, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 2505–2514 | Cite as

Recombinant family 3 carbohydrate-binding module as a new additive for enhanced enzymatic saccharification of whole slurry from autohydrolyzed Eucalyptus globulus wood

  • Carla Oliveira
  • Aloia Romaní
  • Daniel Gomes
  • Joana T. Cunha
  • Francisco M. Gama
  • Lucília Domingues
Original Paper


By-products resulting from lignocellulosics pretreatment affect the digestibility of resulting whole slurries, but this can be minimized by additives supplementation. In this work, a family 3 carbohydrate-binding module (CBM3), recombinantly produced from Escherichia coli, was used as additive in the enzymatic hydrolysis of the whole slurry from autohydrolyzed Eucalyptus globulus wood (EGW). At the higher dosage used (30 mg/gsolids), CBM3 led to an increase in glucose yield from 75 to 89%. A similar result was obtained for bovine serum albumin (BSA) (11% increase), which has a well-documented additive effect. CBM3 had no effect on the non-productive binding of enzymes, since it could not bind to EGW lignin, while it rapidly bound to cellulose, as shown by fluorescence microscopy. CBM3 is a valid additive for enhanced lignocellulosic saccharification and a valuable alternative to costly additives (e.g. polyethylene glycol) as it can be affordably produced from heterologous bacterium, thus contributing to more cost-efficient biomass valorization bioprocesses.


Recombinant CBM3 Whole slurry Enzyme inhibition Lignin Enhanced saccharification 



This work was developed under the strategic funding of UID/BIO/04469/2013 unit, COMPETE 2020 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006684) and BioTecNorte operation (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000004) funded by the European Regional Development Fund under the scope of Norte2020—Programa Operacional Regional do Norte. The research leading to the reported results has received funding from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the project MultiBiorefinery (POCI-01–0145-FEDER-016403) and through grants to C. Oliveira (SFRH/BPD/110640/2015) and D. Gomes (SFRH/BD/88623/2012).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Andrade FK, Costa R, Domingues L, Soares R, Gama M (2010) Improving bacterial cellulose for blood vessel replacement: functionalization with a chimeric protein containing a cellulose-binding module and an adhesion peptide. Acta Biomater 6:4034–4041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arantes V, Saddler JN (2010) Access to cellulose limits the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis: the role of amorphogenesis. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arevalo-Gallegos A, Ahmad Z, Asgher M, Parra-Saldivar R, Iqbal HM (2017) Lignocellulose: a sustainable material to produce value-added products with a zero waste approach-A review. Int J Biol Macromol 99:308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayer EA, Kenig R, Lamed R (1983) Adherence of Clostridium thermocellum to cellulose. J Bacteriol 156:818–827Google Scholar
  5. Bayer EA, Lamed R, White BA, Flint HJ (2008) From cellulosomes to cellulosomics. Chem Rec 8:364–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capolupo L, Faraco V (2016) Green methods of lignocellulose pretreatment for biorefinery development. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:9451–9467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demain AL, Vaishnav P (2009) Production of recombinant proteins by microbes and higher organisms. Biotechnol Adv 27:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao SH, You C, Renneckar S, Bao J, Zhang YHP (2014) New insights into enzymatic hydrolysis of heterogeneous cellulose by using carbohydrate-binding module 3 containing GFP and carbohydrate-binding module 17 containing CFP. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomes D, Rodrigues AC, Domingues L, Gama M (2015) Cellulase recycling in biorefineries—Is it possible? Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:4131–4143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall M, Bansal P, Lee JH, Realff MJ, Bommarius AS (2011) Biological pretreatment of cellulose: enhancing enzymatic hydrolysis rate using cellulose-binding domains from cellulases. Bioresour Technol 102:2910–2915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim IJ, Lee HJ, Choi IG, Kim KH (2014) Synergistic proteins for the enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose by cellulase. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:8469–8480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ko JK, Um Y, Park Y-C, Seo J-H, Kim K-H (2015) Compounds inhibiting the bioconversion of hydrothermally pretreated lignocelllulose. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:4201–4212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lamed R, Naimark J, Morgenstern E, Bayer EA (1987) Specialized cell surface structures in cellulolytic bacteria. J Bacteriol 169:3792–3800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu H, Sun JL, Leu SY, Chen SC (2016) Toward a fundamental understanding of cellulase-lignin interactions in the whole slurry enzymatic saccharification process. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 10:648–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Machado J, Araújo A, Pinto R, Gama FM (2009) Studies on the interaction of the carbohydrate binding module 3 from the Clostridium thermocellum CipA scaffolding protein with cellulose and paper fibres. Cellulose 16:817–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mello BL, Polikarpov I (2014) Family 1 carbohydrate binding-modules enhance saccharification rates. AMB Express 4:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mhlongo SI, den Haan R, Viljoen-Bloom M, van Zyl WH (2015) Lignocellulosic hydrolysate inhibitors selectively inhibit/deactivate cellulose performance. Enzyme Microb Technol 81:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oliveira C, Carvalho V, Domingues L, Gama FM (2015a) Recombinant CBM-fusion technology—applications overview. Biotechnol Adv 33:358–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oliveira C, Sepúlveda G, Aguiar TQ, Gama FM, Domingues L (2015b) Modification of paper properties using carbohydrate-binding module 3 from the Clostridium thermocellum CipA scaffolding protein produced in Pichia pastoris: elucidation of the glycosylation effect. Cellulose 22:2755–2765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pinto R, Moreira S, Mota M, Gama M (2004) Studies on the cellulose-binding domains adsorption to cellulose. Langmuir 20:1409–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rahikainen JL, Moilanen U, Nurmi-Rantala S, Lappas A, Koivula A, Viikari L, Kruus K (2013) Effect of temperature on lignin-derived inhibition studied with three structurally different cellobiohydrolases. Bioresour Technol 146:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramos R, Moreira S, Rodrigues A, Gama M, Domingues L (2013) Recombinant expression and purification of the antimicrobial peptide magainin-2. Biotechnol Prog 29:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodrigues AC, Haven MO, Lindedam J, Felby C, Gama M (2015) Celluclast and Cellic(R) CTec2: saccharification/fermentation of wheat straw, solid-liquid partition and potential of enzyme recycling by alkaline washing. Enzyme Microb Technol 79–80:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Romaní A, Garrote G, Alonso JL, Parajó JC (2010) Bioethanol production from hydrothermally pretreated Eucalyptus globulus wood. Bioresour Technol 101:8706–8712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romaní A, Ruiz HA, Pereira FB, Domingues L, Teixeira JA (2014) Effect of hemicellulose liquid phase on the enzymatic hydrolysis of autohydrolyzed Eucalyptus globulus wood. Biomass Conv Bioref 4:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tormo J, Lamed R, Chirino AJ, Morag E, Bayer EA, Shoham Y et al (1996) Crystal structure of a bacterial family-III cellulose-binding domain: a general mechanism for attachment to cellulose. EMBO J 15:5739–5751Google Scholar
  27. Várnai A, Makela MR, Djajadi DT, Rahikainen J, Hatakka A, Viikari L (2014) Carbohydrate-binding modules of fungal cellulases: occurrence in nature, function, and relevance in industrial biomass conversion. Adv Appl Microbiol 88:103–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Voutilainen SP, Nurmi-Rantala S, Penttilä M, Koivula A (2014) Engineering chimeric thermostable GH7 cellobiohydrolases in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:2991–3001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wan W, Wang D, Gao X, Hong J (2011) Expression of family 3 cellulose-binding module (CBM3) as an affinity tag for recombinant proteins in yeast. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang H, Kobayashi S, Mochidzuki K (2015) Effect of non-enzymatic proteins on enzymatic hydrolysis and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of different lignocellulosic materials. Bioresour Technol 190:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yan L, Zhang L, Yang B (2014) Enhancement of total sugar and lignin yields through dissolution of poplar wood by hot water and dilute acid flowthrough pretreatment. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yang B, Wyman CE (2006) BSA treatment to enhance enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose in lignin containing substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng 94:611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhai R, Hu J, Saddler JN (2015) What are the major components in steam pretreated lignocellulosic biomass that inhibit the efficcacy of cellulase enzyme mixtures? ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4:3429–3436CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEB – Centre of Biological EngineeringUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations