| Literature DB >> 31367233 |
Ho Myeong Kim1, In Seong Choi1, Seoyoun Lee1, In Min Hwang1, Ho Hyun Chun1, Seung Gon Wi2, Jin-Cheol Kim3, Tae Young Shin4, Jong Cheol Kim4, Jae Su Kim4, Junheon Kim5, Hae Woong Park1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biorefineries are widely recognized as the most feasible solution to the problem of achieving environmental sustainability along with economic growth. Furthermore, pine wilt disease has caused severe environmental and economic damage worldwide to date. Herein, a highly efficient, advanced process for producing destruxins (DTXs) from Miscanthus (MCT) is reported, along with an application strategy.Entities:
Keywords: Biological control; Biorefinery; Destruxins; Miscanthus; Pine wilt disease
Year: 2019 PMID: 31367233 PMCID: PMC6657178 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-019-1530-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Chemical composition analyses of RAW-MCT, HPAC-MCT, and AASC-MCT
| Dry matter (%, w/w) | Rhamnose | Arabinose | Xylose | Mannose | Galactose | Glucose | Total | Lignin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAW-MCT | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 1.9 ± 0.2 | 20.6 ± 1.1 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 45.2 ± 1.5 | 67.7 ± 2.7 | 23.5 ± 1.7 |
| HPAC-MCT | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 23.4 ± 1.3 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 63.0 ± 2.7 | 88.5 ± 3.6 | 3.3 ± 0.8 |
| AASC-MCT | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 2.4 ± 0.3 | 23.2 ± 2.9 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 61.0 ± 1.6 | 86.7 ± 1.7 | 2.2 ± 0.8 |
Values represent the average over three replicates
Fig. 1Changes in a phenotype and b solid and sugar recovery of MCT after pretreatment
Sugar concentrations and conversion yields of HPAC-MCT and AASC-MCT hydrolysate under different enzyme loading contents
| Viscozyme wheat FG (mg/g MCT) | Pectinase (mg/g MCT) | HPAC, sugar (mg/mL) | Conversion yield (%) | AASC, sugar (mg/mL) | Conversion yield (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | Xylose | Total | Glucose | Xylose | Total | |||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 |
| 2 | 0 | 3.1 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 4.5 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.40 | 4.6 |
| 3 | 0 | 6.2 | 0.31 | 0.47 | 0.78 | 8.8 | 0.28 | 0.52 | 0.79 | 9.1 |
| 4 | 0 | 12.4 | 0.47 | 0.58 | 1.05 | 11.9 | 0.34 | 0.57 | 0.91 | 10.5 |
| 5 | 0 | 24.8 | 1.37 | 0.75 | 2.12 | 24.0 | 1.24 | 0.97 | 2.21 | 25.5 |
| 6 | 4.2 | 0 | 2.76 | 1.49 | 4.25 | 48.0 | 2.68 | 1.65 | 4.33 | 49.9 |
| 7 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 4.30 | 1.58 | 5.88 | 66.4 | 4.62 | 1.92 | 6.54 | 75.4 |
| 8 | 4.2 | 6.2 | 4.67 | 1.62 | 6.29 | 71.1 | 4.94 | 1.93 | 6.87 | 79.2 |
| 9 | 4.2 | 12.4 | 4.84 | 1.68 | 6.52 | 73.7 | 5.64 | 1.96 | 7.60 | 87.7 |
| 10 | 4.2 | 24.8 | 5.58 | 1.69 | 7.27 | 82.1 | 6.02 | 2.00 | 8.02 | 92.5 |
| 11 | 8.4 | 0 | 4.16 | 1.73 | 5.89 | 66.6 | 3.96 | 1.80 | 5.76 | 66.4 |
| 12 | 8.4 | 3.1 | 5.23 | 1.76 | 6.99 | 79.0 | 5.30 | 1.95 | 7.25 | 83.6 |
| 13 | 8.4 | 6.2 | 5.35 | 1.85 | 7.20 | 81.4 | 5.48 | 2.02 | 7.50 | 86.5 |
| 14 | 8.4 | 12.4 | 5.41 | 1.88 | 7.29 | 82.4 | 5.97 | 2.05 | 8.02 | 92.5 |
| 15 | 8.4 | 24.8 | 6.00 | 1.95 | 7.95 | 89.8 | 6.06 | 2.10 | 8.16 | 94.1 |
| 16 | 16.8 | 0 | 5.25 | 1.96 | 7.21 | 81.5 | 5.38 | 1.94 | 7.32 | 84.4 |
| 17 | 16.8 | 3.1 | 5.70 | 1.98 | 7.68 | 86.8 | 5.63 | 2.05 | 7.68 | 88.6 |
| 18 | 16.8 | 6.2 | 6.00 | 2.02 | 8.02 | 90.6 | 5.88 | 2.07 | 7.95 | 91.7 |
| 19 | 16.8 | 12.4 | 6.08 | 2.04 | 8.12 | 91.8 | 5.93 | 2.11 | 8.04 | 92.7 |
| 20 | 16.8 | 24.8 | 6.22 | 2.04 | 8.26 | 93.3 | 6.08 | 2.15 | 8.23 | 94.9 |
Values represent the average over three replicates
Fig. 2FE-SEM analysis results of MCT showing surface morphology changes after pretreatment. a, b RAW-MCT, c, d HPAC-MCT, e, f AASC-MCT
Fig. 3DTXs production of simultaneous saccharification and cultivation (SSC) processes according to carbon source. a Maltose 2.51% and glucose 0.43%, b RAW-MCT 1%, c HPAC-MCT 1%, and d AASC-MCT 1%
Summary of DTXs production according to SSC processing
| Substrate | DTXs (mg/L) | Total (mg/L) | Yield (%)a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DTX E | DTX A | DTX B | |||
| Control (maltose 2.51% + glucose 0.43%) | 20.7 | 36.6 | 115.8 | 173.1 | 0.59 |
| RAW-MCT (1%) | 126 | 126.5 | 40.2 | 292.7 | 4.32 |
| HPAC-MCT (1%) | 295.9 | 259.3 | 42.8 | 598 | 6.76 |
| AASC-MCT (0.5%) | 90.3 | 90.4 | 21.2 | 201.9 | 4.66 |
| AASC-MCT (1.0%) | 334.8 | 288.8 | 48.6 | 672.2 | 7.75 |
| AASC-MCT (1.5%) | 297.4 | 248.3 | 45.6 | 591.3 | 4.55 |
Values represent the average over three replicates
aYields were calculated based on the initial sugar contents
Fig. 4Insecticidal effects of DTXs and protease-containing culture filtrate on MA
Fig. 5FE-SEM analyses of epicuticle changes in MA. a Back, b neck, and c thorax of RAW-MA sample; d back, e neck, and f thorax of DP-MA sample
Fig. 6Analysis of two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2DE) results for a RAW-MA and b DP-MA. c Proteins identified via MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry