| Literature DB >> 28932262 |
Chunfen Fan1,2,3, Shengqiu Feng1,2,3, Jiangfeng Huang1,2,3, Yanting Wang1,2,3, Leiming Wu1,2,3, Xukai Li1,2,3, Lingqiang Wang1,2,3, Yuanyuan Tu1,2,3, Tao Xia1,2,4, Jingyang Li1,3,5, Xiwen Cai6, Liangcai Peng1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biomass recalcitrance and plant lodging are two complex traits that tightly associate with plant cell wall structure and features. Although genetic modification of plant cell walls can potentially reduce recalcitrance for enhancing biomass saccharification, it remains a challenge to maintain a normal growth with enhanced biomass yield and lodging resistance in transgenic plants. Sucrose synthase (SUS) is a key enzyme to regulate carbon partitioning by providing UDP-glucose as substrate for cellulose and other polysaccharide biosynthesis. Although SUS transgenic plants have reportedly exhibited improvement on the cellulose and starch based traits, little is yet reported about SUS impacts on both biomass saccharification and lodging resistance. In this study, we selected the transgenic rice plants that expressed OsSUS3 genes when driven by the AtCesA8 promoter specific for promoting secondary cell wall cellulose synthesis in Arabidopsis. We examined biomass saccharification and lodging resistance in the transgenic plants and detected their cell wall structures and wall polymer features.Entities:
Keywords: Biomass saccharification; Cell wall; Cellulose crystallinity; Lodging resistance; Sucrose synthase; Transgenic rice; Yeast fermentation
Year: 2017 PMID: 28932262 PMCID: PMC5603028 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-017-0911-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1Selection of AtCESA8::SUS3 transgenic plants. a Gene construct used to generate transgenic rice plants. b RT-PCR analysis of OsSUS3 in the transgenic lines. c Phenotype observation of the transgenic rice plants at filling stage (scale bar = 10 cm). d Mature stem biomass yield per plant harvested in the year of 2015. All data are given as mean ± SD. A Student’s t test was performed between the transgenic plants and ZH11 as **P < 0.01 and *P < 0.05 (n = 3). e Correlation analysis of biomass yields between 2013 and 2015
Fig. 2Biomass enzymatic saccharification and ethanol production of the OsSUS3-transgenic rice plants. a The schematic flow for biomass saccharification and ethanol production. b Hexose yields released from enzymatic hydrolysis after the pretreatment with 1% NaOH or 1% H2SO4. c Bioethanol yields obtained from yeast fermentation using the sugars released from biomass enzymatic hydrolysis as performed in b. All data are given as mean ± SD. A Student’s t test was performed between transgenic plants and ZH11 as **P < 0.01 and *P < 0.05 (n = 3)
Detection of lodging index, extension, and pushing forces of the OsSUS3-transgenic lines in field experiments
| Transgenic lines | Lodging index | Extension force ( | Pushing force ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2015 | 2013 | 2015 | 2015 | ||||||
| Vector | ||||||||||
| ZH11 | 170.62 ± 7.66 | 269.21 ± 8.47 | 173.80 ± 8.92 | 202.93 ± 7.18 | 1.66 ± 0.13 | |||||
| EV | 166.70 ± 6.34 | 278.64 ± 16.1 | 178.96 ± 4.28 | 206.78 ± 6.97 | 1.69 ± 0.14 | |||||
| AtCesA8::SUS3 | ||||||||||
| 1 | 108.14 ± 6.13** | −37%a | 221.18 ± 7.59** | −18% | 190.78 ± 3.08* | +10% | 230.42 ± 4.79** | +14% | 2.31 ± 0.10** | +39% |
| 2 | 108.96 ± 7.82** | −36% | 188.84 ± 22.72** | −30% | 202.67 ± 15.59** | +17% | 222.23 ± 3.54** | +10% | 2.01 ± 0.06** | +21% |
| 3 | 97.72 ± 8.57** | −43% | 211.07 ± 11.23** | −22% | 193.80 ± 11.04* | +12% | 219.32 ± 3.67** | +8% | 1.88 ± 0.09** | +13% |
| 4 | 85.62 ± 9.24** | −50% | 223.44 ± 14.06** | −17% | 196.26 ± 11.28** | +13% | 224.85 ± 12.46** | +11% | 2.39 ± 0.10** | +44% |
* and **, indicated significant difference between transgenic lines and ZH11 control by t test as P < 0.05 and 0.01 (n = 10)
aPercentage of increased or decreased level between transgenic line and ZH11 by subtraction of two values divided by ZH11
Fig. 3Observations of plant cell wall structures in the OsSUS3-transgenic rice plants. a Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the second internode stem at the heading stage of rice: sclerenchyma cells (SC); vascular bundle cells (VB); and parenchyma cells (PC) (scale bars as 20 μm). b Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of the sclerenchyma cell walls (PCW primary cell wall, SCW secondary cell wall; scale bars = 400 nm). c Quantitative measurement of cell wall thickness by TEM in b (20 cells). d Calcofluor (white) staining specific for cellulose (scale bars as 100 μm). e Immunohistochemical staining (green) specific for xylan, using CCRC-M147 antibody (scale bars as 100 μm). f Cell wall compositions of mature stems including cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin. All data are given as mean ± SD; Student’s t test between ZH11 and transgenic plants as **P < 0.01 and *P < 0.05 (n = 3)
Fig. 4Characterization of cellulose crystallinity in the OsSUS3-transgenic rice plants. a Measurement of cellulose crystallinity index (CrI, %). Correlation between cellulose CrI values and hexoses yields (b) or bioethanol yields (c) or lodging index (d) or hemicelluloses levels (e) or cellulose levels (f). * and ** indicated significant correlations at P < 0.05 and 0.01 (n = 18), respectively
Fig. 5qRT-PCR analysis of gene expressions associated with wall biosynthesis and modification in the OsSUS3-transgenic rice plants. a Genes involved in primary wall cellulose biosynthesis. b Genes involved in secondary wall cellulose biosynthesis. c Genes associated with Xylan backbone synthesis. d Genes associated with cellulose modifications. * and ** indicated significant different transcription levels between the transgenic rice and ZH11 control by t test at P < 0.05 and 0.01 (n = 3), respectively
Fig. 6A hypothetical model that highlights how OsSUS3 positively regulates cellulose and hemicelluloses biosynthesis to reduce cellulose crystallinity and to increase cell wall thickness for enhancing both biomass saccharification and lodging resistance in the transgenic rice plants. (−) and (+) indicated as negative and positive factors (or impacts), respectively