Changes in sugar composition and cellulose content during the secondary cell wall biogenesis in cotton fibers
- 534 Downloads
Two cotton cultivars TX19 and TX55 (Gossypium hirsutum L. cv.) were planted in the greenhouse and fibers were harvested at different stages of development. The percentage of sugars present on the fibers was determined by High Performance Liquid Chromatography and the cellulose content was determined using the anthrone method. The percentage of sugars (sucrose, glucose, fructose, and galacturonic acid) showed statistically significant changes during fiber development. The decrease in the percentages of these sugars as the secondary cell wall develops was associated with an increase in the cellulose content. It is important to point out that these analyses were done on intact fibers, no cell wall extractions and purifications were performed.
KeywordsCotton Fiber development Gossypium Secondary cell wall Cellulose
The authors would like to thank the Texas Department of Agriculture, Food and Fibers Research Grant Program for providing the financial support for this project.
- Abidi N, Cabrales L, E. Hequet (2009) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic approach to the study of the secondary cell wall development in cotton fiber. Cellulose. doi: 10.1007/s10570-009-9366-1
- Delmer DP (1999) Cellulose biosynthesis in developing cotton fibers. In: Basra AS (ed) Cotton fibers, developmental biology, quality improvement, and textile processing. Food Products Press, New York, pp 85–112Google Scholar
- Muller LL, Jacks TJ (1975) Rapid chemical dehydration of samples for electron microscopic examinations. J Histochem Cytochem 23(2):107–110Google Scholar
- Seagull RW, Oliveri O, Murphy K, Binder A, Kothari S (2000) Cotton fiber growth and development 2. Changes in cell diameter and wall birefringence. J Cotton Sci 4:97–104Google Scholar
- Wilkins TA, Jernstedt JA (1999) Molecular genetics of developing cotton fibers. In: Basra AS (ed) Cotton fibers, developmental biology, quality improvement, and textile processing. Food Products Press, New York, pp 231–269Google Scholar