4.5 Article

Eucalyptus Cell Wall Architecture: Clues for Lignocellulosic Biomass Deconstruction

期刊

BIOENERGY RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 969-979

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12155-016-9770-y

关键词

Bioethanol; Cell wall architecture; Glycome profiling; Eucalyptus; Wood

资金

  1. FAPESP [2007/54877-0]
  2. International Paper do Brasil (IP/IB/Gene Discovery) [3972]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The architecture, composition, and chemical properties of wood cell walls have a direct influence on the process that occurs prior to fermentation in second-generation biofuel production. The understanding of the construction patterns of cell wall types is the key to the new era of second-generation biofuels. Eucalyptus species are great candidates for this purpose since these species are among the fastest growing hardwood trees in the world and they have been improved for biomass production. We applied the glycome profiling and other combined techniques to study xylem cell walls of three economically important species (Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus grandis, and Eucalyptus urophylla). Glycome profiling analyses revealed that species differ in the same key aspects of cell wall polymer linkages, with E. globulus and E. urophylla presenting contrasting phenotypes, and E. grandis with intermediate characteristics. E. urophylla is known for high recalcitrance, that is probably determined by the strong associations between lignin and cell wall polymers, and also lignin content. On the other hand, E. globulus cell wall polymers are loosely linked, so its cell wall can be easily deconstructed. We have shown in this work that the composition of cell walls differs in quantity and quality among the Eucalyptus species and such variations in composition influence the process of lignocellulosic feedstock assessment. However, the greatest influence relies on the amount and type of associations between cell wall polymers. A high yield of cellulose, from any biomass source, directly depends on the cell wall architecture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据