| Literature DB >> 29234462 |
Jiangfeng Huang1,2,3, Ying Li1,2,3, Yanting Wang1,2,3, Yuanyuan Chen1,2,3, Mingyong Liu1,2,4, Youmei Wang1,2,3, Ran Zhang1,2,3, Shiguang Zhou1,2,3, Jingyang Li1,2,3,5, Yuanyuan Tu1,2,3, Bo Hao1,2,4, Liangcai Peng1,2,3, Tao Xia1,2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The genetic modification of plant cell walls has been considered to reduce lignocellulose recalcitrance in bioenergy crops. As a result, it is important to develop a precise and rapid assay for the major wall polymer features that affect biomass saccharification in a large population of transgenic plants. In this study, we collected a total of 246 transgenic rice plants that, respectively, over-expressed and RNAi silenced 12 genes of the OsGH9 and OsGH10 family that are closely associated with cellulose and hemicellulose modification. We examined the wall polymer features and biomass saccharification among 246 transgenic plants and one wild-type plant. The samples presented a normal distribution applicable for statistical analysis and NIRS modeling.Entities:
Keywords: Bioenergy; Biomass saccharification; Near infrared spectroscopy; Plant cell wall; Rice; Transgenic plant
Year: 2017 PMID: 29234462 PMCID: PMC5719720 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-017-0983-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1Variations of the wall polymer features in transgenic rice straws. a Cellulose levels (% dry matter). b Hemicellulosic monosaccharides (% total), arabinose (Ara), xylose (Xyl), xylose/arabinose ratio (X/A). c Lignin contents (% dry matter). ASL acid-soluble lignin, AIL acid-insoluble lignin
Fig. 2Variations of the biomass saccharification of transgenic rice straws. a Sugars released from the 1% NaOH pretreatment and the subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis (% total). b Total sugars released from the 1% NaOH pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis (% dry matter). c Fermentable hexoses only released from the enzymatic hydrolysis (% total hexoses). Blue lines in a and b, blue point in c wild-type
Fig. 3Correlations between the wall polymers and the biomass saccharification in transgenic rice straws (n = 247). a Correlation between cellulose levels and yields of sugars (pentoses, hexoses) released from both pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. b Correlation between hemicellulose features and yields of sugars released. c Correlation between lignin features and yields of sugars released. Ara arabinose, Xyl xylose, X/A xylose/arabinose, ASL acid-soluble lignin, AIL acid-insoluble lignin. * and ** indicate significant correlations at the p < 0.05 and 0.01 levels
Fig. 4Characterization of the transgenic rice straws using near-infrared spectroscopy. a Original spectroscopy. b Selected spectroscopy after estimation of the GH outlier samples by PCA. c, d 63 principal components covering the globe variations. e, f Selected first 18 principal components explaining the variations to measure GH
Fig. 5Distribution of calibration and validation sets for wall polymers and the relative biomass saccharification in transgenic rice straws. a–g Wall polymers (% dry matter), a cellulose; b–d hemicellulose, b arabinose (%), c xylose (%), d xylose/arabinose; e–g lignin, e acid-soluble lignin (ASL); f acid-insoluble lignin (AIL); g total lignin. h–q Biomass saccharification, h–j sugar released from the 1% NaOH pretreatment (% total), h pentose, i hexoses, j total; k–m sugar released from the enzymatic hydrolysis (% total), k pentose, l hexoses, m total; n–p total sugar released from the 1% NaOH pretreatment and the subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis (% dry matter), n pentose, o hexoses, p total; q fermentable hexoses (% total hexoses). Light gray: calibration sets (n = 147); dark gray: validation sets (n = 93)
Calibration statistics for equations generated for prediction of wall polymers in transgenetic rice straws
| Calibration | Cross validation | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Terms | DT | SCM | Spectrum range (nm) | Mean | SD | SEC |
| SECV |
| RPD | |
| Cellulose | 140 | 3 | 2,4,4,2 | SNVD | 408–2492 | 25.11 | 4.45 | 1.55 | 0.88 | 1.59 | 0.87 | 2.79 |
| Hemicellulose | ||||||||||||
| Ara (%) | 145 | 5 | 1,4,4,1 | SNV | 408–2492 | 13.22 | 1.37 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 1.73 |
| Xyl (%) | 139 | 9 | 1,4,4,1 | SNV | 1108–2492 | 75.08 | 2.63 | 1.07 | 0.84 | 1.20 | 0.79 | 2.18 |
| X/A | 142 | 5 | 1,4,4,1 | SNV | 408–2492 | 5.75 | 0.77 | 0.37 | 0.77 | 0.39 | 0.75 | 1.98 |
| Lignin | ||||||||||||
| ASL | 141 | 9 | 1,4,4,1 | MSC | 1108–2492 | 3.13 | 0.41 | 0.12 | 0.91 | 0.15 | 0.87 | 2.78 |
| AIL | 140 | 5 | 1,4,4,1 | SNV | 408–2492 | 8.20 | 1.40 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.70 | 1.82 |
| Total | 140 | 9 | 0,0,1,1 | WMSC | 408–2492 | 11.33 | 1.55 | 0.69 | 0.80 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 2.07 |
N sample number, Terms number of principal component used for calibration, DT derivative treatment, SCM scatter correction methods, SD standard deviation of reference value, SEC standard error of calibration, R 2 determination coefficient, SECV standard error of cross validation, R 2 cv, determination coefficient of cross validation, RPD ratio performance deviation (SD/SECV), SNVD a combination of standard normal variate and detrend, SNV standard normal variate, MSC standard multiple scatter, WMSC weighted multiple scatter correction, Ara arabinose, Xyl xylose, X/A xylose/arabinose, ASL acid soluble lignin, AIL acid insoluble lignin
Fig. 6Correlations between the predicted and reference values for wall polymers. a Cellulose. b Hemicellulose. c Lignin. Ara arabinose, Xyl xylose, X/A xylose/arabinose, ASL acid-soluble lignin, AIL acid-insoluble lignin
Calibration statistics for equations generated for prediction of biomass saccharification in transgenetic rice straws
| Calibration | Cross validation | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Terms | DT | SCM | Spectrum range (nm) | Mean | SD | SEC |
| SECV |
| RPD | |
| Pretreatment (% total) | ||||||||||||
| Pentose | 140 | 8 | 2,5,5,2 | DET | 1108–2492 | 9.64 | 1.26 | 0.37 | 0.91 | 0.42 | 0.89 | 2.97 |
| Hexoses | 142 | 10 | 1,4,4,1 | SNV | 780–2492 | 19.34 | 7.95 | 1.16 | 0.98 | 1.35 | 0.97 | 5.89 |
| Total | 141 | 10 | 2,4,4,2 | SNVD | 780–2492 | 29.26 | 6.81 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.38 | 0.96 | 4.95 |
| Enzymatic hydrolysis (% total) | ||||||||||||
| Pentose | 138 | 9 | 2,5,5,2 | None | 780–2492 | 23.90 | 4.01 | 0.69 | 0.97 | 0.83 | 0.96 | 4.80 |
| Hexoses | 143 | 10 | 2,10,10,2 | None | 780–2492 | 46.62 | 3.40 | 1.13 | 0.89 | 1.33 | 0.85 | 2.56 |
| Total | 141 | 10 | 2,4,4,2 | SNVD | 780–2492 | 70.74 | 6.81 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.38 | 0.96 | 4.95 |
| Total sugar released (% dry matter) | ||||||||||||
| Pentose | 141 | 8 | 2,10,10,2 | DET | 1108–2492 | 15.21 | 1.59 | 0.48 | 0.91 | 0.54 | 0.88 | 2.93 |
| Hexoses | 139 | 9 | 2,10,10,2 | DET | 780–2492 | 30.38 | 4.88 | 1.08 | 0.95 | 1.24 | 0.94 | 3.95 |
| Total | 138 | 9 | 1,4,4,1 | WMSCn | 1108–2492 | 45.31 | 3.97 | 1.21 | 0.91 | 1.38 | 0.88 | 2.88 |
| Fermentable hexoses (% total hexoses) | 144 | 9 | 2,8,8,2 | WMSC | 408–2492 | 71.17 | 10.11 | 1.78 | 0.97 | 2.20 | 0.95 | 4.60 |
N sample number, Terms number of principal component used for calibration, DT derivative treatment, SCM scatter correction methods, SD standard deviation of reference value, SEC standard error of calibration, R 2 determination coefficient, SECV standard error of cross validation, R 2 cv determination coefficient of cross validation, RPD ratio performance deviation (SD/SECV), DET detrend, SNV standard normal variate, SNVD a combination of standard normal variate and detrend, WMSC weighted multiple scatter correction
Fig. 7Correlations between the predicted and measured values for biomass saccharification. a Pentose yields, b hexose yields, c total sugar released, d fermentable hexoses (% total hexoses)
Calibration statistics for equations generated for prediction of wall polymers and biomass saccharification in transgenetic rice straws
| Calibration | Cross validation | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Terms | DT | SCM | Spectrum range (nm) | Mean | SD | SEC |
| SECV |
| RPD | |
| Wall polymers | ||||||||||||
| Cellulose | 234 | 7 | 2,5,5,2 | WMSC | 1108–2492 | 26.09 | 4.95 | 1.56 | 0.9 | 1.69 | 0.88 | 2.94 |
| Hemicellulose (% total) | ||||||||||||
| Ara (%) | 236 | 5 | 2,4,4,1 | None | 780–2492 | 13.25 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.69 | 1.79 |
| Xyl (%) | 233 | 9 | 2,4,4,2 | None | 1108–2492 | 75.16 | 2.71 | 1.04 | 0.85 | 1.15 | 0.82 | 2.35 |
| X/A | 230 | 8 | 0,0,1,1 | SNV | 408–2492 | 5.73 | 0.72 | 0.36 | 0.75 | 0.37 | 0.73 | 1.94 |
| Lignin (% dry matter) | ||||||||||||
| ASL | 234 | 9 | 2,5,5,2 | WMSC | 780–2492 | 3.12 | 0.38 | 0.14 | 0.87 | 0.16 | 0.83 | 2.45 |
| AIL | 231 | 7 | 2,4,4,1 | SNVD | 1108–2492 | 8.34 | 1.34 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 1.81 |
| Total | 231 | 7 | 0,0,1,1 | SNVD | 408–2492 | 11.46 | 1.47 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 1.98 |
| Biomass saccharification | ||||||||||||
| Pretreatment (% total) | ||||||||||||
| Pentose | 234 | 7 | 2,4,4,2 | MSC | 1108–2492 | 9.78 | 1.24 | 0.43 | 0.88 | 0.47 | 0.86 | 2.63 |
| Hexoses | 228 | 8 | 2,8,8,1 | SNV | 1108–2492 | 18.6 | 7.58 | 1.08 | 0.98 | 1.14 | 0.98 | 6.63 |
| Total | 230 | 12 | 2,8,8,1 | WMSC | 780–2492 | 28.57 | 6.54 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 0.97 | 5.48 |
| Enzymatic hydrolysis (% total) | ||||||||||||
| Pentose | 230 | 11 | 2,10,10,2 | None | 1108–2492 | 24.37 | 3.84 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.81 | 0.96 | 4.74 |
| Hexoses | 233 | 10 | 1,4,4,1 | DET | 408–2492 | 46.94 | 3.19 | 1.15 | 0.87 | 1.26 | 0.85 | 2.54 |
| Total | 230 | 12 | 2,8,8,1 | WMSC | 780–2492 | 71.43 | 6.54 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 0.97 | 5.48 |
| Total released sugar (% dry matter) | ||||||||||||
| Pentose | 234 | 12 | 1,4,4,1 | None | 1108–2492 | 15.35 | 1.54 | 0.46 | 0.91 | 0.51 | 0.89 | 3.05 |
| Hexoses | 232 | 11 | 2,8,8,1 | WMSC | 1108–2492 | 29.89 | 4.62 | 1.2 | 0.93 | 1.4 | 0.91 | 3.3 |
| Total | 233 | 11 | 2,5,5,2 | None | 1108–2492 | 45.21 | 3.94 | 1.35 | 0.88 | 1.65 | 0.83 | 2.39 |
| Fermentable hexoses (% total hexoses) | 235 | 9 | 1,4,4,1 | SNVD | 408–2492 | 72.03 | 9.65 | 1.76 | 0.97 | 1.86 | 0.96 | 5.19 |
N sample number, Terms number of principal component used for calibration, DT derivative treatment, SCM scatter correction methods, SD standard deviation of reference value, SEC standard error of calibration, R 2 determination coefficient, SECV standard error of cross validation, R 2 cv determination coefficient of cross validation, RPD ratio performance deviation (SD/SECV), WMSC weighted multiple scatter correction, SNV standard normal variate, SNVD a combination of standard normal variate and detrend, MSC standard multiple scatter, DET detrend, Ara arabinose, Xyl xylose, X/A xylose/arabinose, ASL acid soluble lignin, AIL acid insoluble lignin