indicating that the Rha-containing polymer rhamnogalacturonan I (RG-I) was not effectively solubilized by C. thermocellum CBP, a result confirmed by immunoassays. Comparison of the sugars in the liquor versus solid residue showed that C. thermocellum solubilized hemicellulosic xylan and mannan, but did not fully utilize them, solubilized and appeared to utilize pectic homogalacturonan, and did not solubilize RG-I. The significant relative increase in RG-I in poplar solid residues following CBP indicates that C. thermocellum did not solubilize RG-I. These results support the hypothesis that this pectic glycan may be one barrier for efficient solubilization of poplar by C. thermocellum.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Terrestrial plant biomass is the primary renewable carbon feedstock for enabling transition to a sustainable bioeconomy. Consolidated bioprocessing (CBP) by the cellulolytic thermophile Clostridium thermocellum offers a single step microbial platform for production of biofuels and biochemicals via simultaneous solubilization of carbohydrates from lignocellulosic biomass and conversion to products. Here, solubilization of cell wall cellulosic, hemicellulosic, and pectic polysaccharides in the liquor and solid residues generated during CBP of poplar biomass by C. thermocellum was analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The total amount of biomass solubilized in the C. thermocellum DSM1313 fermentation platform was 5.8, 10.3, and 13.7% of milled non-pretreated poplar after 24, 48, and 120 h, respectively. These results demonstrate solubilization of 24% cellulose and 17% non-cellulosic sugars after 120 h, consistent with prior reports. The net solubilization of non-cellulosic sugars by C. thermocellum (after correcting for the uninoculated control fermentations) was 13 to 36% of arabinose (Ara), xylose (Xyl), galactose (Gal), mannose (Man), and glucose (Glc); and 15% and 3% of fucose and glucuronic acid, respectively. No rhamnose was solubilized and 71% of the galacturonic acid (GalA) was solubilized. These results indicate that C. thermocellum may be selective for the types and/or rate of solubilization of the non-cellulosic wall polymers. Xyl, Man, and Glc were found to accumulate in the fermentation liquor at levels greater than in uninoculated control fermentations, whereas Ara and Gal did not accumulate, suggesting that C. thermocellum solubilizes both hemicelluloses and pectins but utilizes them differently. After five days of fermentation, the relative amount of Rha in the solid residues increased 21% indicating that the Rha-containing polymer rhamnogalacturonan I (RG-I) was not effectively solubilized by C. thermocellum CBP, a result confirmed by immunoassays. Comparison of the sugars in the liquor versus solid residue showed that C. thermocellum solubilized hemicellulosic xylan and mannan, but did not fully utilize them, solubilized and appeared to utilize pectic homogalacturonan, and did not solubilize RG-I.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The significant relative increase in RG-I in poplar solid residues following CBP indicates that C. thermocellum did not solubilize RG-I. These results support the hypothesis that this pectic glycan may be one barrier for efficient solubilization of poplar by C. thermocellum.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35227303
doi: 10.1186/s13068-022-02119-9
pii: 10.1186/s13068-022-02119-9
pmc: PMC8887089
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23Subventions
Organisme : U.S. Department of Energy
ID : DE-SC0015662
Organisme : U.S. Department of Energy
ID : DE-AC36-08GO28308
Organisme : U.S. Department of Energy
ID : DE-AC05-000R22725
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Nat Commun. 2020 Apr 22;11(1):1937
pubmed: 32321909
Methods Mol Biol. 2012;908:61-72
pubmed: 22843389
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014 Oct 10;7(1):147
pubmed: 25324897
Front Chem. 2014 Aug 26;2:66
pubmed: 25207268
Front Plant Sci. 2014 Jul 28;5:357
pubmed: 25120548
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 11;7(1):11178
pubmed: 28894250
Bioresour Technol. 2010 Dec;101(24):9624-30
pubmed: 20708404
Proteomics. 2005 Sep;5(14):3646-53
pubmed: 16127726
Anal Chem. 2019 Nov 5;91(21):13787-13793
pubmed: 31566961
Carbohydr Res. 2009 Sep 28;344(14):1879-900
pubmed: 19616198
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018 Aug 4;11:219
pubmed: 30087696
Adv Appl Microbiol. 2020;113:111-161
pubmed: 32948265
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012 Jun;39(6):943-7
pubmed: 22350066
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017 Oct 23;10:240
pubmed: 29075324
Plant Cell. 2013 Jan;25(1):270-87
pubmed: 23371948
J Bacteriol. 1997 Jul;179(13):4246-53
pubmed: 9209040
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1999 Mar;51(3):348-57
pubmed: 10222584
PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5271
pubmed: 19384422
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016 Feb 04;9:31
pubmed: 26855670
Chemistry. 2015 Apr 7;21(15):5709-13
pubmed: 25720456
Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2001 Mar;65(3):548-54
pubmed: 11330667
J Bacteriol. 2000 Mar;182(5):1346-51
pubmed: 10671457
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002 Sep;66(3):506-77, table of contents
pubmed: 12209002
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018 Jan 17;11:9
pubmed: 29371885
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017 Jul 14;10:182
pubmed: 28725262
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Jun;68(6):3176-9
pubmed: 12039789
Bioresour Technol. 2012 Oct;121:8-12
pubmed: 22858461
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 06;10(2):e0116787
pubmed: 25658912
Chem Rec. 2008;8(6):364-77
pubmed: 19107866
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014 Oct 21;7(1):155
pubmed: 25379055
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015 Mar 12;8:41
pubmed: 25802552
Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Mar;36(3):249-257
pubmed: 29431741
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017 Nov 30;10:233
pubmed: 29213307
Bioresour Technol. 2009 Sep;100(18):4203-13
pubmed: 19386492
Plant Biotechnol J. 2020 Apr;18(4):1027-1040
pubmed: 31584248
Nature. 1951 Jul 28;168(4265):167
pubmed: 14875032
Sci Adv. 2016 Feb 05;2(2):e1501254
pubmed: 26989779
J Bacteriol. 1988 Oct;170(10):4576-81
pubmed: 3139631
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2014 May;173(2):562-70
pubmed: 24659048
Microbiology (Reading). 1999 Nov;145 ( Pt 11):3101-3108
pubmed: 10589717
Biochem J. 2004 Sep 15;382(Pt 3):769-81
pubmed: 15214846
AMB Express. 2015 May 23;5:29
pubmed: 26020016
Plant Cell. 2019 Apr;31(4):809-831
pubmed: 30852555
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 Nov;92(3):641-52
pubmed: 21874277
Plant Cell. 2007 Jan;19(1):237-55
pubmed: 17237350
Science. 2010 Aug 13;329(5993):790-2
pubmed: 20705851
Biotechnol Prog. 1999 Oct 1;15(5):777-793
pubmed: 10514248
Microbiology (Reading). 2005 Oct;151(Pt 10):3395-3401
pubmed: 16207921
Plant Physiol. 2017 Nov;175(3):1094-1104
pubmed: 28924016
Mol Biotechnol. 2016 Apr;58(4):232-40
pubmed: 26921189
Bioresour Technol. 2012 Jan;103(1):293-9
pubmed: 22055095
Arch Biochem Biophys. 2018 Sep 15;654:194-208
pubmed: 30080990
Science. 2007 Feb 9;315(5813):804-7
pubmed: 17289988
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2019 Jan 17;12:15
pubmed: 30675183
J Agric Food Chem. 2012 Dec 26;60(51):12516-24
pubmed: 23134352
Biomacromolecules. 2019 Apr 8;20(4):1731-1739
pubmed: 30816699
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014 Jan 22;7(1):11
pubmed: 24450583
Anal Biochem. 2005 Apr 1;339(1):69-72
pubmed: 15766712