| Literature DB >> 28344649 |
Yongil Yang1, Chang Geun Yoo1,2, Hao-Bo Guo3, William Rottmann4, Kimberly A Winkeler4, Cassandra M Collins4, Lee E Gunter1, Sara S Jawdy1, Xiaohan Yang1, Hong Guo3, Yunqiao Pu1,2, Arthur J Ragauskas1,2,5, Gerald A Tuskan1, Jin-Gui Chen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Domain of Unknown Function 266 (DUF266) is a plant-specific domain. DUF266-containing proteins (DUF266 proteins) have been categorized as 'not classified glycosyltransferases (GTnc)' due to amino acid similarity with GTs. However, little is known about the function of DUF266 proteins.Entities:
Keywords: Biofuel; Biomass; Cell wall; Cellulose; DUF266; Populus; Recalcitrance; Sugar release
Year: 2017 PMID: 28344649 PMCID: PMC5364563 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-017-0760-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1Bioinformatics analysis of DUF266 proteins. a Phylogenetic tree. A total of 169 DUF266 proteins were collected by amino acid sequence similarity analysis through Phytozome (v11.0) (https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/pz/portal.html). These 169 DUF266 proteins with 300–500 amino acids in length were identified from Populus, grape, Eucalyptus, soybean, Arabidopsis, rice, maize, Amborella, lycophyte, and moss. Shown is the maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree constructed by means of the mtREV model fitting method. aLRT SH-like branch support method was used to determine likelihoods of branch and node. PdDUF266A is marked in red font. Rice BC10 protein is indicated in blue font. Five groups (from A to E) are classified by clustering. The clades containing the monocot- (highlighted by light red), dicot- (highlighted by light blue) and moss-specific (highlighted by light green) DUF266 proteins are highlighted. b Amino acid sequence of PdDUF266A. The Core/I-branching/DUF266 domain and TM domain are indicated in red and blue boxes, respectively. c Three-dimensional structure prediction and molecular recognition feature (MoRF) analysis of PdDUF266A by means of I-TASSER and ANCHOR. The MoRF region is composed of seven residues from A298 to K304 (ATKMENK) on PdDUF266A (marked by red circle). This region is predicted to have high potential to bind macromolecules
Fig. 2Expression analysis of PdDUF266A. qRT-PCR analysis of PdDUF266A expression across various tissues and organs including root, young leaf, mature leaf, young stem (internodes 1 to 3), mature stem (internodes 6 to 8), petiole of mature leaf, phloem (bark of mature stem), and xylem (scrapped stem under bark of mature stem). Relative expression was determined by comparing the PdDUF266A transcript level in other tissues and organs with that in root (set as 1). PdUBCc was used as an internal control. Shown are the mean values of three technical repeats ± S.D
Fig. 3Cell wall composition and gene expression analyses in OXPdDUF266A transgenic lines. a Gene construct used for generating Populus transgenic plants overexpressing PdDUF266A. b RT-PCR analysis of PdDUF266A expression in two independent Populus transgenic lines overexpressing PdDUF266A. Total RNA was extracted from petiole of mature leaf. PdUBCc was used as an internal control. PCR cycle numbers are indicated. Transgenic lines (OXPdDUF266A-1 and OXPdDUF266A-2) and WV94 (wild type) were grown under greenhouse conditions. c Sugar content analysis by means of ion chromatography after two-step acid treatment. d Total lignin content by measuring acid soluble/insoluble separation. e Cellulose content analysis by means of Anthrone dye staining. f qRT-PCR analysis of cellulose biosynthesis-related genes in mature leaf and xylem. PdUBCc was used as an internal control to normalize the qRT-PCR result. Shown are mean values of three technical repeats from two biological repeats for each transgenic line ± S.D. Asterisks indicate statistical significance (p < 0.01)
Degree of polymerization of cellulose in OXPdDUF266A transgenic lines
| Genotype | DPwa |
|---|---|
| WV94 | 4946 ± 30 |
|
| 5450 ± 4b |
|
| 5564 ± 64c |
The cellulose characterization was performed with milled stem samples by gel permeation chromatography. Each analysis was technically duplicated with two different plants of each transgenic line. Shown are mean values ± S.D. (n = 2)
aThe weight-average degree of polymerization (DPw) = Mw/519
b, cIndicate statistical significances of p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively, in comparison with WV94
Cellulose crystallinity index in OXPdDUF266A transgenic lines
| Genotype | Crystallinity (Crl) |
|---|---|
| WV94 | 0.52 |
|
| 0.53 |
|
| 0.52 |
The cellulose crystallinity was measured by the cross polarization magic angle spinning NMR analysis. Each analysis was technically repeated three times with two different plants of each transgenic line. Note that cellulose crystallinity was not significantly (p < 0.05) altered in OXPdDUF266A transgenic lines
Fig. 4Saccharification efficiency of OXPdDUF266A transgenic plants. Dried Populus stem was used for this analysis. a Glucose release. b Xylose release. X axis denotes enzymatic hydrolysis times in (a) and (b). c Total sugar release at 72-h enzymatic hydrolysis. Shown are mean values of two biological replicates ± standard deviation. Asterisks indicate statistical significance (p < 0.01)
Sugar release yields based on glucose and xylose contents in plant cell walls
| Glucose (%) | Xylose (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| WV94 | 13.5 | 2.6 |
|
| 16.6 | 4.8 |
|
| 17.8 | 5.0 |
Shown are sugar releases at 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis
Fig. 5Biomass amounts of OXPdDUF266A transgenic plants. a 6-month-old OXPdDUF266A plants grown under greenhouse conditions. b Estimation of stem volume. Height and diameter were measured in each plant. The volume was estimated by means of the πr2h equation. Shown are mean values ± s.e. (n = 24, 5, and 3 for WV94, OXPdDUF266A-1, and OXPdDUF266A-2, respectively). Asterisk significant difference from WV94 (p < 0.01)
Fig. 6Characterization of Arabidopsis transgenic plants heterologously expressing PdDUF266A. a Gene construct used for generating Arabidopsis transgenic plants. b RT-PCR analysis of PdDUF266A in Arabidopsis transgenic lines. Two lines (marked with asterisk) were selected for further analysis. c Comparison of rosette size of 6-week-old Arabidopsis plants. d Dry weight of Arabidopsis transgenic plants. e Cell wall chemical compositional analysis of 6-week-old Arabidopsis plants. Shown in panels (d) and (e) are mean values of three biological replicates ± S.D. Asterisk indicate statistical significance (p < 0.01, n = 3)