Molecular-level origins of biomass recalcitrance: decrystallization free energies for four common cellulose polymorphs.

Cellulose is a crystalline polymer of β1,4-D-glucose that is difficult to deconstruct to sugars by enzymes. The recalcitrance of cellulose microfibrils is a function of both the shape of cellulose microfibrils and the intrinsic work required to decrystallize individual chains, the latter of which is calculated here from the surfaces of four crystalline cellulose polymorphs: cellulose Iβ, cellulose Iα, cellulose II, and cellulose III(I). For edge chains, the order of decrystallization work is as follows (from highest to lowest): Iβ, Iα, ΙΙΙ(Ι), and II. For cellulose Iβ, we compare chains from three different locations on the surface and find that an increasing number of intralayer hydrogen bonds (from 0 to 2) increases the intrinsic decrystallization work. From these results, we propose a microkinetic model for the deconstruction of cellulose (and chitin) by processive enzymes, which when taken with a previous study [Horn et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103, 18089] identifies the thermodynamic and kinetic attributes of enzyme and substrate engineering for enhanced cellulose (or chitin) conversion. Overall, this study provides new insights into the molecular interactions that form the structural basis of cellulose, which is the primary building block of plant cell walls, and highlights the need for experimentally determining microfibril shape at the nanometer length scale when comparing conversion rates of cellulose polymorphs by enzymes.

[1]  Cindy Starbuck,et al.  Surface-mediated nucleation in the solid-state polymorph transformation of terephthalic acid. , 2007, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[2]  S. Hayashi,et al.  Structural stability of the solvated cellulose IIII crystal models: a molecular dynamics study , 2009 .

[3]  H. Blanch,et al.  A mechanistic model of the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose , 2010, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[4]  J. Sugiyama,et al.  Localization of crystalline allomorphs in cellulose microfibril. , 2009, Biomacromolecules.

[5]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  CHARMM Additive All-Atom Force Field for Glycosidic Linkages between Hexopyranoses. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[6]  D. Wilson Cellulases and biofuels. , 2009, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[7]  B. Henrissat,et al.  Structural changes of cellulose crystals during the reversible transformation cellulose I⇄IIII in Valonia , 1986 .

[8]  Jay H. Lee,et al.  Modeling cellulase kinetics on lignocellulosic substrates. , 2009, Biotechnology advances.

[9]  C. Wyman,et al.  Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. , 2005, Bioresource technology.

[10]  Robin D. Rogers,et al.  Dissolution of Cellose with Ionic Liquids , 2002 .

[11]  J. Murdoch What is the rate-limiting step of a multistep reaction? , 1981 .

[12]  R. Atalla,et al.  Native Cellulose: A Composite of Two Distinct Crystalline Forms , 1984, Science.

[13]  G. P. Johnson,et al.  Conformational flexibility of soluble cellulose oligomers: chain length and temperature dependence. , 2009, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[14]  T. Jeoh,et al.  Molecular-scale investigations of cellulose microstructure during enzymatic hydrolysis. , 2010, Biomacromolecules.

[15]  L. Lo Leggio,et al.  Stimulation of lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysis by proteins of glycoside hydrolase family 61: structure and function of a large, enigmatic family. , 2010, Biochemistry.

[16]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Additive empirical force field for hexopyranose monosaccharides , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  R. Swendsen,et al.  THE weighted histogram analysis method for free‐energy calculations on biomolecules. I. The method , 1992 .

[18]  S. Ramakrishnan,et al.  Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose dissolved in N-methyl morpholine oxide/water solutions. , 2010, Bioresource technology.

[19]  Seema Singh,et al.  Visualization of biomass solubilization and cellulose regeneration during ionic liquid pretreatment of switchgrass , 2009, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[20]  C L Brooks,et al.  Calculations on folding of segment B1 of streptococcal protein G. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  M. Wada,et al.  Activation of crystalline cellulose to cellulose IIII results in efficient hydrolysis by cellobiohydrolase , 2007, The FEBS journal.

[22]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[23]  David K. Johnson,et al.  Biomass Recalcitrance: Engineering Plants and Enzymes for Biofuels Production , 2007, Science.

[24]  B. Simmons,et al.  Comparison of dilute acid and ionic liquid pretreatment of switchgrass: Biomass recalcitrance, delignification and enzymatic saccharification. , 2010, Bioresource technology.

[25]  G. Huber,et al.  Production of Liquid Alkanes by Aqueous-Phase Processing of Biomass-Derived Carbohydrates , 2005, Science.

[26]  D. Wilson,et al.  Processivity, Synergism, and Substrate Specificity of Thermobifida fusca Cel6B , 2009, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[27]  M. Himmel,et al.  The O-glycosylated linker from the Trichoderma reesei Family 7 cellulase is a flexible, disordered protein. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[28]  Frances H Arnold,et al.  A family of thermostable fungal cellulases created by structure-guided recombination , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[30]  M. Penttilä,et al.  High Speed Atomic Force Microscopy Visualizes Processive Movement of Trichoderma reesei Cellobiohydrolase I on Crystalline Cellulose* , 2009, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[31]  J. Keasling,et al.  Microbial production of fatty-acid-derived fuels and chemicals from plant biomass , 2010, Nature.

[32]  B. Synstad,et al.  Costs and benefits of processivity in enzymatic degradation of recalcitrant polysaccharides , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  T. Yui,et al.  Structure conversions of cellulose IIII crystal models in solution state: a molecular dynamics study , 2010 .

[34]  P. Langan,et al.  X-ray structure of mercerized cellulose II at 1 a resolution. , 2001, Biomacromolecules.

[35]  J. Sugiyama,et al.  The enzymatic susceptibility of cellulose microfibrils of the algal-bacterial type and the cotton-ramie type , 1997 .

[36]  Charlotte K. Williams,et al.  The Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials , 2006, Science.

[37]  Esben Thormann,et al.  Force pulling of single cellulose chains at the crystalline cellulose-liquid interface: a molecular dynamics study. , 2009, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[38]  David A. Case,et al.  Dynamics of ligand escape from the heme pocket of myoglobin , 1988 .

[39]  T. A. Jones,et al.  High-resolution crystal structures reveal how a cellulose chain is bound in the 50 A long tunnel of cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[40]  P. Weimer,et al.  Differential Fermentation of Cellulose Allomorphs by Ruminal Cellulolytic Bacteria , 1991, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[41]  V. Eijsink,et al.  Towards new enzymes for biofuels: lessons from chitinase research. , 2008, Trends in biotechnology.

[42]  P. Langan,et al.  Cellulose IIII Crystal Structure and Hydrogen Bonding by Synchrotron X-ray and Neutron Fiber Diffraction , 2004 .

[43]  I. S. Pretorius,et al.  Microbial Cellulose Utilization: Fundamentals and Biotechnology , 2002, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[44]  J. Liao,et al.  Non-fermentative pathways for synthesis of branched-chain higher alcohols as biofuels , 2008, Nature.

[45]  James A. Dumesic,et al.  Analyses of Reaction Schemes Using De Donder Relations , 1999 .

[46]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[47]  S. Gnanakaran,et al.  In silico studies of crystalline cellulose and its degradation by enzymes. , 2010, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[48]  M. Himmel,et al.  Computer simulation studies of microcrystalline cellulose Iβ , 2006 .

[49]  Bernard R. Brooks,et al.  Solvent-Induced Forces between Two Hydrophilic Groups , 1994 .

[50]  Effect of sodium hydroxide treatment of bacterial cellulose on cellulase activity , 2008 .

[51]  H. Schüttler,et al.  Cellulose hydrolysis in evolving substrate morphologies I: A general modeling formalism , 2009, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[52]  J. Sugiyama,et al.  The binding specificity and affinity determinants of family 1 and family 3 cellulose binding modules , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  M. Himmel,et al.  Identification of amino acids responsible for processivity in a Family 1 carbohydrate-binding module from a fungal cellulase. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[54]  G. Torrie,et al.  Nonphysical sampling distributions in Monte Carlo free-energy estimation: Umbrella sampling , 1977 .

[55]  B. Synstad,et al.  The Non-catalytic Chitin-binding Protein CBP21 from Serratia marcescens Is Essential for Chitin Degradation*♦ , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[56]  Ross C Walker,et al.  Computational simulations of the Trichoderma reesei cellobiohydrolase I acting on microcrystalline cellulose Ibeta: the enzyme-substrate complex. , 2009, Carbohydrate research.

[57]  S. Gåseidnes,et al.  Structural insights into the catalytic mechanism of a family 18 exo-chitinase , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[58]  T. Reinikainen,et al.  The three-dimensional crystal structure of the catalytic core of cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei. , 1994, Science.

[59]  Mark F. Davis,et al.  Cellulase digestibility of pretreated biomass is limited by cellulose accessibility , 2007, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[60]  D. Cosgrove Growth of the plant cell wall , 2005, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[61]  Edward A Bayer,et al.  Applications of computational science for understanding enzymatic deconstruction of cellulose. , 2011, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[62]  A. Stipanovic,et al.  Effect of digestion by pure cellulases on crystallinity and average chain length for bacterial and microcrystalline celluloses , 2007 .

[63]  Paul Langan,et al.  Crystal structure and hydrogen-bonding system in cellulose Ibeta from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[64]  Bruce E Dale,et al.  Deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass to fuels and chemicals. , 2011, Annual review of chemical and biomolecular engineering.

[65]  Christopher H. Chang,et al.  The energy landscape for the interaction of the family 1 carbohydrate-binding module and the cellulose surface is altered by hydrolyzed glycosidic bonds. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[66]  Michael E Himmel,et al.  The maize primary cell wall microfibril: a new model derived from direct visualization. , 2006, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.