Cellulose

, 14:283 | Cite as

Effect of digestion by pure cellulases on crystallinity and average chain length for bacterial and microcrystalline celluloses

  • Yao Chen
  • Arthur J. Stipanovic
  • William T. Winter
  • David B. Wilson
  • Young-Jun Kim
Article

Abstract

In this study we employed Size Exclusion Chromatography (SEC) and X-ray diffraction to monitor the molecular weight and crystallinity of bacterial cellulose I and II (BC-I, BC-II) and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) digested with three “pure” Thermobifida fusca cellulases (Cel6A, Cel6B, and Cel9A ). For each enzyme, cellulose crystallinity was found to increase modestly with treatment time. The digestion rate of BC-II was higher than that of BC-I for Cel6A and Cel9A, both endocellulases. SEC results show that the endocellulases create a very rapid decrease in cellulose molecular weight while a slower molecular weight loss was observed with Cel6B, an exocellulase. This work suggests that conversion of native cellulose I to cellulose II by mercerization may beneficially impact the rate of sugar release by cellulases from biomass. In general, lower conversion rates are observed for MCC compared to BC, possibly due to a higher initial crystallinity for MCC. Surface area effects may also be important.

Keywords

Cellulose Cellulase Size Exclusion Chromatography (SEC) X-ray diffraction 13C-NMR 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Biosciences Division Grant No. DE-FG02-02ER15356. The authors also acknowledge the technical support provided by Mr. Cory Hauke in determining the surface area of BC-I and II.

References

  1. Amano Y, Nozaki K, Araki T, Shibasaki H, Kuga S (2001) Reactivities of cellulases from fungi towards ribbon-type bacterial cellulose and band-shaped bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 8(4):267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertoniere NR, Zeronian S, Haig S (1987) Chemical characterization of cellulose. ACS Symposium Series 340, Washington D.C., pp 255–271Google Scholar
  3. Bredereck K, Bader E, Schmitt U (1989) Determination of the pore structure of water-swollen cellulosic fibers. Textilveredlung 24(4):142–150Google Scholar
  4. Chen Y (2005) The effect of cellulose crystal structure and solid-state morphology on the activity of cellulases, M.S. Thesis, SUNY-College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NYGoogle Scholar
  5. Gama FM, Teixeira JA, Mota M (1994) Cellulose morphology and enzymatic reactivity: a modified solute exclusion technique. Enzyme Microb Technol 43(5):381–387Google Scholar
  6. Goodrich JD, Winter WT (2007) α-Chitin nanocrystals prepared from shrimp shells and their specific surface area measutements. Biomacromolecules 8(1):252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grous WR, Converse AO, Grethlein HE (1986) Effect of steam explosion pretreatment on pore size and enzymatic hydrolysis of poplar. Enzyme Microb Technol 8(5):274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heinze T, Dicke R, Koschella A, Kull AH, Klohr E-K, Kock W (2000) Effective preparation of cellulose derivatives in a new simple cellulose solvent. Macromol Chem Phys 201:627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heux L, Dinand E, Vignon MR (1999) Structural aspects in ultrathin cellulose microfibrills followed by 13C CP-MAS NMR. Carbohydr Polym 40:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang AA (1975) Kinetic studies on insoluble cellulose-cellulase system. Biotechnol Bioeng 17(10):1421–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hult E-L, Larsson PT, Iversen T (2000) A comparative CP/MAS 13C-NMR study of cellulose strtcture in spruce wood and kraft pulp. Cellulose 7:35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Igarashi J, Wada M, Hori R, Samejima M (2006) Surface density of cellobiohydrolase on crystalline celluloses. Eur J Biochem (FEBS J) 273:2869–2878Google Scholar
  13. Irwin DC, Spezio M, Walker LP, Wilson DB (1993) Activity studies of eight purified cellulases: specificity, synergism, and binding domain effects. Biotechnol Bioeng 42:1002–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inglesby MK, Zeronian SH (1996) The accessibility of cellulose as determined by dye adsorption. Cellulose 3:165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim N-H, Imai T, Wada M, Sugiyama J (2006) Molecular directionality in cellulose polymorphs. Biomacromolecules 7:274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laszkiewicz B (1998) Solubility of bacterial cellulose and its structural properties. J Appl Polym Sci 67:1871–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee SB, Kim IH, Dewey DY, Ryu H, Taguchi H (1983) Structural properties of cellulose and cellulase reaction. Biotechnol Bioeng 25(1):33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lever M (1972) A new reaction for colorimetric determination of carbohydrates. Anal Biochem 47:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mansfield SD, Meder R (2003) Cellulose hydrolysis—the role of monocomponent cellulases in crystalline cellulose degradation. Cellulose 10:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marshall K, Sixsmith D, Stanley-Wood NG (1972) Surface geometry of some microcrystalline celluloses. J Pharm Pharmacol 24(Suppl):138PGoogle Scholar
  21. Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladish M (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96:673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Research Council (2000) Biobased industrial products—priorities for research and commercialization. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Neuman RP, Walker LP (1992) Solute exclusion from cellulose in packed columns: experimental investigation and pore volume measurements. Biotechnol Bioeng 40(2):218–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ougiya H (1998) Relationship between the physical properties and surface area of cellulose derived from adsorbates of various molecular sizes. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 62:1880–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rousselle M-A (2002) Determining the molecular weight distribution of cotton cellulose: a new GPC solvent. Textile Res J 72(2):131–134Google Scholar
  26. Schult T, Hjerde T, Optun OI, Kleppe PJ, Moe S (2002) Characterization of cellulose by SEC-MALLS. Cellulose 9(2):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sottys J, Lisowski Z, Knapczyky J (1984) X-Ray diffraction study on the crystallinity index and the structure of the microcrystalline cellulose. Acta Pharm Technol 30(2):174–180Google Scholar
  28. Srisodšuk M, Klemam-Leyer K, Keranen S, Kirk TK, Teeri TT (1998). Modes of action on cotton and bacterial cellulose of a homologous endoglucanase-exoglucanase pair from Trichoderma reesei. Eur Biochem J 251:885–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stone JE, Scallan AM, Donefer E, Ahlgren E (1969) Digestibility as a simple function of a molecule of similar size to a cellulase enzyme. Advances in Chemistry Series 95, American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp 219–241Google Scholar
  30. Timell TE (1963) Title, journal of polymer science, part C. Polym Symp 2:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Timpa JD (1991) Application of universal calibration in gel permeation chromatography for molecular weight determinations of plant cell wall polymers: cotton fiber. J Agric Food Chem 39(2):270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Timpa JD (1993) Size-exclusion chromatography to characterize cotton fiber. ACS Symposium Series 521—Chromatography of Polymers, Washington D.C., pp 302–313Google Scholar
  33. US-DOE/USDA (2005) A billion-ton feedstock supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry—technical feasibility of annually supplying 1 billion dry tons of biomass, a joint study sponsored by the US Dept. of Energy and US Dept. of Agriculture, 2005Google Scholar
  34. VanderHart DL, Atalla RH (1984) Strudies of microstruicture in native cellulose using solid state 13-NMR. Macromolecules 17:1465–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson DB, Irwin DC (1999) Genetics and properties of cellulases Adv Biochem Eng 65:1–21Google Scholar
  36. Wilson DB (2004) Studies of Thermobifida fusca plant cell wall degrading enzymes. Chem Rec 4:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Holtzapple M, Ladish M, Lee YY (2005a) Coordinated development of leading biomass pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 96:1959–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Holtzapple M, Ladish M, Lee YY (2005b) Comparative sugar recovery data from laboratory scale application of leading pretreatment technologies to corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96:2026–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yanagisawa M, Shibata I, Isogai A (2004) SEC-MALLS analysis of cellulose using LiCL/1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone as an eluent. Cellulose 11(2):169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yao Chen
    • 1
  • Arthur J. Stipanovic
    • 1
  • William T. Winter
    • 1
  • David B. Wilson
    • 2
  • Young-Jun Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Cellulose Research InstituteSUNY-College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Biology and GeneticsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations