Cargando…

Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective

BACKGROUND: White rot fungi have been used to improve the nutritive value of lignocellulose for ruminants. In feed analysis, the Van Soest method is widely used to determine the cell wall contents. To assess the reliability of this method (Method A) for determination of cell wall contents in fungal‐...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nayan, Nazri, van Erven, Gijs, Kabel, Mirjam A, Sonnenberg, Anton SM, Hendriks, Wouter H, Cone, John W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6593870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30737799
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9634
_version_ 1783430143857917952
author Nayan, Nazri
van Erven, Gijs
Kabel, Mirjam A
Sonnenberg, Anton SM
Hendriks, Wouter H
Cone, John W
author_facet Nayan, Nazri
van Erven, Gijs
Kabel, Mirjam A
Sonnenberg, Anton SM
Hendriks, Wouter H
Cone, John W
author_sort Nayan, Nazri
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: White rot fungi have been used to improve the nutritive value of lignocellulose for ruminants. In feed analysis, the Van Soest method is widely used to determine the cell wall contents. To assess the reliability of this method (Method A) for determination of cell wall contents in fungal‐treated wheat straw, we compared a combined monosaccharide analysis and pyrolysis coupled to gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (Py‐GC/MS) (Method B). Ruminal digestibility, measured as in vitro gas production (IVGP), was subsequently used to examine which method explains best the effect of fungal pretreatment on the digestibility of wheat straw. RESULTS: Both methods differed considerably in the mass recoveries of the individual cell wall components, which changed on how we assess their degradation characteristics. For example, Method B gave a higher degradation of lignin (61.9%), as compared to Method A (33.2%). Method A, however, showed a better correlation of IVGP with the ratio of lignin to total structural carbohydrates, as compared to Method B (Pearson's r of −0.84 versus −0.69). Nevertheless, Method B provides a more accurate quantification of lignin, reflecting its actual modification and degradation. With the information on the lignin structural features, Method B presents a substantial advantage in understanding the underlying mechanisms of lignin breakdown. Both methods, however, could not accurately quantify the cellulose contents – among others, due to interference of fungal biomass. CONCLUSION: Method A only accounts for the recalcitrant residue and therefore is more suitable for evaluating ruminal digestibility. Method B allows a more accurate quantification of cell wall, required to understand and better explains the actual modification of the cell wall. The suitability of both methods, therefore, depends on their intended purposes. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6593870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65938702019-07-10 Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective Nayan, Nazri van Erven, Gijs Kabel, Mirjam A Sonnenberg, Anton SM Hendriks, Wouter H Cone, John W J Sci Food Agric Research Articles BACKGROUND: White rot fungi have been used to improve the nutritive value of lignocellulose for ruminants. In feed analysis, the Van Soest method is widely used to determine the cell wall contents. To assess the reliability of this method (Method A) for determination of cell wall contents in fungal‐treated wheat straw, we compared a combined monosaccharide analysis and pyrolysis coupled to gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (Py‐GC/MS) (Method B). Ruminal digestibility, measured as in vitro gas production (IVGP), was subsequently used to examine which method explains best the effect of fungal pretreatment on the digestibility of wheat straw. RESULTS: Both methods differed considerably in the mass recoveries of the individual cell wall components, which changed on how we assess their degradation characteristics. For example, Method B gave a higher degradation of lignin (61.9%), as compared to Method A (33.2%). Method A, however, showed a better correlation of IVGP with the ratio of lignin to total structural carbohydrates, as compared to Method B (Pearson's r of −0.84 versus −0.69). Nevertheless, Method B provides a more accurate quantification of lignin, reflecting its actual modification and degradation. With the information on the lignin structural features, Method B presents a substantial advantage in understanding the underlying mechanisms of lignin breakdown. Both methods, however, could not accurately quantify the cellulose contents – among others, due to interference of fungal biomass. CONCLUSION: Method A only accounts for the recalcitrant residue and therefore is more suitable for evaluating ruminal digestibility. Method B allows a more accurate quantification of cell wall, required to understand and better explains the actual modification of the cell wall. The suitability of both methods, therefore, depends on their intended purposes. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2019-03-13 2019-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6593870/ /pubmed/30737799 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9634 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Nayan, Nazri
van Erven, Gijs
Kabel, Mirjam A
Sonnenberg, Anton SM
Hendriks, Wouter H
Cone, John W
Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective
title Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective
title_full Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective
title_fullStr Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective
title_short Evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective
title_sort evaluation of fungal degradation of wheat straw cell wall using different analytical methods from ruminant nutrition perspective
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6593870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30737799
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9634
work_keys_str_mv AT nayannazri evaluationoffungaldegradationofwheatstrawcellwallusingdifferentanalyticalmethodsfromruminantnutritionperspective
AT vanervengijs evaluationoffungaldegradationofwheatstrawcellwallusingdifferentanalyticalmethodsfromruminantnutritionperspective
AT kabelmirjama evaluationoffungaldegradationofwheatstrawcellwallusingdifferentanalyticalmethodsfromruminantnutritionperspective
AT sonnenbergantonsm evaluationoffungaldegradationofwheatstrawcellwallusingdifferentanalyticalmethodsfromruminantnutritionperspective
AT hendrikswouterh evaluationoffungaldegradationofwheatstrawcellwallusingdifferentanalyticalmethodsfromruminantnutritionperspective
AT conejohnw evaluationoffungaldegradationofwheatstrawcellwallusingdifferentanalyticalmethodsfromruminantnutritionperspective