Abstract
Efficient saccharification of lignocellulosic biomass requires concerted development of a pretreatment method, an enzyme cocktail and an enzymatic process, all of which are adapted to the feedstock. Recent years have shown great progress in most aspects of the overall process. In particular, increased insights into the contributions of a wide variety of cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic enzymes have improved the enzymatic processing step and brought down costs. Here, we review major pretreatment technologies and different enzyme process setups and present an in-depth discussion of the various enzyme types that are currently in use. We pay ample attention to the role of the recently discovered lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs), which have led to renewed interest in the role of redox enzyme systems in lignocellulose processing. Better understanding of the interplay between the various enzyme types, as they may occur in a commercial enzyme cocktail, is likely key to further process improvements.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Industrial-scale production of cellulosic ethanol based on enzymatic saccharification of biomass was established by several companies during the past decade [17, 298]. This production of cellulosic ethanol was initiated in 2012 by Beta Renewables at their site in Crescentino, Italy [55]. In 2015, this plant had an annual production of about 40,000 tons of ethanol using agricultural residues as feedstock. In 2017, however, this plant was shut down due to economic problems in the parent company Mossi Ghisolfi Group and sold to Versalis [107]. In early 2020, Eni, an integrated energy company owning Versalis, announced that bioethanol production in Crescentino will start again within the first half of 2020 [98]. Other companies like DuPont, Abengoa and GranBio have all had commercial plants in operation, but they have closed down production of ethanol due to economic and/or technical reasons. The POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels, a 50/50 joint venture between Royal DSM (Netherlands) and POET LLC (USA) demonstrated stable industrial production of bioethanol. Their Project Liberty facility in Emmetsburg, Iowa (USA) produced for some time around 80 million liters of ethanol per year and had an 80% uptime in 2017. However, also POET-DSM has now paused ethanol production at the site due to challenges with implementing the recent Renewable Fuel Standard [277]. Thus, the establishment of this industry has clearly been challenging, and it is currently also struggling with a low oil price.
Conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol involves five main steps, namely collection and delivery of feedstock to the plant, pretreatment of the feedstock (at the point of collection or on-site), enzymatic saccharification, fermentation and product formulation (see Fig. 1). In order to make the process viable, all these steps need to be considered from the economic point of view, with primary focus on feedstock handling, pretreatment and enzyme efficiency and enzyme costs [4, 383]. In this review, we will give an overview of recent technical improvements regarding pretreatment technologies that have been used at (semi-)industrial scale and then discuss in detail challenges and recent advancements regarding enzyme cocktails used for saccharification of lignocellulosic biomass. We will focus on enzyme components that are critical for maximizing sugar recovery from the pretreated feedstock and on the interactions between these components in enzyme mixtures. Finally, we will address the limitations of today’s cellulase cocktails and discuss possible strategies for their improvement.
Pretreatment technologies and their effect on the feedstock
A broad range of pretreatment technologies is available to enhance accessibility of lignocellulosic biomass to enzymes and hence promote saccharification, as reviewed by Yang and Wyman [389], Sun et al. [328] and Cantero et al. [50]. Among these, wet oxidation [307], hydrothermal pretreatment [270], steam explosion [44, 275], dilute acid treatment [252], ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) [16], sulfite pulping [301, 377] and methods based on the use of ionic liquids and organic solvents [398] are the major technologies that have been used at demonstration or industrial scale over the past years. The choice of pretreatment depends on the type of feedstock as well as on the spectrum of desired end products [95, 301]. Hydrothermal pretreatment as well as AFEX and ammonium recycle percolation (ARP) technologies cause cellulose decrystallization, some hydrolysis of hemicellulose as well as lignin removal [18] and are primarily used for grass-type biomass (corn stover, switch grass), while steam explosion and alkaline and sulfite pulping can also be used for woody biomass (e.g., poplar and spruce). Recent improvements aim at reducing saccharification costs and include the following: (1) combined removal of lignin and hemicellulose prior to mechanical refining [54, 193, 388]; (2) restructuring native cellulose to the more accessible allomorph cellulose III in a low moisture extractive ammonia (AE) process [78]; and (3) the use of biomass-derived solvents for biomass pretreatment [179, 223, 322]. As an example, a pretreatment process recently developed at NREL [193], which uses a counter-current alkaline deacetylation [194] followed by mechanical defibrillation of the feedstock, allows enzymatic saccharification at high consistency, and the resulting hydrolysate is highly fermentable.
While some pretreatment technologies aim to increase plant cell wall accessibility via reorganization of plant cell wall polymers without removal of matrix polymers (AFEX, ARP), other technologies increase enzymatic accessibility of cellulose via fractionation of the biomass by separating lignin (e.g., alkali and sulfite pulping), hemicellulose (steam explosion) or both (ionic liquid or organosolv pretreatment) from cellulose. Detailed analysis of pretreated biomass with glycome profiling and immunolabeling of plant cell wall polymers indicate that not even the most efficient pretreatment technologies, such as hydrothermal pretreatment [86, 397], AFEX [264] and extractive ammonia pretreatment [13], can completely separate cellulose from the other cell wall polymers. Indeed, studies on the optimization of enzymatic biomass saccharification have revealed the need for a wide-spectrum enzyme cocktail, including cellulases and hemicellulases, to achieve complete saccharification of pretreated biomass, and the composition of the optimal enzyme cocktail depends on pretreatment and biomass type [21, 61, 168].
The active components of cellulase cocktails
Cellulolytic enzymes
In 1950, Reese et al. postulated that cellulose is degraded in a two-step process, the first step being the conversion of native, crystalline cellulose to shorter, accessible cellulose chains by a component called C1 and the second step being the conversion of the now more accessible cellulose to oligomers and monomers by a component called Cx [291]. Over the years, the quest towards the isolation of the C1 and Cx components from fungal secretomes (e.g., [130, 385]) led to the identification of the core set of fungal cellulose-active glycoside hydrolases (GHs), including cellobiohydrolases (CBHs; cleaving off cellobiose from the cellulose chain ends), endoglucanases (EGs; cleaving cellulose chains in non-crystalline regions) and β-glucosidases (BGs; depolymerizing soluble cello-oligosaccharides liberated by CBHs and EGs) [386] (Fig. 2; Table 1). These GHs have been classified, based on sequence similarities, in the Carbohydrate Active enZymes (CAZy) database [219]. As an example, the model organism T. reesei, named after one of the pioneers of cellulase research, Elwyn T. Reese, secretes two CBHs, TrCel7A (formerly CBH I; a reducing end-specific CBH belonging to family GH7) and TrCel6A (formerly CBH II; a non-reducing end-specific CBH belonging to family GH6), four EGs, named TrCel7B (formerly EG I), TrCel5A (formerly EG II or, in the very early days, also EG III), TrCel12A (formerly EG III), TrCel45A (formerly EG V) and four BGs, TrCel3A (formerly Bgl1), TrCel3B, TrCel3F and TrCel3G [1, 231]. Two additional enzymes in the T. reesei secretome were initially annotated as EGs, namely TrCel61A (originally EG IV) [172] and TrCel61B (originally EG VII), but it is now clear that these enzymes are not EGs but lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs), as discussed below.
Although there have been some early indications that oxidative processes contribute to cellulose conversion [99], cellulose decomposition was thought, for a long time, to occur primarily through the action of hydrolytic enzymes. The breakthrough came in 2010 with the discovery of oxidative polysaccharide degradation by enzymes that were previously classified as CBM33s (chitin-binding proteins in bacteria) and GH61s (EGs in fungi) [351]. Today these enzymes are called lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs) and have been reclassified as Auxiliary Activity (AA) families 10 and 9, respectively, in the CAZy database [212]. Over the past decade, several LPMO families have been described, and, as of today, families AA9-11, AA13-14 and AA16 comprise fungal LPMOs. AA15 type LPMOs have not been identified in fungi. Fungal LPMOs of the AA10 type are very rare and, while bacterial AA10s have been intensely studied, none of the putative fungal AA10s have been characterized. LPMOs contain a single copper co-factor, the reduction of which is crucial for the LPMO reaction [284, 351]. These enzymes catalyze the oxidative cleavage of β-1,4-glycosidic bonds of recalcitrant polysaccharides, either in a monooxygenase reaction using molecular O2 and a reductant [351] or in a peroxygenase reaction using H2O2 [37, 38] (Fig. 3).
Importantly, the monooxygenase paradigm entails that reducing equivalents are being consumed by the LPMO in each catalytic cycle, whereas the peroxygenase reaction only requires priming amounts of reductant to reduce the LPMO to its catalytically active Cu(I) state (Fig. 3). It has been shown that the reducing power needed by LPMOs can be delivered in many ways, including a wide variety of small molecule reductants, such as ascorbic acid [351], phenolic compounds, including compounds derived from lignin and plant biomass in general [114, 190, 381], as well as certain redox enzymes [121, 190, 206, 274] (as reviewed by [39, 117]). Both the catalytic mechanism of LPMOs and the relative importance of the O2-driven and H2O2-driven reactions are the subject of debate and current research, as recently reviewed in [39, 60].
Since the postulation of the C1–Cx theory for cellulose depolymerization by Reese et al. [291], the nature of the C1 factor has been interpreted in a number of ways. First, cellobiohydrolases were thought to act as C1 factor [129]. It has been suggested that CBHs break non-covalent linkages between adjacent cellulose chains in crystalline cellulose since they thread a single cellulose chain into their active site cleft (or even tunnel) and, thus, are potentially capable of extracting a longer piece of cellulose chain out of its crystalline context [122, 182]. While lifting a single cellulose chain (likely 6 or more glucose units) away from the crystalline lattice, i.e., decrystallization of cellulose, carries an energy penalty, strong binding interactions between the enzyme and the cellulose, which relate to the processive nature of CBHs, could make such decrystallization energetically possible (see also below). Later, Arantes and Saddler proposed that carbohydrate-binding modules (CBMs), such as the one attached to the most studied CBH, TrCel7A, and expansin-like proteins, such as the Swo1 swollenin protein that induces swelling of cellulose [305], may fulfil the role of the C1 factor [10]. The discovery of LPMOs has led to the speculation that these enzymes may in fact be the long-sought-after C1 factor [142, 245, 351]. This hypothesis is supported by multiple studies showing that LPMOs belonging to various AA families induce fibrillation of cellulose fibers [149, 352, 364].
Of the T. reesei cellulases, the CBH TrCel7A has gained the most attention, primarily because it is the most abundant enzyme in the secretome, comprising close to 60% of the cellulolytic proteins [126]. The crystal structure of the catalytic domain of TrCel7A reveals a tunnel-shaped active site [89], which can accommodate ten glucosyl units [64, 88]. The long substrate-binding tunnel of TrCel7A enables strong interactions with a single cellulose chain and contributes to the processive mode of action of this enzyme [26, 181, 182], as visualized by Igarashi et al. using high-speed atomic force microscopy [151]. Processivity is a key attribute of CBHs that makes them especially powerful in depolymerizing the highly compact structure of crystalline cellulose [26, 338, 362]. On the other hand, processivity leads to stalling of CBHs when their path is blocked by other enzymes or substrate-derived obstacles [73, 113, 152, 155, 199]. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the strong binding energies associated with processivity, in particular reflected in low off-rates [74, 198], make processive GHs intrinsically slow, as has been nicely demonstrated for processive chitinases [141, 394, 395].
Contrary to the CBHs, with their deep substrate-binding clefts, or even tunnels, cellulose-active LPMOs have a flat substrate-binding and catalytic surface, which is optimized for attacking surfaces such as those found in cellulose crystals [171, 350, 351]. Unlike CBHs and other GHs, LPMOs cannot use binding energy to distort the substrate towards the transition state for hydrolytic glycoside bond cleavage. Thus, LPMOs employ powerful oxidative chemistry, allowing them to cleave the β-1,4-glycosidic bonds of cellulose without the need to remove a cellulose chain from the crystalline lattice. Some LPMOs are known to act on non-crystalline substrates [7, 102, 154], and the most commonly used substrate for assaying the activity of cellulose-active LPMOs is phosphoric-acid swollen (so, non-crystalline) cellulose. Still, the ability of LPMOs to attack crystalline and other recalcitrant and insoluble polysaccharide structures [68] is well documented [96, 351, 364] and likely comprises the most important role of these enzymes in biomass conversion.
Hemicellulolytic enzymes
Depending on the type of biomass and pretreatment technology, pretreated biomass contains, in addition to cellulose, varying amounts of linear and branched polysaccharides, including the hemicelluloses xylan, glucomannan and xyloglucan, as well as pectin, all of which adhere to cellulose fibers, forming a complex three-dimensional matrix [323]. These polysaccharides can form multiple substructures, and while many hemicelluloses are relatively easy to degrade, a fraction of these polysaccharides will form recalcitrant co-polymeric substructures that may hamper cellulose degradation [47, 261, 392]. Due to the high complexity of these plant polysaccharides, a variety of enzyme activities are needed for their complete breakdown (Table 1). The most studied hemicellulose-active enzymes are xylan- and glucomannan-specific enzymes. These hemicellulases include GHs that cleave the polysaccharide main chain, i.e. endo-β-1,4-xylanases (shortly xylanases) and endo-β-1,4-mannanases (shortly mannanases), as well as debranching enzymes that remove substitutions from the polysaccharide backbone (e.g., deacetylases, arabinosidases and galactosidases). These enzymes and their potential uses have been reviewed by Malgas et al. [224, 227]. Interestingly, recent studies indicate that LPMOs belonging to class AA14 may be tailored to specifically act on recalcitrant xylan coating cellulose fibers [68] (Fig. 2).
In addition to hemicellulases, some EGs and AA9 LPMOs may also contribute to hemicellulose conversion because they are capable of cleaving the polysaccharide backbones of some, or even a wide range, of hemicellulosic polysaccharides, including xyloglucan, xylan and/or glucomannan [7, 102, 116, 150, 183, 320, 366] (Fig. 2, Table 1). While promiscuous endoglucanases [366] and some of the hemicellulolytic LPMOs cleaving mixed-linkage glucans, xyloglucan and glucomannan [7, 102, 183, 251, 272, 320], are active on isolated hemicelluloses, xylan-active AA9 (and also AA14) LPMOs [68, 114, 116, 150] require xylan being complexed with cellulose. A likely reason for this is that insoluble forms of hemicelluloses associated with cellulose adopt different conformations than their soluble forms [47]. Consequently, screening for enzyme activity on natural substrates or pretreated biomass instead of model substrates, such as microcrystalline or amorphous cellulose and isolated hemicelluloses, may be a prerequisite for accurately describing substrate specificities, or for detecting enzyme activity in the first place [68].
An evolutionary advantage for substrate promiscuity for EGs and LPMOs could be the ability to cleave recalcitrant fractions of xyloglucan, xylan and glucomannan that adhere to cellulose fibers. As an example, TrCel7B is active on xylan [15], glucomannan [239] and xyloglucan [366]. In terms of promiscuity among EGs and LPMOs, the fact that GH7 EGs (such as TrCel7B), and potentially also some AA9 LPMOs, can act on both xylan and glucomannan likely contributes to their importance in enzyme cocktails for biomass breakdown [61, 168, 300, 355]. It is noteworthy that the activity of TrCel7B from T. reesei on xylan is comparable to, if not higher than, its activity on cellulose [15]. Xylans are abundant in all types of lignocellulosic plant biomass (i.e., grasses, hardwood and softwood), emphasizing the importance of xylan-active EGs and CAZymes in general in enzyme cocktails, irrespective of the origin of the feedstock. Most importantly, inclusion of CAZymes with broad substrate specificities will help in designing universal enzyme cocktails for the breakdown of a broad range of biomass.
Complementarily to the action of enzymes converting hemicellulose polymers to shorter fragments, debranching enzymes are needed to enable the complete saccharification of hemicellulosic oligomers by β-xylosidases and β-mannosidases [224, 227]. Some debranching enzyme activities may be of particular importance as they cleave covalent linkages to lignin [157]. Substitutions of xylans include hydroxycinnamoyl and glucuronoyl groups, which have been shown to take part in the formation of covalent linkages between lignin and xylan. Enzymes potentially acting on lignin–hemicellulose bonds include feruloyl esterases, cleaving off hydroxycinnamoyl (including feruloyl, p-coumaroyl, and cinnamoyl) groups from arabinosyl substitutions of the xylan backbone [71], and glucuronoyl esterases, cleaving off lignin alcohols having ester bonds with (methyl)-glucuronic acid substitutions of the xylan backbone [101, 243, 246]. These enzymes have received considerable attention as enzymatic cleavage of lignin–polysaccharide bonds potentially has a dual positive effect in biomass conversion: (1) improvement of enzymatic accessibility of plant cell wall polysaccharides and (2) removal of hemicellulose moieties from the residual lignin. The relevance of these enzymes for complete biomass saccharification is emphasized in a recent study by Mosbech et al., showing that a glucuronoyl esterase from Cerrena unicolor, in combination with a GH10 xylanase, is able to completely remove xylan moieties from birchwood lignin [246].
Debranching enzymes and deacetylases are especially important in biomass decomposition because hemicelluloses coating cellulose microfibrils, in particular xylan and glucomannan, are known to be acetylated and substituted with glucuronic acid or galactose [46, 125, 392]. Removal of these substitutions changes cellulose–hemicellulose interactions and may decrease the recalcitrance of the feedstock [265]. On the other hand, removal of substitutions from xylan and glucomannan polymers that are not directly associated with cellulose microfibrils may decrease their solubility in water and lead to the adsorption of linear, unsubstituted hemicellulose fragments onto cellulose fibers [165, 195, 379]. While these hemicelluloses can be removed by xylanases and mannanases, they will limit cellulose accessibility [379, 380]. In addition to acting on hemicelluloses, acetyl esterases may also act on lignin and change its properties [265], but the implications of this effect, and of the effects of deacetylating enzymes in general remain to be studied.
Other oxidoreductases in biomass conversion
In addition to GHs and LPMOs, fungal secretomes are rich in oxidoreductases, including cellobiose dehydrogenases (CDHs; belonging to family AA3_1 in CAZy), lignin-active laccases (family AA1) and peroxidases (family AA2), copper-radical oxidoreductases (family AA5) and multi-copper oxidoreductases (family AA3). A detailed overview of these enzymes and potential interactions between them is provided in a recent review by Bissaro et al. [39]. Some of these oxidoreductases have been shown to directly (CDH) or indirectly (laccase and polyphenol oxidase) interact with LPMOs (Fig. 2; Table 2). CDHs can reduce the active-site copper of LPMOs directly via their AA8 cytochrome domain [335], thus fueling the LPMO reaction, and may also contribute by generation of the LPMO co-substrate H2O2 [189]. Two polyphenol oxidases have been shown to promote LPMO reactions because they hydroxylate methylated or non-methylated monophenols (including lignin monomers), which thus become better reductants for LPMOs [115]. Alternatively, laccase treatment of lignin, which as such is known to be able to drive LPMO reactions (see above), has led to increased LPMO activity [42, 269]. Perna et al. showed that the observed effect is due to increased H2O2-production by reactions involving laccase-modified lignin [269]. For the successful exploitation of these effects in biomass conversion, however, further research is needed, addressing, for example, the interaction of lignin-active oxidoreductases with lignin, as well as the actual flow of electrons, the generation and consumption of H2O2 and effects on both the LPMOs and other enzyme components.
Co-operativity between enzyme components
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind enzymatic biomass decomposition, individual enzyme components have been studied alone (enzyme characterization studies) and in combination with other individual enzyme components (minimal enzyme cocktail studies), cellulase cocktails or fungal secretomes (supplementation or spiking studies). Already in the late 1970s, co-operativity (Fig. 4) between different cellulases became clear when Wood and McCrae showed that CBHs enhance swelling of cotton fibers by EGs [387]. Shortly thereafter, CBHs and EGs were described to exert a mutually positive effect on each other’s action during cellulose hydrolysis [140]. In other words, it was demonstrated that these two enzymes act synergistically (Fig. 4). Since then, several types of synergism have been observed between cellulolytic enzymes: between CBHs and EGs [253], CBHs, EGs and cellulose-active AA9 LPMOs [134], and two cellulose-active AA10 LPMOs [109]. The mechanisms of synergies between cellulolytic enzymes have been in the focus of research on biomass degradation, especially for cellulose, using for example detailed kinetic models [155, 253, 373] and atomic force microscopy [96, 120, 152]. A classical interpretation of this synergy is that EGs generate new chain ends for CBHs, but recent studies have indicated that additional mechanisms need to be considered [41, 100, 155, 202, 257, 279]. In particular, it has been proposed that EGs may promote CBH activity by attacking amorphous regions in the cellulose that CBHs are unable to pass during processive action [155, 279].
Over the past decade, the interplay of LPMOs with hydrolases has gained considerable attention [11, 96, 97, 175, 248]. Studies with chitin-active [349] and cellulose-active [134, 238] LPMOs have shown that these enzymes promote the action of classical hydrolytic enzymes, and after the discovery of the catalytic activity of LPMOs [351], it became clear that the presence of reducing power promotes the LPMO effects. Indeed, Harris et al. observed that the boosting effect of an LPMO on cellulase action required the presence of other compounds in the biomass, most likely lignin-derived [134]. In retrospect, it is clear that these observations relate to the reducing power that is present in biomass but not in model cellulosic substrates such as Avicel [134, 143, 247]. In an important study, Eibinger et al. used confocal microscopy to show that a cellulolytic LPMO from N. crassa primarily acts on surface-exposed crystalline areas of the cellulose and that LPMO treatment promoted adsorption of a CBH, TrCel7A, to these crystalline regions, resulting in more efficient hydrolysis of these cellulose crystals [96]. Subsequent studies using real-time atomic force microscopy led to similar conclusions [97]. The work by Eibinger et al. provides evidence that at least some LPMOs cleave cellulose at crystalline areas and thus produce new chain ends, i.e. action sites, for CBHs. This highlights an important difference between LPMOs and EGs in terms of their mode of synergism with CBHs, since these enzymes cleave crystalline and amorphous parts of cellulose, respectively.
Notably, the oxidation at the terminal glucose molecules after LPMO action will have multi-faceted impact on CBHs that will depend partly on the directionality of CBHs and partly on the affinity of individual CBHs for the oxidized chain ends. One of the two new chain ends generated by an LPMO will be oxidized, and CBHs may vary in terms of how well they interact with such oxidized chain ends. Interestingly, molecular simulation studies on the oxidative cleavage of crystalline cellulose by LPMOs performed by Vermaas and colleagues indicated that C4-oxidized chain ends (i.e. oxidized at the non-reducing end) will be more readily hydrolyzed by non-reducing end-specific GH6 CBHs, such as TrCel6A [361].
Co-operativity between enzymes has also been studied in detail for degradation of various hemicelluloses [83], including xylan [224] and glucomannan [227], the most abundant hemicelluloses in lignocellulosic biomass. On hemicelluloses, synergism occurs primarily between enzymes hydrolyzing the polysaccharide main chain and debranching enzymes. For xylan depolymerization, examples include synergism between the following: a xylanase and an arabinosidase [186, 360], xylanases and a glucuronidase [85], xylanases and acetyl esterases [35], a GH11 xylanase and a CE5 acetylxylan esterase [315, 316], a GH10 or GH11 xylanase and a CE1 feruloyl esterase [84, 103] and a GH10 xylanase and a CE15 glucuronoyl esterase [246]. In addition, synergism between a GH11 xylanase and an AA14 LPMO, both acting on the xylan backbone, has recently been observed [68]. Saccharification of glucomannan has been less studied because the plant cell walls of grasses and herbaceous plants, the more commonly used feedstocks for ethanol production, do not contain glucomannan. Examples of enzyme synergism in glucomannan degradation include the following: a mannanase and galactosidases [63, 228], a mannanase a galactosidase and two acetyl esterases [341], and a GH5 mannanase and a CE2 acetyl esterase [12].
Notably, studies on polysaccharide utilization loci in bacteria from the gut microbiota may provide further insight into the interplay of backbone-cleaving and debranching enzymes for compounds such as xyloglucan [208], pectin [222], xylan [297] and glucomannan [76, 204]. Since these polysaccharide utilization loci likely encode all enzymes needed for saccharification of a certain polysaccharide, they provide hints as to the preferred composition of enzyme cocktails for biomass saccharification containing fungal enzymes.
In natural biomass, cellulose, hemicelluloses (xyloglucan, xylan and/or glucomannan), pectin and lignin co-occur, and hence synergism of enzymes acting on different plant cell wall components can be anticipated to occur. Such “intermolecular synergism” has been described in the late 1990s for cellulases and xylanases acting on birch kraft pulp and for cellulases, xylanases and mannanases acting on spruce kraft pulp by Tenkanen et al. [340] and later for CBH and xylanase acting on pretreated corn stover by Selig et al. [316]. The interplay between cellulases and enzymes acting on hemicellulose has also been extensively studied by the Saddler group [144,145,146, 327]. Notably, cellulases, xylanases and mannanases work synergistically with each other on spruce chemical pulp not only in the initial phase of the saccharification Várnai [359] but also throughout the course of the reaction. Apparently, depolymerization of cellulose, xylan and glucomannan proceeds simultaneously throughout the process, indicative of a “peeling” type of synergism [355]. In a recent study, Nekiunaite and co-workers showed that cleavage of cellulose by a cellulose-active LPMO from N. crassa is inhibited by the presence of xyloglucan and that this inhibition is alleviated by adding a xyloglucan-active EG [251]. These findings point at the possible importance of promiscuous EGs [366] and LPMOs [7, 102, 114, 150] in the complete saccharification of lignocellulosic biomass. It seems clear that for the complete saccharification of any feedstock of interest, it is essential to identify key plant cell wall components that may hinder access to cellulose and other plant cell wall polysaccharides and to identify the corresponding carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) that cleave these.
Co-operativity or synergism?
It is important to note that the term synergism should be used with care. Synergism between two enzyme components occurs if the concomitant action of the two enzymes results in a higher yield than when summing up the yields obtained when using the individual components (Fig. 4). Synergism is best observed between pure enzymes using low enzyme dosages and short reaction times, i.e. staying in the initial linear phase of the saccharification reaction [9, 225, 355]. Using longer incubation times may mask positive effects of combining enzymes acting on the same plant cell wall polymer. This can happen when the concomitant action of the enzymes leads to faster saccharification, which can be observed in the initial phase, but does not lead to higher final conversion yields.
While carefully designed laboratory experiments addressing synergistic effects may give insights into the mechanism of interaction between a selection of individual enzyme components, understanding the importance of individual enzyme components in cellulase cocktails remains challenging. To elucidate the effect of individual enzyme components on the total conversion yield, studies on the development of minimal enzyme cocktails (i.e. optimizing blends of individual enzymes [21, 61, 168]) as well as spiking studies (i.e. partial replacement or supplementation of cellulase cocktails with an enzyme preparation [143, 146, 177, 250]) are used routinely. Such studies can lead to the identification of key enzyme components that are necessary for efficient saccharification of a feedstock. Since enzyme production costs (i.e., protein production costs) are an important factor in enzyme-based biorefining, it is important that the total protein loading is fixed in studies aimed at investigating enzyme co-operativity and identification of limiting activities [145]. A few examples of enzyme activities that may be limiting in the industrial conversion of lignocellulosic biomass are discussed below.
LPMOs and catalases
Using technical substrates (i.e. pretreated biomass) to test the performance of enzyme cocktails is essential for industrial relevance. This is exemplified by the early work of Harris et al., which indicated that LPMOs are active on lignocellulosic substrates (such as pretreated corn stover) but not on pure cellulose substrates [134]. An explanation for these initial findings only became clear after the discovery that LPMOs need electrons, which lignin can provide [114, 381]. Recent studies indicate that lignin has a dual function in LPMO activation: it is able to reduce the active site-copper of LPMOs and to produce H2O2 in situ from O2 [185, 269]. Importantly, lignin-active enzymes can affect the electron-donating and H2O2-generating abilities of lignin, providing possible links between polysaccharide- and lignin-degrading enzyme systems [42, 115, 269]. Another possible link between these systems is that LPMO-facilitated in situ production of H2O2 may be utilized by peroxidases to degrade lignin [213].
To employ LPMOs in the degradation of lignin-poor cellulosic substrates, it is necessary to supply the saccharification reaction with external reducing agents like ascorbic acid to activate the LPMOs [250]. For saccharification of cellulose-rich sulfite-pulped spruce, it has been shown that lignin-containing spent sulfite liquor can work as an electron donor [62, 65]. On the other hand, accumulating data confirm that the LPMO reaction can be driven by lignin remaining in the biomass after various pretreatments, including dilute-sulfuric acid pretreatment [134], steam explosion [250] or hydrothermal pretreatment [48, 185], although to varying extents [296]. Thus, while lignin may be inhibitory to cellulases due to unproductive enzyme binding [23, 32, 91, 260, 287, 288, 347] or shielding the polysaccharide [90, 191], it may be crucial for LPMO activity in certain experimental settings.
LPMO activity depends on supply of H2O2, either direct or indirect, i.e in situ production of H2O2 from O2. The latter needs a much higher supply of reductant (Fig. 3) and may only be feasible when the feedstock is relatively rich in lignin. For substrates with low lignin content, direct supply of H2O2 works extremely well [248], also at demonstration scale [65]. For lignin-rich substrates, however, the benefits of direct addition of external H2O2 are less clear [248], presumably due to side-reactions occurring between added H2O2 and lignin [185]. In situ production of H2O2 may happen close to the enzyme, perhaps even on the enzyme, which will increase the likeliness that the generated H2O2 is indeed used by the LPMO rather than being consumed in side reactions between H2O2 and lignin.
A drawback of processes relying on in situ production of H2O2 is the lack of direct control over the amount of H2O2 produced, meaning that intermittently high concentrations of H2O2 (and other reactive oxygen species derived from H2O2) could be experienced, which may be damaging to the enzymes. Accumulation of H2O2 may be prevented by the use of catalases, which convert H2O2 to water. Indeed, a study by Scott et al. showed that inactivation of LPMO-containing cellulase blends was significantly reduced by addition of catalases [312]. Thus, a likely role of catalases, which are also present in fungal secretomes together with LPMOs [2], is to maintain low H2O2 levels in systems with in situ H2O2 generation (Table 2). Since catalases have Km values for H2O2 in the millimolar range, while LPMOs have Km values for H2O2 in the micromolar range [39, 200], LPMOs will still be active and not directly inhibited by the H2O2 consumption of the catalases. It should also be noted that abiotic factors will consume oxygen and generated reactive oxygen species during typical incubation conditions for enzymatic saccharification of lignocellulosic materials (as illustrated in Fig. 2), and many aspects of the reactions taking place are not yet fully understood [266].
Today’s cellulase cocktails: what are the limitations and how to overcome these?
Commercial enzyme cocktails have been greatly improved since initial cocktails were launched on the market [160, 238]. Most commercial cocktails are fungal-derived because several fungi are efficient degraders of plant biomass and show high production levels of catalytically efficient cellulases. Family GH7 cellulases are generally considered to be highly efficient and are only found in fungi. Fungi secrete lignocellulose-degrading enzymes into the medium, enabling easy separation from the producing organism Merino and Cherry [238]. However, fungal secretome profiles differ between fungal strains and may vary a lot depending on the carbon source [2, 30, 59, 240, 278]. This must be carefully considered when trying to select natural enzymes for conversion of differently pretreated biomass feedstocks. Despite a lack of publicly available data, it is clear that optimization of enzyme cocktails will have different outcomes for different feedstocks and that a one-size-fits-all strategy may not be optimal [33, 136].
Through the years, individual components of the enzyme cocktails have been the subject of enzyme improvement [268], either through screening for novel enzymes from alternative organisms (e.g., [133, 299, 326]) or by applying enzyme engineering technologies (e.g., [6, 80, 244, 313]). Work done on commercial enzymes is not generally known to the public; typical targets for improvement of individual cellulases include increased hydrolytic efficiency and/or stability at process conditions, reduced end-product inhibition and reduced lignin binding. Enzyme engineering strategies include directed evolution, usually based on combining random and site-directed mutagenesis steps [124, 244, 368], modification of the linker region of bimodular cellulases [14, 313] and domain shuffling, i.e., creation of fusion/chimeric proteins by combining (partial or complete sequences of) catalytic domains and CBMs from different enzymes/organisms [138, 331, 337, 369]. Despite the tremendous work that has been done for cellulase optimization, we are still trying to understand certain fundamentals of how EGs and CBHs work, and work together, the aim being to develop better (mixtures of) EGs and CBHs [176, 203, 257, 303, 362].
The significance of BG activity in alleviating end-product inhibition of CBHs by cellobiose accumulating during lignocellulose conversion was already clear in the late 1970s [325]. Sternberg et al. [325] showed that Aspergillus secretomes contain high levels of BG and can be used to compensate for the insufficient levels of BG activity in Trichoderma secretomes. In an early and quite unique study, Nieves et al. [254] assessed 13 commercial enzyme preparations from seven companies, including Novozymes’ Celluclast 1.5L derived from T. reesei, for cellulolytic (i.e. filter paper) and β-d-glucosidase activities. The results of this study confirmed that the ratio of β-glucosidase-to-cellulase activity was two orders of magnitude higher in the A. niger preparations than in the T. reesei preparations. Novozymes’ Celluclast 1.5L had the lowest BG titer of the tested T. reesei cocktails. A more recent report by Merino and Cherry [238] from Novozymes Inc. showed that engineering the production strain for Celluclast 1.5L to express a BG from A. oryzae led to significant improvement in both the conversion yield and rate of cellulose saccharification by the cellulase preparation. Notably, cellulase cocktails that were subsequently launched on the market, including Novozymes’ Cellubrix or Cellic CTec series, have increased BG activity [48, 166] and do not require supplementation with BG for obtaining maximum saccharification efficiency, indicating that the production strains have been developed to express BGs at sufficiently high levels. Novozymes have recently discontinued the sales of their BG product Novozym 188, which has been commonly used to supplement Celluclast 1.5L.
While the oxidative mechanism of LPMOs was not uncovered until 2010 [351], it was already clear in 2007 that these proteins, at the time classified into the GH61 family, had the potential to improve hydrolysis yields by T. reesei-produced cellulase cocktails. Merino and Cherry [238] observed that addition of certain T. terrestris-produced GH61s at less than 5% of the total protein load in hydrolysis reactions with Celluclast 1.5L enabled reductions in the total enzyme loading by up to two times. Similarly to BGs, GH61s, today called LPMOs, have been incorporated in the Cellic CTec series [48, 62, 135, 160, 250]. Of note, while the contribution of LPMOs to the efficiency of today’s cellulase cocktails is clear and important [49, 65, 146, 167, 248,249,250], optimizing this impact is not easy and requires careful consideration of reaction conditions [60], as discussed below.
Depending on the substrate pretreatment method, hemicellulases may also play a critical role in lignocellulose depolymerization. When working with substrates pretreated using neutral or alkaline conditions, hemicellulases may be of particular importance as these methods often leave hemicellulose fractions more or less intact Merino and Cherry [238]. It is well established that xylanase supplementation enhances cellulose conversion in biomass prepared by leading pretreatment methods, such as AFEX, ARP and dilute acid treatments, and that this effect is due to the removal of insoluble xylan, which limits cellulose accessibility [196]. Xylanases may also contribute by conversion of soluble xylo-oligosaccharides, which can inhibit cellulases [242, 283] to monomers. A study by Hu et al. on saccharification of steam-pretreated corn stover and poplar showed that, in addition to LPMOs, xylanases contribute to the efficiency of Cellic CTec2 [146]. As another example, the data sheet for Dupont’s Accellerase Trio shows that this cellulase preparation is enriched in xylanases [94]. To cope with the variation of hemicellulose types and contents in a broad range of industrial biomasses, enzyme companies have developed hemicellulolytic preparations (e.g., Novozymes’ Cellic HTec, DuPont’s Accellerase XC, Genencor’s Multifect Xylanase, Dyadic’s FibreZyme, and AB Vista’s Econase XT) that may be used to supplement base cellulolytic preparations (e.g., Novozymes’ Cellic CTec or DuPont’s Accellerase 1500). Notably, lignocellulosic ethanol plants primarily work with grasses, e.g., bagasse, corn stover and giant reed, which contain high amounts of xylans but lack glucomannan. With the exploration of other potential feedstocks, including hardwood and especially softwood biomass, which contain other types of hemicelluloses, further improvement of enzyme cocktails on this front is likely needed (see below).
Improvement of fungal strains for production of monocomponent enzymes and enzyme cocktails
As recently reviewed by Bischof et al. [36], Trichoderma reesei was discovered by researchers at the Natick Army Research Laboratories during World War II. Screening of 14,000 moulds isolated from rotting cellulose-based army equipment in the Solomon Islands for the ability to degrade crystalline cellulose resulted in the identification of the renowned ancestor of all current commercial T. reesei strains, designated as QM6a. Random mutagenesis of the T. reesei strain QM6a at Rutgers University led to the T. reesei strain RUT-C30, which is the prototype hyperproducer of cellulases and is commercially available [36, 271]. One of the key breakthroughs was truncation of the CRE1 transcription factor responsible for repressing the transcription of cellulase genes in the presence of glucose, which led to a substantial increase in cellulase production [236]. Decades of genetic engineering of T. reesei has resulted in detailed knowledge of regulators and transcription factors involved in enzyme expression, which again has contributed to the generation of novel cellulase hyperproducing mutants, as reviewed by Bischof et al. [36]. Alternative to genetic engineering of transcriptional regulators, other approaches to enhance expression levels of lignocellulose-active enzymes in T. reesei entail understanding the external conditions that affect transcription and expression levels in fungal hosts [314], as well as promoter engineering, epigenetic engineering and metabolic engineering [92].
While T. reesei has played a vital role in the history of understanding and exploiting natural lignocellulose-degrading enzyme systems, other filamentous fungal species, including Aspergillus sp. [82], Neurospora crassa [93] and Myceliophthora thermophila [365], have also been studied in detail and may provide useful sources of enzymes or be developed as expression hosts for production of monocomponent enzymes or cellulase cocktails. Expression of recombinant proteins in filamentous fungi is traditionally based on the use of native expression systems, using innate transcriptional regulators and promoters. Transcriptional regulatory systems have been extensively studied in a wide variety of filamentous fungi [106, 241], and it has become clear that these systems are not widely conserved. Hence, knowledge of these systems is often not transferrable from one host organism to another, which is one of the reasons why the development of new filamentous fungal expression hosts is relatively slow [106, 241]. For species such as T. reesei, A. niger and A. oryzae, important regulatory systems are well-explored, as recently reviewed by Mojzita et al. [241]. In addition, relevant transcriptional regulators have been studied to varying extents for N. crassa [70, 197], M. thermophila [365, 378] and Thermoascus aurantiacus [309].
For the production of monocomponent enzymes, the target gene is commonly expressed under a strong promoter [22, 58, 106, 282, 365]. In some cases, rational engineering of the promoter may be used to enhance selective production of a recombinant protein in filamentous fungi; however, this approach is complex and often requires large-scale changes to entire gene networks [106]. Synthetic promoters are currently being considered more promising, since these can contribute to metabolism-independent protein expression [290]. Interestingly, external environmental factors such as light may affect the expression of plant cell wall-degrading proteins in filamentous fungi [308] and such factors thus need to be considered. A recent review on the use of light-regulated promoters addresses the potential of using external environmental factors to induce expression of heterologous proteins in filamentous fungi [118].
Additional strategies for improving fungal production of heterologous proteins include introducing multiple copies of the gene of interest into the expression host [390], fusing target genes to innate genes that are strongly transcribed and developing protease-deficient strains [75]. Most importantly, fungal strain development also includes the production of strains with low (hemi)cellulolytic background tailored for production of single enzymes or completely defined enzyme cocktails. Current industrial strains include Novozymes Inc.’ protease-deficient A. oryzae JaL250 strain [390] as well as Roal Oy’s cellulase-deficient T. reesei strain [329], DSM’s cellulase-deficient T. reesei strain [5] and DSM’s protease- and (hemi)cellulase-deficient M. thermophila (previously Chrysosporium lucknowense) LC strain [281, 365]. Of note, these strains are the results of major (commercial) research investments and are not publicly available.
Recent work by Steven Singer and co-workers has demonstrated that T. aurantiacus has a promising potential to become a thermophilic fungal expression host. T. aurantiacus secretes a limited number of endogenous plant cell wall-degrading enzymes, and the natural secretome, despite being relatively simple, has high efficiency in biomass hydrolysis [233, 309]. As a first step, the Singer team has shown that xylose acts as an inducer for production of both cellulases and xylanases in T. aurantiacus [310] and has identified related regulatory elements, homologues of which occur in the genomes of other Ascomycetes [309].
While traditional strain development of fungal strains is tedious and time-consuming, the availability of an ever-expanding number of fungal genome sequences through the Joint Genome Institute’s 1000 Fungal Genomes Project [162] and advanced gene-editing technologies [289] together enable the development of alternative fungal enzyme factories. Novel CRISPR/Cas9-based tools will facilitate the development of a variety of novel fungal hosts for heterologous protein production. Indeed, CRISPR/Cas9 has already been adapted successfully to engineer cellulase hyper-producing strains of Myceliophthora species [217] and to recombinantly express enzymes in filamentous fungal hosts [290].
Identification of missing and underperforming enzyme components
Depending on the type of biomass and pretreatment technology, pretreated biomass feedstocks differ in composition and structure and thus hydrolysability by the same cellulase preparation, indicating the need for tailoring enzyme cocktails to the feedstock [143, 196, 318]. In addition to chemical composition and substrate structure, the soluble fraction of pretreated biomass, containing xylo-oligosaccharides and water-soluble lignin degradation products, may restrict the efficiency of some enzymes, due to inhibitory effects, while it may boost the efficiency of others, in particular LPMOs [226, 283, 381, 396]. Detailed studies have confirmed that the type of pretreatment impacts the efficiency of individual enzyme components, such as the CBH TrCel7A from Hypocrea jecorina (anamorph T. reesei) [159] and the LPMO TaAA9A from T. aurantiacus [143], which, in turn, affects the optimal composition of the enzyme cocktail necessary for breaking down the feedstock [144]. Therefore, the use of industrially relevant pretreated substrates is a prerequisite when evaluating the efficiency of enzyme cocktails and when trying to identify key enzyme activities that may be missing or underrepresented in the enzyme cocktail.
What have we learnt from minimal enzyme cocktail studies?
As a first approximation, optimizing the composition of a core set of cellulases, possibly also including one or more hemicellulases, for maximizing saccharification of pretreated feedstock gives good indications as to which enzyme components are important. In general, minimal enzyme cocktail studies have confirmed that there is no “one-fits-all” enzyme cocktail and that the ratio of enzyme components in the optimized mixture depends both on the type of biomass and pretreatment [21, 168, 174]. As an example, mannanases are not required for the saccharification of grasses, such as corn stover, which contain no glucomannan, while mannanase activity is essential for the saccharification of pretreated feedstocks that contain < 2% (even as low as 0.2%, w/w) glucomannan [21, 355]. In another study, Chylenski et al. showed that a four-component enzyme mixture that consists of TrCel7A and TrCel6A (CBHs), TrCel7B (EG) and AnCel3A (BG) and that had been optimized for degradation of sulfite-pretreated spruce was equally or more efficient than Cellic CTec2 and CTec3 [61]. Analysis of the hemicellulase activities of the optimized and commercial enzyme mixtures indicated that the efficiency of the minimal enzyme mixture on spruce most likely stems from its higher activity against glucomannan as compared with the commercial preparations. It is well known that TrCel7B can not only act on cellulose but also on glucomannan [173, 239].
Importantly, three independent studies have found that the proportion of the xylan-active EG TrCel7B (19–30%, w/w) is significantly more important than that of another EG, TrCel5A (0–2%, w/w), in enzyme mixtures optimized for saccharification of pretreated barley straw, corn stover and wheat straw [21, 168, 300]. When optimizing a 16-component T. reesei enzyme mixture for the saccharification of AFEX-treated corn stover, Banerjee et al. found that TrCel7A, TrCel7B, TrCel61A (= TrAA9A), TrXyn11A, and TrXyn10A and the TrCel3A BG were the most important components [21], emphasizing the importance and complementarity of processive CBHs, promiscuous (i.e., xylan-active) EGs, LPMOs and xylanases for complete biomass degradation. Notably, only a handful of studies included LPMOs in their enzyme mixtures [21, 61, 87, 174]. The results of these studies indicate a correlation between the lignin content of the pretreated feedstock and the importance of LPMO in the enzyme mixture, which may be attributed to the ability of lignin to drive LPMO reaction, as discussed above (e.g., [185, 381]). When assessing the optimal proportion of LPMO in the enzyme mix, process conditions will have to be taken into account, too, since the LPMO reaction requires a source of oxygen.
While most minimal enzyme cocktail studies address interactions between the major T. reesei cellulases [21, 61, 168, 355], some have also looked at thermostable CBHs and EGs from alternative fungal species, such as M. thermophila, T. aurantiacus and Chaetomium thermophilum [87, 128, 168]. In processes run at higher temperatures, higher conversion yields can be achieved with (optimized mixtures of) thermostable enzymes as compared with T. reesei enzymes [168]. LPMOs from thermophilic fungi, such as TaAA9A from T. aurantiacus [134, 146, 148, 272, 284] and AA9 LPMOs from M. thermophila [114, 117], have gained considerable interest recently. TaAA9A, for example, is a good candidate for being added to cellulase cocktails [250]; however, there is no publicly available information on whether it has been incorporated into today’s state-of-the-art commercial cellulase mixtures. Although thermostable enzymes have clear advantages in industrial settings, currently, no thermostable cellulase cocktails are available commercially [262].
Spiking studies to highlight enzyme activities lacking in commercial cellulase mixtures
Another, more direct approach to identify underperforming enzyme activities in cellulase cocktails is the supplementation or partial replacement of enzyme cocktails with either individual enzymes [134] or fungal broths [299]. An early example includes the supplementation of the T. reesei-derived Celluclast 1.5 cocktail with A. oryzae-produced Novozym 188 to compensate for the limited BG activity (e.g., in [299]). Analogously, several studies have shown co-operativity between commercially available cellulase, xylanase and pectinase preparations [19, 33, 119, 145], using combinations of products such as Accellerase 1000, Celluclast 1.5L, Spezyme CP, Multifect Xylanase, Multifect Pectinase and Viscozyme L. These studies add further proof to the general observation that no commercial cellulase preparation fits all substrates and highlight the importance of feedstock-specific enzyme blends.
To identify enzyme components that may be lacking in cellulase cocktails, commercial cellulase mixtures have also been supplemented with fungal culture broths or (semi)purified enzyme components. Celluclast has been studied extensively in spiking studies, revealing the positive impact of xylanase, mannanase and LPMO supplementation on the efficiency of cellulose saccharification [81, 87, 143, 177, 250, 272, 382], as also discussed above. In some cases, in-house fungal (e.g., T. reesei) culture broths have been used to showcase the positive effect of selected enzymes, such as three AA9s from Geotrichum candidum [205] or two AA14 LPMOs from Pycnoporus coccineus [68], on saccharification efficiency. The direct effects of these (purified monocomponent) enzymes will also have to be tested on the latest generation (hemi)cellulase cocktails for benchmarking.
The most recent commercial cellulase cocktails have also been subjected to spiking-type of studies. As an example, Agrawal et al. have shown that the performance of Cellic CTec2 on acid or alkali pretreated bagasse and rice straw can be boosted by addition of two AA9 LPMOs from the thermophilic fungi Scytalidium thermophilum and Malbranchea cinnamomea [8]. Very recently, von Freiesleben et al. have reported that supplementation with GH5 and GH26 mannanases leads to improved saccharification of pretreated lodgepole pine by Cellic CTec3 [367], confirming previous indications concerning suboptimal levels of mannanase activities in Cellic CTec3 for softwood saccharification [61]. As another example, d’Errico et al. showed that a Cellic CTec preparation and the β-glucanase preparation UltraFlo possess only low amounts of glucuronoyl esterase activity and that supplementing these products with CE15 glucuronoyl esterases boosts their saccharification efficiency on pretreated corn fiber [77]. The positive effect of CE15 supplementation on the saccharification yields varied with the substrate [77], further corroborating the importance of feedstock-specific enzyme blends.
The interplay between process configuration and enzyme efficiency
The main considerations for process optimization entail (1) the type of feedstock and pretreatment method, (2) the choice of enzymes and their pH and temperature optima, (3) separate (SHF) or simultaneous (SSF) saccharification and fermentation steps, (4) stirring and aeration, (5) the possibility of on-site enzyme production and (6) possible measures for enzyme recycling. The choice of the process configuration (such as pretreatment, SHF/SSF and enzyme recycling) and physical parameters (such as temperature and level of dissolved oxygen) will have consequences for enzyme activity and stability. Of note, the enzymatic process is often separated into two phases: an initial liquefaction phase, in which the solid, particle-like feedstock becomes “fluid” (pumpable) and a saccharification phase, in which the polysaccharides are completely converted to soluble (mono-)sugars.
The choice of feedstock and pretreatment has a large impact on the type and amount of lignin remaining in the feedstock and, consequently, on the efficiency of both cellulases (in terms of the extent of unproductive binding) and LPMOs (in terms of delivery of reducing power). The temperature used during the enzymatic step(s) has to be carefully selected to compromise between enzyme efficiency and enzyme inactivation. Notably, the use of thermostable enzymes next to regular, less thermostable, cellulase cocktails will require alternative process configurations [363]. One possible scenario may be a liquefaction step run at elevated temperatures with a few selected thermostable enzymes, followed by full saccharification at lower temperature. In SSF, obviously, the temperature needs to be adapted to the fermenting microorganism. Of note, the impact of temperature goes beyond the impact on enzyme stability and activity, since temperature also affects potentially important abiotic factors such as reductant stability and dissolved oxygen levels, which may affect LPMO activity and/or the in situ generation of reactive oxygen species.
The improved efficiency of Cellic CTec2 compared to former, less efficient cellulase cocktails partly stems from the inclusion of LPMOs [146, 250]. The presence of molecular oxygen and/or H2O2 (Fig. 3) is crucial for LPMO activity, which will have to be considered in process design in general, and when choosing between SHF and SSF in particular. In a study comparing lactic acid production in different process setups, it was found that SHF performed better than SSF, and this was ascribed to the consumption of oxygen by the fermenting organisms in SSF, which lowered LPMO activity [249]. This is opposite to what has been observed in experiments with non‐LPMO-containing cellulase cocktails, where SSF processes tend to be more efficient [49, 230, 256, 344]. Interestingly, Cannella and Jørgensen showed that the relative performance of SSF and SHF approaches varied with substrate loading [49]. At 20% (w/w) substrate loading of wheat straw, SSF with LPMO-containing Cellic CTec2 performed better, but at 30% (w/w) substrate loading the SHF approach yielded more ethanol, possibly because LPMO activity, which is only expected in the SHF approach, becomes more important at higher substrate concentrations [49]. With the possibility of direct supply of low (i.e., non-lethal) amounts of H2O2 to saccharification reactions, in particular for low-lignin feedstocks, a more efficient SSF setup that fully harnesses the power of LPMOs may become possible, since this would avoid competition for oxygen between the fermenting organism and in situ generation of H2O2. However, so far no studies have been published on this topic.
Overall process economics and efficiency may be increased further by producing enzymes on site, instead of using (combinations of) commercially available cellulase cocktails [161]. The carbon source used in growth media has been shown to have clear impacts on the protein expression profile of fungal expression strains [255]. Thus, on-site enzyme production may allow for tailoring the cellulase cocktail (i.e., the composition of the fungal secretome) to the feedstock of the biorefinery, by using this feedstock as the carbon source when cultivating the cellulase expression strain [1, 255].
Since enzymes are catalysts and, in principle, could be used many times, enzyme recycling may be considered during process design [147, 164]. Enzyme recycling is a complex process that requires in-depth knowledge of enzyme–substrate interactions [346] and the mechanisms of enzyme adsorption–desorption [258, 280, 342, 358]. In principle, enzyme recycling could be done in two ways, either recycling the unhydrolyzed solid residue with bound enzymes or recycling the liquid phase with free (non-bound) enzymes [294, 295]. Both approaches have shown potential for saving enzyme costs [137, 293, 348], but they also make the process more complex. It is important to note that while enzyme recycling may seem attractive and “simple”, such recycling has some intrinsic limitations. At the end of the hydrolysis, key enzyme components may be diluted out in the recycled enzyme fraction as different enzyme components will remain free or adsorbed on the feedstock as well as become inactive to various degrees [215, 280, 358]. LPMOs likely suffer from autocatalytic inactivation, especially when substrate concentrations become low in the later phase of a degradation reaction (see above), whereas it is well known that certain cellulases may get “stuck” by non-productive binding to cellulose in an essentially irreversible fashion [156, 232, 259, 267].
Importantly, one of the current targets when optimizing saccharification setups concerns how to leverage LPMO activity while keeping LPMOs from inactivation. As discussed above, LPMO inactivation may be caused by reactive oxygen species that derive from reactions between O2 and lignin [185] or that are formed by the LPMO itself [37] or by other redox enzymes present in the enzyme mixture [39]. It has been shown for various reaction setups that too high feeding rates of externally added H2O2 [200, 248] or too high levels of in situ production of H2O2 [185, 269] lead to LPMO inactivation. Recent studies following the accumulation of LPMO products over the course of H2O2-assisted saccharification of industrial feedstocks [37, 65, 167, 248] clearly indicate that LPMO inactivation occurs presumably due to the accumulation of H2O2 in the reaction mixture, although the extent and rate of inactivation over time remain to be elucidated. Notably, there is a clear difference between LPMOs in terms of redox stability [66, 272], partly due to the presence or absence of CBMs (discussed below). Consequently, process robustness may be increased by screening for LPMOs with higher stability. Successful process optimization may further include control of the rate of addition or in situ generation of H2O2, control of dissolved oxygen levels, supplementation with catalase and/or superoxide dismutase to maintain low levels of H2O2 and superoxide radicals [37] as well as online monitoring and control of the redox processes taking place during saccharification, e.g., through online monitoring of the oxidation–reduction potential [167]. Before the power of LPMOs can be leveraged to its fullest extent, however, further fundamental research is required to better understand the impact of reactive oxygen species generated in biotic and abiotic redox processes on LPMO activity and to unravel the mechanisms of LPMO inactivation in the presence of industrially relevant feedstocks.
The role of CBMs: for cellulases, hemicellulases and LPMOs
Many of the enzymes discussed above contain one, or sometimes more than one, additional domain referred to as carbohydrate-binding module (CBM) [40]. Such modules may bind to various faces of cellulose crystals, to the more amorphous regions of cellulose or to one or more hemicellulose types [51, 234]. Accordingly, some CBMs target surfaces (i.e., multiple polysaccharide chains, such as the CBM1 of TrCel7A), others target single polysaccharide chains, whereas the third type directs the catalytic domain to act at polysaccharide chain ends [123]. Substrate-binding by CBMs, while being fully reversible [90, 216, 267], may be very strong, because of which it has sometimes even been considered almost irreversible [52, 292]. Irreversible binding would be puzzling since it does not seem favorable for enzyme efficiency. There have been many theories about what CBMs do and how they work, including proposals that some CBMs may increase substrate accessibility by disrupting the crystalline structure of cellulose [40, 127]. The primary role of CBMs, with massive experimental support, is that they promote proximity between the appended catalytic domain and the substrate, thus promoting enzyme efficiency.
To some extent, CBMs and substrate binding are a double-edged sword in saccharification efficiency. On the one hand, CBMs increase the enzyme’s affinity to its substrate [184], which promotes enzyme activity on insoluble cellulose [345, 353]. For processive CBHs, the CBM has been proposed to promote the feeding of the cellulose chain into the CBH active site [184] and to increase processivity [25, 153, 181, 333], as well as to promote the stability of the CBH-cellulose complex. On the other hand, strong substrate binding via CBMs hinders desorption of bound enzymes [74, 333], which may get stuck on the substrate [199]. Moreover, CBMs contribute to unproductive binding of cellulases to lignin [286, 287, 321], which may result in enzyme inactivation.
The proximity effect of CBMs can be compensated by increasing substrate concentration, which will promote substrate binding of enzymes independent of the presence of a CBM. In 2013, Várnai et al. showed that, at high substrate concentrations, the truncated, CBM-free versions of the four CBM-containing cellulases from T. reesei (TrCel7A, 6A, 7B and 5A) were as efficient as the full-length enzymes [356]. Since then, the positive effect of increasing substrate concentration on the efficiency of cellulases and LPMOs without CBMs has been confirmed by a number of studies, as has the potentially negative impact of CBMs in reactions with high substrate concentrations [53, 66, 158, 170, 210, 334]. This observation can be explained by CBM-free cellulases having higher desorption rates (“off-rates”) [333] and reduced unproductive binding to lignin [260, 288], while increased substrate concentrations will overcome diffusional limitations of the CBM-free enzymes [372]. Of note, the presence or absence of CBMs in the enzyme components will affect potential enzyme recycling strategies. Using CBM-free enzymes will facilitate recycling unbound enzymes from the liquid phase [137, 258], while CBM-containing enzymes may be recycled in a bound form, with the unhydrolyzed solid residue and/or after desorption from the unhydrolyzed solid residue [211, 294, 295, 348].
CBMs also occur in LPMOs, although many LPMOs, including some of the best-studied ones with documented effects on cellulose saccharification [143, 178, 250, 284], lack CBMs. LPMO literature shows that certain single-domain LPMOs bind very well to their substrates, whereas recombinantly expressed catalytic domains of CBM-containing LPMOs sometimes seem to bind weakly [66, 110, 132]. It may thus seem that nature has evolved different strategies for LPMOs to have affinity for their substrates, but this is not yet sufficiently supported by systematic experimental studies. Existing data show that the CBMs of LPMOs have the same function as in GHs [53, 66, 72, 110, 111, 192, 209, 371] and it has also been shown that, like for GHs, the presence of a CBM becomes less important, and even unfavorable, when running reactions at high substrate concentrations [66].
Importantly, LPMOs that are reduced and meet O2 or H2O2 while not being bound to the substrate are prone to autocatalytic inactivation, due to the redox reactivity of the Cu(I) ion in the (reduced) catalytic center [37]. Thus, for LPMOs, proximity of the substrate not only promotes activity, but also stability, since proximity of the substrate increases the chances for the LPMO to engage in productive (i.e., oxidative cleavage of the substrate) rather than damaging side reactions. Several studies have shown that deletion of the CBM from a CBM-containing LPMO indeed leads to increased enzyme inactivation [66, 108, 273]. On the other hand, LPMOs have been found to bind more strongly to polysaccharides when the active site copper is in the reduced, i.e., Cu(I), state [188, 201], which is expected to favor their stability.
Interestingly, the importance of the proximity effect was also suggested by experiments with a cellulose-binding CBM-containing pyrroloquinoline quinone-dependent pyranose dehydrogenase (PDH) that can deliver reducing equivalents to LPMOs and thus drive the LPMO reaction. Upon removal of the CBM from this PDH, the LPMO reaction became less efficient and it has been suggested that this is due to proximity effects [357]. When the PDH is bound to cellulose, it will activate the LPMO while the LPMO is in close proximity to the substrate. On the other hand, a PDH that is free in solution will activate LPMOs that are not close to the substrate, thus increasing the chances for off-pathway reactions.
Concluding remarks
Thanks to the efforts of a large research community and enzyme companies, today’s enzyme cocktails for saccharification of lignocellulosic biomass are so effective that industrial bioethanol production from such biomass has become a reality. Improved biomass pretreatment techniques have contributed to this development [391]. Despite much progress in the enzyme area, further improvements still seem possible. For example, it is still not fully clear how processive cellulases work and how the interplay of these essential but rather slow enzymes with other enzymes could be optimized [57, 169, 302, 306, 362]. Recent insights concerning the role of H2O2 and enzyme inactivation suggest that so far, we have not harnessed the full potential of LPMOs. Furthermore, despite much research on LPMOs in the past decade, exactly how these enzymes co-operate with classical cellulases remains largely unknown (see [343] for a recent study). Finally, recent work suggests that LPMOs could play a role in removing (traces of) recalcitrant hemicellulose, which may promote cellulolytic processes [68, 150]. On that note, further research on the impact of residual hemicellulose fractions in pretreated biomass and the possible roles of (any) hemicellulolytic enzymes in dealing with such fractions is still needed.
While research related to the enzymatic processing of lignocellulosic biomass has focused mainly on conversion of the polysaccharides, there is growing evidence that biomass saccharification and lignin modification by enzymes are interconnected [39]. Although our current understanding of enzymatic processing of lignin is still very limited, there is a growing interest in lignin valorization. As lignin constitutes nearly a third of plant biomass, the fate of the lignin fraction will need to be considered in the further development of biorefining processes for efficient and economic processing of lignocellulosic feedstocks [24, 285, 311]. A good example for the way forward is the so-called BALI process, where sulfite pretreatment generates both valuable carbohydrate and lignin streams which can be turned into valuable products [65, 301].
In addition to lignin valorization, there is a concerted ongoing research effort aimed at developing a widened portfolio of biomass-derived products, including cellulose-, hemicellulose-, and lignin-based polymers, oligomers and monomers, as well as products resulting from fermentation of lignocellulosic sugars, i.e., production of ethanol. Alternative fermentation products include microbial biomass for food and feed [29, 207, 336], alternative biofuels such as butanol [237] and commodity as well as high-value chemicals [317, 384]. In an environmentally and economically successful biorefinery, these products will co-exist as part of a flexible product portfolio that is continuously adjusted to feedstock availability, technological developments and market needs.
References
Adav SS, Chao LT, Sze SK (2012) Quantitative secretomic analysis of Trichoderma reesei strains reveals enzymatic composition for lignocellulosic biomass degradation. Mol Cell Proteom 11(M111):012419. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M111.012419
Adav SS, Ravindran A, Chao LT, Tan L, Singh S, Sze SK (2011) Proteomic analysis of pH and strains dependent protein secretion of Trichoderma reesei. J Proteome Res 10:4579–4596. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr200416t
Ademark P, de Vries RP, Hägglund P, Stålbrand H, Visser J (2001) Cloning and characterization of Aspergillus niger genes encoding an alpha-galactosidase and a beta-mannosidase involved in galactomannan degradation. Eur J Biochem 268:2982–2990. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1327.2001.02188.x
Aden A, Foust T (2009) Technoeconomic analysis of the dilute sulfuric acid and enzymatic hydrolysis process for the conversion of corn stover to ethanol. Cellulose 16:535–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-009-9327-8
Aehle W, Bott RR, Nikolaev I, Scheffers M, Van Solingen P, Vroemen C (2009) Glucoamylase variants with altered properties. WO-2009/048488-A1.
Aehle W, Caldwell RM, Dankmeyer L, Goedegebuur F, Kelemen BR, Mitchinson C, Neefe P, Teunissen P (2006) Variant Hypocrea jecorina CBH2 cellulases. WO-2006/074005-A2.
Agger JW, Isaksen T, Várnai A, Vidal-Melgosa S, Willats WGT, Ludwig R, Horn SJ, Eijsink VGH, Westereng B (2014) Discovery of LPMO activity on hemicelluloses shows the importance of oxidative processes in plant cell wall degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:6287–6292. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323629111
Agrawal D, Basotra N, Balan V, Tsang A, Chadha BS (2019) Discovery and expression of thermostable LPMOs from thermophilic fungi for producing efficient lignocellulolytic enzyme cocktails. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-019-03198-5
Andersen N, Johansen KS, Michelsen M, Stenby EH, Krogh KBRM, Olsson L (2008) Hydrolysis of cellulose using mono-component enzymes shows synergy during hydrolysis of phosphoric acid swollen cellulose (PASC), but competition on Avicel. Enzyme Microb Technol 42:362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2007.11.018
Arantes V, Saddler JN (2010) Access to cellulose limits the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis: the role of amorphogenesis. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-3-4
Arfi Y, Shamshoum M, Rogachev I, Peleg Y, Bayer EA (2014) Integration of bacterial lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases into designer cellulosomes promotes enhanced cellulose degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:9109–9114. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404148111
Arnling Bååth J, Martínez-Abad A, Berglund J, Larsbrink J, Vilaplana F, Olsson L (2018) Mannanase hydrolysis of spruce galactoglucomannan focusing on the influence of acetylation on enzymatic mannan degradation. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1115-y
Avci U, Zhou X, Pattathil S, da Costa SL, Hahn MG, Dale B, Xu Y, Balan V (2019) Effects of extractive ammonia pretreatment on the ultrastructure and glycan composition of corn stover. Front Energy Res. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2019.00085
Badino SF, Bathke JK, Sørensen TH, Windahl MS, Jensen K, Peters GHJ, Borch K, Westh P (2017) The influence of different linker modifications on the catalytic activity and cellulose affinity of cellobiohydrolase Cel7A from Hypocrea jecorina. Protein Eng Des Sel 30:495–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzx036
Bailey MJ, Siika-aho M, Valkeajarvi A, Penttila ME (1993) Hydrolytic properties of two cellulases of Trichoderma reesei expressed in yeast. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 17(Pt 1):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-8744.1993.tb00233.x
Balan V, Bals B, Chundawat SP, Marshall D, Dale BE (2009) Lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment using AFEX. Methods Mol Biol 581:61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-214-8_5
Balan V, Chiaramonti D, Kumar S (2013) Review of US and EU initiatives toward development, demonstration, and commercialization of lignocellulosic biofuels. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 7:732–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1436
Bals B, Rogers C, Jin M, Balan V, Dale B (2010) Evaluation of ammonia fibre expansion (AFEX) pretreatment for enzymatic hydrolysis of switchgrass harvested in different seasons and locations. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-3-1
Banerjee G, Car S, Scott-Craig JS, Borrusch MS, Aslam N, Walton JD (2010) Synthetic enzyme mixtures for biomass deconstruction: production and optimization of a core set. Biotechnol Bioeng 106:707–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22741
Banerjee G, Car S, Scott-Craig JS, Borrusch MS, Bongers M, Walton JD (2010) Synthetic multi-component enzyme mixtures for deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 101:9097–9105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.028
Banerjee G, Car S, Scott-Craig JS, Borrusch MS, Walton JD (2010) Rapid optimization of enzyme mixtures for deconstruction of diverse pretreatment/biomass feedstock combinations. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-3-22
Bardiya N, Shiu PK (2007) Cyclosporin A-resistance based gene placement system for Neurospora crassa. Fungal Genet Biol 44:307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2006.12.011
Barsberg S, Selig MJ, Felby C (2013) Impact of lignins isolated from pretreated lignocelluloses on enzymatic cellulose saccharification. Biotechnol Lett 35:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-012-1061-x
Beckham GT, Johnson CW, Karp EM, Salvachúa D, Vardon DR (2016) Opportunities and challenges in biological lignin valorization. Curr Opin Biotechnol 42:40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2016.02.030
Beckham GT, Matthews JF, Bomble YJ, Bu L, Adney WS, Himmel ME, Nimlos MR, Crowley MF (2010) Identification of amino acids responsible for processivity in a Family 1 carbohydrate-binding module from a fungal cellulase. J Phys Chem B 114:1447–1453. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp908810a
Beckham GT, Ståhlberg J, Knott BC, Himmel ME, Crowley MF, Sandgren M, Sørlie M, Payne CM (2014) Towards a molecular-level theory of carbohydrate processivity in glycoside hydrolases. Curr Opin Biotechnol 27:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.12.002
Beeson WT, Phillips CM, Cate JH, Marletta MA (2012) Oxidative cleavage of cellulose by fungal copper-dependent polysaccharide monooxygenases. J Am Chem Soc 134:890–892. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja210657t
Beeson WT, Vu VV, Span EA, Phillips CM, Marletta MA (2015) Cellulose degradation by polysaccharide monooxygenases. Annu Rev Biochem 84:923–946. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060614-034439
Bellamy WD (1978) Production of single-cell protein for animal feed from lignocellulose wastes. In: Ruminant nutrition: selected articles from the world animal review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/X6512E12.htm. Accessed 30 May 2020
Bengtsson O, Arntzen MØ, Mathiesen G, Skaugen M, Eijsink VGH (2016) A novel proteomics sample preparation method for secretome analysis of Hypocrea jecorina growing on insoluble substrates. J Proteom 131:104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2015.10.017
Bennati-Granier C, Garajova S, Champion C, Grisel S, Haon M, Zhou S, Fanuel M, Ropartz D, Rogniaux H, Gimbert I, Record E, Berrin JG (2015) Substrate specificity and regioselectivity of fungal AA9 lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases secreted by Podospora anserina. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-015-0274-3
Berlin A, Balakshin M, Gilkes N, Kadla J, Maximenko V, Kubo S, Saddler J (2006) Inhibition of cellulase, xylanase and beta-glucosidase activities by softwood lignin preparations. J Biotechnol 125:198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2006.02.021
Berlin A, Maximenko V, Gilkes N, Saddler J (2007) Optimization of enzyme complexes for lignocellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 97:287–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21238
Bey M, Zhou S, Poidevin L, Henrissat B, Coutinho PM, Berrin JG, Sigoillot JC (2013) Cello-oligosaccharide oxidation reveals differences between two lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (family GH61) from Podospora anserina. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:488–496. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02942-12
Biely P, MacKenzie CR, Puls J, Schneider H (1986) Cooperativity of esterases and xylanases in the enzymatic degradation of acetyl xylan. Nat Biotechnol 4:731–733. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0886-731
Bischof RH, Ramoni J, Seiboth B (2016) Cellulases and beyond: the first 70 years of the enzyme producer Trichoderma reesei. Microb Cell Fact 15:106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-016-0507-6
Bissaro B, Røhr ÅK, Müller G, Chylenski P, Skaugen M, Forsberg Z, Horn SJ, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Eijsink VGH (2017) Oxidative cleavage of polysaccharides by monocopper enzymes depends on H2O2. Nat Chem Biol 13:1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.2470
Bissaro B, Streit B, Isaksen I, Eijsink VGH, Beckham GT, DuBois JL, Røhr ÅK (2020) Molecular mechanism of the chitinolytic peroxygenase reaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:1504–1513. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904889117
Bissaro B, Várnai A, Røhr ÅK, Eijsink VGH (2018) Oxidoreductases and reactive oxygen species in conversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 82:e00029-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.00029-18
Boraston AB, Bolam DN, Gilbert HJ, Davies GJ (2004) Carbohydrate-binding modules: fine-tuning polysaccharide recognition. Biochem J 382:769–781. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj20040892
Borisova AS, Eneyskaya EV, Jana S, Badino SF, Kari J, Amore A, Karlsson M, Hansson H, Sandgren M, Himmel ME, Westh P, Payne CM, Kulminskaya AA, Ståhlberg J (2018) Correlation of structure, function and protein dynamics in GH7 cellobiohydrolases from Trichoderma atroviride, T. reesei and T. harzianum. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-1006-7
Brenelli L, Squina FM, Felby C, Cannella D (2018) Laccase-derived lignin compounds boost cellulose oxidative enzymes AA9. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0985-8
Breslmayr E, Laurent CVFP, Scheiblbrandner S, Jerkovic A, Heyes DJ, Oostenbrink C, Ludwig R, Hedison TM, Scrutton NS, Kracher D (2020) Protein conformational change is essential for reductive activation of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase by cellobiose dehydrogenase. ACS Catal. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c00754
Brownell HH, Saddler JN (1987) Steam pretreatment of lignocellulosic material for enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 29:228–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260290213
Bulakhov AG, Gusakov AV, Chekushina AV, Satrutdinov AD, Koshelev AV, Matys VY, Sinitsyn AP (2016) Isolation of homogeneous polysaccharide monooxygenases from fungal sources and investigation of their synergism with cellulases when acting on cellulose. Biochem Biokhimiia 81:530–537. https://doi.org/10.1134/s0006297916050102
Busse-Wicher M, Gomes TC, Tryfona T, Nikolovski N, Stott K, Grantham NJ, Bolam DN, Skaf MS, Dupree P (2014) The pattern of xylan acetylation suggests xylan may interact with cellulose microfibrils as a twofold helical screw in the secondary plant cell wall of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 79:492–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12575
Busse-Wicher M, Grantham NJ, Lyczakowski JJ, Nikolovski N, Dupree P (2016) Xylan decoration patterns and the plant secondary cell wall molecular architecture. Biochem Soc Trans 44:74–78. https://doi.org/10.1042/bst20150183
Cannella D, Hsieh CW, Felby C, Jorgensen H (2012) Production and effect of aldonic acids during enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose at high dry matter content. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-26
Cannella D, Jørgensen H (2014) Do new cellulolytic enzyme preparations affect the industrial strategies for high solids lignocellulosic ethanol production? Biotechnol Bioeng 111:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25098
Cantero D, Jara R, Navarrete A, Pelaz L, Queiroz J, Rodríguez-Rojo S, Cocero MJ (2019) Pretreatment processes of biomass for biorefineries: current status and prospects. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 10:289–310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060718-030354
Carrard G, Koivula A, Söderlund H, Béguin P (2000) Cellulose-binding domains promote hydrolysis of different sites on crystalline cellulose. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10342–10347. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.160216697
Carrard G, Linder M (1999) Widely different off rates of two closely related cellulose-binding domains from Trichoderma reesei. Eur J Biochem 262:637–643. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00455.x
Chalak A, Villares A, Moreau C, Haon M, Grisel S, d'Orlando A, Herpoël-Gimbert I, Labourel A, Cathala B, Berrin JG (2019) Influence of the carbohydrate-binding module on the activity of a fungal AA9 lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase on cellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:206. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1548-y
Chen X, Shekiro J, Pschorn T, Sabourin M, Tao L, Elander R, Park S, Jennings E, Nelson R, Trass O, Flanegan K, Wang W, Himmel ME, Johnson D, Tucker MP (2014) A highly efficient dilute alkali deacetylation and mechanical (disc) refining process for the conversion of renewable biomass to lower cost sugars. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:98. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-7-98
Chiaramonti D, Giovannini A, Pescarolo S, Nistri R (2013) 2nd generation bioethanol: The world’s largest demo plant ready to be transferred all over the world. A handbook—part II. WIP Renewable Energies, Munich
Chong SL, Battaglia E, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B, Tenkanen M, de Vries RP (2011) The α-glucuronidase Agu1 from Schizophyllum commune is a member of a novel glycoside hydrolase family (GH115). Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 90:1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-011-3157-y
Christensen SJ, Kari J, Badino SF, Borch K, Westh P (2018) Rate-limiting step and substrate accessibility of cellobiohydrolase Cel6A from Trichoderma reesei. FEBS J 285:4482–4493. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.14668
Christensen T, Woeldike H, Boel E, Mortensen SB, Hjortshoej K, Thim L, Hansen MT (1988) High level expression of recombinant genes in Aspergillus oryzae. Nat Biotechnol 6:1419–1422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1288-1419
Chundawat SP, Lipton MS, Purvine SO, Uppugundla N, Gao D, Balan V, Dale BE (2011) Proteomics-based compositional analysis of complex cellulase-hemicellulase mixtures. J Proteome Res 10:4365–4372. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr101234z
Chylenski P, Bissaro B, Sørlie M, Røhr ÅK, Várnai A, Horn SJ, Eijsink VGH (2019) Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases in enzymatic processing of lignocellulosic biomass. ACS Catal 9:4970–4991. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.9b00246
Chylenski P, Forsberg Z, Ståhlberg J, Várnai A, Lersch M, Bengtsson O, Saebo S, Horn SJ, Eijsink VGH (2017) Development of minimal enzyme cocktails for hydrolysis of sulfite-pulped lignocellulosic biomass. J Biotechnol 246:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2017.02.009
Chylenski P, Petrović DM, Müller G, Dahlström M, Bengtsson O, Lersch M, Siika-Aho M, Horn SJ, Eijsink VGH (2017) Enzymatic degradation of sulfite-pulped softwoods and the role of LPMOs. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0862-5
Clarke JH, Davidson K, Rixon JE, Halstead JR, Fransen MP, Gilbert HJ, Hazlewood GP (2000) A comparison of enzyme-aided bleaching of softwood paper pulp using combinations of xylanase, mannanase and alpha-galactosidase. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 53:661–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002530000344
Colussi F, Sørensen TH, Alasepp K, Kari J, Cruys-Bagger N, Windahl MS, Olsen JP, Borch K, Westh P (2015) Probing substrate interactions in the active tunnel of a catalytically deficient cellobiohydrolase (Cel7). J Biol Chem 290:2444–2454. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.624163
Costa THF, Kadić A, Chylenski P, Várnai A, Bengtsson O, Lidén G, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ (2020) Demonstration-scale enzymatic saccharification of sulfite-pulped spruce with addition of hydrogen peroxide for LPMO activation. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2103
Courtade G, Forsberg Z, Heggset EB, Eijsink VGH, Aachmann FL (2018) The carbohydrate-binding module and linker of a modular lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase promote localized cellulose oxidation. J Biol Chem 293:13006–13015. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.004269
Courtade G, Wimmer R, Røhr ÅK, Preims M, Felice AK, Dimarogona M, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Sørlie M, Sandgren M, Ludwig R, Eijsink VGH, Aachmann FL (2016) Interactions of a fungal lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase with beta-glucan substrates and cellobiose dehydrogenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:5922–5927. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602566113
Couturier M, Ladevèze S, Sulzenbacher G, Ciano L, Fanuel M, Moreau C, Villares A, Cathala B, Chaspoul F, Frandsen KE, Labourel A, Herpoel-Gimbert I, Grisel S, Haon M, Lenfant N, Rogniaux H, Ropartz D, Davies GJ, Rosso MN, Walton PH, Henrissat B, Berrin JG (2018) Lytic xylan oxidases from wood-decay fungi unlock biomass degradation. Nat Chem Biol 14:306–310. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.2558
Couturier M, Roussel A, Rosengren A, Leone P, Stålbrand H, Berrin JG (2013) Structural and biochemical analyses of glycoside hydrolase families 5 and 26 β-(1,4)-mannanases from Podospora anserina reveal differences upon manno-oligosaccharide catalysis. J Biol Chem 288:14624–14635. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.459438
Craig JP, Coradetti ST, Starr TL, Glass NL (2015) Direct target network of the Neurospora crassa plant cell wall deconstruction regulators CLR-1, CLR-2, and XLR-1. mBiol 6:e01452-15. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01452-15
Crepin VF, Faulds CB, Connerton IF (2004) Functional classification of the microbial feruloyl esterases. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 63:647–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-003-1476-3
Crouch LI, Labourel A, Walton PH, Davies GJ, Gilbert HJ (2016) The contribution of non-catalytic carbohydrate binding modules to the activity of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. J Biol Chem 291:7439–7449. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.702365
Cruys-Bagger N, Elmerdahl J, Praestgaard E, Tatsumi H, Spodsberg N, Borch K, Westh P (2012) Pre-steady-state kinetics for hydrolysis of insoluble cellulose by cellobiohydrolase Cel7A. J Biol Chem 287:18451–18458. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.334946
Cruys-Bagger N, Tatsumi H, Ren GR, Borch K, Westh P (2013) Transient kinetics and rate-limiting steps for the processive cellobiohydrolase Cel7A: effects of substrate structure and carbohydrate binding domain. Biochemistry 52:8938–8948. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi401210n
Culleton H, McKie V, de Vries RP (2013) Physiological and molecular aspects of degradation of plant polysaccharides by fungi: what have we learned from Aspergillus? Biotechnol J 8:884–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201200382
Cuskin F, Lowe EC, Temple MJ, Zhu Y, Cameron E, Pudlo NA, Porter NT, Urs K, Thompson AJ, Cartmell A, Rogowski A, Hamilton BS, Chen R, Tolbert TJ, Piens K, Bracke D, Vervecken W, Hakki Z, Speciale G, Munōz-Munōz JL, Day A, Peña MJ, McLean R, Suits MD, Boraston AB, Atherly T, Ziemer CJ, Williams SJ, Davies GJ, Abbott DW, Martens EC, Gilbert HJ (2015) Human gut Bacteroidetes can utilize yeast mannan through a selfish mechanism. Nature 517:165–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13995
d'Errico C, Börjesson J, Ding H, Krogh KB, Spodsberg N, Madsen R, Monrad RN (2016) Improved biomass degradation using fungal glucuronoyl-esterases-hydrolysis of natural corn fiber substrate. J Biotechnol 219:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.12.024
da Costa SL, Jin M, Chundawat SPS, Bokade V, Tang X, Azarpira A, Lu F, Avci U, Humpula J, Uppugundla N, Gunawan C, Pattathil S, Cheh AM, Kothari N, Kumar R, Ralph J, Hahn MG, Wyman CE, Singh S, Simmons BA, Dale BE, Balan V (2016) Next-generation ammonia pretreatment enhances cellulosic biofuel production. Energy Environ Sci 9:1215–1223. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EE03051J
Dalrymple BP, Cybinski DH, Layton I, McSweeney CS, Xue GP, Swadling YJ, Lowry JB (1997) Three Neocallimastix patriciarum esterases associated with the degradation of complex polysaccharides are members of a new family of hydrolases. Microbiology 143:2605–2614. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-143-8-2605
Day AG, Goedegebuur F, Gualfetti P, Mitchinson C, Neefe P, Sandgren M, Shaw A, Ståhlberg J (2004) Novel variant Hyprocrea jecorina CBH1 cellulases. WO-2004/016760-A2
de Gouvêa PF, Gerolamo LE, Bernardi AV, Pereira LMS, Uyemura SA, Dinamarco TM (2019) Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase from Aspergillus fumigatus can improve enzymatic cocktail activity during sugarcane bagasse hydrolysis. Protein Pept Lett 26:377–385. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929866526666190228163629
de Vries RP (2003) Regulation of Aspergillus genes encoding plant cell wall polysaccharide-degrading enzymes; relevance for industrial production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 61:10–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-002-1171-9
de Vries RP, Kester HC, Poulsen CH, Benen JA, Visser J (2000) Synergy between enzymes from Aspergillus involved in the degradation of plant cell wall polysaccharides. Carbohydr Res 327:401–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0008-6215(00)00066-5
de Vries RP, Michelsen B, Poulsen CH, Kroon PA, van den Heuvel RH, Faulds CB, Williamson G, van den Hombergh JP, Visser J (1997) The faeA genes from Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus tubingensis encode ferulic acid esterases involved in degradation of complex cell wall polysaccharides. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4638–4644. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.63.12.4638-4644.1997
de Vries RP, Poulsen CH, Madrid S, Visser J (1998) aguA, the gene encoding an extracellular alpha-glucuronidase from Aspergillus tubingensis, is specifically induced on xylose and not on glucuronic acid. J Bacteriol 180:243–249. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.180.2.243-249.1998
DeMartini JD, Pattathil S, Avci U, Szekalski K, Mazumder K, Hahn MG, Wyman CE (2011) Application of monoclonal antibodies to investigate plant cell wall deconstruction for biofuels production. Energy Environ Sci 4:4332–4339. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1EE02112E
Dimarogona M, Topakas E, Olsson L, Christakopoulos P (2012) Lignin boosts the cellulase performance of a GH-61 enzyme from Sporotrichum thermophile. Bioresour Technol 110:480–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.116
Divne C, Stahlberg J, Teeri TT, Jones TA (1998) High-resolution crystal structures reveal how a cellulose chain is bound in the 50 Å long tunnel of cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei. J Mol Biol 275:309–325. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1997.1437
Divne C, Ståhlberg J, Reinikainen T, Ruohonen L, Pettersson G, Knowles JK, Teeri TT, Jones TA (1994) The three-dimensional crystal structure of the catalytic core of cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei. Science 265:524–528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8036495
Djajadi DT, Jensen MM, Oliveira M, Jensen A, Thygesen LG, Pinelo M, Glasius M, Jørgensen H, Meyer AS (2018) Lignin from hydrothermally pretreated grass biomass retards enzymatic cellulose degradation by acting as a physical barrier rather than by inducing nonproductive adsorption of enzymes. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1085-0
Djajadi DT, Pihlajaniemi V, Rahikainen J, Kruus K, Meyer AS (2018) Cellulases adsorb reversibly on biomass lignin. Biotechnol Bioeng 115:2869–2880. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26820
Druzhinina IS, Kubicek CP (2017) Genetic engineering of Trichoderma reesei cellulases and their production. Microb Biotechnol 10:1485–1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12726
Dunlap JC, Borkovich KA, Henn MR, Turner GE, Sachs MS, Glass NL, McCluskey K, Plamann M, Galagan JE, Birren BW, Weiss RL, Townsend JP, Loros JJ, Nelson MA, Lambreghts R, Colot HV, Park G, Collopy P, Ringelberg C, Crew C, Litvinkova L, DeCaprio D, Hood HM, Curilla S, Shi M, Crawford M, Koerhsen M, Montgomery P, Larson L, Pearson M, Kasuga T, Tian C, Basturkmen M, Altamirano L, Xu J (2007) Enabling a community to dissect an organism: overview of the Neurospora functional genomics project. Adv Genet 57:49–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2660(06)57002-6
DuPont (2013) ACCELLERASE® TRIO™ Optimized cellulase, hemicellulase and beta-glucosidase enzyme complex for improved lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysis. https://www.genencor.com/fileadmin/user_upload/genencor/documents/TRIO_ProductSheet_LowRes.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2020
Duwe A, Tippkotter N, Ulber R (2019) Lignocellulose-biorefinery: ethanol-focused. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 166:177–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2016_72
Eibinger M, Ganner T, Bubner P, Rosker S, Kracher D, Haltrich D, Ludwig R, Plank H, Nidetzky B (2014) Cellulose surface degradation by a lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase and its effect on cellulase hydrolytic efficiency. J Biol Chem 289:35929–35938. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.602227
Eibinger M, Sattelkow J, Ganner T, Plank H, Nidetzky B (2017) Single-molecule study of oxidative enzymatic deconstruction of cellulose. Nat Commun 8:894. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01028-y
Eni S.p.A. (2020) Versalis: biomass power plant restarted at Crescentino and bioethanol production onstream within the first half of the year. Press release. https://www.eni.com/en-IT/media/press-release/2020/02/versalis-biomass-power-plant-restarted-at-crescentino-and-bioethanol-production-onstream-within-the-first-half-of-the-year.html. Accessed 30 May 2020
Eriksson KE, Pettersson B, Westermark U (1974) Oxidation: an important enzyme reaction in fungal degradation of cellulose. FEBS Lett 49:282–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(74)80531-4
Eriksson T, Karlsson J, Tjerneld F (2002) A model explaining declining rate in hydrolysis of lignocellulose substrates with cellobiohydrolase I (cel7A) and endoglucanase I (cel7B) of Trichoderma reesei. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 101:41–60. https://doi.org/10.1385/abab:101:1:41
Ernst HA, Mosbech C, Langkilde AE, Westh P, Meyer AS, Agger JW, Larsen S (2020) The structural basis of fungal glucuronoyl esterase activity on natural substrates. Nat Commun 11:1026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14833-9
Fanuel M, Garajova S, Ropartz D, McGregor N, Brumer H, Rogniaux H, Berrin JG (2017) The Podospora anserina lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase PaLPMO9H catalyzes oxidative cleavage of diverse plant cell wall matrix glycans. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0749-5
Faulds CB, Mandalari G, Lo Curto RB, Bisignano G, Christakopoulos P, Waldron KW (2006) Synergy between xylanases from glycoside hydrolase family 10 and family 11 and a feruloyl esterase in the release of phenolic acids from cereal arabinoxylan. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 71:622–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-005-0184-6
Filandr F, Man P, Halada P, Chang H, Ludwig R, Kracher D (2020) The H2O2-dependent activity of a fungal lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase investigated with a turbidimetric assay. Biotechnol Biofuels 13:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-020-01673-4
Filiatrault-Chastel C, Navarro D, Haon M, Grisel S, Herpoël-Gimbert I, Chevret D, Fanuel M, Henrissat B, Heiss-Blanquet S, Margeot A, Berrin JG (2019) AA16, a new lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase family identified in fungal secretomes. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1394-y
Fitz E, Wanka F, Seiboth B (2018) The promoter toolbox for recombinant gene expression in Trichoderma reesei. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 6:135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00135
Flach B, Lieberz S, Bolla S (2019) EU Biofuels Annual 2019. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report Number: NL9022. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, DC, USA. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Biofuels%2520Annual_The%2520Hague_EU-28_7-15-2019.pdf
Forsberg Z, Bissaro B, Gullesen J, Dalhus B, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Eijsink VGH (2018) Structural determinants of bacterial lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase functionality. J Biol Chem 293:1397–1412. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M117.817130
Forsberg Z, Mackenzie AK, Sorlie M, Rohr AK, Helland R, Arvai AS, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Eijsink VGH (2014) Structural and functional characterization of a conserved pair of bacterial cellulose-oxidizing lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:8446–8451. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402771111
Forsberg Z, Nelson CE, Dalhus B, Mekasha S, Loose JS, Crouch LI, Røhr AK, Gardner JG, Eijsink VG, Vaaje-Kolstad G (2016) Structural and functional analysis of a lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase important for efficient utilization of chitin in Cellvibrio japonicus. J Biol Chem 291:7300–7312. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.700161
Forsberg Z, Rohr AK, Mekasha S, Andersson KK, Eijsink VG, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Sorlie M (2014) Comparative study of two chitin-active and two cellulose-active AA10-type lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. Biochemistry 53:1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi5000433
Forsberg Z, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Westereng B, Bunæs AC, Stenstrøm Y, MacKenzie A, Sørlie M, Horn SJ, Eijsink VG (2011) Cleavage of cellulose by a CBM33 protein. Protein Sci 20:1479–1483. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.689
Fox JM, Levine SE, Clark DS, Blanch HW (2012) Initial- and processive-cut products reveal cellobiohydrolase rate limitations and the role of companion enzymes. Biochemistry 51:442–452. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi2011543
Frommhagen M, Koetsier MJ, Westphal AH, Visser J, Hinz SW, Vincken JP, van Berkel WJ, Kabel MA, Gruppen H (2016) Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases from Myceliophthora thermophila C1 differ in substrate preference and reducing agent specificity. Biotechnol Biofuels 9:186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0594-y
Frommhagen M, Mutte SK, Westphal AH, Koetsier MJ, Hinz SWA, Visser J, Vincken JP, Weijers D, van Berkel WJH, Gruppen H, Kabel MA (2017) Boosting LPMO-driven lignocellulose degradation by polyphenol oxidase-activated lignin building blocks. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0810-4
Frommhagen M, Sforza S, Westphal AH, Visser J, Hinz SW, Koetsier MJ, van Berkel WJ, Gruppen H, Kabel MA (2015) Discovery of the combined oxidative cleavage of plant xylan and cellulose by a new fungal polysaccharide monooxygenase. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-015-0284-1
Frommhagen M, Westphal AH, van Berkel WJH, Kabel MA (2018) Distinct substrate specificities and electron-donating systems of fungal lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. Front Microbiol 9:1080. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01080
Fuller KK, Dunlap JC, Loros JJ (2018) Light-regulated promoters for tunable, temporal, and affordable control of fungal gene expression. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:3849–3863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-8887-7
Gama R, Van Dyk JS, Pletschke BI (2015) Optimisation of enzymatic hydrolysis of apple pomace for production of biofuel and biorefinery chemicals using commercial enzymes. 3Biotech 5:1075–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-015-0312-7
Ganner T, Bubner P, Eibinger M, Mayrhofer C, Plank H, Nidetzky B (2012) Dissecting and reconstructing synergism: in situ visualization of cooperativity among cellulases. J Biol Chem 287:43215–43222. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.419952
Garajova S, Mathieu Y, Beccia MR, Bennati-Granier C, Biaso F, Fanuel M, Ropartz D, Guigliarelli B, Record E, Rogniaux H, Henrissat B, Berrin JG (2016) Single-domain flavoenzymes trigger lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases for oxidative degradation of cellulose. Sci Rep 6:28276. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28276
Ghattyvenkatakrishna PK, Alekozai EM, Beckham GT, Schulz R, Crowley MF, Uberbacher EC, Cheng X (2013) Initial recognition of a cellodextrin chain in the cellulose-binding tunnel may affect cellobiohydrolase directional specificity. Biophys J 104:904–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2012.12.052
Gilbert HJ, Knox JP, Boraston AB (2013) Advances in understanding the molecular basis of plant cell wall polysaccharide recognition by carbohydrate-binding modules. Curr Opin Struct Biol 23:669–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2013.05.005
Goedegebuur F, Dankmeyer L, Gualfetti P, Karkehabadi S, Hansson H, Jana S, Huynh V, Kelemen BR, Kruithof P, Larenas EA, Teunissen PJM, Ståhlberg J, Payne CM, Mitchinson C, Sandgren M (2017) Improving the thermal stability of cellobiohydrolase Cel7A from Hypocrea jecorina by directed evolution. J Biol Chem 292:17418–17430. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M117.803270
Grantham NJ, Wurman-Rodrich J, Terrett OM, Lyczakowski JJ, Stott K, Iuga D, Simmons TJ, Durand-Tardif M, Brown SP, Dupree R, Busse-Wicher M, Dupree P (2017) An even pattern of xylan substitution is critical for interaction with cellulose in plant cell walls. Nat Plants 3:859–865. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-017-0030-8
Gritzali M, Brown RD (1979) The cellulase system of Trichoderma. In: Hydrolysis of cellulose: mechanisms of enzymatic and acid catalysis. Advances in Chemistry, vol 181. American Chemical Society, pp 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1021/ba-1979-0181.ch012
Guillen D, Sanchez S, Rodriguez-Sanoja R (2010) Carbohydrate-binding domains: multiplicity of biological roles. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:1241–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2331-y
Gusakov AV, Salanovich TN, Antonov AI, Ustinov BB, Okunev ON, Burlingame R, Emalfarb M, Baez M, Sinitsyn AP (2007) Design of highly efficient cellulase mixtures for enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Biotechnol Bioeng 97:1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21329
Halliwell G, Griffin M (1973) The nature and mode of action of the cellulolytic component C1 of Trichoderma koningii on native cellulose. Biochem J 135:587–594. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1350587
Halliwell G, Riaz M (1970) The formation of short fibres from native cellulose by components of Trichoderma koningii cellulase. Biochem J 116:35–42. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1160035
Hangasky JA, Iavarone AT, Marletta MA (2018) Reactivity of O2 versus H2O2 with polysaccharide monooxygenases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:4915–4920. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801153115
Hansson H, Karkehabadi S, Mikkelsen N, Douglas NR, Kim S, Lam A, Kaper T, Kelemen B, Meier KK, Jones SM (2017) High-resolution structure of a lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase from Hypocrea jecorina reveals a predicted linker as an integral part of the catalytic domain. J Biol Chem 292:19099–19109. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m117.799767
Harris P, Krogh KBRM, Vlasenko E, Lassen SF (2007) Polypeptides having endoglucanase activity and polynucleotides encoding same. WO-2007/109441-A2
Harris PV, Welner D, McFarland KC, Re E, Navarro Poulsen J-C, Brown K, Salbo R, Ding H, Vlasenko E, Merino S, Xu F, Cherry J, Larsen S, Lo Leggio L (2010) Stimulation of lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysis by proteins of glycoside hydrolase family 61: structure and function of a large, enigmatic family. Biochemistry 49:3305–3316. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi100009p
Harris PV, Xu F, Kreel NE, Kang C, Fukuyama S (2014) New enzyme insights drive advances in commercial ethanol production. Curr Opin Chem Biol 19:162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2014.02.015
Hassan O, Ling TP, Maskat MY, Illias RM, Badri K, Jahim J, Mahadi NM (2013) Optimization of pretreatments for the hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (EFBF) using enzyme mixtures. Biomass Bioenergy 56:137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.021
Haven MØ, Lindedam J, Jeppesen MD, Elleskov M, Rodrigues AC, Gama M, Jørgensen H, Felby C (2015) Continuous recycling of enzymes during production of lignocellulosic bioethanol in demonstration scale. Appl Energy 159:188–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.062
Heinzelman P, Snow CD, Wu I, Nguyen C, Villalobos A, Govindarajan S, Minshull J, Arnold FH (2009) A family of thermostable fungal cellulases created by structure-guided recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:5610–5615. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901417106
Hemsworth GR, Henrissat B, Davies GJ, Walton PH (2014) Discovery and characterization of a new family of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. Nat Chem Biol 10:122–126. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.1417
Henrissat B, Driguez H, Viet C, Schülein M (1985) Synergism of cellulases from Trichoderma reesei in the degradation of cellulose. Nat Biotechnol 3:722–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0885-722
Horn SJ, Sikorski P, Cederkvist JB, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Sorlie M, Synstad B, Vriend G, Varum KM, Eijsink VGH (2006) Costs and benefits of processivity in enzymatic degradation of recalcitrant polysaccharides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:18089–18094. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608909103
Horn SJ, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Westereng B, Eijsink V (2012) Novel enzymes for the degradation of cellulose. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-45
Hu J, Arantes V, Pribowo A, Gourlay K, Saddler JN (2014) Substrate factors that influence the synergistic interaction of AA9 and cellulases during the enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass. Energy Environ Sci 7:2308–2315. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EE00891J
Hu J, Arantes V, Pribowo A, Saddler JN (2013) The synergistic action of accessory enzymes enhances the hydrolytic potential of a "cellulase mixture" but is highly substrate specific. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:112. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-112
Hu J, Arantes V, Saddler JN (2011) The enhancement of enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic substrates by the addition of accessory enzymes such as xylanase: is it an additive or synergistic effect? Biotechnol Biofuels 4:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-4-36
Hu J, Chandra R, Arantes V, Gourlay K, Susan van Dyk J, Saddler JN (2015) The addition of accessory enzymes enhances the hydrolytic performance of cellulase enzymes at high solid loadings. Bioresour Technol 186:149–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.055
Hu J, Mok YK, Saddler JN (2018) Can we reduce the cellulase enzyme loading required to achieve efficient lignocellulose deconstruction by only using the initially absorbed enzymes? ACS Sustain Chem Eng 6:6233–6239. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b00004
Hu J, Pribowo A, Saddler JN (2016) Oxidative cleavage of some cellulosic substrates by auxiliary activity (AA) family 9 enzymes influences the adsorption/desorption of hydrolytic cellulase enzymes. Green Chem 18:6329–6336. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6GC02288J
Hu J, Tian D, Renneckar S, Saddler JN (2018) Enzyme mediated nanofibrillation of cellulose by the synergistic actions of an endoglucanase, lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase (LPMO) and xylanase. Sci Rep 8:3195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21016-6
Hüttner S, Várnai A, Petrović DM, Bach CX, Kim Anh DT, Thanh VN, Eijsink VGH, Larsbrink J, Olsson L (2019) Specific xylan activity revealed for AA9 lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases of the thermophilic fungus Malbranchea cinnamomea by functional characterization. Appl Environ Microbiol 85:e01408-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01408-19
Igarashi K, Koivula A, Wada M, Kimura S, Penttilä M, Samejima M (2009) High speed atomic force microscopy visualizes processive movement of Trichoderma reesei cellobiohydrolase I on crystalline cellulose. J Biol Chem 284:36186–36190. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.034611
Igarashi K, Uchihashi T, Koivula A, Wada M, Kimura S, Okamoto T, Penttila M, Ando T, Samejima M (2011) Traffic jams reduce hydrolytic efficiency of cellulase on cellulose surface. Science 333:1279–1282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208386
Irwin D, Shin DH, Zhang S, Barr BK, Sakon J, Karplus PA, Wilson DB (1998) Roles of the catalytic domain and two cellulose binding domains of Thermomonospora fusca E4 in cellulose hydrolysis. J Bacteriol 180:1709–1714. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.180.7.1709-1714.1998
Isaksen T, Westereng B, Aachmann FL, Agger JW, Kracher D, Kittl R, Ludwig R, Haltrich D, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ (2014) A C4-oxidizing lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase cleaving both cellulose and cello-oligosaccharides. J Biol Chem 289:2632–2642. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.530196
Jalak J, Kurašin M, Teugjas H, Väljamäe P (2012) Endo-exo synergism in cellulose hydrolysis revisited. J Biol Chem 287:28802–28815. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.381624
Jalak J, Väljamäe P (2014) Multi-mode binding of Cellobiohydrolase Cel7A from Trichoderma reesei to cellulose. PLoS ONE 9:e108181. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108181
Jeffries TW (1990) Biodegradation of lignin-carbohydrate complexes. Biodegradation 1:163–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00058834
Jensen MS, Fredriksen L, MacKenzie AK, Pope PB, Leiros I, Chylenski P, Williamson AK, Christopeit T, Østby H, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Eijsink VGH (2018) Discovery and characterization of a thermostable two-domain GH6 endoglucanase from a compost metagenome. PLoS ONE 13:e0197862. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197862
Jeoh T, Ishizawa CI, Davis MF, Himmel ME, Adney WS, Johnson DK (2007) Cellulase digestibility of pretreated biomass is limited by cellulose accessibility. Biotechnol Bioeng 98:112–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21408
Johansen KS (2016) Discovery and industrial applications of lytic polysaccharide mono-oxygenases. Biochem Soc Trans 44:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1042/bst20150204
Johnson E (2016) Integrated enzyme production lowers the cost of cellulosic ethanol. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 10:164–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1634
Joint Genome Institute: 1000 Fungal Genomes Project. https://mycocosm.jgi.doe.gov/programs/fungi/1000fungalgenomes.jsf. Accessed 30 May 2020
Jones SM, Transue WJ, Meier KK, Kelemen B, Solomon EI (2020) Kinetic analysis of amino acid radicals formed in H2O2-driven CuI LPMO reoxidation implicates dominant homolytic reactivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:11916–11922. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922499117
Jørgensen H, Pinelo M (2017) Enzyme recycling in lignocellulosic biorefineries. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 11:150–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1724
Kabel MA, van den Borne H, Vincken J-P, Voragen AGJ, Schols HA (2007) Structural differences of xylans affect their interaction with cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 69:94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2006.09.006
Kabel MA, van der Maarel MJ, Klip G, Voragen AG, Schols HA (2006) Standard assays do not predict the efficiency of commercial cellulase preparations towards plant materials. Biotechnol Bioeng 93:56–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20685
Kadić A, Chylenski P, Hansen MAT, Bengtsson O, Eijsink VGH, Lidén G (2019) Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) as a tool for process monitoring of H2O2/LPMO assisted enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Process Biochem 86:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2019.08.015
Kallioinen A, Puranen T, Siika-aho M (2014) Mixtures of thermostable enzymes show high performance in biomass saccharification. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 173:1038–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-0893-3
Kari J, Christensen SJ, Andersen M, Baiget SS, Borch K, Westh P (2019) A practical approach to steady-state kinetic analysis of cellulases acting on their natural insoluble substrate. Anal Biochem 586:113411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2019.113411
Kari J, Olsen J, Borch K, Cruys-Bagger N, Jensen K, Westh P (2014) Kinetics of cellobiohydrolase (Cel7A) variants with lowered substrate affinity. J Biol Chem 289:32459–32468. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.604264
Karkehabadi S, Hansson H, Kim S, Piens K, Mitchinson C, Sandgren M (2008) The first structure of a glycoside hydrolase family 61 member, Cel61B from Hypocrea jecorina, at 1.6 A resolution. J Mol Biol 383:144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2008.08.016
Karlsson J, Saloheimo M, Siika-aho M, Tenkanen M, Penttila M, Tjerneld F (2001) Homologous expression and characterization of Cel61A (EG IV) of Trichoderma reesei. Eur J Biochem 268:6498–6507. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0014-2956.2001.02605.x
Karlsson J, Siika-aho M, Tenkanen M, Tjerneld F (2002) Enzymatic properties of the low molecular mass endoglucanases Cel12A (EG III) and Cel45A (EG V) of Trichoderma reesei. J Biotechnol 99:63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1656(02)00156-6
Karnaouri A, Matsakas L, Krikigianni E, Rova U, Christakopoulos P (2019) Valorization of waste forest biomass toward the production of cello-oligosaccharides with potential prebiotic activity by utilizing customized enzyme cocktails. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1628-z
Karnaouri A, Muraleedharan MN, Dimarogona M, Topakas E, Rova U, Sandgren M, Christakopoulos P (2017) Recombinant expression of thermostable processive MtEG5 endoglucanase and its synergism with MtLPMO from Myceliophthora thermophila during the hydrolysis of lignocellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0813-1
Karuna N, Jeoh T (2017) The productive cellulase binding capacity of cellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng 114:533–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26193
Katsimpouras C, Dimarogona M, Petropoulos P, Christakopoulos P, Topakas E (2016) A thermostable GH26 endo-beta-mannanase from Myceliophthora thermophila capable of enhancing lignocellulose degradation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:8385–8397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7609-2
Kim IJ, Seo N, An HJ, Kim JH, Harris PV, Kim KH (2017) Type-dependent action modes of TtAA9E and TaAA9A acting on cellulose and differently pretreated lignocellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0721-4
Kim KH, Eudes A, Jeong K, Yoo CG, Kim CS, Ragauskas A (2019) Integration of renewable deep eutectic solvents with engineered biomass to achieve a closed-loop biorefinery. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:13816–13824. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904636116
Kittl R, Kracher D, Burgstaller D, Haltrich D, Ludwig R (2012) Production of four Neurospora crassa lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases in Pichia pastoris monitored by a fluorimetric assay. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:79. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-79
Knott BC, Crowley MF, Himmel ME, Ståhlberg J, Beckham GT (2014) Carbohydrate-protein interactions that drive processive polysaccharide translocation in enzymes revealed from a computational study of cellobiohydrolase processivity. J Am Chem Soc 136:8810–8819. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja504074g
Knott BC, Haddad Momeni M, Crowley MF, Mackenzie LF, Götz AW, Sandgren M, Withers SG, Ståhlberg J, Beckham GT (2014) The mechanism of cellulose hydrolysis by a two-step, retaining cellobiohydrolase elucidated by structural and transition path sampling studies. J Am Chem Soc 136:321–329. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja410291u
Kojima Y, Varnai A, Ishida T, Sunagawa N, Petrović DM, Igarashi K, Jellison J, Goodell B, Alfredsen G, Westereng B, Eijsink VGH, Yoshida M (2016) Characterization of an LPMO from the brown-rot fungus Gloeophyllum trabeum with broad xyloglucan specificity, and its action on cellulose-xyloglucan complexes. Appl Environ Microbiol 82:6557–6572. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01768-16
Kont R, Kari J, Borch K, Westh P, Valjamae P (2016) Inter-domain synergism is required for efficient feeding of cellulose chain into active site of cellobiohydrolase Cel7A. J Biol Chem 291:26013–26023. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M116.756007
Kont R, Pihlajaniemi V, Borisova AS, Aro N, Marjamaa K, Loogen J, Büchs J, Eijsink VGH, Kruus K, Väljamäe P (2019) The liquid fraction from hydrothermal pretreatment of wheat straw provides lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases with both electrons and H2O2 co-substrate. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1578-5
Kormelink FJM, Voragen AGJ (1993) Degradation of different [(glucurono)arabino]xylans by a combination of purified xylan-degrading enzymes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 38:688–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182811
Koseki T, Furuse S, Iwano K, Sakai H, Matsuzawa H (1997) An Aspergillus awamori acetylesterase: purification of the enzyme, and cloning and sequencing of the gene. Biochem J 326:485–490. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj3260485
Kracher D, Andlar M, Furtmüller PG, Ludwig R (2018) Active-site copper reduction promotes substrate binding of fungal lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase and reduces stability. J Biol Chem 293:1676–1687. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA117.000109
Kracher D, Forsberg Z, Bissaro B, Gangl S, Preims M, Sygmund C, Eijsink VGH, Ludwig R (2020) Polysaccharide oxidation by lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase is enhanced by engineered cellobiose dehydrogenase. FEBS J 287:897–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15067
Kracher D, Scheiblbrandner S, Felice AK, Breslmayr E, Preims M, Ludwicka K, Haltrich D, Eijsink VGH, Ludwig R (2016) Extracellular electron transfer systems fuel cellulose oxidative degradation. Science 352:1098–1101. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3165
Kristensen JB, Thygesen LG, Felby C, Jørgensen H, Elder T (2008) Cell-wall structural changes in wheat straw pretreated for bioethanol production. Biotechnol Biofuels 1:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-1-5
Kruer-Zerhusen N, Alahuhta M, Lunin VV, Himmel ME, Bomble YJ, Wilson DB (2017) Structure of a Thermobifida fusca lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase and mutagenesis of key residues. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0925-7
Kuhn EM, Chen X, Tucker MP (2020) Deacetylation and mechanical refining (DMR) and deacetylation and dilute acid (DDA) pretreatment of corn stover, switchgrass, and a 50:50 corn stover/switchgrass blend. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8:6734–6743. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c00894
Kuhn EM, O’Brien MH, Ciesielski PN, Schell DJ (2016) Pilot-scale batch alkaline pretreatment of corn stover. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4:944–956. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b01041
Kumar R, Bhagia S, Smith MD, Petridis L, Ong RG, Cai CM, Mittal A, Himmel MH, Balan V, Dale BE, Ragauskas AJ, Smith JC, Wyman CE (2018) Cellulose–hemicellulose interactions at elevated temperatures increase cellulose recalcitrance to biological conversion. Green Chem 20:921–934. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7GC03518G
Kumar R, Wyman CE (2009) Effect of xylanase supplementation of cellulase on digestion of corn stover solids prepared by leading pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 100:4203–4213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.057
Kunitake E, Kobayashi T (2017) Conservation and diversity of the regulators of cellulolytic enzyme genes in Ascomycete fungi. Curr Genet 63:951–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0695-6
Kurašin M, Kuusk S, Kuusk P, Sørlie M, Väljamäe P (2015) Slow off-rates and strong product binding are required for processivity and efficient degradation of recalcitrant chitin by family 18 chitinases. J Biol Chem 290:29074–29085. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.684977
Kurašin M, Väljamäe P (2011) Processivity of cellobiohydrolases is limited by the substrate. J Biol Chem 286:169–177. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.161059
Kuusk S, Bissaro B, Kuusk P, Forsberg Z, Eijsink VGH, Sorlie M, Valjamae P (2018) Kinetics of H2O2-driven degradation of chitin by a bacterial lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase. J Biol Chem 293:523–531. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M117.817593
Kuusk S, Kont R, Kuusk P, Heering A, Sørlie M, Bissaro B, Eijsink VGH, Väljamäe P (2019) Kinetic insights into the role of the reductant in H2O2-driven degradation of chitin by a bacterial lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase. J Biol Chem 294:1516–1528. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.006196
Kuusk S, Sorlie M, Valjamae P (2015) The predominant molecular state of bound enzyme determines the strength and type of product inhibition in the hydrolysis of recalcitrant polysaccharides by processive enzymes. J Biol Chem 290:11678–11691. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.635631
Kuusk S, Väljamäe P (2017) When substrate inhibits and inhibitor activates: implications of β-glucosidases. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0690-z
La Rosa SL, Leth ML, Michalak L, Hansen ME, Pudlo NA, Glowacki R, Pereira G, Workman CT, Arntzen MØ, Pope PB, Martens EC, Hachem MA, Westereng B (2019) The human gut Firmicute Roseburia intestinalis is a primary degrader of dietary β-mannans. Nat Commun 10:905. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08812-y
Ladevèze S, Haon M, Villares A, Cathala B, Grisel S, Herpoël-Gimbert I, Henrissat B, Berrin J-G (2017) The yeast Geotrichum candidum encodes functional lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0903-0
Langston JA, Shaghasi T, Abbate E, Xu F, Vlasenko E, Sweeney MD (2011) Oxidoreductive cellulose depolymerization by the enzymes cellobiose dehydrogenase and glycoside hydrolase 61. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:7007–7015. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.05815-11
Lapeña D, Olsen PM, Arntzen M, Kosa G, Passoth V, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ (2020) Spruce sugars and poultry hydrolysate as growth medium in repeated fed-batch fermentation processes for production of yeast biomass. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 43:723–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-019-02271-x
Larsbrink J, Rogers TE, Hemsworth GR, McKee LS, Tauzin AS, Spadiut O, Klinter S, Pudlo NA, Urs K, Koropatkin NM, Creagh AL, Haynes CA, Kelly AG, Cederholm SN, Davies GJ, Martens EC, Brumer H (2014) A discrete genetic locus confers xyloglucan metabolism in select human gut Bacteroidetes. Nature 506:498–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12907
Laurent CVFP, Sun P, Scheiblbrandner S, Csarman F, Cannazza P, Frommhagen M, van Berkel WJH, Oostenbrink C, Kabel MA, Ludwig R (2019) Influence of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase active site segments on activity and affinity. Int J Mol Sci 20:E6219. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20246219
Le Costaouëc T, Pakarinen A, Várnai A, Puranen T, Viikari L (2013) The role of carbohydrate binding module (CBM) at high substrate consistency: Comparison of Trichoderma reesei and Thermoascus aurantiacus Cel7A (CBHI) and Cel5A (EGII). Bioresour Technol 143:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.079
Lee D, Yu AH, Saddler JN (1995) Evaluation of cellulase recycling strategies for the hydrolysis of lignocellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng 45:328–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260450407
Levasseur A, Drula E, Lombard V, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B (2013) Expansion of the enzymatic repertoire of the CAZy database to integrate auxiliary redox enzymes. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-41
Li F, Ma F, Zhao H, Zhang S, Wang L, Zhang X, Yu H (2019) A lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase from a white-rot fungus drives the degradation of lignin by a versatile peroxidase. Appl Environ Microbiol 85:e02803-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02803-18
Li XL, Skory CD, Cotta MA, Puchart V, Biely P (2008) Novel family of carbohydrate esterases, based on identification of the Hypocrea jecorina acetyl esterase gene. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:7482–7489. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00807-08
Lindedam J, Haven MØ, Chylenski P, Jørgensen H, Felby C (2013) Recycling cellulases for cellulosic ethanol production at industrial relevant conditions: Potential and temperature dependency at high solid processes. Bioresour Technol 148:180–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.130
Linder M, Teeri TT (1996) The cellulose-binding domain of the major cellobiohydrolase of Trichoderma reesei exhibits true reversibility and a high exchange rate on crystalline cellulose. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:12251–12255. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.22.12251
Liu Q, Gao R, Li J, Lin L, Zhao J, Sun W, Tian C (2017) Development of a genome-editing CRISPR/Cas9 system in thermophilic fungal Myceliophthora species and its application to hyper-cellulase production strain engineering. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0693-9
Liu X, Ding S (2009) Molecular characterization of a new acetyl xylan esterase (AXEII) from edible straw mushroom Volvariella volvacea with both de-O-acetylation and de-N-acetylation activity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 295:50–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01585.x
Lombard V, Golaconda Ramulu H, Drula E, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B (2014) The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res 42:D490–D495. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1178
Loose JS, Forsberg Z, Kracher D, Scheiblbrandner S, Ludwig R, Eijsink VG, Vaaje-Kolstad G (2016) Activation of bacterial lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases with cellobiose dehydrogenase. Protein Sci 25:2175–2186. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.3043
Loose JSM, Arntzen MO, Bissaro B, Ludwig R, Eijsink VGH, Vaaje-Kolstad G (2018) Multipoint precision binding of substrate protects lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases from self-destructive off-pathway processes. Biochemistry 57:4114–4124. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00484
Luis AS, Briggs J, Zhang X, Farnell B, Ndeh D, Labourel A, Baslé A, Cartmell A, Terrapon N, Stott K, Lowe EC, McLean R, Shearer K, Schückel J, Venditto I, Ralet MC, Henrissat B, Martens EC, Mosimann SC, Abbott DW, Gilbert HJ (2018) Dietary pectic glycans are degraded by coordinated enzyme pathways in human colonic Bacteroides. Nature microbiology 3:210–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-017-0079-1
Luterbacher JS, Rand JM, Alonso DM, Han J, Youngquist JT, Maravelias CT, Pfleger BF, Dumesic JA (2014) Nonenzymatic sugar production from biomass using biomass-derived gamma-valerolactone. Science 343:277–280. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246748
Malgas S, Mafa MS, Mkabayi L, Pletschke BI (2019) A mini review of xylanolytic enzymes with regards to their synergistic interactions during hetero-xylan degradation. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 35:187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-019-2765-z
Malgas S, Thoresen M, van Dyk JS, Pletschke BI (2017) Time dependence of enzyme synergism during the degradation of model and natural lignocellulosic substrates. Enzyme Microb Technol 103:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2017.04.007
Malgas S, van Dyk JS, Abboo S, Pletschke BI (2016) The inhibitory effects of various substrate pre-treatment by-products and wash liquors on mannanolytic enzymes. J Mol Catal B Enzym 123:132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcatb.2015.11.014
Malgas S, van Dyk JS, Pletschke BI (2015) A review of the enzymatic hydrolysis of mannans and synergistic interactions between beta-mannanase, beta-mannosidase and alpha-galactosidase. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 31:1167–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-015-1878-2
Margolles-Clark E, Tenkanen M, Luonteri E, Penttila M (1996) Three alpha-galactosidase genes of Trichoderma reesei cloned by expression in yeast. Eur J Biochem 240:104–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1996.0104h.x
Margolles-Clark E, Tenkanen M, Nakari-Setälä T, Penttilä M (1996) Cloning of genes encoding alpha-L-arabinofuranosidase and beta-xylosidase from Trichoderma reesei by expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:3840–3846. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.62.10.3840-3846.1996
Marques S, Santos JAL, Gírio FM, Roseiro JC (2008) Lactic acid production from recycled paper sludge by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Biochem Eng J 41:210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2008.04.018
Martinez D, Berka RM, Henrissat B, Saloheimo M, Arvas M, Baker SE, Chapman J, Chertkov O, Coutinho PM, Cullen D, Danchin EG, Grigoriev IV, Harris P, Jackson M, Kubicek CP, Han CS, Ho I, Larrondo LF, de Leon AL, Magnuson JK, Merino S, Misra M, Nelson B, Putnam N, Robbertse B, Salamov AA, Schmoll M, Terry A, Thayer N, Westerholm-Parvinen A, Schoch CL, Yao J, Barabote R, Nelson MA, Detter C, Bruce D, Kuske CR, Xie G, Richardson P, Rokhsar DS, Lucas SM, Rubin EM, Dunn-Coleman N, Ward M, Brettin TS (2008) Genome sequencing and analysis of the biomass-degrading fungus Trichoderma reesei (syn. Hypocrea jecorina). Nat Biotechnol 26:553–560. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1403
Maurer SA, Bedbrook CN, Radke CJ (2012) Competitive sorption kinetics of inhibited endo- and exoglucanases on a model cellulose substrate. Langmuir 28:14598–14608. https://doi.org/10.1021/la3024524
McClendon SD, Batth T, Petzold CJ, Adams PD, Simmons BA, Singer SW (2012) Thermoascus aurantiacus is a promising source of enzymes for biomass deconstruction under thermophilic conditions. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-54
McLean BW, Boraston AB, Brouwer D, Sanaie N, Fyfe CA, Warren RA, Kilburn DG, Haynes CA (2002) Carbohydrate-binding modules recognize fine substructures of cellulose. J Biol Chem 277:50245–50254. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M204433200
Meier KK, Jones SM, Kaper T, Hansson H, Koetsier MJ, Karkehabadi S, Solomon EI, Sandgren M, Kelemen B (2018) Oxygen activation by Cu LPMOs in recalcitrant carbohydrate polysaccharide conversion to monomer sugars. Chem Rev 118:2593–2635. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00421
Mello-de-Sousa TM, Gorsche R, Rassinger A, Poças-Fonseca MJ, Mach RL, Mach-Aigner AR (2014) A truncated form of the carbon catabolite repressor 1 increases cellulase production in Trichoderma reesei. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-014-0129-3
Menon V, Rao M (2012) Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: biofuels, platform chemicals & biorefinery concept. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38:522–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.02.002
Merino ST, Cherry J (2007) Progress and challenges in enzyme development for biomass utilization. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 108:95–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2007_066
Mikkelson A, Maaheimo H, Hakala TK (2013) Hydrolysis of konjac glucomannan by Trichoderma reesei mannanase and endoglucanases Cel7B and Cel5A for the production of glucomannooligosaccharides. Carbohydr Res 372:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carres.2013.02.012
Miyauchi S, Navarro D, Grisel S, Chevret D, Berrin JG, Rosso MN (2017) The integrative omics of white-rot fungus Pycnoporus coccineus reveals co-regulated CAZymes for orchestrated lignocellulose breakdown. PLoS ONE 12:e0175528. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175528
Mojzita D, Rantasalo A, Jäntti J (2019) Gene expression engineering in fungi. Curr Opin Biotechnol 59:141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.04.007
Momeni MH, Ubhayasekera W, Sandgren M, Ståhlberg J, Hansson H (2015) Structural insights into the inhibition of cellobiohydrolase Cel7A by xylo-oligosaccharides. FEBS J 282:2167–2177. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13265
Monrad RN, Eklöf J, Krogh KBRM, Biely P (2018) Glucuronoyl esterases: diversity, properties and biotechnological potential. A review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 38:1121–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2018.1468316
Montalibet J, Gudynaite-Savitch L, Hill C, Hindle CD, Lavigne JA, Masri N, Tahna F, Tomashek JJ (2013) Novel cellobiohydrolase enzymes. WO-2013/029176-A1.
Morgenstern I, Powlowski J, Tsang A (2014) Fungal cellulose degradation by oxidative enzymes: from dysfunctional GH61 family to powerful lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase family. Brief Funct Genom 13:471–481. https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elu032
Mosbech C, Holck J, Meyer AS, Agger JW (2018) The natural catalytic function of CuGE glucuronoyl esterase in hydrolysis of genuine lignin-carbohydrate complexes from birch. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1075-2
Muraleedharan MN, Zouraris D, Karantonis A, Topakas E, Sandgren M, Rova U, Christakopoulos P, Karnaouri A (2018) Effect of lignin fractions isolated from different biomass sources on cellulose oxidation by fungal lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1294-6
Müller G, Chylenski P, Bissaro B, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ (2018) The impact of hydrogen peroxide supply on LPMO activity and overall saccharification efficiency of a commercial cellulase cocktail. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:209. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1199-4
Müller G, Kalyani DC, Horn SJ (2017) LPMOs in cellulase mixtures affect fermentation strategies for lactic acid production from lignocellulosic biomass. Biotechnol Bioeng 114:552–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26091
Müller G, Várnai A, Johansen KS, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ (2015) Harnessing the potential of LPMO-containing cellulase cocktails poses new demands on processing conditions. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-015-0376-y
Nekiunaite L, Petrović DM, Westereng B, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Hachem MA, Várnai A, Eijsink VGH (2016) FgLPMO9A from Fusarium graminearum cleaves xyloglucan independently of the backbone substitution pattern. FEBS Lett 590:3346–3356. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.12385
Nguyen QA, Tucker MP, Keller FA, Eddy FP (2000) Two-stage dilute-acid pretreatment of softwoods. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 84–86:561–576. https://doi.org/10.1385/abab:84-86:1-9:561
Nidetzky B, Steiner W, Hayn M, Claeyssens M (1994) Cellulose hydrolysis by the cellulases from Trichoderma reesei: a new model for synergistic interaction. Biochem J 298(Pt 3):705–710. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj2980705
Nieves RA, Ehrman CI, Adney WS, Elander RT, Himmel ME (1998) Survey and analysis of commercial cellulase preparations suitable for biomass conversion to ethanol. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 14:301–304. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008871205580
Novy V, Nielsen F, Seiboth B, Nidetzky B (2019) The influence of feedstock characteristics on enzyme production in Trichoderma reesei: a review on productivity, gene regulation and secretion profiles. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1571-z
Ohgren K, Bura R, Lesnicki G, Saddler J, Zacchi G (2007) A comparison between simultaneous saccharification and fermentation and separate hydrolysis and fermentation using steam-pretreated corn stover. Process Biochem 42:834–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2007.02.003
Olsen JP, Borch K, Westh P (2017) Endo/exo-synergism of cellulases increases with substrate conversion. Biotechnol Bioeng 114:696–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26179
Pakarinen A, Haven MO, Djajadi DT, Varnai A, Puranen T, Viikari L (2014) Cellulases without carbohydrate-binding modules in high consistency ethanol production process. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-7-27
Palonen H, Tenkanen M, Linder M (1999) Dynamic interaction of Trichoderma reesei cellobiohydrolases Cel6A and Cel7A and cellulose at equilibrium and during hydrolysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:5229–5233. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.12.5229-5233.1999
Palonen H, Tjerneld F, Zacchi G, Tenkanen M (2004) Adsorption of Trichoderma reesei CBH I and EG II and their catalytic domains on steam pretreated softwood and isolated lignin. J Biotechnol 107:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.09.011
Park YB, Cosgrove DJ (2015) Xyloglucan and its interactions with other components of the growing cell wall. Plant Cell Physiol 56:180–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcu204
Patel AK, Singhania RR, Sim SJ, Pandey A (2019) Thermostable cellulases: current status and perspectives. Bioresour Technol 279:385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.049
Patel I, Kracher D, Ma S, Garajova S, Haon M, Faulds CB, Berrin JG, Ludwig R, Record E (2016) Salt-responsive lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases from the mangrove fungus Pestalotiopsis sp. NCi6. Biotechnol Biofuels 9:108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0520-3
Pattathil S, Hahn MG, Dale BE, Chundawat SP (2015) Insights into plant cell wall structure, architecture, and integrity using glycome profiling of native and AFEXTM-pre-treated biomass. J Exp Bot 66:4279–4294. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv107
Pawar PM-A, Derba-Maceluch M, Chong S-L, Gandla ML, Bashar SS, Sparrman T, Ahvenainen P, Hedenström M, Özparpucu M, Rüggeberg M, Serimaa R, Lawoko M, Tenkanen M, Jönsson LJ, Mellerowicz EJ (2017) In muro deacetylation of xylan affects lignin properties and improves saccharification of aspen wood. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0782-4
Peciulyte A, Samuelsson L, Olsson L, McFarland KC, Frickmann J, Østergård L, Halvorsen R, Scott BR, Johansen KS (2018) Redox processes acidify and decarboxylate steam-pretreated lignocellulosic biomass and are modulated by LPMO and catalase. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1159-z
Pellegrini VO, Lei N, Kyasaram M, Olsen JP, Badino SF, Windahl MS, Colussi F, Cruys-Bagger N, Borch K, Westh P (2014) Reversibility of substrate adsorption for the cellulases Cel7A, Cel6A, and Cel7B from Hypocrea jecorina. Langmuir 30:12602–12609. https://doi.org/10.1021/la5024423
Percival Zhang YH, Himmel ME, Mielenz JR (2006) Outlook for cellulase improvement: screening and selection strategies. Biotechnol Adv 24:452–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2006.03.003
Perna V, Meyer AS, Holck J, Eltis LD, Eijsink VGH, Wittrup Agger J (2020) Laccase-catalyzed oxidation of lignin induces production of H2O2. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8:831–841. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b04912
Petersen MØ, Larsen J, Thomsen MH (2009) Optimization of hydrothermal pretreatment of wheat straw for production of bioethanol at low water consumption without addition of chemicals. Biomass Bioenergy 33:834–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.01.004
Peterson R, Nevalainen H (2012) Trichoderma reesei RUT-C30–thirty years of strain improvement. Microbiology 158:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.054031-0
Petrović DM, Bissaro B, Chylenski P, Skaugen M, Sørlie M, Jensen MS, Aachmann FL, Courtade G, Várnai A, Eijsink VGH (2018) Methylation of the N-terminal histidine protects a lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase from auto-oxidative inactivation. Protein Sci 27:1636–1650. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.3451
Petrović DM, Várnai A, Dimarogona M, Mathiesen G, Sandgren M, Westereng B, Eijsink VGH (2019) Comparison of three seemingly similar lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases from Neurospora crassa suggests different roles in plant biomass degradation. J Biol Chem 294:15068–15081. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA119.008196
Phillips CM, Beeson WT, Cate JH, Marletta MA (2011) Cellobiose dehydrogenase and a copper-dependent polysaccharide monooxygenase potentiate cellulose degradation by Neurospora crassa. ACS Chem Biol 6:1399–1406. https://doi.org/10.1021/cb200351y
Pielhop T, Amgarten J, von Rohr PR, Studer MH (2016) Steam explosion pretreatment of softwood: the effect of the explosive decompression on enzymatic digestibility. Biotechnol Biofuels 9:152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0567-1
Pitson SM, Voragen AG, Beldman G (1996) Stereochemical course of hydrolysis catalyzed by arabinofuranosyl hydrolases. FEBS Lett 398:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0014-5793(96)01153-2
POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels, LLC (2019) EPA actions trigger Project LIBERTY shift from production to R&D. Press release. https://poet.com/pr/epa-actions-trigger-project-liberty-shift. Accessed 30 May 2020
Poidevin L, Berrin JG, Bennati-Granier C, Levasseur A, Herpoël-Gimbert I, Chevret D, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B, Heiss-Blanquet S, Record E (2014) Comparative analyses of Podospora anserina secretomes reveal a large array of lignocellulose-active enzymes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:7457–7469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5698-3
Praestgaard E, Elmerdahl J, Murphy L, Nymand S, McFarland KC, Borch K, Westh P (2011) A kinetic model for the burst phase of processive cellulases. FEBS J 278:1547–1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08078.x
Pribowo A, Arantes V, Saddler JN (2012) The adsorption and enzyme activity profiles of specific Trichoderma reesei cellulase/xylanase components when hydrolyzing steam pretreated corn stover. Enzyme Microb Technol 50:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2011.12.004
Punt PJ, Burlingame RP, Pynnonen CM, Olson PT, Wery J, Visser JH, Emalfarb MA, Visser J, Verdoes JC (2010) Chrysosporium lucknowense protein production system. WO-2010/107303-A3
Punt PJ, van Biezen N, Conesa A, Albers A, Mangnus J, van den Hondel C (2002) Filamentous fungi as cell factories for heterologous protein production. Trends Biotechnol 20:200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01933-9
Qing Q, Yang B, Wyman CE (2010) Xylooligomers are strong inhibitors of cellulose hydrolysis by enzymes. Bioresour Technol 101:9624–9630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.137
Quinlan RJ, Sweeney MD, Lo Leggio L, Otten H, Poulsen JC, Johansen KS, Krogh KB, Jorgensen CI, Tovborg M, Anthonsen A, Tryfona T, Walter CP, Dupree P, Xu F, Davies GJ, Walton PH (2011) Insights into the oxidative degradation of cellulose by a copper metalloenzyme that exploits biomass components. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:15079–15084. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105776108
Ragauskas AJ, Beckham GT, Biddy MJ, Chandra R, Chen F, Davis MF, Davison BH, Dixon RA, Gilna P, Keller M, Langan P, Naskar AK, Saddler JN, Tschaplinski TJ, Tuskan GA, Wyman CE (2014) Lignin valorization: improving lignin processing in the biorefinery. Science 344:1246843. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246843
Rahikainen J, Mikander S, Marjamaa K, Tamminen T, Lappas A, Viikari L, Kruus K (2011) Inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis by residual lignins from softwood–study of enzyme binding and inactivation on lignin-rich surface. Biotechnol Bioeng 108:2823–2834. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.23242
Rahikainen JL, Evans JD, Mikander S, Kalliola A, Puranen T, Tamminen T, Marjamaa K, Kruus K (2013) Cellulase-lignin interactions-the role of carbohydrate-binding module and pH in non-productive binding. Enzyme Microb Technol 53:315–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2013.07.003
Rahikainen JL, Martin-Sampedro R, Heikkinen H, Rovio S, Marjamaa K, Tamminen T, Rojas OJ, Kruus K (2013) Inhibitory effect of lignin during cellulose bioconversion: the effect of lignin chemistry on non-productive enzyme adsorption. Bioresour Technol 133:270–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.01.075
Ran FA, Hsu PD, Wright J, Agarwala V, Scott DA, Zhang F (2013) Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Protoc 8:2281–2308. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.143
Rantasalo A, Vitikainen M, Paasikallio T, Jäntti J, Landowski CP, Mojzita D (2019) Novel genetic tools that enable highly pure protein production in Trichoderma reesei. Sci Rep 9:5032. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41573-8
Reese ET, Siu RG, Levinson HS (1950) The biological degradation of soluble cellulose derivatives and its relationship to the mechanism of cellulose hydrolysis. J Bacteriol 59:485–497. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.59.4.485-497.1950
Reinikainen T, Takkinen K, Teeri TT (1997) Comparison of the adsorption properties of a single-chain antibody fragment fused to a fungal or bacterial cellulose-binding domain. Enzyme Microb Technol 20:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0229(96)00109-3
Rodrigues AC, Felby C, Gama M (2014) Cellulase stability, adsorption/desorption profiles and recycling during successive cycles of hydrolysis and fermentation of wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 156:163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.019
Rodrigues AC, Haven M, Lindedam J, Felby C, Gama M (2015) Celluclast and Cellic® CTec2: saccharification/fermentation of wheat straw, solid-liquid partition and potential of enzyme recycling by alkaline washing. Enzyme Microb Technol 79–80:70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2015.06.019
Rodrigues AC, Leitão AF, Moreira S, Felby C, Gama M (2012) Recycling of cellulases in lignocellulosic hydrolysates using alkaline elution. Bioresour Technol 110:526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.140
Rodríguez-Zúñiga UF, Cannella D, Giordano RdC, Giordano RdLC, Jørgensen H, Felby C (2015) Lignocellulose pretreatment technologies affect the level of enzymatic cellulose oxidation by LPMO. Green Chem 17:2896–2903. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4GC02179G
Rogowski A, Briggs JA, Mortimer JC, Tryfona T, Terrapon N, Lowe EC, Baslé A, Morland C, Day AM, Zheng H, Rogers TE, Thompson P, Hawkins AR, Yadav MP, Henrissat B, Martens EC, Dupree P, Gilbert HJ, Bolam DN (2015) Glycan complexity dictates microbial resource allocation in the large intestine. Nat Commun 6:7481. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8481
Rosales-Calderon O, Arantes V (2019) A review on commercial-scale high-value products that can be produced alongside cellulosic ethanol. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1529-1
Rosgaard L, Pedersen S, Cherry JR, Harris P, Meyer AS (2006) Efficiency of new fungal cellulase systems in boosting enzymatic degradation of barley straw lignocellulose. Biotechnol Prog 22:493–498. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp050361o
Rosgaard L, Pedersen S, Langston J, Akerhielm D, Cherry JR, Meyer AS (2007) Evaluation of minimal Trichoderma reesei cellulase mixtures on differently pretreated barley straw substrates. Biotechnol Prog 23:1270–1276. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp070329p
Rødsrud G, Lersch M, Sjöde A (2012) History and future of world's most advanced biorefinery in operation. Biomass Bioenergy 46:46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.028
Røjel N, Kari J, Sørensen TH, Badino SF, Morth JP, Schaller K, Cavaleiro AM, Borch K, Westh P (2020) Substrate binding in the processive cellulase Cel7A: transition state of complexation and roles of conserved tryptophan residues. J Biol Chem 295:1454–1463. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA119.011420
Røjel N, Kari J, Sørensen TH, Borch K, Westh P (2020) pH profiles of cellulases depend on the substrate and architecture of the binding region. Biotechnol Bioeng 117:382–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27206
Sabbadin F, Hemsworth GR, Ciano L, Henrissat B, Dupree P, Tryfona T, Marques RDS, Sweeney ST, Besser K, Elias L, Pesante G, Li Y, Dowle AA, Bates R, Gomez LD, Simister R, Davies GJ, Walton PH, Bruce NC, McQueen-Mason SJ (2018) An ancient family of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases with roles in arthropod development and biomass digestion. Nat Commun 9:756. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03142-x
Saloheimo M, Paloheimo M, Hakola S, Pere J, Swanson B, Nyyssönen E, Bhatia A, Ward M, Penttilä M (2002) Swollenin, a Trichoderma reesei protein with sequence similarity to the plant expansins, exhibits disruption activity on cellulosic materials. Eur J Biochem 269:4202–4211. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1033.2002.03095.x
Schiano-di-Cola C, Røjel N, Jensen K, Kari J, Sørensen TH, Borch K, Westh P (2019) Systematic deletions in the cellobiohydrolase (CBH) Cel7A from the fungus Trichoderma reesei reveal flexible loops critical for CBH activity. J Biol Chem 294:1807–1815. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.006699
Schmidt AS, Thomsen AB (1998) Optimization of wet oxidation pretreatment of wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 64:139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00164-8
Schmoll M (2018) Regulation of plant cell wall degradation by light in Trichoderma. Fungal Biol Biotechnol 5:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40694-018-0052-7
Schuerg T, Gabriel R, Baecker N, Baker SE, Singer SW (2017) Thermoascus aurantiacus is an intriguing host for the industrial production of cellulases. Curr Biotechnol 6:89–97. https://doi.org/10.2174/2211550105666160520123504
Schuerg T, Prahl JP, Gabriel R, Harth S, Tachea F, Chen CS, Miller M, Masson F, He Q, Brown S, Mirshiaghi M, Liang L, Tom LM, Tanjore D, Sun N, Pray TR, Singer SW (2017) Xylose induces cellulase production in Thermoascus aurantiacus. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0965-z
Schutyser W, Renders T, Van den Bosch S, Koelewijn SF, Beckham GT, Sels BF (2018) Chemicals from lignin: an interplay of lignocellulose fractionation, depolymerisation, and upgrading. Chem Soc Rev 47:852–908. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cs00566k
Scott BR, Huang HZ, Frickman J, Halvorsen R, Johansen KS (2016) Catalase improves saccharification of lignocellulose by reducing lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase-associated enzyme inactivation. Biotechnol Lett 38:425–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-015-1989-8
Scott BR, St-Pierre P, Lavigne J, Masri N, White TC, Tomashek JJ (2010) Novel lignin-resistant cellulase enzymes. US-2010/0221778-A1
Seiboth B, Karimi RA, Phatale PA, Linke R, Hartl L, Sauer DG, Smith KM, Baker SE, Freitag M, Kubicek CP (2012) The putative protein methyltransferase LAE1 controls cellulase gene expression in Trichoderma reesei. Mol Microbiol 84:1150–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2012.08083.x
Selig MJ, Adney WS, Himmel ME, Decker SR (2009) The impact of cell wall acetylation on corn stover hydrolysis by cellulolytic and xylanolytic enzymes. Cellulose 16:711–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-009-9322-0
Selig MJ, Knoshaug EP, Adney WS, Himmel ME, Decker SR (2008) Synergistic enhancement of cellobiohydrolase performance on pretreated corn stover by addition of xylanase and esterase activities. Bioresour Technol 99:4997–5005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.09.064
Sheldon RA (2018) The road to biorenewables: carbohydrates to commodity chemicals. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 6:4464–4480. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b00376
Shi J, Ebrik MA, Yang B, Garlock RJ, Balan V, Dale BE, Pallapolu VR, Lee YY, Kim Y, Mosier NS, Ladisch MR, Holtzapple MT, Falls M, Sierra-Ramirez R, Donohoe BS, Vinzant TB, Elander RT, Hames B, Thomas S, Warner RE, Wyman CE (2011) Application of cellulase and hemicellulase to pure xylan, pure cellulose, and switchgrass solids from leading pretreatments. Bioresour Technol 102:11080–11088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.04.003
Shimizu M, Kaneko Y, Ishihara S, Mochizuki M, Sakai K, Yamada M, Murata S, Itoh E, Yamamoto T, Sugimura Y, Hirano T, Takaya N, Kobayashi T, Kato M (2015) Novel β-1,4-mannanase belonging to a new glycoside hydrolase family in Aspergillus nidulans. J Biol Chem 290:27914–27927. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.661645
Simmons TJ, Frandsen KEH, Ciano L, Tryfona T, Lenfant N, Poulsen JC, Wilson LFL, Tandrup T, Tovborg M, Schnorr K, Johansen KS, Henrissat B, Walton PH, Lo Leggio L, Dupree P (2017) Structural and electronic determinants of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase reactivity on polysaccharide substrates. Nat Commun 8:1064. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01247-3
Siqueira G, Arantes V, Saddler JN, Ferraz A, Milagres AMF (2017) Limitation of cellulose accessibility and unproductive binding of cellulases by pretreated sugarcane bagasse lignin. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0860-7
Socha AM, Parthasarathi R, Shi J, Pattathil S, Whyte D, Bergeron M, George A, Tran K, Stavila V, Venkatachalam S, Hahn MG, Simmons BA, Singh S (2014) Efficient biomass pretreatment using ionic liquids derived from lignin and hemicellulose. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:E3587–E3595. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405685111
Somerville C, Bauer S, Brininstool G, Facette M, Hamann T, Milne J, Osborne E, Paredez A, Persson S, Raab T, Vorwerk S, Youngs H (2004) Toward a systems approach to understanding plant cell walls. Science 306:2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102765
Span EA, Suess DLM, Deller MC, Britt RD, Marletta MA (2017) The role of the secondary coordination sphere in a fungal polysaccharide monooxygenase. ACS Chem Biol 12:1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.7b00016
Sternberg D, Vijayakumar P, Reese ET (1977) β-Glucosidase: microbial production and effect on enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Can J Microbiol 23:139–147. https://doi.org/10.1139/m77-020
Suda M, Ohkuma J, Yamaguchi A, Hirose Y, Kondo Y, Kato T, Shibata D (2014) Thermostable cellobiohydrolase. WO-2014/155566-A1
Sun FF, Hong J, Hu J, Saddler JN, Fang X, Zhang Z, Shen S (2015) Accessory enzymes influence cellulase hydrolysis of the model substrate and the realistic lignocellulosic biomass. Enzyme Microb Technol 79–80:42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2015.06.020
Sun S, Sun S, Cao X, Sun R (2016) The role of pretreatment in improving the enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials. Bioresour Technol 199:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.061
Suominen PL, Mäntylä AL, Karhunen T, Hakola S, Nevalainen H (1993) High frequency one-step gene replacement in Trichoderma reesei. II. Effects of deletions of individual cellulase genes. Mol Gen Genet 241:523–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00279894
Sygmund C, Kracher D, Scheiblbrandner S, Zahma K, Felice AK, Harreither W, Kittl R, Ludwig R (2012) Characterization of the two Neurospora crassa cellobiose dehydrogenases and their connection to oxidative cellulose degradation. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:6161–6171. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01503-12
Szijártó N, Siika-aho M, Tenkanen M, Alapuranen M, Vehmaanperä J, Réczey K, Viikari L (2008) Hydrolysis of amorphous and crystalline cellulose by heterologously produced cellulases of Melanocarpus albomyces. J Biotechnol 136:140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.05.010
Sørensen HR, Jørgensen CT, Hansen CH, Jørgensen CI, Pedersen S, Meyer AS (2006) A novel GH43 alpha-L-arabinofuranosidase from Humicola insolens: mode of action and synergy with GH51 alpha-L-arabinofuranosidases on wheat arabinoxylan. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 73:850–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-006-0543-y
Sørensen TH, Cruys-Bagger N, Borch K, Westh P (2015) Free energy diagram for the heterogeneous enzymatic hydrolysis of glycosidic bonds in cellulose. J Biol Chem 290:22203–22211. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.659656
Sørensen TH, Cruys-Bagger N, Windahl MS, Badino SF, Borch K, Westh P (2015) Temperature effects on kinetic parameters and substrate affinity of Cel7A cellobiohydrolases. J Biol Chem 290:22193–22202. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.658930
Tan TC, Kracher D, Gandini R, Sygmund C, Kittl R, Haltrich D, Hallberg BM, Ludwig R, Divne C (2015) Structural basis for cellobiose dehydrogenase action during oxidative cellulose degradation. Nat Commun 6:7542. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8542
Tanaka M, Matsuno R (1985) Conversion of lignocellulosic materials to single-cell protein (SCP): Recent developments and problems. Enzyme Microb Technol 7:197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0229(85)80002-8
Taylor LE, Knott BC, Baker JO, Alahuhta PM, Hobdey SE, Linger JG, Lunin VV, Amore A, Subramanian V, Podkaminer K, Xu Q, VanderWall TA, Schuster LA, Chaudhari YB, Adney WS, Crowley MF, Himmel ME, Decker SR, Beckham GT (2018) Engineering enhanced cellobiohydrolase activity. Nat Commun 9:1186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03501-8
Teeri TT, Koivula A, Linder M, Wohlfahrt G, Divne C, Jones TA (1998) Trichoderma reesei cellobiohydrolases: why so efficient on crystalline cellulose? Biochem Soc Trans 26:173–178. https://doi.org/10.1042/bst0260173
Tenkanen M, Makkonen M, Perttula M, Viikari L, Teleman A (1997) Action of Trichoderma reesei mannanase on galactoglucomannan in pine kraft pulp. J Biotechnol 57:191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1656(97)00099-0
Tenkanen M, Tamminen T, Hortling B (1999) Investigation of lignin-carbohydrate complexes in kraft pulps by selective enzymatic treatments. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 51:241–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002530051388
Tenkanen M, Thornton J, Viikari L (1995) An acetylglucomannan esterase of Aspergillus oryzae; purification, characterization and role in the hydrolysis of O-acetyl-galactoglucomannan. J Biotechnol 42:197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1656(95)00080-a
Thoresen M, Malgas S, Pletschke BI (2020) Enzyme adsorption-desorption and evaluation of various cellulase recycling strategies for steam pre-treated Eucalyptus enzymatic degradation. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00670-9
Tokin R, Ipsen JØ, Westh P, Johansen KS (2020) The synergy between LPMOs and cellulases in enzymatic saccharification of cellulose is both enzyme- and substrate-dependent. Biotechnol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-020-02922-0
Tomás-Pejó E, Oliva JM, Ballesteros M, Olsson L (2008) Comparison of SHF and SSF processes from steam-exploded wheat straw for ethanol production by xylose-fermenting and robust glucose-fermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Biotechnol Bioeng 100:1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21849
Tomme P, Van Tilbeurgh H, Pettersson G, Van Damme J, Vandekerckhove J, Knowles J, Teeri T, Claeyssens M (1988) Studies of the cellulolytic system of Trichoderma reesei QM 9414. Analysis of domain function in two cellobiohydrolases by limited proteolysis. Eur J Biochem 170:575–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1988.tb13736.x
Tu M, Chandra RP, Saddler JN (2007) Evaluating the distribution of cellulases and the recycling of free cellulases during the hydrolysis of lignocellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Prog 23:398–406. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp060354f
Tu M, Pan X, Saddler JN (2009) Adsorption of cellulase on cellulolytic enzyme lignin from lodgepole pine. J Agric Food Chem 57:7771–7778. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901031m
Tu M, Zhang X, Paice M, MacFarlane P, Saddler JN (2009) The potential of enzyme recycling during the hydrolysis of a mixed softwood feedstock. Bioresour Technol 100:6407–6415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.06.108
Vaaje-Kolstad G, Horn SJ, van Aalten DM, Synstad B, Eijsink VG (2005) The non-catalytic chitin-binding protein CBP21 from Serratia marcescens is essential for chitin degradation. J Biol Chem 280:28492–28497. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M504468200
Vaaje-Kolstad G, Houston DR, Riemen AH, Eijsink VGH, van Aalten DM (2005) Crystal structure and binding properties of the Serratia marcescens chitin-binding protein CBP21. J Biol Chem 280:11313–11319. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M407175200
Vaaje-Kolstad G, Westereng B, Horn SJ, Liu Z, Zhai H, Sørlie M, Eijsink VGH (2010) An oxidative enzyme boosting the enzymatic conversion of recalcitrant polysaccharides. Science 330:219–222. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192231
Valls C, Pastor FIJ, Roncero MB, Vidal T, Diaz P, Martínez J, Valenzuela SV (2019) Assessing the enzymatic effects of cellulases and LPMO in improving mechanical fibrillation of cotton linters. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1502-z
Van Tilbeurgh H, Tomme P, Claeyssens M, Bhikhabhai R, Pettersson G (1986) Limited proteolysis of the cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei: Separation of functional domains. FEBS Lett 204:223–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(86)80816-X
Várnai A, Costa TH, Faulds CB, Milagres AM, Siika-aho M, Ferraz A (2014) Effects of enzymatic removal of plant cell wall acylation (acetylation, p-coumaroylation, and feruloylation) on accessibility of cellulose and xylan in natural (non-pretreated) sugar cane fractions. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-014-0153-3
Várnai A, Huikko L, Pere J, Siika-aho M, Viikari L (2011) Synergistic action of xylanase and mannanase improves the total hydrolysis of softwood. Bioresour Technol 102:9096–9104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.059
Várnai A, Siika-aho M, Viikari L (2013) Carbohydrate-binding modules (CBMs) revisited: Reduced amount of water counterbalances the need for CBMs. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-30
Várnai A, Umezawa K, Yoshida M, Eijsink VGH (2018) The pyrroloquinoline-quinone dependent pyranose dehydrogenase from Coprinopsis cinerea (CcPDH) drives lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase (LPMO) action. Appl Environ Microbiol 84:e00156-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00156-18
Várnai A, Viikari L, Marjamaa K, Siika-aho M (2011) Adsorption of monocomponent enzymes in enzyme mixture analyzed quantitatively during hydrolysis of lignocellulose substrates. Bioresour Technol 102:1220–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.120
Várnai A (2012) Improving enzymatic conversion of lignocellulose to platform sugars: Dissertation. University of Helsinki, Espoo, Doctor Degree. https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/science/2012/S17.pdf
Verbruggen MA, Beldman G, Voragen AG (1998) Enzymic degradation of sorghum glucuronoarabinoxylans leading to tentative structures. Carbohydr Res 306:275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0008-6215(97)10065-9
Vermaas JV, Crowley MF, Beckham GT, Payne CM (2015) Effects of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase oxidation on cellulose structure and binding of oxidized cellulose oligomers to cellulases. J Phys Chem B 119:6129–6143. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b00778
Vermaas JV, Kont R, Beckham GT, Crowley MF, Gudmundsson M, Sandgren M, Ståhlberg J, Väljamäe P, Knott BC (2019) The dissociation mechanism of processive cellulases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:23061–23067. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913398116
Viikari L, Alapuranen M, Puranen T, Vehmaanperä J, Siika-aho M (2007) Thermostable enzymes in lignocellulose hydrolysis. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 108:121–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2007_065
Villares A, Moreau C, Bennati-Granier C, Garajova S, Foucat L, Falourd X, Saake B, Berrin JG, Cathala B (2017) Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases disrupt the cellulose fibers structure. Sci Rep 7:40262. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40262
Visser H, Joosten V, Punt PJ, Gusakov AV, Olson PT, Joosten R, Bartels J, Visser J, Sinitsyn AP, Emalfarb MA, Verdoes JC, Wery J (2011) Development of a mature fungal technology and production platform for industrial enzymes based on a Myceliophthora thermophila isolate, previously known as Chrysosporium lucknowense C1. Ind Biotechnol 7:214–223. https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2011.7.214
Vlasenko E, Schulein M, Cherry J, Xu F (2010) Substrate specificity of family 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 45 endoglucanases. Bioresour Technol 101:2405–2411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.057
von Freiesleben P, Spodsberg N, Stenbæk A, Stålbrand H, Krogh KBRM, Meyer AS (2018) Boosting of enzymatic softwood saccharification by fungal GH5 and GH26 endomannanases. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1184-y
Voutilainen SP, Boer H, Alapuranen M, Jänis J, Vehmaanperä J, Koivula A (2009) Improving the thermostability and activity of Melanocarpus albomyces cellobiohydrolase Cel7B. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 83:261–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-008-1848-9
Voutilainen SP, Puranen T, Siika-aho M, Lappalainen A, Alapuranen M, Kallio J, Hooman S, Viikari L, Vehmaanperä J, Koivula A (2008) Cloning, expression, and characterization of novel thermostable family 7 cellobiohydrolases. Biotechnol Bioeng 101:515–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21940
Vu VV, Beeson WT, Span EA, Farquhar ER, Marletta MA (2014) A family of starch-active polysaccharide monooxygenases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13822–13827. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408090111
Vu VV, Hangasky JA, Detomasi TC, Henry SJW, Ngo ST, Span EA, Marletta MA (2019) Substrate selectivity in starch polysaccharide monooxygenases. J Biol Chem 294:12157–12166. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA119.009509
Väljamäe P, Kipper K, Pettersson G, Johansson G (2003) Synergistic cellulose hydrolysis can be described in terms of fractal-like kinetics. Biotechnol Bioeng 84:254–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.10775
Väljamäe P, Sild V, Pettersson G, Johansson G (1998) The initial kinetics of hydrolysis by cellobiohydrolases I and II is consistent with a cellulose surface-erosion model. Eur J Biochem 253:469–475. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1327.1998.2530469.x
Walton PH, Davies GJ (2016) On the catalytic mechanisms of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases. Curr Opin Chem Biol 31:195–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2016.04.001
Wang B, Johnston EM, Li P, Shaik S, Davies GJ, Walton PH, Rovira C (2018) QM/MM studies into the H2O2-dependent activity of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases: evidence for the formation of a caged hydroxyl radical intermediate. ACS Catal 8:1346–1351. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b03888
Wang C, Chang WC, Guo Y, Huang H, Peck SC, Pandelia ME, Lin GM, Liu HW, Krebs C, Bollinger JM Jr (2013) Evidence that the fosfomycin-producing epoxidase, HppE, is a non-heme-iron peroxidase. Science 342:991–995. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240373
Wang GS, Pan XJ, Zhu JY, Gleisner R, Rockwood D (2009) Sulfite pretreatment to overcome recalcitrance of lignocellulose (SPORL) for robust enzymatic saccharification of hardwoods. Biotechnol Prog 25:1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.206
Wang J, Wu Y, Gong Y, Yu S, Liu G (2015) Enhancing xylanase production in the thermophilic fungus Myceliophthora thermophila by homologous overexpression of Mtxyr1. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 42:1233–1241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-015-1628-3
Wang X, Li K, Yang M, Wang J, Zhang J (2017) Hydrolyzability of mannan after adsorption on cellulose. Cellulose 24:35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-1098-4
Wang X, Li K, Yang M, Zhang J (2016) Hydrolyzability of xylan after adsorption on cellulose: Exploration of xylan limitation on enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 148:362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.04.069
Westereng B, Cannella D, Wittrup Agger J, Jørgensen H, Larsen Andersen M, Eijsink VGH, Felby C (2015) Enzymatic cellulose oxidation is linked to lignin by long-range electron transfer. Sci Rep 5:18561. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18561
Westereng B, Ishida T, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Wu M, Eijsink VGH, Igarashi K, Samejima M, Stahlberg J, Horn SJ, Sandgren M (2011) The putative endoglucanase PcGH61D from Phanerochaete chrysosporium is a metal-dependent oxidative enzyme that cleaves cellulose. PLoS ONE 6:e27807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027807
Wingren A, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2003) Techno-economic evaluation of producing ethanol from softwood: comparison of SSF and SHF and identification of bottlenecks. Biotechnol Prog 19:1109–1117. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp0340180
Winstel L (2017) Top value added chemicals: the biobased economy 12 years later. https://communities.acs.org/community/science/sustainability/green-chemistry-nexus-blog/blog/2017/03/16/top-value-added-chemicals-the-biobased-economy-12-years-later. Accessed 30 May 2020
Wood TM (1968) Cellulolytic enzyme system of Trichoderma koningii. Separation of components attacking native cotton. Biochem J 109:217–227. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1090217
Wood TM (1985) Properties of cellulolytic enzyme systems. Biochem Soc Trans 13:407–410. https://doi.org/10.1042/bst0130407
Wood TM, McCrae SI (1978) The cellulase of Trichoderma koningii. Purification and properties of some endoglucanase components with special reference to their action on cellulose when acting alone and in synergism with the cellobiohydrolase. Biochem J 171:61–72. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1710061
Wu J, Chandra R, Saddler J (2019) Alkali–oxygen treatment prior to the mechanical pulping of hardwood enhances enzymatic hydrolysis and carbohydrate recovery through selective lignin modification. Sustain Energy Fuels 3:227–236. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8SE00452H
Yang B, Wyman CE (2008) Pretreatment: the key to unlocking low-cost cellulosic ethanol. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 2:26–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.49
Yaver DS (1999) Methods for producing a polypeptide by modifying the copy number of a gene. WO-1999/061651-A2
Yoo CG, Meng X, Pu Y, Ragauskas AJ (2020) The critical role of lignin in lignocellulosic biomass conversion and recent pretreatment strategies: a comprehensive review. Bioresour Technol 301:122784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122784
Yu L, Lyczakowski JJ, Pereira CS, Kotake T, Yu X, Li A, Mogelsvang S, Skaf MS, Dupree P (2018) The patterned structure of galactoglucomannan suggests it may bind to cellulose in seed mucilage. Plant Physiol 178:1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.18.00709
Yuan S, Wu Y, Cosgrove DJ (2001) A fungal endoglucanase with plant cell wall extension activity. Plant Physiol 127:324–333. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.127.1.324
Zakariassen H, Aam BB, Horn SJ, Vårum KM, Sørlie M, Eijsink VG (2009) Aromatic residues in the catalytic center of chitinase A from Serratia marcescens affect processivity, enzyme activity, and biomass converting efficiency. J Biol Chem 284:10610–10617. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M900092200
Zakariassen H, Eijsink VGH, Sørlie M (2010) Signatures of activation parameters reveal substrate-dependent rate determining steps in polysaccharide turnover by a family 18 chitinase. Carbohydr Polym 81:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.01.048
Zhai R, Hu J, Saddler JN (2016) What are the major components in steam pretreated lignocellulosic biomass that inhibit the efficacy of cellulase enzyme mixtures? ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4:3429–3436. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00481
Zhang H, Lopez PC, Holland C, Lunde A, Ambye-Jensen M, Felby C, Thomsen ST (2018) The multi-feedstock biorefinery—assessing the compatibility of alternative feedstocks in a 2G wheat straw biorefinery process. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 10:946–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12557
Zhou Z, Lei F, Li P, Jiang J (2018) Lignocellulosic biomass to biofuels and biochemicals: a comprehensive review with a focus on ethanol organosolv pretreatment technology. Biotechnol Bioeng 115:2683–2702. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26788
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway through grants no. 257622 (Bio4Fuels) and 268002 (Enzymes4Fuels).
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Østby, H., Hansen, L.D., Horn, S.J. et al. Enzymatic processing of lignocellulosic biomass: principles, recent advances and perspectives. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 47, 623–657 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-020-02301-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-020-02301-8