Abstract
All-atom simulations are used to derive effective parameters for a coarse-grained description of the crystalline cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\). In this description, glucose monomers are represented by the C4 atoms and non-bonded interactions within the cellulose sheets and between the sheets by effective Lennard-Jones interactions. The parameters are determined by two methods: the Boltzmann inversion and through monitoring of the energies associated with changes of the coarse-grained degrees of freedom. We find that the stiffness-related parameters for cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) are nearly the same as for \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorph. However, the non-bonded terms are placed differently and are weaker leading to an overall lower energy, and free energy, of \(\hbox {I}\beta\) compared to \(\hbox {I}\alpha\). We apply the coarse-grained description to determine amorphous transition states for the room-temperature conversion process between the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorphs and to characterize the interface between the crystalline forms of the allomorphs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Cellulose is one of the most abundant renewable biopolymers. It has been a subject of interest for a broad scientific community. Examples of the recent research are in the context of bioconversion of cellulosic wastes into fermentable sugars to make biofules (Bayer et al. 2007, 2010; Dashtban 2009; Peplow 2014) and in the design of high-performance materials that involve nanocellulose fibers (Lee et al. 2014; Håkansson et al. 2014).
Cellulose consists of unbranched homopolysaccharide chains of glucopyranose units, denoted as D-GLC. Two D-GLC units are linked via \(\beta (1\rightarrow 4)\)-glycosidic bonds which connect the C1 and C4 carbon atoms. The chains can combine into various allomorphic structures that may coexist. Two of them, \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) are crystalline and their relative abundance ratio depends on the source of cellulose (Newman 1999; Kataoka and Kondo 1999). Cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) is the main constituent of the cell walls of the green algae Cladophora (Mihranyan et al. 2007) and Valonia (Revol 1982), whereas the celluloses from the higher plants, such as cotton, wood and ramie are rich in the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorph. At one extreme, the cellulose produced by a marine animal, tunicate, is nearly 100 % \(\hbox {I}\beta\) (Nishiyama et al. 2002). At another, the cellulose of the cell wall of the alga Glaucocystis can be considered as almost 100 % \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) (Imai et al. 1999).
The crystal structures of cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorphs have been characterized by means of synchrotron X-ray and neutron diffraction (Nishiyama et al. 2003, 2008). In both allophorms, cellulose chains are parallel and aligned along the same growth direction (coinciding with the crystallographic c-axis) as shown in Fig. 1. It has been found that cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and cellulose \(\hbox {I}\beta\) differ in mutual packing of the chains. The \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) allomorph has a triclinic unit cell of P1 symmetry with a single cellobiose unit as basis with layers displaced along the c-axis by +c/4. \(\hbox {I}\beta\) has a monoclinic unit cell of the \(P2_1\) symmetry with two cellobiose units forming a basis—they are termed origin (OR) and center (CE). \(\hbox {I}\beta\) is thus made of two different sheets which are displaced by +c/4 and \(-\) c/4 in an alternating fashion. The differences between the two crystalline allomorphs are captured by the interchain radial distribution function (denoted as RDF) shown in Fig. 2. Details of the RDF calculation will be presented in section IIIB. The RDF used here describes the probability of finding a C4 atom in an infinitesimal volume element at distance r from another C4 atom on a different chain. The RDF patterns are seen to deviate in the locations and heights of the corresponding peaks. The shift in the locations is slight for the first and fourth peaks, but is more visible in the case of the second and third peaks. The first peak for \(\hbox {I}\beta\) is about 40 % taller than for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and is located near r of 6 Å. The difference in the height of the first peak in the RDF between the two allomorphs is attributed to a non-uniform distance distribution of the four closest neighbours (see Fig. 2b). In the case of \(\hbox {I}\beta\), these neighbours remain at similar equilibrium distances (see Fig. 2c), whereas in \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) they fluctuate within a much larger range (see Fig. 2d).
The two different crystalline structures necessarily come with distinct placements of the hydrogen bonds (HB). There is a relatively strong presence of the O3–H\(\cdots\)O5 intrachain and O6–H\(\cdots\)O3 interchain HBs which are responsible for the stability of the layered structures. Experiments (Nishiyama et al. 2003) indicate the absence of the O–H\(\cdots\)O interactions between layers, but they suggest a larger presence of the C–H\(\cdots\)O intersheet HBs in the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allophorm compared to the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) one. Thus, it is expected that some C–H\(\cdots\)O hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces contribute to the larger stability of \(\hbox {I}\beta\) over \(\hbox {I}\alpha\).
Different coarse grained models of cellulose have been developed to address important questions connected to the processing of plant biomass. Among them we can distinguish those related to (1) characterization of crystalline and amorphous cellulose phases (Molinero and Goddard 2004; Wohlert and Berglund 2011; Fan and Maranas 2014; Srinivas et al. 2014; Queyroy et al. 2004; López et al. 2015), (2) the transition from cellulose \(\hbox {I}\beta\) to cellulose \(\hbox {III}_{I}\) (Bellesia et al. 2012), and (3) understanding of the protein–polysaccharide interaction (Poma et al. 2015; Bu et al. 2010). However, none of these models describes the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) allomorph nor it considers the interconversion process into \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorph.
Here, we extend our previous coarse-grained (CG) description of \(\hbox {I}\beta\) (Poma et al. 2015) to the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) allomorph to bring out differences in the effective dynamical parameters between the two structures. The bonded interactions within the chains are found to be about the same, but the strengths of the effective non-bonded couplings differ. We employ the Boltzmann Inversion (BI) approach (Meyer et al. 2000; Jochum et al. 2012) and our own energy-based (EB) method (Poma et al. 2015). Our previous study (Poma et al. 2015) has been focused on cellulose \(\hbox {I}\beta\) and two hexaoses. While the BI and EB methods agree in their account of the bonded parameters they disagree when dealing with non-bonded terms. However, the EB approach is deemed to be more reliable as it yields parameters which agree with experimental data on the strength of HBs in solids (Steiner 2002). We test our CG model and its parameters by making comparisons to all-atom simulations. In particular, we consider the RDFs and demonstrate the agreement between the two descriptions for both allomorphs.
We then turn our attention to the phase transformations between the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) structures. Conversion of \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) into \(\hbox {I}\beta\) is usually accomplished through hydrothermal heating at the temperature (T) between 533 and 553 K. The process lasts for more than half an hour (Wada et al. 2003). On heating, cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) gets converted to an amorphous high temperature phase that turns into the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorph upon subsequent cooling. This kind of experiment is the main reason behind the common belief that the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) phase has a lower free energy than the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) one (Debzi et al. 1991; Matthews et al. 2011). The conversion to \(\hbox {I}\beta\) has great implications for industrial processes such as the dilute acid pretreatment of poplar and switchgrass. It has been observed (Foston and Ragauskas 2010) that the relative amount of the cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) form decreases while the relative amount of \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorph increases with the duration of the process. A similar result has been reported for pretreatment of loblolly pines (Sannigrahi et al. 2008). The \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) allomorph is used industrially more often than \(\hbox {I}\beta\) because of its higher reactivity towards acetylation (Sassi et al. 2000). In particular, it has been used for the production of cellulose derivatives such as bioplastic (Nawrath et al. 1995), artificial textile fibers (Eadie and Ghosh 2011), medical products (Lin and Dufresne 2014), etc. However, extraction of cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) from its sources (wood, corn stalk, cotton, etc) carries serious environmental costs and new methods to provide it are needed. One of the model organisms considered in the context of the environmentally friendly \(\hbox {I}{-}\alpha\) biosynthesis is Acetobacter xylinum (Lee et al. 2013). It should also be noted that the transformations between \(\hbox {I}{-}\beta\) and \(\hbox {I}{-}\alpha\) are expected to be facilitated by bending the microfiber during its formation (Jarvis 2000). Currently, no industrial process seems to have incorporated bending into the production of low cost cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\).
The timescale involved in the conversion process is beyond the capabilities of current all-atom simulations aimed at testing this expectation. New computational methods involving collective variables (Yu et al. 2014; Martoňák et al. 2005) may enable such modeling in the future. In the past, all-atom simulation studies were carried out to induce the conversion only in one unit cell (with periodic boundary conditions) (Hardy and Sarko 1996; Kroon-Batenburg et al. 1996) whereas our CG model can capture larger-scale structural reorganization inside the fibril. We thus use our CG model to study the conversion process not through a temperature cycling but through switching of the CG non-bonded terms between the two phases. We provide the energy characterization and confirm that the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) phase is indeed more stable. We also determine the pathway of the conversion and the transition state. The conformation corresponding to the transition state can be a good starting point to study properties of the amorphous cellulose. Obtaining an amorphous state through heating turns out to be impractical computationally.
Methods
We have considered fibers made of 36 chains, 80 D-GLC monomers each. The chains are packaged into a nearly hexagonal shape as in ref. (Ding and Himmel 2006; Srinivas et al. 2014). When determining the CG parameters, we focus on a central 7-chain subset of this system.
All-atom molecular dynamics simulations
The molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were conducted with version 2.9 of the NAMD package (Phillips et al. 2005). The crystalline fibril of cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) was parametrized by GLYCAM-06 force field (Kirschner et al. 2008; Tessier et al. 2008). A solvation box was used with 120 000 TIP3P water molecules Jorgensen et al. (1983) to allow for structural relaxation of the ideal crystalline structure prepared with the cellulose-builder toolkit (Gomes and Skaf 2012). Periodic boundary conditions were used and the electrostatic terms were counted by employing the Particle Mesh Ewald method (Darden et al. 1993) with a grid spacing of 1 Å in all directions. Numerical integration of Newton’s equations of motion involved the time step of 1 fs and the atomic coordinates were saved every 1 ps for analysis. The system equilibration was carried out by first minimizing the energy in 1000 steps and then by implementing a short 0.5 ns run in the NPT ensemble to achieve the atmospheric pressure of 1 bar. The production runs were carried out in the NVT ensemble at 300 K and they lasted for 20 ns. The temperature was controlled by the standard Langevin algorithm and the pressure by the Langevin piston pressure control algorithm. The MDenergy plugin from the VMD package (Humphrey et al. 1996) was used to compute the contributions of bonded and non-bonded energies.
Coarse-grained simulations
In our previous work on \(\hbox {I}\beta\) and hexaoses (Poma et al. 2015), we have discussed two choices of representing the sugar units by effective atoms: either the effective atoms are placed at the center of mass of the D-GLC unit or at the location of the C4 atom. We have found the latter representation to be more stable numerically. This approach is conceptually more akin to representing amino acids by the \(\alpha \hbox {-C}\) atoms in many CG models of proteins. Furthermore, the C4-based description was shown (Poma et al. 2015) to be able to distinguish between cellohexaose and mannohexaose which are stereoisomers whereas the other representation could not. Therefore, we use the C4 representation in our CG model for cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\), as illustrated in Fig. 3. Our CG simulations follow the scheme used for proteins (Sułkowska and Cieplak 2007; Sikora et al. 2009) and were carried out with an implicit solvent at 300 K which corresponds to \(k_BT=0.59\) kcal/mol (\(k_B\) is the Boltzmann constant). The Langevin equations of motion are used for thermostating and mimicking the presence of the solvent. They are solved by a fifth order predictor–corrector scheme. We simulate each cellulose fibril for \(5000\tau\) steps, where \(\tau\) is of order 1 ns.
Bonded interactions and their effective strengths will be derived in the next sections. The strength of the effective non-bonded interaction, \(\epsilon ^{eff}\), depends on the type of the HB. Our method involves reading of the positions of the C4 atoms from an initial microfibril cellulose structure and then using this information to derive the length parameters \(\sigma _{ij}^{eff}\) for the Lennard-Jones (12–6) potential between the effective atoms.
Boltzmann inversion method
The BI method (Meyer et al. 2000; Jochum et al. 2012) allows for determination of parameters in a CG model by focusing on some degrees of freedom, q’s, such as the distance between the effective atoms or the bond angles formed by three sequentially consecutive effective atoms. The assumption is that, in the canonical ensemble corresponding to temperature T, independent degrees of freedom obey the Boltzmann distribution \(P(q)=Z^{-1}e^{-U(q)/k_BT}\). Here, \(Z=\int e^{-U(q)/k_BT}dq\) is the partition function. P(q) can be determined through the atomistic simulation of the reference system. Once this is done, one can derive the corresponding effective potential U(q), also known as the potential of the mean force, through the inversion \(U(q)=-k_{B}T \ln P(q)\). Note that Z enters U(q) only as an additive constant.
Energy-based approach for calculation of effective bonded interactions
An alternative method (Poma et al. 2015) used here is to fit the mean atomistic energies to the functional dependence on q as postulated in the CG model. This approach does not assume that the variables q are truly independent. The first example is the effective bond potential, \(V_b^\mathrm{\alpha \beta }\) which is defined between two effective atoms \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) in a biopolymer. The atoms are separated by a time-dependent distance \(r^{\alpha ,\beta }=|\textit{R}_{\alpha }-\textit{R}_{\beta }|\) which, generically, will be denoted as r. We assume that
where \(k_r\) is the spring constant and \(r^{\alpha \beta }_{0}\) is the equilibrium length of the bond. These two parameters can be determined by evolving the atomistic system and monitoring its total energies, E, that correspond to narrowly defined bins in the values of r. These energies are expected to be distributed in the Gaussian fashion. We plot the mean value \(<E>\) of the E’s obtained within specific bins at a given r, as illustrated in Fig. 4a for a chain of cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) (interacting with neighboring chains). We find that the dependence is indeed parabolic and we determine the corresponding parameters. The elastic \(k_r\) parameters are obtained for the seven chains, which pass through the center of the fibril cross section (the central chain and its six closest neighbors), and for each chain we considered the 20-residue segment [31–50].
The CG effective bond angle potential involves three consecutive atoms denoted here as \(\alpha , \beta\) and \(\gamma\). It is represented as
where \(\cos (\theta )=\frac{r^{\alpha \beta }\cdot r^{\beta \gamma }}{|r^{\alpha \beta }||r^{\beta \gamma }|}\) is the angle between the three D-GLC monomers (see in Fig. 3). The first two terms on the right hand side of Eq. (2) are the effective bond potentials for molecules (\(\alpha\) and \(\beta\)) and (\(\beta\) and \(\gamma\)). The last term in this equation is the effective bond angle potential which is typically represented by the harmonic potential. The determination of the force bending constant (\(k_{\theta }\)) and the equilibrium angle (\(\theta _{0}\)) is similar to the determination of \(k_r\) and \(r_0\) except that now the three body energies are monitored and the terms \(V^{\alpha \beta }_b\) and \(V^{\beta \gamma }_b\) are subtracted to get E. The results for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) are shown in Fig. 4b. In this calculation, we have considered 20 D-GLC units in seven adjacent chains, which generates a list of 18 angles per chain so the the error bar is determined based on 126 angles.
In a similar way, the effective torsion potential can be described by
where \(\phi\) represents the torsion angle between the \(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma\) and \(\delta\) atoms. In order to get the needed E’s, we first subtract all of the two-and three-body potentials and then determine the distributions of E’s within bins corresponding to \(\phi\). In our previous work (Poma et al. 2015) we determined the functional form of \(f(\phi )\) for a cellulose chain which fluctuates in vacuum. In the absense of interchain and intersheet HBs, \(f(\phi )\) is oscilatory. However, for a cellulose chain which is a part of the crystalline fibril follows the quadratic form:
This functional form agrees with other studies carried by Srinivas et al. (2014) and Fan and Maranas (2014) for cellulose \(\hbox {I}\beta\). Our resuls are shown in Fig. 4c for cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\). We considered 20 D-GLC units for the seven chains and obtained a list of 17 dihedral angles per segment. The error bar are determined based on 119 dihedral angles.
The non-bonded interactions (the HB’s and ionic bridges) are represented by the Lennard-Jones potentials with the depth of the potential well \(\epsilon\) and the length parameter \(\sigma\). For small deviations away from the equilibrium this potential is equivalent to an effective harmonic term with the spring constant \(k_{nb}\) such that \(\epsilon ^{eff}={k_{nb}(\sigma ^\mathrm{eff})^{2}}{36^{-1}(2^{-2/3})}\) and \(\sigma ^{eff}= 2^{-1/6} r_0\). The parameters are obtained in analogy to the procedure for the bond potential: one gets \(k_{nb}\) and \(r_0\) by first fitting to the harmonic potential near the minimum of the mean force, and then one infers about the \(\epsilon ^{eff}\) from \(k_{nb}\).
Results and discussion
Coarse-grained description of cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\)
The CG models of cellulose fibril that were proposed so far employed between one to four effective atoms for each D-GLC monomer. The level of the CG resolution depends on the chemical or physical property which is under consideration. With more than two effective atoms, there is enough resolution to describe conformational changes within individual D-GLC monomers (e.g. rotation of pyranose rings around glycosidic bonds). The more detailed description is also more suitable for capturing atomic rearrangements during the allomorph conversion (Bellesia et al. 2012; López et al. 2015). On the other hand, a one effective atom resolution is suitable for modeling large conformational changes at microsecond time scales. Such time scales are relevant for the transition from the amorphous to the crystalline phases in a cellulose fibril (Srinivas et al. 2014) and for the studies of bending of long fibrils (Fan and Maranas 2014). Our choice for a one-atom CG model follows our previous work (Poma et al. 2015) in which a polysaccharide-protein system was represented by effective atoms placed at the positions of the \(\alpha\)-C atoms in the protein and at the C4 atoms in the polysaccharide. Similar to the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) case (Poma et al. 2015), each D-GLC monomer in a chain belonging to the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) allomorph interacts with the two neigbouring monomers, mainly via two intrachain HBs: (1) O3–H\(\cdots\)O5 and (2) O2–H\(\cdots\)O6 (Fig. 5a), which are observed most frequently during all-atom simulations (see in Table 1). The typical flat-ribbon conformation of a single chain of cellulose is commonly associated with the presence of the intrachain HBs which restrain the motion of two neigbouring D-GLC monomers along the \(\textit{c}\)-axis. The cellulose chains are organized into sheets that are connected by interchain O6–H\(\cdots\)O3 HB (Fig. 5a). The interactions between the sheets are weaker than the interchain HBs, primarily because they are coupled by the C–H\(\cdots\)O HBs (Fig. 5b). These couplings will be discussed later.
Our results pertaining to the effective couplings derived by using the BI and EB methods are shown in Table 2. The values for \(\hbox {I}\beta\) are taken from ref. (Poma et al. 2015) and those for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) are new. The top part of the table refers to the bonded interactions and the bottom part to the non-bonded ones. For a given method of derivation, the bonded parameters are seen to be nearly the same. Except for the stiffness in the dihedral terms, the BI and EB-based results are close in values.
The non-bonded interactions arising within a single chain are effectively included in the value of the bonded parameter \(k_r\), as they mainly restrain the axial elongation between two D-GLC monomers. Thus the interchain HBs are of a bigger interest when comparing \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) to \(\hbox {I}\beta\).
It has been noted earlier that there are two non-bonded energy scales associated with the two kinds of the interchain HBs (Heiner et al. 1995; Wertz et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2014): (i) those within the planar sheets, mostly due to the O6–H\(\cdots\)O3 HB (Fig. 5a), which is known to be the strongest and (ii) intersheet HBs between adjacent sheets (Fig. 5b), mostly due to the C–H\(\cdots\)O couplings. The former are stronger and arise more frequently. Table 1 lists the most frequent planar interchain and intersheet HBs in cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) as observed during our all-atom simulations. The \(\hbox {I}\beta\) occupancies are seen to be larger than the corresponding \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) ones. This result correlates well with the contributions of non-bonded energy terms to the total energy of the system. Table 3 gives the non-bonded energies associated with two central sheets. The interchain terms are summed up over the sheets and the intersheet are a resultant of couplings arising between the two sheets. In both categories, the non-bonded energies are lower for \(\hbox {I}\beta\) than i\(\alpha\). This statement also applies to the electrostatic contributions which indicates that the HBs in \(\hbox {I}\beta\) tend to last longer than in \(\hbox {I}\alpha\).
The CG parameters for the non-bonded potentials are listed in the bottom part of Table 2 (they take into account both the electrostatic and van der Waals terms in the atomistic calculations). Judging by the depth of the effective LJ potential, the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) allomorph is characterized by weaker couplings than the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorph. This result is independent of the method used, but it is only the values derived by the EB that are consistent with the typical HB energy scales found in other solid systems (Heiner et al. 1995; Wertz et al. 2010).
One can simplify the data in the table further by taking the following parameter for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) (see Fig. 5c): 7.3 kcal/mol for the effective energy (depth of the potential well) between D-GLC chains within a sheet (\(d_4\)), 1.9 kcal/mol for HBs between parallel sheets (\(d_1, d_2, d_5, d_6, d_7\), and \(d_8\)) and 2.5 kcal/mol between alternate parallel sheets (\(d_3\)). The similar numbers for \(\hbox {I}\beta\) (see Fig. 5c) are: 7.4, 2.3, and 3 kcal/mol respectively. We observe that the strength of the effective couplings is not a monotonic function of the distance between the C4 atoms in the monomers.
Note that a coupling between chains separated by one cellulose layer involves the i and \(i+1\) monomers (the distance of \(d_3\)) in cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\), whereas in cellulose \(\hbox {I}\beta \ i\) interacts with i. For the parameters in these couplings, the BI method works much worse than EB, mainly because it does not take into account spacial correlations between the atoms, such as described by the RDF. There is a more sophisticated version of the BI method that take into account the correlations—this is the iterative Boltzmann inversion method (Meyer et al. 2000; Jochum et al. 2012). However, the disadvantage of the iterative approach is the resulting non-analytical form of the effective potentials as already found for cellulose \(\hbox {I}\beta\) fibril (Srinivas et al. 2014). Basically, the BI method gives only the optimal solution in the limit of a highly diluted system and clearly some limitation of this technique must arise when dealing with crystalline systems. Thus, this method leads to a factor-of-6 overestimation of the energy parameters for \(\hbox {I}\beta\) and a factor of 5 for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\), when it is compared with typical HBs in solids (Steiner 2002; Vashchenko and Afonin 2014).
Tests of the coarse-grained model
We now consider the two allomorphs of the 36-chain systems and evolve them for 5000 \(\tau\) using the simplified parameters listed in the previous section. We determine the distributions of the values of the bonded degrees of freedom and the RDFs. We compare them to those determined by the 20-ns evolution within the all-atom description and find that the CG approach works very well. Figure 6 indicates that the distributions of the values of the bonded degrees of freedom (\(r, \theta\), and \(\phi\)) are essentially identical, regardless of whether they are determined during the CG (red lines) or all-atom (black lines) evolutions. The distributions are Gaussian and their means and dispersions are nearly the same for each of the three degrees of freedom. In addition, the differences between the two allomorphs are small.
In order to characterize the type of packing in each allomorph we have determined the RDF. For a system of N interacting particles in a volume V, the RDF is defined (Frenkel and Smit 2002; Allen and Tildesley 1993; Tuckerman 2010) as
where r is the distance between a pair of particles. In this equation, the numerator, \(\langle N(r)\rangle\), is the average number of particle pairs found between r and \(r+dr\). The denominator is the average number of particles in the same shell, assuming a fully random distribution at density \(\rho =N/V\). This last quantity routinely can be expressed as \(N_\mathrm{ideal}=4\pi (N_\mathrm{pairs}/V)r^2dr\) where \(N_\mathrm{pairs}=N(N-1)\) (for non-distinguishable particles). Integrating the dimensionless RDF over the radial dependency yields the number of particles: \(\int _{0}^{\infty }RDF(r)\rho 4\pi r^{2}dr=N-1\). The interchain RDF is a minor variation of the previous RDF definition—the same-chain particles are not taken into account. In practice, the interchain RDF has been determined in the following way. We first compute the time averaged RDF for a given monomer in chain i and then average it over the monomers in this chain. This step is repeated for all remaining 36 chains and the average over all chains is taken to represent the RDF for the whole fibril. Since we focus on the interchain cellulose RDF, the volume involved in the definition corresponds not to the full simulational box but merely to the space taken by the fibril (\(L_x=46.6\,{\AA }, L_y=43.8\,{\AA }, L_z=432.0\,{\AA }\) for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(L_x=50.6\,{\AA }, L_y=42.0\,{\AA }, L_z=414.0\,{\AA }\) for \(\hbox {I}\beta\)). This is done both in the all-atom and CG calculations. The all-atom results have been shown in Fig. 2 and are now repeated in Fig. 7 to make comparisons with the CG simulations. We have performed two kinds of simulations. In the first kind, the initial fiber structure was generated with the cellulose-builder toolkit (Gomes and Skaf 2012) and then energy minimized. In the second kind, as a starting state we have used the snapshot obtained after a 1 ns all-atom MD run. We observe that it is the second CG kind that agrees very well with the all-atom results. We interpret this as an evidence that important conformational changes in the model fibril take place as a result of the time evolution after the energy minimization.
Additionally, the insets in Fig. 7a, c show the RDF computed for the initial crystalline state. The line pattern RDF corresponds to the ideal crystal structure at zero temperature. Notice that the first peak for crystalline \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) is represented by four single lines, whereas for \(\hbox {I}\beta\) only 3 lines contrinute to the same peak at finite temperatures. This result shows that among the four closest neighbours which contribute to the first peak in crystal \(\hbox {I}\beta\), two of them are separated by identical distances. The second peak is represented by two lines, the third and fourth by a single line for each of the allomorphs. At finite T’s the peaks broaden, shift in position, and start to overlap.
These two allomorphs posses distinct unit cells and hence different crystallographic parameters. Table 4 provides the experimental lattice parameters for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorphs. The cellulose chains in \(\hbox {I}\beta\) interact through HBs in sheets parallel to the plane formed by axes b and c (Fig. 1c) and are stacked in the direction parallel to the vector b; the intersheet spacing between two adjacent cellulose sheets is defined by D = a/2. The experimental value for this parameter is 3.89 Å at room temperature. The organization of cellulose chains in \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) is very similar to \(\hbox {I}\beta\): the chains are parallel to the c-axis and sheets are grouped in parallel layers. The experimental value for intersheet separation, D, is 3.91 Å in \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and 3.89 Å in \(\hbox {I}\beta\). Table 4 shows the lattice parameters computed with the CG model. Our CG description was able to retain the difference in D between the two allomorphs: it is 0.03 Å instead of 0.02 Å. In addition, the efficiency of our CG model relative to all-atom simulations can be measured in term of the cost required to reach a nanosecond time scale when determining the RDF. We find that the CG simulation is \(\sim\)1000 times more efficient since it takes half an hour compared to 500 h on the same processor with the all-atom simulations.
Coexisting \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) regions in a cellulose fibril
Despite new advances in the understanding of the cellulose biosynthesis in higher plants (Guerriero et al. 2010; Harris et al. 2010; Li et al. 2014), it is still unknown how cellulose chains assemble together into fibrils. Explaining the coexistence ratios of \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) to \(\hbox {I}\beta\) in various plants appears to be even harder (Atalla and VanderHart 1999; Fernandes et al. 2011). As an example of this situation, we now consider a fiber which is \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) on one end and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) on another—see Fig. 8a—with a transition region in between. The long direction is taken to be along the c-axis. Numerical all-atom simulations of such interfaces are often difficult due to problems in setting up a well relaxed initial state which would not lead to divergent atomic forces. Here, we explore taking a CG-based approach. Its advantage is that it allows for longer time scales necessary to reach the relaxed state and the potentials involved are soft.
We construct the initial configuration of the coexisting allomorphs via translation and alignment along the c-axis of two separate fibrils \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\). Each fibril is made of 36 D-GLC chains, 80-monomer long each. The first 40 monomers are initially set in the MD-relaxed \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) structure and the last 40—in the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) one. Note that this initial fibril structure is not realistic, since the distance between monomers i and \(i+1\) in one chain at the interface is much larger than the corresponding equilibrium distance in another.
We then assign specific CG potential parameters for each allomorph in the two segments and evolve the system until reaching a stationary state. The interface acquires a transitional character which extends between i of 39 and 42, as shown in Fig. 8. The lower panel of this figure refers to the root mean square fluctuations (rmsf) in the stationary state. They were first calculated for each atom and then averaged over cross-sectional planes corresponding to a given i. It is seen that the fluctuations in the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) segment are about 30 % smaller than in the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) segment. The difference in rmsf is an intrinsic behaviour of each allomorph and it is also observed in the all-atom simulation. Notice that in the atomic simulations, rmsf pertains to the C4 atoms. On the other hand, in the CG model the fluctuations characterize motion of effective atoms which are located at the C4 atoms (but could also be located at the centers of mass of the monomers). Thus the two quantities should not be equal, but both show the identical trend.
Additionally, we have carried out a structural characterization for the effective atoms from the four layers at the interface by computing the crystallographic parameters based on their positions. In this way, we first estimate the unit cell parameters (lengths and angles) for all effective particles in the transition region according to the triclinic (\(\hbox {I}\alpha\)) and monoclinic (\(\hbox {I}\beta\)) unit cell definitions. Then we average each parameter to compare with the reference (single-segment) values obtained from the CG simulation for each allomorph. The results are shown in the bottom part of Table 4. We observe that a monoclinic interface is not well-defined due to a large deviation in the monoclinic \(\gamma\) angle, whereas a triclinic representation for this region is accurate for triclinic lattice constants but not suitable for the triclinic angles.
Conversion of \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) to \(\hbox {I}\beta\) at room temperature
The CG description allows for an easy determination of the total potential energy of the two allomorphs in the fibril form. We find that \(\hbox {I}\beta\) is indeed lower in energy than \(\hbox {I}\alpha\). The energy difference in the stationary state is \({\Delta } E =\langle E_{\alpha }\rangle -\langle E_{\beta }\rangle =136.8\hbox { kcal/mol}\).
We now use the CG description to explore the energy landscape corresponding to the transitions between the two allomorphs at room temperature. We induce the transition by first bringing an allomorph to its equilibrium and then by switching the values of non-bonded parameters \(\varepsilon ^{eff}\) and \(\sigma ^{eff}\) to those corresponding to the other allomorph, as listed in the bottom part of Table 2. As a result, the system overcomes high energy barriers that are normally forbidden at room temperature. The energy changes involved are shown in Fig. 9a. The parameters shown in this figure were averaged over an ensemble of 100 induced trajectories for each system. Each trajectory was divided into the following stages: the first 500 \(\tau\) prior the switching of CG parameters, then (2–6) \(\tau\) corresponding to the transition regime whose exact duration depends on when all non-bonded interactions (NBI) are recovered, and after that—500 \(\tau\). The error bar in the ground state energy of \(\hbox {I}\beta\) for the transition \(\hbox {I}\alpha \rightarrow \hbox {I}\beta\) is 2.72 kcal/mol per trajectory and 1.80 kcal/mol in the ensemble of trajectories, hereas for \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) (in the reverse process \(\hbox {I}\beta \rightarrow \hbox {I}\alpha\)) the corresponding error bars are 3.92 kcal/mol per trajectory and 2.40 kcal/mol in the ensemble. The single-trajectory error bars are comparable to those of the ensamble-averaged data which reflects existence of correlations induced by the adoption of the same crystalline initial state.
Notice that the NBI in equilibrium is equal to 12861 for both allomorphs. To determine the transition state (TS) the change in the NBI in the parameter-switching trajectories. In this way, the TS state is uniquely defined by the minimum value of NBI on the pathway. In practice, a trajectory starts by first losing some of its initial NBIs. Note that the system has to go through high energy conformations in order to reach the final destination. We have verified that the simulation reached the final state compatible with the CG parameters by computing the interchain RDF for the final structure (data not shown). The TS for the \(\hbox {I}\beta \rightarrow \hbox {I}\alpha\) transition has a higher energy and a smaller number of NBIs than for the reverse transition. Panels (b) and (c) in Fig. 9 show examples of snapshots of the TS for the two processes.
For the \(\hbox {I}\alpha \rightarrow \hbox {I}\beta\) process the TS is characterized by a loss of about 5 % of the initial NBI. The reverse process \(\hbox {I}\beta \rightarrow \hbox {I}\alpha\) leads to a TS characterized by twice the loss of about 10 % of the initial NBIs. Such losses affects packing of the chains and gives raise to amorphous regions across the fibril structure. Furthermore, by computing the time needed to go over the energy barrier, we find that a longer escaping time is needed to implement the process \(\hbox {I}\beta \rightarrow \hbox {I}\alpha\) (\(t_{\beta \rightarrow \alpha }\approx 2t_{\alpha \rightarrow \beta }\)). This is consistent with \(\hbox {I}\beta\) having a lower free energy than \(\hbox {I}\alpha\).
We now assess the difference in the free energy between the CG representations of the two allomorphs by using the thermodynamic integration (TI) approach (Frenkel and Smit 2002). In TI, a hybrid potential function (\(U_\mathrm{hyb}\)) is defined as follows:
where \(\lambda\) is a coupling parameter. This parameter indicates the level of change that is taking place on switching between \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\). The potential \(U_{\alpha }\) and \(U_{\beta }\) correspond here to the CG energies of the two allomorphs respectively. The interactions are switched when \(\lambda\) is continuously decreased. Simulations conducted at different values of \(\lambda\) allow to plot a \(\frac{\partial U(\lambda )}{\partial \lambda }\) curve, from which \({\Delta } F= F_{\alpha }-F_{\beta }\) is derived as below:
where \(U_\mathrm{hyb}\) is the hybrid interaction and \(\langle \cdot \rangle\) denotes the canonical (NVT) ensemble average. We have carried out CG simulation for 20 values of \(\lambda\) (\(0,0.05,0.1,\ldots ,1\)) from which \(U_\mathrm{hyb}\) was determined, then its derivative with respects to \(\lambda\) was obtained (see in Fig. 10) and finally the free energy difference was computed via the numerical integration. The free energy diference, \(F_{\alpha }-F_{\beta }\) is found to be about \(\sim\)1.3 kcal/mol. This value confirms that \(\hbox {I}\beta\) has not only a lower potential energy than \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) but also a lower free energy. Solution calorimetry measurements (Goldberg et al. 2015) for the conversion processes of different cellulose allomorphs from metastable amorphous samples into the \(\hbox {I}\beta\), II and III allomorphs indicate that these processes are exothermic. Our findings support this observation by detecting an amorphous phase during interconversion between \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorphs. In addition, the measured free energy differences: \(F_\mathrm{{I}\beta }\hbox {-}F_\mathrm{II}=1.10\pm 1.60\) kcal/mol and \(F_\mathrm{{I}\beta }{-}F_\mathrm{III}=1.40\pm 1.90\hbox { kcal/mol}\) are of the same order as our estimates for the \(\hbox {I}\alpha \rightarrow \hbox {I}\beta\) transition. This shows the adequacy of our CG parameters.
Conclusions
We have presented a coarse-grained model which is able to describe two allomorphs of the native cellulose I. The effective parameters were derived by two methods (BI and EB). Regarding the effective bonded interaction we showed that both methods are consistent with each other. But for the non-bonded interaction, only the EB has shown to estimate the correct strength for interchain and intersheet HBs. Testing the CG force field in the study of pure cellulose phases \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) has shown good agreement with crystallographic experimental data and all-atom simulation. An application for modeling of a nonideal cellulose fibril where cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) coexist in equal proportion has shown that a smooth monotonic transition from \(\hbox {I}\beta\) to \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) takes place. Explorations (or transitions) performed between allomorphs within our effective description at room temperature have found amorphous states which are characterized by a lost of 5–10 % of the crystallinity. Our approach will allow us to study other ways in which \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and \(\hbox {I}\beta\) may coexist. One scenario involves the \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) coating the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) cellulose fibril. Mechanical response of such a material to nanoindentation can be assessed within our approach at different ratios of \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) to \(\hbox {I}\beta\) at low computational cost.
References
Allen MP, Tildesley DJ (1993) Computer simulation in chemical physics. Springer, Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1679-4
Atalla R, VanderHart D (1999) The role of solid state NMR spectroscopy in studies of the nature of native celluloses. Solid State Nucl Magn Reson 15(1):1–19. doi:10.1016/s0926-2040(99)00042-9
Bayer EA, Lamed R, Himmel ME (2007) The potential of cellulases and cellulosomes for cellulosic waste management. Curr Opin Biotechnol 18(3):237–245. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2007.04.004
Bayer EA, Lamed R, White BA, Ding SY, Himmel ME (2010) Conversion of agricultural residues to bioethanol: the roles of cellulases and cellulosomes. In: Biofuels from agricultural wastes and byproducts, Wiley-Blackwell, pp 67–96, doi:10.1002/9780813822716.ch5
Bellesia G, Chundawat SPS, Langan P, Redondo A, Dale BE, Gnanakaran S (2012) Coarse-grained model for the interconversion between native and liquid ammonia-treated crystalline cellulose. J Phys Chem B 116(28):8031–8037. doi:10.1021/jp300354q
Bu L, Himmel ME, Nimlos MR (2010) Meso-scale modeling of polysaccharides in plant cell walls: an application to translation of CBMs on the cellulose surface. In: ACS symposium series, American Chemical Society (ACS), pp 99–117, doi:10.1021/bk-2010-1052.ch005
Darden T, York D, Pedersen L (1993) Particle mesh ewald: an \(\text{ n }\cdot \text{ log(n) }\) method for ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys 98(12):10,089. doi:10.1063/1.464397
Dashtban M (2009) Fungal bioconversion of lignocellulosic residues; opportunities & perspectives. Int J Biol Sci pp 578–595, doi:10.7150/ijbs.5.578
Debzi EM, Chanzy H, Sugiyama J, Tekely P, Excoffier G (1991) The \(\text{ Ialpha }\rightarrow \text{ Ibeta }\) transformation of highly crystalline cellulose by annealing in various mediums. Macromolecules 24(26):6816–6822. doi:10.1021/ma00026a002
Ding SY, Himmel ME (2006) The maize primary cell wall microfibril: a new model derived from direct visualization. J Agric Food Chem 54(3):597–606. doi:10.1021/jf051851z
Eadie L, Ghosh TK (2011) Biomimicry in textiles: past, present and potential. An overview. J R Soc Interface 8(59):761–775. doi:10.1098/rsif.2010.0487
Fan B, Maranas JK (2014) Coarse-grained simulation of cellulose \(\text{I}\beta\) with application to long fibrils. Cellulose 22(1):31–44. doi:10.1007/s10570-014-0481-2
Fernandes AN, Thomas LH, Altaner CM, Callow P, Forsyth VT, Apperley DC, Kennedy CJ, Jarvis MC (2011) Nanostructure of cellulose microfibrils in spruce wood. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(47):E1195–E1203. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108942108
Foston M, Ragauskas AJ (2010) Changes in lignocellulosic supramolecular and ultrastructure during dilute acid pretreatment of populus and switchgrass. Biomass Bioenerg 34(12):1885–1895. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.07.023
Frenkel D, Smit B (2002) Understanding Molecular Simulation. Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-012267351-1/50006-7
Goldberg RN, Schliesser J, Mittal A, Decker SR, Santos AFL, Freitas VL, Urbas A, Lang BE, Heiss C, da Silva MDR, Woodfield BF, Katahira R, Wang W, Johnson DK (2015) A thermodynamic investigation of the cellulose allomorphs: Cellulose(am), cellulose \(\text{I}\beta\)(cr), cellulose II(cr), and cellulose III(cr). J Chem Thermodyn 81:184–226. doi:10.1016/j.jct.2014.09.006
Gomes TCF, Skaf MS (2012) Cellulose-builder: a toolkit for building crystalline structures of cellulose. J Comput Chem 33(14):1338–1346. doi:10.1002/jcc.22959
Guerriero G, Fugelstad J, Bulone V (2010) What do we really know about cellulose biosynthesis in higher plants? J Integr Plant Biol 52(2):161–175. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7909.2010.00935.x
Håkansson KMO, Fall AB, Lundell F, Yu S, Krywka C, Roth SV, Santoro G, Kvick M, Wittberg LP, Wågberg L, Sderberg LD (2014) Hydrodynamic alignment and assembly of nanofibrils resulting in strong cellulose filaments. Nat Commun 5. doi:10.1038/ncomms5018
Hardy BJ, Sarko A (1996) Molecular dynamics simulations and diffraction-based analysis of the native cellulose fibre: structural modelling of the \(\text{I-}\alpha\) and \(\text{I-}\beta\) phases and their interconversion. Polymer 37(10):1833–1839. doi:10.1016/0032-3861(96)87299-5
Harris D, Bulone V, Ding SY, DeBolt S (2010) Tools for cellulose analysis in plant cell walls. Plant Physiol 153(2):420–426. doi:10.1104/pp.110.154203
Heiner AP, Sugiyama J, Teleman O (1995) Crystalline cellulose Ialpha and Ibeta studied by molecular dynamics simulation. Carbohydr Res 273(2):207–223. doi:10.1016/0008-6215(95)00103-z
Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K (1996) VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 14(1):33–38. doi:10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5
Imai T, Sugiyama J, Itoh T, Horii F (1999) Almost pure I(alpha) cellulose in the cell wall of glaucocystis. J Struct Biol 127(3):248–257. doi:10.1006/jsbi.1999.4160
Jarvis MC (2000) Interconversion of the \(\text{I}\alpha\) and \(\text{I}\beta\) crystalline forms of cellulose by bending. Carbohydr Res 325(2):150–154. doi:10.1016/s0008-6215(99)00316-x
Jochum M, Andrienko D, Kremer K, Peter C (2012) Structure-based coarse-graining in liquid slabs. J Chem Phys 137(6):064,102. doi:10.1063/1.4742067
Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys 79(2):926. doi:10.1063/1.445869
Kataoka Y, Kondo T (1999) Quantitative analysis for the cellulose I alpha crystalline phase in developing wood cell walls. Int J Biol Macromol 24(1):37–41. doi:10.1016/s0141-8130(98)00065-8
Kirschner KN, Yongye AB, Tschampel SM, González-Outeiriño J, Daniels CR, Foley BL, Woods RJ (2008) GLYCAM06: a generalizable biomolecular force field. carbohydrates. J Comput Chem 29(4):622–655. doi:10.1002/jcc.20820
Kroon-Batenburg LMJ, Bouma B, Kroon J (1996) Stability of cellulose structures studied by MD simulations. Could mercerized cellulose II be parallel? Macromolecules 29(17):5695–5699. doi:10.1021/ma9518058
Lee KY, Buldum G, Mantalaris A, Bismarck A (2013) More than meets the eye in bacterial cellulose: biosynthesis, bioprocessing, and applications in advanced fiber composites. Macromol Biosci 14(1):10–32. doi:10.1002/mabi.201300298
Lee KY, Aitomki Y, Berglund LA, Oksman K, Bismarck A (2014) On the use of nanocellulose as reinforcement in polymer matrix composites. Compos Sci Technol 105:15–27. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.08.032
Li S, Bashline L, Lei L, Gu Y (2014) Cellulose synthesis and its regulation. Arabid Book 12:e0169. doi:10.1199/tab.0169
Lin N, Dufresne A (2014) Nanocellulose in biomedicine: current status and future prospect. Eur Poly J 59:302–325. doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.07.025
López CA, Bellesia G, Redondo A, Langan P, Chundawat SPS, Dale BE, Marrink SJ, Gnanakaran S (2015) MARTINI coarse-grained model for crystalline cellulose microfibers. J Phys Chem B 119(2):465–473. doi:10.1021/jp5105938
Martoňák R, Laio A, Bernasconi M, Ceriani C, Raiteri P, Zipoli F, Parrinello M (2005) Simulation of structural phase transitions by metadynamics. Zeitschrift fr Kristallographie—Cryst Mater 220(5/6). doi:10.1524/zkri.220.5.489.65078
Matthews JF, Himmel ME, Crowley MF (2011) Conversion of cellulose \(\text{I}\alpha\) to \(\text{I}\beta\) via a high temperature intermediate (i-HT) and other cellulose phase transformations. Cellulose 19(1):297–306. doi:10.1007/s10570-011-9608-x
Meyer H, Biermann O, Faller R, Reith D, Muller-Plathe F (2000) Coarse graining of nonbonded inter-particle potentials using automatic simplex optimization to fit structural properties. J Chem Phys 113(15):6264. doi:10.1063/1.1308542
Mihranyan A, Edsman K, Strømme M (2007) Rheological properties of cellulose hydrogels prepared from cladophora cellulose powder. Food Hydrocoll 21(2):267–272. doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.04.003
Molinero V, Goddard WA (2004) M3b: a coarse grain force field for molecular simulations of malto-oligosaccharides and their water mixtures. J Phys Chem B 108(4):1414–1427. doi:10.1021/jp0354752
Nawrath C, Poirier Y, Somerville C (1995) Plant polymers for biodegradable plastics: cellulose, starch and polyhydroxyalkanoates. Mol Breed 1(2):105–122. doi:10.1007/bf01249696
Newman RH (1999) Estimation of the relative proportions of cellulose I alpha and I beta in wood by carbon-13 NMR spectroscopy. Holzforschung 53(4). doi:10.1515/hf.1999.055
Nishiyama Y, Langan P, Chanzy H (2002) Crystal structure and hydrogen-bonding system in cellulose Ibeta from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. J Am Chem Soc 124(31):9074–9082. doi:10.1021/ja0257319
Nishiyama Y, Sugiyama J, Chanzy H, Langan P (2003) Crystal structure and hydrogen bonding system in cellulose I(alpha) from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. J Am Chem Soc 125(47):14,300–14,306. doi:10.1021/ja037055w
Nishiyama Y, Johnson GP, French AD, Forsyth VT, Langan P (2008) Neutron crystallography, molecular dynamics, and quantum mechanics studies of the nature of hydrogen bonding in cellulose Ibeta. Biomacromolecules 9(11):3133–3140. doi:10.1021/bm800726v
Peplow M (2014) Cellulosic ethanol fights for life. Nature 507(7491):152–153. doi:10.1038/507152a
Phillips JC, Braun R, Wang W, Gumbart J, Tajkhorshid E, Villa E, Chipot C, Skeel RD, Kalé L, Schulten K (2005) Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem 26(16):1781–1802. doi:10.1002/jcc.20289
Poma AB, Chwastyk M, Cieplak M (2015) Polysaccharide–protein complexes in a coarse-grained model. J Phys Chem B 119(36):12,028–12,041. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b06141
Queyroy S, Neyertz S, Brown D, Mller-Plathe F (2004) Preparing relaxed systems of amorphous polymers by multiscale simulation: application to cellulose. Macromolecules 37(19):7338–7350. doi:10.1021/ma035821d
Revol JF (1982) On the cross-sectional shape of cellulose crystallites in valonia ventricosa. Carbohydr Polym 2(2):123–134. doi:10.1016/0144-8617(82)90058-3
Sannigrahi P, Ragauskas AJ, Miller SJ (2008) Effects of two-stage dilute acid pretreatment on the structure and composition of lignin and cellulose in loblolly pine. BioEnerg Res 1(3–4):205–214. doi:10.1007/s12155-008-9021-y
Sassi JF, Tekely P, Chanzy H (2000) Relative susceptibility of the \(\text{I}\alpha\) and \(\text{I}\beta\) phases of cellulose towards acetylation. Cellulose 7:119–132. doi:10.1023/A:1009224008802
Sikora M, Sułkowska JI, Cieplak M (2009) Mechanical strength of 17 134 model proteins and cysteine slipknots. PLoS Comput Biol 5(21000):547. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000547
Srinivas G, Cheng X, Smith JC (2014) Coarse-grain model for natural cellulose fibrils in explicit water. J Phys Chem B 118(11):3026–3034. doi:10.1021/jp407953p
Steiner T (2002) The hydrogen bond in the solid state. Angew Chem Int 41(1):48–76. doi:10.1002/1521-3773
Sułkowska JI, Cieplak M (2007) Mechanical stretching of proteins—a theoretical survey of the protein data bank. J Phys: Cond Matter 19(285):224
Tessier M, DeMarco M, Yongye A, Woods R (2008) Extension of the GLYCAM06 biomolecular force field to lipids, lipid bilayers and glycolipids. Mol Simul 34(4):349–364. doi:10.1080/08927020701710890
Tuckerman ME (2010) Statistical mechanics: theory and molecular simulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi:10.1016/b978-012267351-1/50006-7
Vashchenko AV, Afonin AV (2014) A study of intramolecular hydrogen bonds \(\text{ C-H}\cdots \text{X } \text{(X } \text{= } \text{ N, } \text{ O) }\) within the theory of the electron localization function. J Struct Chem 55(6):1010–1018. doi:10.1134/s002247661406002x
Wada M, Kondo T, Okano T (2003) Thermally induced crystal transformation from cellulose \(\text{I}_\alpha\) to \(\text{I}_\beta\). Polym J 35(2):155–159. doi:10.1295/polymj.35.155
Wertz JL, Mercier JP, Bédué O (2010) Cellulose science and technology. Informa UK Limited, London. doi:10.1201/b16496
Wohlert J, Berglund LA (2011) A coarse-grained model for molecular dynamics simulations of native cellulose. J Chem Theory Comput 7(3):753–760. doi:10.1021/ct100489z
Wu X, Moon RJ, Martini A (2014) Tensile strength of Ibeta crystalline cellulose predicted by molecular dynamics simulation. Cellulose 21(4):2233–2245. doi:10.1007/s10570-014-0325-0
Yu TQ, Chen PY, Chen M, Samanta A, Vanden-Eijnden E, Tuckerman M (2014) Order-parameter-aided temperature-accelerated sampling for the exploration of crystal polymorphism and solid-liquid phase transitions. J Chem Phys 140(21):214,109. doi:10.1063/1.4878665
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported by the ERA-NET grant ERA-IB (EIB.12.022)(FiberFuel) and the European Framework Programme VII NMP grant 604530-2 (CellulosomePlus). It was also co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education from the resources granted for the years 2014–2017 in support of international scientific projects.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Poma, A.B., Chwastyk, M. & Cieplak, M. Coarse-grained model of the native cellulose \(\hbox {I}\alpha\) and the transformation pathways to the \(\hbox {I}\beta\) allomorph. Cellulose 23, 1573–1591 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-0903-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-0903-4