Cellulose accessibility limits the effectiveness of minimum cellulase loading on the efficient hydrolysis of pretreated lignocellulosic substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A range of lignocellulosic feedstocks (including agricultural, softwood and hardwood substrates) were pretreated with either sulfur dioxide-catalyzed steam or an ethanol organosolv procedure to try to establish a reliable assessment of the factors governing the minimum protein loading that could be used to achieve efficient hydrolysis. A statistical design approach was first used to define what might constitute the minimum protein loading (cellulases and β-glucosidase) that could be used to achieve efficient saccharification (defined as at least 70% glucan conversion) of the pretreated substrates after 72 hours of hydrolysis. The likely substrate factors that limit cellulose availability/accessibility were assessed, and then compared with the optimized minimum amounts of protein used to obtain effective hydrolysis. The optimized minimum protein loadings to achieve efficient hydrolysis of seven pretreated substrates ranged between 18 and 63 mg protein per gram of glucan. Within the similarly pretreated group of lignocellulosic feedstocks, the agricultural residues (corn stover and corn fiber) required significantly lower protein loadings to achieve efficient hydrolysis than did the pretreated woody biomass (poplar, douglas fir and lodgepole pine). Regardless of the substantial differences in the source, structure and chemical composition of the feedstocks, and the difference in the pretreatment technology used, the protein loading required to achieve efficient hydrolysis of lignocellulosic substrates was strongly dependent on the accessibility of the cellulosic component of each of the substrates. We found that cellulose-rich substrates with highly accessible cellulose, as assessed by the Simons' stain method, required a lower protein loading per gram of glucan to obtain efficient hydrolysis compared with substrates containing less accessible cellulose. These results suggest that the rate-limiting step during hydrolysis is not the catalytic cleavage of the cellulose chains per se, but rather the limited accessibility of the enzymes to the cellulose chains due to the physical structure of the cellulosic substrate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".