| Literature DB >> 28117552 |
Fengcheng Li1,2,3,4, Guosheng Xie1,2,3, Jiangfeng Huang1,2,3, Ran Zhang1,2,3, Yu Li1,2,3, Miaomiao Zhang1,2,5, Yanting Wang1,2,3, Ao Li1,2,3, Xukai Li1,2,3, Tao Xia1,2,5, Chengcheng Qu6, Fan Hu7,8, Arthur J Ragauskas7,8, Liangcai Peng1,2,3.
Abstract
Genetic modification of plant cell walls has been posed to reduce lignocellulose recalcitrance for enhancing biomass saccharification. Since cellulose synthase (CESA) gene was first identified, several dozen CESA mutants have been reported, but almost all mutants exhibit the defective phenotypes in plant growth and development. In this study, the rice (Oryza sativa) Osfc16 mutant with substitutions (W481C, P482S) at P-CR conserved site in CESA9 shows a slightly affected plant growth and higher biomass yield by 25%-41% compared with wild type (Nipponbare, a japonica variety). Chemical and ultrastructural analyses indicate that Osfc16 has a significantly reduced cellulose crystallinity (CrI) and thinner secondary cell walls compared with wild type. CESA co-IP detection, together with implementations of a proteasome inhibitor (MG132) and two distinct cellulose inhibitors (Calcofluor, CGA), shows that CESA9 mutation could affect integrity of CESA4/7/9 complexes, which may lead to rapid CESA proteasome degradation for low-DP cellulose biosynthesis. These may reduce cellulose CrI, which improves plant lodging resistance, a major and integrated agronomic trait on plant growth and grain production, and enhances biomass enzymatic saccharification by up to 2.3-fold and ethanol productivity by 34%-42%. This study has for the first time reported a direct modification for the low-DP cellulose production that has broad applications in biomass industries.Entities:
Keywords: CESA; biomass saccharification; cellulose; lodging resistance; rice
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28117552 PMCID: PMC5552474 DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Biotechnol J ISSN: 1467-7644 Impact factor: 9.803
Figure 1Osfc16 mutant identification and agronomic trait observation. (a) Location of Osfc16 mutation with substitutions of Trp and Pro residues with Cys and Ser at the 481 and 482 position of the CESA9 protein. (b) Plant growth in wild‐type (WT), Osfc16 mutant and complementary line (scale bar = 20 cm). (c) Dry spike. (d) Plant height. (e) Lodging index. (f) Dry biomass. * and ** indicate significant differences between WT and Osfc16 mutant by t‐test at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, with the increased or decreased percentage (%) calculated by subtraction of the values between mutant and WT divided by WT. The error bar indicates SD values (n = 3).
Figure 2Biomass enzymatic saccharification and ethanol production. (a) Scheme for biomass enzymatic saccharification and ethanol yield. (b) Hexose yields released from enzymatic (mixed‐cellulase) hydrolysis after pretreatment with NaOH and H2 SO 4 at three concentrations. (c) Hexose yields released from three dosages of mixed‐cellulase hydrolysis after pretreatment with 1% NaOH and 1% H2 SO 4. (d) Ethanol yield obtained by yeast fermentation of the sugars from biomass enzymatic hydrolysis of the mature stems after pretreatment with 7.5% CaO or 1% H2 SO 4. Ethanol yield was expressed as either percentage of total hexoses in the biomass residues or ethanol yield per plant. (e) SEM images of in situ enzymatic digestion of stems at heading stage after 1% NaOH or 1% H2 SO 4 pretreatment and sequential enzymatic hydrolysis. (f) SEM images of in vitro enzymatic digestion of biomass residues released from enzymatic hydrolysis after 1% NaOH or 1% H2 SO 4 pretreatment. * and ** indicate significant differences between WT and Osfc16 mutant by t‐test at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, and the error bar indicates SD values (n = 3).
Figure 3Observations of stem tissues and cell wall structures. (a) SEM images of the second‐internode stem at the heading stage of rice. (b) TEM images of the sclerenchyma cell walls. PCW: primary cell wall. SCW: secondary cell wall. (c) Cell wall composition of mature stems. ** indicates significant differences between WT and Osfc16 or complementary line by t‐test at P < 0.01, and the error bar indicates SD values (n = 3).
Figure 4Detection of cellulose crystallinity. (a) Four‐internode stems at heading stage used for CrI and DP detection. (b) Cellulose CrI of the four internodes and mature stems using the X‐ray diffraction (XRD) method. (c) The XRD scanning patters applied for CrI calculation. (d, e) Root lengths of the germinated seedlings treated with Calcofluor for 48 h. (f, g) Cellulose content and CrI in roots of the seedlings treated with 0.1% Calcofluor for 48 h. * and ** indicate significant differences between WT and Osfc16 by t‐test at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, with the increased or decreased percentage (%) calculated by subtraction of the values between mutant and WT divided by WT. The error bar indicates SD values. ## indicates significant differences between the Calcofluor treatment and control by t‐test at P < 0.01, with the increased or decreased percentage (%) calculated by subtraction of the values between the Calcofluor and control divided by control.
Figure 5CGA effects on plant growth and cellulose crystallinity. (a, b) Root lengths of the germinated seeds treated with CGA for 72 h. (c, d) Cellulose content and CrI in roots of the seedlings treated with 20 nM CGA for 72 h. * and ** indicate significant differences between WT and Osfc16 mutant by t‐test at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, and the error bar indicates SD (n = 3). # and ## indicate significant differences between the CGA treatment and control by t‐test at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, with the increased or decreased percentage (%) calculated by subtraction of the values between CGA and control divided by control.
Figure 6Measurements of cellulose DP in the gradated cellulose fractions of stem and hull tissues in wild type and Osfc16 mutant. (a, b) Mature stem and hull tissues collected for cellulose extraction and gradation into high‐ and low‐DP cellulose fractions. (c, d) Detection of cellulose DP in the high‐ and low‐DP fractions from one independent biological experiment (Table S8). (e, f) AFM observation of cellulose surfaces in the high‐ and low‐DP fractions. (g, h) Quantitative analysis of AFM imagine by randomly selecting ten dots in the high‐ and low‐DP factions. ** indicates significant differences between the WT and Osfc16 mutant by t‐test at P < 0.01, with the increased or decreased percentage (%) calculated by subtraction of the DP values between WT and mutant divided by WT.
Figure 7Western blot analysis of CESA proteins. (a) Detection of total CESA4, CESA7 and CESA9 proteins using microsomal membrane extracts of stems at heading stage. (b) CESA9 proteins in the stems treated with 150 μm MG132 and an equivalent dilution of DMSO (control) for 4 h. (c, d) CESA4, CESA7 and CESA9 proteins using co‐immunoprecipitation with anti‐CESA4 and anti‐CESA7. The decreased percentage (%) was calculated by subtraction of the relative protein levels between mutant and WT divided by WT.
Figure 8A hypothesis model on cellulose biosynthesis process involved in initiation, elongation and termination of β‐1,4‐glucan chains synthesized by CESA complexes on plasma membrane, which highlights that the CESA complexes in the Osfc16 mutant or in the WT treated with CGA may have a reduced lifetime, leading to relatively early termination of β‐1,4‐glucan chains for low‐DP cellulose biosynthesis.