Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 2385–2401 | Cite as

Comparative physical and chemical analyses of cotton fibers from two near isogenic upland lines differing in fiber wall thickness

  • Hee Jin KimEmail author
  • Christopher M. Lee
  • Kevin Dazen
  • Christopher D. Delhom
  • Yongliang Liu
  • James E. Rodgers
  • Alfred D. French
  • Seong H. KimEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The thickness of cotton fiber cell walls is an important property that partially determines the economic value of cotton. To better understand the physical and chemical manifestations of the genetic variations that regulate the degree of fiber wall thickness, we used a comprehensive set of methods to compare fiber properties of the immature fiber (im) mutant, called immature because it produces thin-walled fibers, and its isogenic wild type Texas Marker-1 (TM-1) that is a standard upland cotton variety producing normal fibers with thick walls. Comprehensive structural analyses showed that im and TM-1 fibers shared a common developmental process of cell wall thickening, contrary to the previous report that the phase in the im fiber development might be retarded. No significant differences were found in cellulose content, crystallinity index, crystal size, matrix polymer composition, or in ribbon width between the isogenic fibers. In contrast, significant differences were detected in their linear density, cross-section micrographs of fibers from opened bolls, and in the lateral order between their cellulose microfibrils (CMFs). The cellulose mass in a given fiber length was lower and the CMFs were less organized in the im fibers compared with the TM-1 fibers. The presented results imply that the disruption of CMF organization or assembly in the cell walls may be associated with the immature phenotype of the im fibers.

Keywords

Cellulose microfibrils Cotton fiber thickness Fiber maturity Immature fiber (im) mutant Plant cell wall Sum frequency generation (SFG) spectroscopy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the USDA-ARS CRIS Project # 6435-21000-016-00D, and Cotton Incorporated-sponsored project #12-199. The SFG, IR, Raman, and XRD portion of this work were supported by the Center for Lignocellulose Structure and Formation, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, under Award Number DE-SC0001090. Authors thank Dr. Devron Thibodeaux of Fiber Physics for critically reviewing the manuscript. We thank Dr. Russell J. Kohel of USDA-ARS-SPARC for providing cottonseeds of TM-1 and im. The authors acknowledge Ms. Tracy Condon for growing cotton plants and measuring fiber properties, Ms. Holly King for microscopic and gravimetric work, Ms. Jeannine Moraitis for Cottonscope, Ms. Raisa Moiseyev for HVI and AFIS measurements, and Mr. Wilson Buttram and Keith Stevenson for assisting cotton field works. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA that is an equal opportunity employer.

Supplementary material

10570_2017_1282_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Abidi N, Hequet E, Cabrales L, Gannaway J, Wilkins T, Wells LW (2008) Evaluating cell wall structure and composition of developing cotton fibers using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and thermogravimetric analysis. J Appl Polym Sci 107:476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abidi N, Cabrales L, Hequet E (2010) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic approach to the study of the secondary cell wall development in cotton fiber. Cellulose 17:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abidi N, Cabrales L, Haigler CH (2014) Changes in the cell wall and cellulose content of developing cotton fibers investigated by FTIR spectroscopy. Carbohyd Polym 100:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agarwal UP, Reiner RS, Ralph SA (2010) Cellulose I crystallinity determination using FT-Raman spectroscopy: univariate and multivariate methods. Cellulose 17:721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM standard D1442-00 (2012a) Standard test method for maturity of cotton fibers (sodium hydroxide swelling and polarized light procedures). American Society for Testing and Materials, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM standard D1577-07 (2012b) Standard test method for linear density of textile fibers. Option A, Fiber bundle weighing. American Society for Testing and Materials, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Atalla RH, Vanderhart DL (1984) Native cellulose: a composite of two distinct crystalline forms. Science 223:283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnette AL et al (2011) Selective detection of crystalline cellulose in plant cell walls with sum-frequency-generation (SFG) vibration spectroscopy. Biomacromolecules 12:2434–2439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benedict CR, Kohel RJ, Jividen GM (1994) A cellulose cotton fiber mutant: effect on fiber strength. In: Jividen GM, Benedict CR (eds) Proceedings of biochemistry of cotton workshop. Cotton Incorporated, Raleigh, pp 115–120Google Scholar
  10. Benedict CR, Kohel JR, Lewis HL (1999) Cotton fiber quality. In: Smith CW, Cothren JT (eds) Cotton:origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, New York, pp 269–288Google Scholar
  11. Boylston EK, Thibodeaux DP, Evans JP (1993) Applying microscopy to the development of a reference method for cotton fiber maturity. Text Res J 63:80–87. doi: 10.1177/004051759306300203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradow JM, Davidonis GH (2000) Quantitation of fiber quality and the cotton production-processing interface: a physiologist’s perspective. J Cotton Sci 4:34–64Google Scholar
  13. Brims M, Hwang H (2010) Introducing Cottonscope: a rapid and precise measurement of cotton fibre maturity based on siromat. National Cotton Council, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene PR, Bain CD (2005) Total internal reflection Raman spectroscopy of barley leaf epicuticular waxes in vivo. Colloids Surf B 45:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haigler C (2010) Physiological and anatomical factors determining fiber structure and utility. In: Stewart JM, Oosterhuis DM, Heitholt JJ, Mauney JR (eds) Physiology of cotton. Springer, New York, pp 33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haigler CH, Betancur L, Stiff MR, Tuttle JR (2012) Cotton fiber: a powerful single-cell model for cell wall and cellulose research. Front Plant Sci 3(104):1–7Google Scholar
  17. Hieu HC, Tuan NA, Li H, Miyauchi Y, Mizutani G (2011) Sum frequency generation microscopy study of cellulose fibers. Appl Spectrosc 65:1254–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kafle K, Xi X, Lee CM, Tittmann BR, Cosgrove DJ, Park YB, Kim SH (2014) Cellulose microfibril orientation in onion (Allium cepa L.) epidermis studied by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and vibrational sum frequency generation (SFG) spectroscopy. Cellulose 21:1075–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim HJ (2015) Fiber biology. In: Fang DD, Percy RG (eds) Cotton. Agronomy monograph, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 97–127Google Scholar
  20. Kim HJ, Triplett BA (2001) Cotton fiber growth in planta and in vitro. Models for plant cell elongation and cell wall biogenesis. Plant Physiol 127:1361–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim HJ, Moon HS, Delhom CD, Zeng L, Fang DD (2013a) Molecular markers associated with the immature fiber (im) gene affecting the degree of fiber cell wall thickening in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Theor Appl Genet 126:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim HJ, Tang Y, Moon HS, Delhom CD, Fang DD (2013b) Functional analyses of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) immature fiber (im) mutant infer that fiber cell wall development is associated with stress responses. BMC Genom 14:889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim SH, Lee CM, Kafle K (2013c) Characterization of crystalline cellulose in biomass: basic principles, applications, and limitations of XRD, NMR, IR, Raman, and SFG. Korean J Chem Eng 30:2127–2141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim HJ, Rodgers J, Delhom C, Cui X (2014) Comparisons of methods measuring fiber maturity and fineness of Upland cotton fibers containing different degree of fiber cell wall development. Text Res J 84:1622–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kohel RJ, McMichael SC (1990) Immature fiber mutant of upland cotton. Crop Sci 30:419–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kohel R, Richmond T, Lewis C (1970) Texas marker-1. Description of a genetic standard for Gossypium hirsutum L. Crop Sci 10:670–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kohel RJ, Quisenberry JE, Benedict CR (1974) Fiber elongation and dry weight changes in mutant lines of cotton. Crop Sci 14:471–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohel RJ, Stelly DM, Yu JZ (2002) Tests of six cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) mutants for association with aneuploids. J Hered 93:130–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kothari N, Abidi N, Hequet E (2007) Wilkins T Fiber quality variability within a plant. In: World cotton research conference-4, Lubbock, 10–14 Sept 2007. International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC)Google Scholar
  30. Langan P, Nishiyama Y, Chanzy H (2001) X-ray structure of mercerized cellulose II at 1 Å resolution. Biomacromol 2:410–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee CM, Mohamed NM, Watts HD, Kubicki JD, Kim SH (2013) Sum-frequency-generation vibration spectroscopy and density functional theory calculations with dispersion corrections (DFT-D2) for cellulose Iα and Iβ. J Phys Chem B 117:6681–6692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee CM, Kafle K, Park YB, Kim SH (2014) Probing crystal structure and mesoscale assembly of cellulose microfibrils in plant cell walls, tunicate tests, and bacterial films using vibrational Sum Frequency Generation (SFG) spectroscopy. Phys Chem Chem Phys 16:10844–10853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee CM, Dazen K, Kafle K, Moore A, Johnson DK, Park S, Kim SH (2015a) Correlations of apparent cellulose crystallinity determined by XRD, NMR, IR, Raman, and SFG methods. In: Rojas OJ (ed) Cellulose chemistry and properties: fibers, nanocelluloses and advanced materials. Advances in polymer science. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 115–131Google Scholar
  34. Lee CM, Kafle K, Belias DW, Park YB, Glick RE, Haigler CH, Kim SH (2015b) Comprehensive analysis of cellulose content, crystallinity, and lateral packing in Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense cotton fibers using sum frequency generation, infrared and Raman spectroscopy, and X-ray diffraction. Cellulose 22:971–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li F et al (2015) Genome sequence of cultivated Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum TM-1) provides insights into genome evolution. Nat Biotechnol 33:524–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lutterotti L (2010) Total pattern fitting for the combined size–strain–stress–texture determination in thin film diffraction. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect B 268:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moharir AV (1998) True-spiral angle in diploid and tetraploid native cotton fibers grown at different locations. J Appl Polym Sci 70:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moharir AV, Van Langenhove L, Van Nimmen E, Louwarie J, Kiekens P (1999) Stability of X-ray cellulose crystallite orientation parameters in native cotton with change of location and year of growth. J Appl Polym Sci 72:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Montalvo JGJ (2005) Relationships between micronaire, fineness, and maturity. Part I. Fundamentals. J Cotton Sci 9:81–88Google Scholar
  40. Nam S, French AD, Condon BD, Concha M (2016) Segal crystallinity index revisited by the simulation of X-ray diffraction patterns of cotton cellulose Iβ and cellulose II. Carbohyd Polym 135:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nishiyama Y, Langan P, Chanzy H (2002) Crystal structure and hydrogen-bonding system in cellulose Iβ from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. J Am Chem Soc 124:9074–9082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Park YB, Lee CM, Koo B-W, Park S, Cosgrove DJ, Kim SH (2013) Monitoring meso-scale ordering of cellulose in intact plant cell walls using sum frequency generation spectroscopy. Plant Physiol 163:907–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paudel D, Hequet E, Noureddine A (2013) Evaluation of cotton fiber maturity measurements. Ind Crops Prod 45:435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Percy R, Hendon B, Auld D (2015) Qualitative genetics and utilization of mutants. In: Fang DD, Percy RG (eds) Cotton. Agronomy monograph, vol 57, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of Americ, Madison, pp 155–186Google Scholar
  45. Rodgers J, Delhom C, Hinchliffe D, Kim HJ, Cui X (2013) A rapid measurement for cotton breeders of maturity and fineness from developing and mature fibers. Text Res J 83:1439–1451. doi: 10.1177/0040517512471744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodgers J, Naylor GR, Cui X, Delhom C, Hinchliffe D (2015) Cottonscope fiber maturity, fineness, and ribbon width measurements with different sample sizes. Text Res J 85:897–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwarz E, Hotte G (1935) Micro-determination of cotton fibre maturity in polarized light. Text Res J 5:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seagull RW, Oliveri V, 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
  49. Shofner FM, Williams GF, Bragg KC, PE Sasser (1988) Advanced fiber information system: a new technology for evaluating cotton. Paper presented at the conference of the Textile Institute, Coventry, Dec 7–8, 1988Google Scholar
  50. Snider JL, Oosterhuis DM (2015) Physiology. In: Fang DD, Percy RG (eds) Cotton. Agronomy monograph, vol 57, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 339–400Google Scholar
  51. Thibodeaux DP, Evans JP (1986) Cotton fiber maturity by image analysis. Text Res J 56:130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thibodeaux DP, Rajasekaran K (1999) Development of new reference standards for cotton fiber maturity. J Cotton Sci 3:188–193Google Scholar
  53. Thyssen GN et al (2016) The immature fiber mutant phenotype of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) is linked to a 22-bp frame-shift deletion in a mitochondria targeted pentatricopeptide repeat gene. G3: Genes| Genomes| Genetics 6:1627–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Updegraff DM (1969) Semimicro determination of cellulose in biological materials. Anal Biochem 32:420–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wakelyn PJ et al (2010) Cotton fiber chemistry and technology, vol 17. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang C, Zhang T, Guo W (2013) The im mutant gene negatively affects many aspects of fiber quality traits and lint percentage in cotton. Crop Sci 53:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang C, Lv Y, Xu W, Zhang T, Guo W (2014) Aberrant phenotype and transcriptome expression during fiber cell wall thickening caused by the mutation of the Im gene in immature fiber (im) mutant in Gossypium hirsutum L. BMC Genom 15:94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xu B, Huang Y (2004) Image analysis for cotton fibers part II: cross-sectional measurements. Text Res J 74:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang H-B, Li Y, Wang B, Chee PW (2008) Recent advances in cotton genomics. Int J Plant Genomics. doi: 10.1155/2008/742304 Google Scholar
  60. Zhang T et al (2015) Sequencing of allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. acc. TM-1) provides a resource for fiber improvement. Nat Biotechnol 33:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hee Jin Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher M. Lee
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kevin Dazen
    • 2
  • Christopher D. Delhom
    • 4
  • Yongliang Liu
    • 4
  • James E. Rodgers
    • 4
  • Alfred D. French
    • 4
  • Seong H. Kim
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Cotton Fiber Bioscience Research Unit, Southern Regional Research CenterUSDA-ARSNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemical Engineering, Materials Research InstitutePennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Center for Lignocellulose Structure and FormationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.Cotton Structure and Quality Research Unit, Southern Regional Research CenterUSDA-ARSNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations