Cellulose microfibril crystallinity is reduced by mutating C-terminal transmembrane region residues CESA1 <sup>A903V</sup> and CESA3 <sup>T942I</sup> of cellulose synthase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms underlying the biosynthesis of cellulose in plants are complex and still poorly understood. A central question concerns the mechanism of microfibril structure and how this is linked to the catalytic polymerization action of cellulose synthase (CESA). Furthermore, it remains unclear whether modification of cellulose microfibril structure can be achieved genetically, which could be transformative in a bio-based economy. To explore these processes in planta, we developed a chemical genetic toolbox of pharmacological inhibitors and corresponding resistance-conferring point mutations in the C-terminal transmembrane domain region of CESA1(A903V) and CESA3(T942I) in Arabidopsis thaliana. Using (13)C solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction, we show that the cellulose microfibrils displayed reduced width and an additional cellulose C4 peak indicative of a degree of crystallinity that is intermediate between the surface and interior glucans of wild type, suggesting a difference in glucan chain association during microfibril formation. Consistent with measurements of lower microfibril crystallinity, cellulose extracts from mutated CESA1(A903V) and CESA3(T942I) displayed greater saccharification efficiency than wild type. Using live-cell imaging to track fluorescently labeled CESA, we found that these mutants show increased CESA velocities in the plasma membrane, an indication of increased polymerization rate. Collectively, these data suggest that CESA1(A903V) and CESA3(T942I) have modified microfibril structure in terms of crystallinity and suggest that in plants, as in bacteria, crystallization biophysically limits polymerization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".