Correlating the ability of lignocellulosic polymers to constrain water with the potential to inhibit cellulose saccharification

BACKGROUND: Studies in bioconversions have continuously sought the development of processing strategies to overcome the “close physical association” between plant cell wall polymers thought to significantly contribute to biomass recalcitrance [Adv Space Res 18:251–265, 1996],[ Science 315:804–807, 2007]. To a lesser extent, studies have sought to understand biophysical factors responsible for the resistance of lignocelluloses to enzymatic degradation. Provided here are data supporting our hypothesis that the inhibitory potential of different cell wall polymers towards enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis is related to how much these polymers constrain the water surrounding them. We believe the entropy-reducing constraint imparted to polymer associated water plays a negative role by increasing the probability of detrimental interactions such as junction zone formation and the non-productive binding of enzymes. RESULTS: Selected commercial lignocellulose-derived polymers, including hemicelluloses, pectins, and lignin, showed varied potential to inhibit 24-h cellulose conversion by a mix of purified cellobiohydrolase I and β-glucosidase. At low dry matter loadings (0.5% w/w), insoluble hemicelluloses were most inhibitory (reducing conversion relative to cellulose-only controls by about 80%) followed by soluble xyloglucan and wheat arabinoxylan (reductions of about 70% and 55%, respectively), while the lignin and pectins tested were the least inhibitory (approximately 20% reduction). Low field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF-NMR) relaxometry used to observe water-related proton relaxation in saturated polymer suspensions (10% dry solids, w/w) showed spin-spin, T(2,) relaxation time curves generally approached zero faster for the most inhibitory polymer preparations. The manner of this decline varied between polymers, indicating different biophysical aspects may differentially contribute to overall water constraint in each case. To better compare the LF-NMR data to inhibitory potential, T(2) values from monocomponent exponential fits of relaxation curves were used as a measure of overall water constraint. These values generally correlated faster relaxation times (greater water constraint) with greater inhibition of the model cellulase system by the polymers. CONCLUSIONS: The presented correlation of cellulase inhibition and proton relaxation data provides support for our water constraint-biomass recalcitrance hypothesis. Deeper investigation into polymer-cellulose-cellulase interactions should help elucidate the types of interactions that may be propagating this correlation. If these observations can be verified to be more than correlative, the hypothesis and data presented suggest that a focus on water-polymer interactions and ways to alter them may help resolve key biological lignocellulose processing bottlenecks.