Euphytica

, Volume 209, Issue 2, pp 341–355 | Cite as

Hybridization of downregulated-COMT transgenic switchgrass lines with field-selected switchgrass for improved biomass traits

  • Holly L. Baxter
  • Lisa W. Alexander
  • Mitra Mazarei
  • Ellen Haynes
  • Geoffrey B. Turner
  • Robert W. Sykes
  • Stephen R. Decker
  • Mark F. Davis
  • Richard A. Dixon
  • Zeng-Yu Wang
  • C. Neal StewartJr.
Article

Abstract

Transgenic switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) has been produced for improved cell walls for biofuels. For instance, downregulated caffeic acid 3-O-methyltransferase (COMT) switchgrass produced significantly more biomass and biofuel than the non-transgenic progenitor line. In the present study we sought to further improve biomass characteristics by crossing the downregulated COMT T1 lines with high-yielding switchgrass accessions in two genetic backgrounds (‘Alamo’ and ‘Kanlow’). Crosses and T2 progeny analyses were made under greenhouse conditions to assess maternal effects, plant morphology and yield, and cell wall traits. Female parent type influenced morphology, but had no effect on cell wall traits. T2 hybrids produced with T1 COMT-downregulated switchgrass as the female parent were taller, produced more tillers, and produced 63 % more biomass compared with those produced using the field selected accession as the female parent. Transgene status (presence or absence of transgene) influenced both growth and cell wall traits. T2 transgenic hybrids were 7 % shorter 80 days after sowing and produced 43 % less biomass than non-transgenic null-segregant hybrids. Cell wall-related differences included lower lignin content, reduced syringyl-to-guaiacyl (S/G) lignin monomer ratio, and a 12 % increase in total sugar release in the T2 transgenic hybrids compared to non-transgenic null segregants. This is the first study to evaluate the feasibility of transferring the low-recalcitrance traits associated with a transgenic switchgrass line into high-yielding field varieties in an attempt to improve growth-related traits. Our results provide insights into the possible improvement of switchgrass productivity via biotechnology paired with plant breeding.

Keywords

COMT Switchgrass Lignocellulosic biofuel Transgenic Hybridization 

References

  1. Baxter HL, Mazarei M, Labbé N, Kline LM, Cheng Q, Windham M, Stewart CN Jr (2014) Two-year field analysis of reduced recalcitrance transgenic switchgrass. Plant Biotechnol J 12:914–924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter HL, Poovaiah CR, Yee KL, Mazarei M, Rodriguez M Jr, Thompson OA, Shen H, Turner G, Decker SR, Sykes RW, Chen F, Davis MF, Mielenz JR, Davison BH, Dixon RA, Stewart CN Jr (2015) Field evaluation of transgenic switchgrass plants overexpressing PvMYB4 for reduced biomass recalcitrance. Bioenergy Res 8:910–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhandari HS, Saha MC, Mascia PN, Fasoula VA, Bouton JH (2010) Variation among half-sib families and heritability for biomass yield and other traits in lowland switchgrass. Crop Sci 50:2355–2363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhandari HS, Webb SL, Bouton JH, Saha MC (2014) Reciprocal effects for biomass yield in lowland switchgrass. Crop Sci 54:955–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boerjan W, Ralph J, Baucher M (2003) Lignin biosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 54:519–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen F, Dixon RA (2007) Lignin modification improves fermentable sugar yields for biofuel production. Nat Biotechnol 25:759–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Das MK, Fuentes RG, Taliaferro CM (2004) Genetic variability and trait relationships in switchgrass. Crop Sci 44:443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decker SR, Carlile M, Selig MJ, Doeppke C, Davis M, Sykes R et al (2012) Reducing the effect of variable starch levels in biomass recalcitrance screening. In: Himmel ME (ed) Biomass conversion. Humana Press, New York, pp 181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fu C, Mielenz JR, Xiao X, Ge Y, Hamilton CY, Rodriguez M Jr, Chen F, Foston M, Ragauskas A, Bouton J, Dixon RA, Wang ZY (2011) Genetic manipulation of lignin reduces recalcitrance and improves ethanol production from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:3803–3808CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Fu C, Sunkar R, Zhou C, Shen H, Zhang JY, Matts J, Wang ZY (2012) Overexpression of miR156 in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) results in various morphological alterations and leads to improved biomass production. Plant Biotechnol J 10:443–452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Ge Y, Fu C, Bhandari H, Bouton J, Brummer EC, Wang ZY (2011) Pollen viability and longevity of switchgrass (L.). Crop Sci 51:2698–2705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardin CF, Fu C, Hisano H, Xiao X, Shen H, Stewart CN, Wang ZY (2013) Standardization of switchgrass sample collection for cell wall and biomass trait analysis. Bioenergy Res 6:755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McLaughlin SB, Walsh ME (1998) Evaluating environmental consequences of producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 14:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parrish DJ, Fike JH (2005) The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. BPTS 24:423–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Poovaiah CR, Nageswara-Rao M, Soneji JR, Baxter HL, Stewart CN (2014) Altered lignin biosynthesis using biotechnology to improve lignocellulosic biofuel feedstocks. Plant Biotechnol J 12:1163–1173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Poovaiah CR, Mazarei M, Decker SR, Turner GB, Sykes RW, Davis MF, Stewart CN Jr (2015) Transgenic switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) biomass is increased by overexpression of switchgrass sucrose synthase (PvSUS1). Biotechnol J 10:552–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sarath G, Akin DE, Mitchell RB, Vogel KP (2008) Cell-wall composition and accessibility to hydrolytic enzymes is differentially altered in divergently bred switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) genotypes. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 150:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:464–469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Selig MJ, Tucker MP, Sykes RW, Reichel KL, Brunecky R, Himmel ME, Davis MF, Decker SR (2010) Biomass recalcitrance screening by integrated high throughput hydrothermal pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification. Ind Biotechnol 6:104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shen H, He X, Poovaiah CR, Wuddineh WA, Ma J, Mann DG, Wang H, Jackson L, Tang Y, Stewart CN Jr, Chen F, Dixon RA (2012) Functional characterization of the switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) R2R3-MYB transcription factor PvMYB4 for improvement of lignocellulosic feedstocks. New Phytol 193:121–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sykes R, Yung M, Novaes E, Kirst M, Peter G, Davis M (2009) High-throughput screening of plant cell-wall composition using pyrolysis molecular beam mass spectroscopy. In: Mielenz JR (ed) Biofuels: methods and protocols, methods in molecular biology. Humana Press, New York, pp 169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Sarath G, Jung HG, Dien BS, Casler MD (2013) Switchgrass biomass composition altered by six generations of divergent breeding for digestibility. Crop Sci 53:853–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wuddineh WA, Mazarei M, Zhang J, Poovaiah CR, Mann DG, Ziebell A, Sykes RW, Davis MF, Udvardi MK, Stewart CN Jr (2015a) Identification and overexpression of gibberellin 2-oxidase (GA2ox) in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) for improved plant architecture and reduced biomass recalcitrance. Plant Biotechnol J 13:636–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Wuddineh WA, Mazarei M, Turner GB, Sykes RW, Decker ST, Davis MF, Stewart CN Jr (2015b) Identification and molecular characterization of the switchgrass AP2/ERF transcription factor superfamily, and overexpression of PvERF001 for improvement of biomass characteristics for biofuel. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3:101. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2015.00101 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holly L. Baxter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa W. Alexander
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mitra Mazarei
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ellen Haynes
    • 1
  • Geoffrey B. Turner
    • 2
    • 4
  • Robert W. Sykes
    • 2
    • 4
  • Stephen R. Decker
    • 2
    • 4
  • Mark F. Davis
    • 2
    • 4
  • Richard A. Dixon
    • 2
    • 5
  • Zeng-Yu Wang
    • 2
    • 6
  • C. Neal StewartJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryBioEnergy Science Center (BESC)Oak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Otis L. Floyd Nursery Research CenterUS National Arboretum, USDA-ARSMcMinnvilleUSA
  4. 4.National Renewable Energy LaboratoryGoldenUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  6. 6.Samuel Roberts Noble FoundationArdmoreUSA

Personalised recommendations