Surface structural dynamics of enzymatic cellulose degradation, revealed by combined kinetic and atomic force microscopy studies

FEBS Journal

Volumn 281, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 275-290

  Eibinger, Manuel ^a   Bubner, Patricia ^a,b   Ganner, Thomas ^a   Plank, Harald ^a   Nidetzky, Bernd ^a  

^a GRAZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

adsorption; atomic force microscopy; cellulase; cellulose morphology; hydrolysis kinetics

Indexed keywords

BETA GLUCOSIDASE; CELLULOSE; LIGNOCELLULOSE; POLYSACCHARIDE;

ARTICLE; ASPERGILLUS NIGER; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; BIOMASS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENZYME ACTIVITY; ENZYME DEGRADATION; ENZYME KINETICS; ENZYME SPECIFICITY; ENZYME STRUCTURE; HYDROLYSIS; HYPOCREA JECORINA; IMMUNOREACTIVITY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MORPHOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CLEAVAGE; PROTEIN DETERMINATION; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEIN INTERACTION; SACCHARIFICATION; TRICHODERMA; TRICHODERMA LONGIBRACHIATUM;

TRICHODERMA;

EID: 84891827253     PISSN: 1742464X     EISSN: 17424658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/febs.12594     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Chundawat SPS, Beckham GT, Himmel ME, &, Dale BE, (2011) Deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass to fuels and chemicals. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2, 121-145.
2. Keijsers ERG, Ybox drawings light down and leftlmaz G, &, van Dam JEG, (2012) The cellulose resource matrix. Carbohydr Polym 93, 9-21.
3. Lynd L, &, Weimer P, (2002) Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 66, 506-577.
4. Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J, Simonsen J, &, Youngblood J, (2011) Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 40, 3941-3994.
5. Ahola S, Turon X, Osterberg M, Laine J, &, Rojas OJ, (2008) Enzymatic hydrolysis of native cellulose nanofibrils and other cellulose model films: effect of surface structure. Langmuir 24, 11592-11599.
6. Desai SG, &, Converse AO, (1997) Substrate reactivity as a function of the extent of reaction in the enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Biotechnol Bioeng 56, 650-655.
7. Arantes V, &, Saddler JN, (2010) Access to cellulose limits the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis: the role of amorphogenesis. Biotechnol Biofuels 3, 4.
8. Grethlein HE, (1985) The effect of pore size distribution on the rate of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic substrates. Nat Biotechnol 2, 155-160.
9. Bubner P, Dohr J, Plank H, Mayrhofer C, &, Nidetzky B, (2012) Cellulases dig deep: in situ observation of the mesoscopic structural dynamics of enzymatic cellulose degradation. J Biol Chem 287, 2759-2765.
10. Bansal P, Hall M, Realff MJ, Lee JH, &, Bommarius AS, (2009) Modeling cellulase kinetics on lignocellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Adv 27, 833-848.
11. Hall M, Bansal P, Lee JH, Realff MJ, &, Bommarius AS, (2010) Cellulose crystallinity-a key predictor of the enzymatic hydrolysis rate. FEBS J 277, 1571-1582.
12. Levine SE, Fox JM, Blanch HW, &, Clark DS, (2010) A mechanistic model of the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Biotechnol Bioeng 107, 37-51.
13. Zhou W, Schüttler H-B, Hao Z, &, Xu Y, (2009) Cellulose hydrolysis in evolving substrate morphologies I: a general modeling formalism. Biotechnol Bioeng 104, 261-274.
14. Zhou W, Xu Y, &, Schüttler H-B, (2010) Cellulose hydrolysis in evolving substrate morphologies III: time-scale analysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 107, 224-234.
15. Ganner T, Bubner P, Eibinger M, Mayrhofer C, Plank H, &, Nidetzky B, (2012) Dissecting and reconstructing synergism-in situ visualization of cooperativity among cellulases. J Biol Chem 287, 43215-43222.
16. Zhang YHP, &, Lynd LR, (2004) Toward an aggregated understanding of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: noncomplexed cellulase systems. Biotechnol Bioeng 88, 797-824.
17. Abuja P, Schmuck M, Pilz I, Tomme P, Claeyssens M, &, Esterbauer H, (1988) Structural and functional domains of cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei. Eur Biophys J 9414, 339-342.
18. Mansfield SD, Mooney C, &, Saddler J, (1999) Substrate and enzyme characteristics that limit cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Prog 15, 804-816.
19. Griggs AJ, Stickel JJ, &, Lischeske JJ, (2012) A mechanistic model for enzymatic saccharification of cellulose using continuous distribution kinetics II: cooperative enzyme action, solution kinetics, and product inhibition. Biotechnol Bioeng 109, 676-685.
20. Monschein M, Reisinger C, &, Nidetzky B, (2012) Enzymatic hydrolysis of microcrystalline cellulose and pretreated wheat straw: a detailed comparison using convenient kinetic analysis. Bioresour Technol 128C, 679-687.
21. Nidetzky B, Zachariae W, Gercken G, Hayn M, &, Steiner W, (1994) Hydrolysis of cellooligosaccharides by Trichoderma reesei cellobiohydrolases: experimental data and kinetic modeling. Enzyme Microb Technol 16, 43-52.
22. Liu YS, Baker JO, Zeng Y, Himmel ME, Haas T, &, Ding SY, (2011) Cellobiohydrolase hydrolyzes crystalline cellulose on hydrophobic faces. J Biol Chem 286, 11195-11201.
23. Igarashi K, Uchihashi T, Koivula A, Wada M, Kimura S, Okamoto T, Penttilä M, Ando T, &, Samejima M, (2011) Traffic jams reduce hydrolytic efficiency of cellulase on cellulose surface. Science 333, 1279-1282.
24. Nakazawa H, Okada K, Kobayashi R, Kubota T, Onodera T, Ochiai N, Omata N, Ogasawara W, Okada H, &, Morikawa Y, (2008) Characterization of the catalytic domains of Trichoderma reesei endoglucanase I, II, and III, expressed in Escherichia coli. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 81, 681-689.
25. Park S, Baker JO, Himmel ME, Parilla PA, &, Johnson DK, (2010) Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance. Biotechnol Biofuels 3, 10.
26. Zhang Y, &, Lynd L, (2006) A functionally based model for hydrolysis of cellulose by fungal cellulase. Biotechnol Bioeng 94, 888-895.
27. Bubner P, Plank H, &, Nidetzky B, (2013) Visualizing cellulase activity. Biotechnol Bioeng 110, 1529-1549.
28. Moran-Mirabal JM, Bolewski JC, &, Walker LP, (2011) Reversibility and binding kinetics of Thermobifida fusca cellulases studied through fluorescence recovery after photobleaching microscopy. Biphys Chem 155, 20-28.
29. Maurer SA, Brady NW, Fajardo NP, &, Radke CJ, (2013) Surface kinetics for cooperative fungal cellulase digestion of cellulose from quartz crystal microgravimetry. J Colloid Interface Sci 394, 498-508.
30. Swatloski RP, Spear SK, Holbrey JD, &, Rogers RD, (2002) Dissolution of cellulose with ionic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 124, 4974-4975.
31. Kim SJ, Dwiatmoko AA, Choi JW, Suh Y-W, Suh DJ, &, Oh M, (2010) Cellulose pretreatment with 1-n-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride for solid acid-catalyzed hydrolysis. Bioresour Technol 101, 8273-8279.
32. Cheng G, Varanasi P, Li C, Liu H, Melnichenko YB, Simmons BA, Kent MS, &, Singh S, (2011) Transition of cellulose crystalline structure and surface morphology of biomass as a function of ionic liquid pretreatment and its relation to enzymatic hydrolysis. Biomacromolecules 12, 933-941.
33. Benali M, Gerbaud V, &, Hemati M, (2009) Effect of operating conditions and physico-chemical properties on the wet granulation kinetics in high shear mixer. Powder Technol 190, 160-169.
34. Schuster A, &, Schmoll M, (2010) Biology and biotechnology of Trichoderma. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87, 787-799.
35. Kurasin M, &, Väljamäe P, (2011) Processivity of cellobiohydrolases is limited by the substrate. J Biol Chem 286, 169-177.
36. Jalak J, &, Väljamäe P, (2010) Mechanism of initial rapid rate retardation in cellobiohydrolase catalyzed cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 106, 871-883.
37. Cheng G, Datta S, Liu Z, Wang C, Murton JK, Brown PA, Jablin MS, Dubey M, Majewski J, Halbert CE, et al,. (2012) Interactions of endoglucanases with amorphous cellulose films resolved by neutron reflectometry and quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring. Langmuir 28, 8348-8358.
38. Wang J, Quirk A, Lipkowski J, Dutcher JR, Hill C, Mark A, &, Clarke AJ, (2012) Real-time observation of the swelling and hydrolysis of a single crystalline cellulose fiber catalyzed by cellulase 7B from Trichoderma reesei. Langmuir 28, 9664-9672.
39. Gao D, Chundawat SPS, Sethi A, Balan V, Gnanakaran S, &, Dale BE, (2013) Increased enzyme binding to substrate is not necessary for more efficient cellulose hydrolysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 10922-10927.
40. Maurer SA, Bedbrook CN, &, Radke CJ, (2012) Competitive sorption kinetics of inhibited endo- and exoglucanases on a model cellulose substrate. Langmuir 28, 14598-14608.
41. Moran-Mirabal JM, Bolewski JC, &, Walker LP, (2013) Thermobifida fusca cellulases exhibit limited surface diffusion on bacterial micro-crystalline cellulose. Biotechnol Bioeng 110, 47-56.
42. Luterbacher JS, Walker LP, &, Moran-Mirabal JM, (2013) Observing and modeling BMCC degradation by commercial cellulase cocktails with fluorescently labeled Trichoderma reseii Cel7A through confocal microscopy. Biotechnol Bioeng 110, 108-117.
43. Igarashi K, Wada M, Hori R, &, Samejima M, (2006) Surface density of cellobiohydrolase on crystalline celluloses. A critical parameter to evaluate enzymatic kinetics at a solid-liquid interface. FEBS J 273, 2869-2878.
44. Jalak J, Kurašin M, Teugjas H, &, Väljamäe P, (2012) Endo-exo synergism in cellulose hydrolysis revisited. J Biol Chem 287, 28802-28815.
45. Chanzy H, &, Henrissat B, (1985) Undirectional degradation of valonia cellulose microcrystals subjected to cellulase action. FEBS Lett 184, 285-288.
46. Esterbauer H, Steiner W, Labudova I, Hermann A, &, Hayna M, (1991) Production of Trichoderma cellulase in laboratory and pilot scale. Bioresour Technol 36, 51-65.
47. Mellitzer A, Weis R, Glieder A, &, Flicker K, (2012) Expression of lignocellulolytic enzymes in Pichia pastoris. Microb Cell Fact 11, 61.
48. Murphy L, Bohlin C, Baumann MJ, Olsen SN, Sørensen TH, Anderson L, Borch K, &, Westh P, (2013) Product inhibition of five Hypocrea jecorina cellulases. Enzyme Microb Technol 52, 163-169.
49. Xiao Z, Storms R, &, Tsang A, (2004) Microplate-based filter paper assay to measure total cellulase activity. Biotechnol Bioeng 88, 832-837.
50. Fox JM, Levine SE, Clark DS, &, Blanch HW, (2012) Initial- and processive-cut products reveal cellobiohydrolase rate limitations and the role of companion enzymes. Biochemistry 51, 442-452.